The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-31 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CRARCRRY, To•ltoaaew.
Mltltrlt• ?NZ LOAD cloorcaaaoa, AT Till.
First Sear Day, Rados. imaly.
VICF-CHANCELLOWS COURT, To. W.
TWA TICa-4AANCSLLoa, AT RAL►-PAST TAY.
First Mee'. Malone only.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
TIM DAT--•111'11•11.1,PAIIT /11111.
Middlesex Common Jules.
Wake v. Morton Simmons v. Parkissoa Bond Y. Rust
Davis •. Wl.enehlln I Doe v. Thompson Nano v. Sante
Doe, Ac. v. Mettcnift Hod.on v. Limo pokes v. Sams
Turner v. Crowder Derry Y. Rogers Stephan v. Whitton
firtilthwatte v. Brown v. Baker thmte v. Moske
Churchill Peacock v. Antrobus Etas sv. Madden
Doe. Ac. v. Piggott Wicks v. Wheeler Coe e. Merlin
The king v. Ryland The King v. Williams Ambridge v. Tubb
White y. Hell Tirobrell v. Macey I Styles V. Wardle
Roe, Ac. v. Chalmers Cot v. Taylor Weymouth v. Kings.
Sperldfrrx v. Glover Butter v. Meru ford
Oyston v. Pointer WiLson v. (lowly Kerr Y. Scott
Chore Y. Ventura Lomas v. Buckley Thompson v. Parton
Same v. Mama Noakes v. Abbott I Doe v. Newitt
Baubles v. Buckley Dapper v. Brown I Yearn v. Ark,.
Itletundson v. Plenty

IRT OF COMMON PLEAS.
TEN DAT, A? TBX.
London Special Juries.
Colllson v. Sinlih Somers v. Pentland
"Ischoff v. Ogleby I Haswell v. Utterly.
inn Juries will be taken after the Spatial Juries.
emalnl ng Common Juries are—
Smith v. F.•tcourt toutheme V. Taylor
Carr and others v. I Cutbill r. Cooper and
Browne No. 197,
Conine v. Holden I Ward v. Dattger, lyy
Schilling v. Wulf Common Jury.

Ling v. Dotrerworth
brown v. Brown

Lt there Ls time, Cam
The

Perrin,. Bart. e.—
llonaton and
Same v. Hone, to be
tried by Common
Judea

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCII, MonisAT, Ocr. 30.
Nothing of interest occurred this meaning. We are happy to
ottielve thatthereitwated complaints of the Bench, the Bar, and the
public, as to the manner in which this Court was constructed, have
had some trifling effect upon those who have the management of
the building. The lid of the lantern over the centre of the Court
has been elevated three or four feet above its original sides; and by
the addition of more lateral windows, a greater body of light is
allowed to introduce Itself. More light is also admitted by a long
semi-circular aky.light, Which is timer. over the southern gallery;
but nothing has been done to facilitate the approach to the court, or
to prevent inconvenience and pressure In the internal passages.

