The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-03 00:00:00

GRAIN.

...........
Wheat per Bushel 701b.—Eng:tsh - - 90 a 10 t
Scotch 8 4 a 9 6
-
Irish - - 311 &HOW
Dantrie - 4 :1 a 7 0
Pomeranian - 488 7 V
Peteniburgh and Riga 4 8 a 7 0
Oats per Bushel of 151b.--Iri.h Potato - 3 3 a 3 6
English,kotch&Welch 3 5 a 3 8
Foreign, free. • 0 0 a 0 0
Common 2d. a 3d. lower.
Barley pet 80'.b. . - - - 5 I) a 6 3
Oatmeal per 2401b.—English - - 31 0 • 330
Irish - . . 2.1 0231/0

...... _
F'...,cr per 2801b.—English - - Ei 0 a 53 0
a 52 0
Altb 540
tniseriean per 1,15-Ib. . 0
. 24 0 a 2,; 0
Danntic . . . u II • li li
. •.
414;
000
aaa
45051 IYOO-
Foreign Free
Beans per Quarter—English
Irish .
Foreign - - 0 0 a 0 0
Pease per Quarter—English, Whine - 52 10 a LS 0
Ditto Grey - - 43 o•4s •
Foreign - - Uoometaio.

w:3I.O7:TICD. rno.sei3T.:lrleritcrsit:TtlsituanszTvoz. Tll7 3:ST.J.1111348IIAII:n, .
. . L`O.Bl•_' Peas . . 14
. - 1,130 Pique - - . 4,033 sacks.
Oatmeal - 4,137 loads
EX?.:RTED-423 83z7e1.1 of ny....-.

ows -
Barley -

LAW INTFLI.IGENCP!.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Wsiowssmer, Psi. 2.

To-slay being the Purification of the Virgin filar!, it is in law
$ dies non, consequently the Court dui not sit. The Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court vas also cloud.

ERGEANTS'•INN-HALLWzowsEDAy, FEB. 2.

