The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-03 00:00:00

such wee Lord Ellenborough's opinion, although he firtd not been
able to do so to-day. If the contrary were the law,-this country
would be deprived of some of the best works that literature had to
boast of. and winch did honour to the intelligence and Fenno of
this kingdom ; and the object of the publishers would be defeated,
which finentibtetily wax, that they should be supplied with money
from Woe to time, so that they ought go on afitit the work. He
therefore was
.of opinion that the party had aLight of bringing his
action for a part of the contract, and he thought then was nothlng
in the objection that had been taken. What was the•evidence? It
wen, that the parry was to take the numbers. The plaintiff defirered
seven or eight, and then asked for the money ; but the defendant
said No, you have not let nit have the other numbers; to which the
piaicitamight have replied, I never agreed to deliver them to lou,,
but you might have them by• applying to my publisher. Now,
his Lordship would like to ask, on the principle of common sense,
intelligible to all mankind, could this man be allowed to say, N0..1
will not take the rest of your numbers, and I won't pay for these ?
But that was the erect of the objection that was now taken. By
the party's saying that lie would not take the whole of the numbers,
his Lordship was of opinion that there was an implied contract that
he would pay for those he had already received. His Lordship'
therefore thought the Jury must find a verdict for the plaintiff for
the eight number,. As to the release, he considered that the Jury
would, in one half minute, find that the defendant most know that
his brother was in a state of insolvency when he executed it.
The Jury immediately returned a vertlict for the plaintiff—Da-
-1 mages ill. his., being the price of eight numbers.

HL7i) v. GODBOLD AND ANOTMER•
The plaintiff to this action had been appointed by the defend-
ants, (who are the proprietors of the patent medicine called the
Vegetable Balsam) their agent. to travel on the continent of Europe
to vend their " Remede Infaillible pour les maladies de poitetne et
lea itchiness" for which he was to rcceire a commission of 501. per
cent. The nature of the agreement was, that on the plaintiff's
paying to Messrs. Godbold 300 f. as a guarantee, they would let
him have 6001. worth of the infallible remedy. There being an im-
port duty payable on such medicine. Messrs. Godbold went to
Paris and prepared it there, thus obviating that difficulty. But
Mr. Munn soon experienced others : for the price was exorbitant,
being 40 francs for the quart, and 20 the pint bottle ; pnd the laws
of France did 1 of permit anj person to vend medicine who had not
.traitiated at their medical schools. Mr. Munn was therefore
obliged to appoint a French Apothecary to sell this most precious(
preparation ; but notwitbetanding every personal effort on his part,
and the ruffs which he inserted in GI Menceger, these
gentlemen could rot prevail with the obstinate Frenchmen to swat.
low their Elixir Vita, and after all theirphilanthropic disinterested-
nese in seeking whom they might rescue from the thousand evils for
which this balsam was the only panacea, they could only sell,—sech
was. the infatuation of the people„—fourteen riot bottles of the
Essaume Vegetal, at twenty francs a bottle, making in sterling
money the sum of IP. 4s. According to the agreement Messrs.
Godbold were to take back such of the balsam as Mr. 'Bunn should
not be able to dispose of ; he accordingly brought the medicine to
England, and returned it to the defendants, but they refused to
take it in, saying it was not the genuine mixture, but had been
either adulterated or altogether changed. The plaintiff, having a
lady who, while in Paris, had tasted this vegital, and had now in
England also kindly sipped each bottle of the nine returned ham-
pers, who would pledge her conscience to its being the real thing,
brought the present action to recover back the 330/. paid by hhn,
and the expenses he had been at in advertisements, kc.
Its proof of the medicine being genuine, some bottles were un-
corked in Court, and after the lady had tasted It, a small wine.
glass of the precious liquor was handed to the Bench, Bar, and
Jurrbox, and received the meal of an approving smack from all.
'1 here was no defence ; and the Jury, under his Lordship's di.
rection, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 3631.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, WEDNESDAY, Nov. 2.
Charles Steward, the younger. riding-rcaster, residing in the
neighbourhood of Blackfriars-road, was brought up on his petition
to be discharged.
He was opposed by Mr. Coos, who appeared for several
creditors.

It appeared that the insolvent, after being in custody for three
months, produced a certificate of ill health from a physician, which
induced the Court to grant an order allowing him the liberty of
the Rules of the King's Bench, In which prison be was confined.
It was now stated that be had broken prison by entering the Sur-
rey theatre and an adioining coffee-house, by which he lost his
claim to take the benefit of the Act, neither of *se buildings being
within the Rules. To support this statement, a clerk In the em.
ployment of the detaining creditor's attorney was produced, who
swore that tie had seen the insolvent on the stairs leading to the
boxes of the Surrey theatre, but did not see him enter. He had
also observed him at the d•we of the coffee-house.
The COMMISSIONER said, it was possible the insolvent may
have been indiscreet enough to enter the theatre and if such an
act had been distinctly proved'he should be disposed to construe
the Act strictly, and reject the insolvent's petition. But the
evidence on this point was by no means satisfactory, for the witness
could not fix the precise period when he saw the insolvent near the
theatre, nor could he swear positively that he had seen the insolvent
enter it.