Midelltve.r Remaset Sittings after Trinity Term.
Before the Loan CHIEF JUST [cc and COlllOlOO Juries.
BRENNAN AND EGERTON V. STEVENS.
This was an action of deceit, brought by the plaintiffs against
the defendant, to recover a compensation in damages from Lim on
the ground that he had fraudulently and deceitfully represented to
them that his monthly receipts as landlord of a certain public
house, called the King and Queen, in Duke-street, Manchester.
square, were about 3001., whereby the pIat:MEN were induced to
purchase the good-will, lease, dames. &c., and stock in trade of
the said public-house, at a sum of 30141., whereas the receipts of
the defendant were not 3001. per month, and the value of the said
lease, &c. was not 30141. as falsely represented by defendant.
Mr. SCAULETT and Mr. Ouawav were for the plaintiffs. It
appeared, from the circumstances of the case, that the plaintiffs
were young men who had never before been in business, but hay-
ing some capital, they were desirous of jointly embarking in a pub-
lic-house of respectability at the west end of the town. Hearing that
the defendant, who was landlord of the King and Queen public-
house, which Wm at the WHIST of Duke-street, 3lanchester.square,
was desirous of disposing of his business, they consulted a public.
house broker, who accompanied them and some of their friends to
the defendant's house. The defendant then represented that his
monthly receipts were about 300/.; but though it could he clearly
ascertained, on an Inspection of his pass-books, what amount of
business he did in the wine and spirit line, the plaintiffs and their
friends never asked for these pars.books during the negotiation. It
also appeared that the defendant told them his brewers were Messrs.
Whitbread and Co., hut no evidence was given to show that they
applied to Messrs. Whitbread, whereby they could have ascertained
at once the real quantity of beet which the defendant disposed of.
A contract was then executed, after some further negotiation, and
the plaintiff's paid for the lease and good will of the house 2,3601.,
which would be a fair value if the monthly receipts amounted to
the sum represented by the defendant; and for the furniture, stock
in trade. &c. a further sum, making altogether 3,0141. Evidence
was then given to show that according to the amount of wine,
spirits, herr, &c., furnished to the defendant during the seven
months he had the house, be could not have received any thing like
the month)} sum be stated.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS (with whom was Mr. CHITTY ) addressed
the Jury for the defendant. and cited Mr. Starkie's Book, in which
it was said down that the whole gist of such an action as the pre-
sent was fraud. But it appeased from the plaintiffs' own showing,
in the present case, that they had entered into this bargain with
their eyes open, and possessed of the means of ascertaining trite-
ther• fraud was attempted to be practised on them or not. 'The
Learned Counsel, however, insisted that the representations of his
client had not been characterized by that flagrant falsehood which
could alone support the present action. He had .represented that
his monthly receipts were about 3001., and that was not false.
Neither party expected precise accuracy, because they were all
dsalla
..without reference to documents. in which don there'll
would appear. But was it to be presumed that the de-
fendant made a false representation, because it had been proved
that the receipts for wine, spirits, porter, and ale, fell short ONO/.
per month ? The Learned Counsel apprehended that the Jury
must look a little into the nature of this public-bottle. Pincers
were provided there for customers, and there must be a wilt on
them. They would also recollect, that sundry gimes of peg were
emsesandy drank to the parlours and the tap, upon &Het sehich
ales a pod protium, beause publicans generally (pothole in
a Nuke regard he the lives of their fellow.inikjecte. er
Alirlialh.)delul out their smell quantities of igaldep&pd
trksdelesofwater in such proportions as would, bythe
slalom of sugar, produce a osnaideeable advance in the
price of -spirit& When the porter se ale were drank, too, trek
was surely bread and cheese, which ally effouled a telemble mat
and, above all, in the hot months these west bosom and asulegf
ginger pop drank, the sale price of which wee *Not 114 Polk 119
the ingredtents cost little or nothing. The Lesranotitantleeketeb-
witted all these conahleratioos to the Jury, void coolldeptly meted
they would be of opinion that bis client bed not 'bon guilty of
any deceit or misrepresentation, and, if not, ha vas 'stilled to a
verdict.
The LORD Cuter Jurrics. In charging the Jury, told this
that there was mach weight in many
.of the obscristione they had
just heard, and they would therefore judge whether the defendant
had made use of representations which were so snlistentially false
as to warrant them ip concluding that he bad wilfully practised a
fraud and a deception upon the plaintiffs.
The Jury retired fee an hour and a half, and then found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages...4ool.

WILLIAMS V. TOMLIXSON AND OTIL U.
This wu an action brought by the plaintiff; an Attorney in
Dublin, to recover Rota the defendants a compensation for his ser.
vices, in promoting the advancement of a Company for tbe en.
cauragement of the growth of Flax in Ireland, to *hick she de-
fendants were t,olicitors.
Ths cue was not entered into, but referred to a gentlsnohn at the
bar.

COURT OF COUSION'PLIAS.—GutLonaxt., OCT. 30.
[Refire the LORD CHIEF JUATIOE ami a Special .1 *qr.]
TAPLIN V. ATTY, IHNIIIrr Or WARWICILWRI.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said that this action was broutt to
recover from the defendant a quantity of i•ks, of which, in ca-
pacity of e had r The plain-
tiff - In the
with •