The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-06-15 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, Juxt 13.

Sittings is London, infot ('titre JESTICE BEST and a Com.
man uhlry.
RHODES V. CRESWELL.
Mr. Sergeant PELL stated, that this was an action brought by
the plaint,fl upon twe bills of exchange, of which the defendant
was the acceptor. The first bill was tor tfi/. 3a. kl. dated the 17th
of April. GM. and was payable at twelve months' date. The
other bill was drawn at the same date, and was for 2'21. as. Pd. The
dlindant pleaded the general issue. and also that he had taken the
benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act. The question to he tried
was one entirely for the consideration of his Lordship, who might
prOtably decline to decide it here. There were admissions of the
facts, which would be put in evidence. The point was, whether
the defendant had given such notices as the Act required, previous
to his discharge. the notice had been given to the drawer
?a t.a the ;older of the bilL It was the first case which the Learn-
ad had been able to find.
.I r. Sergeant TADTCV appeared for the defendant, and relied on
theist Geo. IV. e. lid, sec. 16,
A verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, with liberty for
the defendant to move to enter a nonsuiL—Damages. 61/.
rettowes n. TILL.
This was an action for skuiderein words spoken by the defendant
of the plaintiff
Mr. Sergeant VArOHAN SEI.VII the ease. The plaintiff is a corn.
chandler at Layfienstone, in Essex, The defendar.t is a linendraper,
ezrrying on business in the city. If the defendant would have re-
tracted the words charged, and apologised, the action would not
have been brought.
Jacob George Cope called in May last on the defendant respect-
mg a debt. Defendant said the debt was paid. Witness said he
thought it was not paid, as he had known Fellowes several years,
and though he was a rough, he was an honest man. Defendant
said that witness " was damnably mistaken in his man, for that Fel-
lores was r great a villain and thief as ever lived." Some further
conversation passed, in the course of which the &indent repeated
similar words, and added that witness's character would suffer from
lodging in the house of Feilowes, advising him to make inquiries
respecting him. Plaintiff lived a century in the same place.
The witness was cross-examined, and said he did not believe
what the defendant had said. The defendant was in a passion.
Mr. Sergeant l'r.t.L addressed the Jury. There was no apology
demanded. If there had been it would have been given. The
plaintiff's eharacta was not injured. The words were spoken in a
passion.
The Cults. JtutTTCE thought the plaintiff was entitled to mo.
derate damages. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages IW.

SLATES. V. DARTER AND BELL.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGBAIe stated the case. • The plaintiff is the
patentee of a cooking apparatus. The defendants are proprietors
of the JeruealeinCodiw House. The defendants agreed toilet a
specimen of the plaiiititrs machine stand in the Coffee House, on
condition that the plaintiff would become a subscriber to the room,
and alto pay a subscription of two guineas in addition for the ma-
chine.. The machine was suffered to stand in the Coffee-room foe
some days, and was then removed into a back room. The plain.
tiff lived at Birmingham, and had suffixed loss on account of the
breach of agreement. it appeared upon the record, that four gui.
nos had been paid into Court on the money count.
Mr. Evelett, foreman to the plaintiff; proved the
The of the cookingapperatus was particularly explained to the
defendants. Witness took the apparatus, and it was placed in the
public Coffee-room. Mr. Slater paid four guineas. IVitness did
not see the money paid, but one of the defendants admitted the
receipt of it. The machine wee there two or three days. It was
then taken out of the Coffee-room, and when witness complained,
defendant said be would turn it into the street. In consequence of
defendant's conduct, plaintiff took a warehouse adjoining, at a rent
of 481. a-year. It was unquestionably not so good a place as the
Coffeissewas.
Cross-examined by
.Mr. Sergeant Wtt.nr—Does not recollect
that Mr. llSEper was in a passion, because, as he said, the wit-
ness had deceived his partner, Mr. Bell by saying that he (Mr.
Harper) had given permission to let the machine be eshihited.
The back room is not a place foe sheer. When witness took the
apparatus, neither Mr. Harpernor Mr. Bell was present ; the ser-
vants did not refuse to take it in ; it was taken in by the witness
and a porter; did not ask theeervants to render assistance ; did not
say to AIP. liraper that the machine wart about the site of a book
on the desk ; there was no chimney to the apparatus ; the room is
a subscription room; cannot tell the day when Mr. Harper ad-
mitted he had received the money.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE replied. There was a difference between
a public mem and a subscription room. The coffee-room at the
Jen:as:ern was a subscription roma. It would be for his lewd-
ship to say whether die plaintiff was entitled to recover on the
counts in which it was stated that the machine was to be placed
in " a certain public room." Was the room to be turned into a
kitchen ?• instead of a specimen of the machine, the apparatus
itself was placed in die room. Instead of four guineas the plain-
tiff had been obliged to pay 411/. a-year for a place to exhibit
it. Was it, thervtiwe, likely that it had been fairly described
to the defendants? The money had been returned, by being
paid into Court, because it was only honest to do so; but that
vis no admission of the contract. It was net a imitate room,
ad been described by the Counsel for the plaintiff, but a
public mess.
The GRIM JUSTICE summed up. The arbacription-room,
his Lordship thought, was the room intended, as a subscription
was paid forte e purpose in question. If the defendants had been
..r:tposed on the plaintiff's hey should have immediately renamed
the money, and not have taken hi the machine. instead of that,
the machme was allowed to remain a whole day. The plathtill was
evidently entitled to some small damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.
The CHIEF JUSTICE rose to attend the House of Lords on
the question of the Steroid Barony, at half-past eleven.