LAl:Witt V. POINTLa.
This naming, at ten o'clock, all the Judges met, with the excep-
tion of Lord Chief Justice Best and the Lord Chief Baron.
Lord Chief Justice Aliscreli rend the eviderce in this ease. It
war an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, for in-
jury dune to the plaintiffs horse. Tee accident occurred in C'mn-
lull the 31st of November, 1822. It appeared that the deem.
slant was io a chaise hired from Mr. Beam, a livery-stable-keeper,
it. the Haymarket • the chaise was driven by it robe boy, arrant
c f Mr. Beirut, and the plaintiff's horse was rode by nit servant._
'1 chaise was ran against the plaintiff's horse, end considerable
injury was occasioned to the animal. An action ems brought against
the defendant fur the injury committed by the post-boy, and the
pleintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that the action was nut main-
tunable against the defendant tier the deeds of the poet-boy, but
egainstelh. Briant, his master, who alone wee liable fur the actions
GI his servant. Tke point of law being of considerable import.
ante to livery-stableakapera, and in its consequences to the public
in general, was reserved but the argument before the Twelve
Judges.
fiir. Teems-Lk, on the part of the defendant, argued at consider-
able Werth, contending that the servant belonged to Mr. Briant,
and not to Mr. Pointer. Ile cited a variety of cases in point,
here it was held that a person hiring a coach or horses fee the day
was not liable for the actions of the postilion. file said that it was
nut at all likely that a gentleman could know the character of a
servant whom he had hired merely for the day. filament were in a
certain degree liable for the acts of their servants, but not fur all.
Suppose a person had undertaken to build a house, and bad hired
beieklayees and labourers, was he to be contidered liable for the act
of a man who let fall a brick on the head of a person below in the
street ? The same principle held good in the present case. The
point on which the plaintiff rested his cue, was that of " Bush v.
Strieman," decided in the Court of ommon Pleas, in 17159.
where Mr. Justice Heath said, " there are besides this, other
Cases ; 113 where a person hires a coach upon a job, and a job roach-
man is sent with it, the person who hires it is liable for any Mill-
chief dare by the coachman while in his employ, though he is not
his servant." But he submitted that this decision did nut street the
merits of the resat rise, and concluded by trustitig that their
Lordships would not disturb the verdict.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked whether he made any distlrc-
lion between hiring a coach and horses for a day, and for a
oneh ?
Mr. TYNDALE said, that where a person was hired for a fort-
night or a month, there was a Utter opportunity for knowing the
ivories of these:vane
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed their Lordships for the plaintiff. Ile
observed that there was a manifest distinction between this case and
that of hackney coaches or stage coaches. There the management
of the ruche:, was under the direction of the drivers, who were
hell responsible for the damage done, but here the coach and pm-A-
hoy were under the centrol of the defendant, who had hired the
cuaeli. The case of " Bush and Steinman" was exactly in point,
and had not been ar.swered by the other side. The third count in
the declaration avoided the difficulty contained in the two fusee—.
The third count stated that the coach, horses, and servant,
were under the care, government, and direction of the den&
dant.
Lord Chief Justice A BBOTT.—Were the horses under the cue Iff
the defendant ?
Mr. A a GIAII A3l submitted that they were, inasmuch en the llefeß.
'dart hail hired the coach. horses, and servant, for the day, aid
might drive t.ith them wherever he pleased.
The Lord Chiee Justice A enoer observed that caches wets
hired for u particular lint of road, on account of the duty, and that
they received a ticket to that effect.
Mr. Arse ARAM was aware of that cireumitance. Ile then rested
his cause on its similarity to that of " Bush and Steinman;'
and concluded, neer citing other case', by observing that the
brieklaver'e accidentally dropping a brick on a person in the street,
was of no weight with reference t 3 the present cam, and that the
defendant was alone liable for the act of the past-coy while under
his authority.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT said that their Lordships would
take time to consider their judgment.
Judgment deferred.
Tilt LIFO V. THOMPSON.
Mr. LAW said, that he appeared before their Lordships on hr.
half of William Thompseu, who was convicted, at last IVinter
Surrey Assizes, of staahng from the person. It appeared that the
prisoner had attempted to steal a pocket-book, from the pocket of
a gentleman, and while in the act of extracting it, the gentleman
seized hold of his hand, on which the prisoner immediately let go
has hold of the book, which dropped into the gentleman's pocket.
An objection was taken on the trial, that the prisoner had not taken
possession of the book, and could not therefore be convicted of
- larceny. The point was reserved for the consideration of the Twelve
Judges, and was now argued.
Mr. Lew submitted that the evidence adduced at the trial did
not support the charge of larceny, and he was prepared to contend,
best, that it was not stealing at all; next, that it their Lordships'
judgment should be against hint on that point, that it was not
stealing from the person. On the first point he argued, that it was
not stealing at all, because tie had not taken the property, anti he ad.
duced the statute of Elizabeth, cited by Lord Hale in his Pleas of
the Grown, in support of his argument.
Lord Chief JUSOCCABBOTT said, that the ease of the portman-
teau decided lately was against him. The portmanteau was car.
wad to the door of the house, but not carried away.
Mr. LAW then observed, that as their Lordships' opinion was
against him on the first point, he would now submit, that it was
not stealing from the person, because two persons could not be in
passeesion at the same ume—an adverse possession by the thief end
a possession hy the prosecutor. He instanced the case of " the
King v. Mann," in support of his argument. It was a ease of
•highway robbery, tried before Me. Justice Bayley. The prisoner
Meson had attempted to rob a man of his watch, but the watch
being held by a chain, he was not enabled to take it away. It was
held, that where a trunk had been dragged to the door, but had not
been severed from the rope to which it was fastened, that it wasn't
stealing : and the case of a bale of goods having been opened in a
wagon, but not carried eft; was also in his favour. In the preemie
case, the pocket book had never left the party ; and he submitted,
therefore, that it was not steaiiog from the person, as the podia
must be considered as part of the person. The Lamed Geode.
'man argued at some length in support of this position, and eon.
eluded by hoping that the Learned Judges would give the prisoner
the full benefit of the objection, by seeing that there could not be
adverse possession of the property by the thief and the prosecutor
at the same time.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT asked if there was any gentleman
sen the other side ready to argue on the case ?
Mr. Law was not aware of any. There was none present.
Lard Chief Justice ABBOTT then observed, that their Lordships
mate consider their judgment.
Judgment defeired.