The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-08 00:00:00

lITROXG P. COATES.

This cause was one in which the Pacific Mutual Insurance As-
sociation were the defendants. A verdict had been obtained for
one of the plaintiffs (for this cause was one of fifty) subject to a
reference.. Mr. sergeant Toddy, in behalf of the plaintiff, ob-
tained, en a previous day, a rule, calling on the defendant to show
cause why the proceedings should not be stayed until the further
order of the Court.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN showed cause against the rule. The
Learned Gentleman said this was merely a question of costs. The
plaintiff was In an insolvent state, and the object of this motion
was to ascertain whether the issue of a cause pending would en.
courage the continuance of these vexatious proceedings.
The COURT inquired whether these numberless cases could not
be consolidated.

Mr. Sergeant VAUOliArf replied, that to have consolidated them
would have cost in each cause SW.

The LonoCtuCi.lcortct:—The Prothonotary says thrt the
coats ought not to be more than Gl. or 71. each, or at the most M.
Mr. t,,erg,,ant VAUGHAN WM informed that the proceedings acre
very voliiiiiicous.
The LORD Curti' Jurrict thought it ridiculous that the
costs should be allowed to amount to 301. or 49 1., when as many
pence only were necessary. Ills Lordship_ then inquired it' his
Uro.her Vaughan would consent that the whole matter should go to
the Prothonotary, to whom absolute power should be given.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN' hesitated, and consulted his attorney
for some time.
Mr. Justice PARK—Brother Vaughan. it was expressly ob-
served by Lords .Manstieid, Kenyon, and LllenlArough, that the
bar ought to consider the immediate parties in a suit as their clients,
and not the solicitors.

Air. Sergeant Vaunts/or said. if the Court would discharge the
rule, it would deter the ph.intill from proceeding. The Learned
Gentleman again referred to the solicitor, and was some time in
consultation.

The LORD CHIEF JrBTICE said the public derived great ad.
vantage. from the services of the bar, but it was the duty of the
Learned Gentlemen to contra! their clients in their pertinacity. If
the parties really interested were acquainted with the factsof the
case there would be no further difficulty.
Mr. Sergeant VAt:GTIAN said that there hail been a meeting of
the gentlemen alluded to, and the solicitor had done no more than
follow Ilk instructions

The Couar ordered the lOC to be made absolute, and the coats
to abide the general issue.

CLARE V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER.

This was en action brought by the plaintiff, Christians Clarke,
against the defendants, as overieers of the path!) of Oswaldkirk,
to recover the sum of M. which she had depoiited with them as
security. It will be recollected that the plaintiff' lodged the above
as en indemnification in case of her illegitimate offspring, be-
coming chargeable to the parish. This took place in 18111, and for
some time Miss C. continued to receive for her deposit ai per cent.
The money was lodged in Moonom's bank at Scarborough, by the
overseers, which bank, in 1321, failed. As one of the overseers,
the defendant had proved his debt under the commission, and re.
ceived a dividend of As. in the. pound. The child was now seven
years of age, and neither the child nor the mother being likely to
ecome chargeable, and the overseers having refused to refund the
fia, the mother brought the present action, which was tried before
Mr. Justice Bayley at the latt Assizes of York. The -defence
was first the statute of limitations, but this was answered by
the plaintiff having been paid ihterest on the sum deposite.l
within the last six years. It was then pleaded that as the child
was only seven years of age it might still become chargeable.
Mr. Justice Bayley held the lad point to be a good defence,
and the plaintiff was non-suited under his Lordship's direction.
Mr. Sergeant V. 117 G HAN moved for a rule to show eausc.why the
nonsuit should not be set aside and a verdict entered for the
plaietifi; on the ground that taking s sum of money by way of in.
demnity was all the statutes from the 18th Elisabeth to
the pith George 111., limhing the power of overseers to the taking
of security only for the purposes of indemnification.
Mr. Sergeant Wiry': showed cause aping the rule. The
Learned Sergeant contended that the overseers had not received the
money as an indemnification ; they had taken it ass security, and
•

, , - •
that was no violation of the statutes of Elizabeth referred to. The
cue would have been diflerent, if they had received sawn of money
u a discharge of the liability of tho parent. The party merely held
it as a deposit in their hands, instead of taking a bond or other
security. The statutes hcfo e mentioned empowered overseers to
take parties before magistrates to force them to give seem it, ; bat
though the statutes gave this power they did not set forth that the
exercise of such power could not he legally dispensed wi,S. The
point to Ascertain was, whether any law hail been infringed: in the
case of :Vltddleham v. Bellew. I itlaule and Selwyn, 310. the Court
tleritiW upon :his principle, Lulling that the statutes had not been
infringed, and in support of their decision cited Cole v. (River.
As far as regarded any possibility there might be of the child be-
coming charge..ble to the parish, it would bs sufficient to observe
that this was a case fur a jury to decide.
The Laub Clime Jusrtcc inquired what was to compel
churchwardens or overseers to give up a sum of money so !edged in
their hands.

Ir. Sergeant WILDE said that in 2 Campbell's Reports, 2C41,
there was a case, the King v. —, which showed that they wore
hound to account for all tunnies rectiml. There wt..; a Case,
Townson v. Ndson, I Campbell, 3'J,, In which ft appeared pari.ll
officers had teeth ed a SUM of money, but the difference between
that ease and the present Was, that here the money was to be as
security until the defendant, were damnified.

Mr. Sergeant VALIGr AN. in rapport of the ritle,said the rta.
tines of Elizabeth hod made it imperative on Magivirgtee-to ref
that aecurlty was given, and to punish the females delivered of if-
legitimite offspring as lewd disorderly women. Juatlee Le Blanc
had Raid in the ewe of Cole and Gower. cited by his Learned
Friend, that ifs aunt of money were taken as indemnity, the im.
mediate party receiving it would he benefitted. and the burthen
would probably fall on other individuals. The Learned Sergeant,
In conrinsion, contended that the sum advanced was no security
within the meaning of the smote&
The Court deer»"•d the case one of considerable importance, and
therefore deferred deciding it at present.

RUM V TURNER.
This cause was an action of trover against the Sheriffs of Surrey,
who had seized the goods of the plaintiff in execution of a writ of
judgmeet, supposing them tribe the pmperty of plaintiff's brother.
It appeared o• the trial, from the evidence of the brother, George
Bush, that he had left the country to avoid a proem from the
Court of Exchequer, and that before he left, lie disposed of his
goods and business to the plaintiff, who was his journeyman.
There, however, was no instrument forthcoming to prove the trans.
fee. It was asserted, too, by the plaintiff, that part of the pur-
chase money was arrears of wages due ; but witnesses proved the
plaintif toilette said on another occasion that there were no arrears
of wages due, and that the purchase money was paid fully in gold
and not(
Mr. Sergeant Valli:HAN moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not he granted. 3,1 the Jury had found a verdict
contrary to evidence, the plaintiff's brother not being entitled to
cred it,
hlr. Sergeant WI s.nr showed cause against the rule, and con.
tended that if there had been fraud, the Jury were fully competent
to judge of it, and, therefore, the verdict ought not to be dis-
turhed.
The Corgi. decided that though the trialby Jury ought to be
preserved from any violation, still there were cases which might
occasionally call fur the discretionary interposition of the Judges,
and this was one of those cases. It seemed to have been the de-
cided impression of the Lord Chief Justice that there had been
fraud practised here, and the cause must therefore be again tried.
Rule made absolute.

POLICE.