This preliminary point having been decided,
Mr. Coos proceeded to examine the insolvent. He swore that
he had a number of wine-glasses and goblets in his possession,
which he I awned for about 3/. a week before he went into the
King's Bench. He afterwards sold the duplicates, for necessaries.
He was aware that when he applied for leave to petition, he made
affidavit that he disposed of no property since he had been in cue.
tody. The Learnesl Counsel contended that the insolvent had
obtained leave to petition upon a fraudulent representation.
The Comisissiowe R overruled the objection, as it did net op.
pear that the insolvent disposed of any property which would be
available to his creditors.

Mr. Come pointed out several Items, which appeared In the
schedule as debts incurred by the insolvent fur the benefit of the
riding.school, and yet insolvent claimed no property in that este.
blishment. This, he insisted, wasa presumptive evidence of fraud,
and he should proceed to examine the insolvent's father, who was
the ostensible proprietor of the riding.achool.
Charles Steward, sen. exatnined.—l am the proprietor of the
Royal Gloucester Scientific Riding and Driving Academy. lam
the owner of the house attached to lt, and of the furniture. I never
was in embarassed circumstances, to my knowledge. (A laugh.)
Never represented the insolvent as proprietor of the academy. He
acted as my riding master. I paid him one guinea and a half a
week. IVhen I was in the country he gave orders for some painting
work, and, when 1 returned, I Imam; that the hopeful young
gentleman had erected a paling near the Magdalen, and contacted
other debts for advtrtisements and posting-bills, which I refused to
pay. lie hail got into debt before, and I thought it necessary to
keep a tight rein on him. About six months ago I let him have
the use of the academy for fifteen pounds a week, but I found he
was not able to pay me, and I resumed possession.
Mr. Cool thought the conduct of the tither was by no means
creditable. He allowed his son to contract debts for the benefit of
an establishment of which he described himself as the sole prn-
prietor, and then disclaimed the debts. lie also gave his son the
unlimited control of the establishment whilst those debts were being
contracted, and then found It convenient to resume possession. The
Learned Counsel also pointed the attention of the Court in the
vexatious proceedings of the insolvent towards a creditor named
Hutchinson, who held a bill of exchange, on which the insolvent
brought a writ of error.
Mr. HEATH, for the insolvent, submitted that there was no
evidence of partnership between the Insolvent and his father.
The Commtserorrut did not conceive that sufficient evidence
had been adduced to fix a fraudulent intention upon the insolvent.
Ilis proceeding in bringing the writ of error, however, was ex-
tremely reprehensible; and under the discretion which the 18th
section of the Act gave on this point ; his judgment was, that the
insolvent should not be discharged until he bad remained in prison
for three months after the tiling of his petition.

- -
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Wsoxrmay, Nov. 2.

SOTHEBY V. Bllit GEO. DUCKETT.
The Court sat specially for the purpose of assessing the sum that
should•be paid to the plaintiff as the purchase-money or revolt-
pence," for a part of a field situate at Bethnal.green, and through
which it is the intention of Sir George Duchett to cut a channel to
be called the Union Canal, CO as to open a communication between
the River Lea and the Regent's Canal, and for which project an
Act of Parliament wes °hugged during the last Session. By this
Act it is provided that In the event of the parties disegreeing, as
to the compensation that should be given on the out side, and re-
ceived on the other, a precept should be issued for the summoning
of a Jury before the next General Quarter, at Adjourned Sessions,
for the county of Middlesex, for the purpose of determining the
same. It is also provbled by the Act that in the event of the
award of the Jury exceeding the offer made by Sir Geo. Duchett,
he shall bur the whole expense of the assessment, or if it falls
short of it, that the expenses shall be bprne mutually between the
contending parties.
Several preliminary objections having been disposed of,
Mr. BRODERICK, who appeared on behalf of Sir George
Duchett, rose and tasked which of the parties was to be heard first.
CHAIRMAN.—The party claiming compensation of course.
Mr. Bennett ict—The present case is precisely similar to the
compensation cases which have been recently determined in the
City, and the Judges there have uniformly decided the direct
contrary.
CHATTIMAX—You know what the Ring's Bench have decided ?
Mr. Ramsey lex—l do, and I know also that the practice of
the City is in direct opposition thereto.
Mr. Pot.Loce-1 was present when ChlefJustice Abbott de-
cited that very point.
CHAIR maw —Of course it must be so, or we should not know
what we were trying,
Mr. Potr.oce proceeded to state the use, from eliich it ap-
peared that the piece of land required by Sir George Duchett is
about an acre and a half of ground, lying in the central part of a
field containing six acres ; and„the questions therefore for the Jury
became, what wan the actual value of the land required. and what
the Injury that would be sustained by the cutting off all direct
communication between the two remaining portions of the field ?
For the purpose of solving these questions the following_witnesses
were Bled
Mr. Bigg—ls a surveyor, and is well acquainted with the pro-
perty in question, and estimetea its value at 5791. 2s. 6d., inde-
pendently of the claim for damages in consequence of the
deterioration of the remaining portions of the field, which witness
estimate, at MI. 175., making in al! 9771. 19s. 6d. In making
this calculation witness considered the property as building ground,
and for this purpose its value would be completely destroyed by the
proposed division of the field.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRODERICE-18 of opicion that If a