The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-07-21 00:00:00

WOODROOPC V. IPORRIA AND ANOTIIER.

Mr. St:ARTA:TT stated that this was Nu action or
haver, brought to recover four borers, or the value
thereof, f the Defendants. It was a case of a
sisigular 'Wore, Noels as very rarely occurred in t list
Court. The Plaintiff was a gentleman of fortune,
residing its the county of Surrey, in winch county
be was proprietor of two 1113411016—the one called
Claygiste, and the other White's. The Defen-
dants were the executors of a Mr. Clonsmeker,
who was lately dereased. By the custom of the
manors, in question, the lord was eistitl-d, on the
death of ally of hip tenants, whether freehold or copy-
-1114.1, t.r a herioi—that was, the finest beast that had
belonged to the deceased tenant. 11 r. Cleinsineker
previous to his death, had purchased in the ms
of Cl tyg,lte, a certain tenement, called Glaciers—
he loot Nl,n purchased a second tenement, in the
manor Of White's. etenotnioated liticklmrst—and •
third, called Westwood, also in the manor of
Wititr's. Tire tenement of Buckliurst had formerly
beers two tenements, held by two brothers, as te-
nant., in co iiiiii 011---48111. therefore, he meant to con-
tend !hit it was liable to the payment of a double
!aria, out for each of tie? teiwineista, The leer.
totem of Glaciers bad fornerly been part of a tene.
meld, denominated Alalyns. which had paid a
herby:, mid therefore it might b- contended on the
other side, that Glaciers should now be free from
the charge. Bat it was declared lry the law of the
laud, that. by die ding tenemente, herints were
multiplied, and, therefore, he would maintain that
Glaciers was still liable. as well as Malvin', for a
heriot. It might also be said, that Blici.hurst.
being now united in one tenement, was only liable
to que harlot. But the law of iliv land gave the
Lord of the Manor the advantage of the former
subdivision—inasmuch as it declared that a tene-
ment, once divided. became lialds to two he.
riots, and could not Ise charged with less, al-
though it had subsequently been united again.
Ile should produce documentary evidence, to
prose, that. from time immemorial, Glaciers had
paid one Arrive. and Buckhorst two. With re-
spect to the circumstances of the present case,

out of which this ;mown arose, they were briefly
as follow :—Oo the death of Mr. Cionarnekrr, the
bailiff of the Lord of the Manor immediately
cii,ered the premises, sod seized and marked two
Cart horses and two coach-horses, us the heriots.
for the teneinento of which Mr. Clousmeker died
possessed—two for Brickhurst, one for Glaciers,
and one fur Westwood. Out of courtesy, however.
he did not remove the animals, but left thens on the
premises for the use of the family, until they be-
came settled, and decided whether they would re.
deem them, by paving an eqiiivaleni, or give them
up to the Plaiktiff. W!•eri the tine for deciding
arrived, the executors disputed the Plaintiff's claim,
and to establish it the present action was brought.
The cart-horses were valued at 4.5 guineas, and the
coach-horse,. at 100 guineas. But although the
Plitlitilf had been driven to a court of law to esta-
Wish his right, lie felt no wish to press heavily un
the Deferidatits„ and if he established his case, lie
was ready to take a verdict for 1001.
The value of the hoist.% was arlinitted.
Toe Learned Coumiel then called 'dr. Grey, who
hail been steward of the manor for thirty years. Ile
r.roved that he had taken heriuts fur va tene-
inent,, and that, an ongst others. lie had received a
hem! fur Glaciers. lie hail never received a heriot
for Buckliii.si, because the po.iiessor died in a dis-
tant pull of the loutvlom, unit he lid not know
%here to seize a beast, his property. 'Witness pro-
docrd Cuurt-rolls n,.d coiner of Court-har )))))
front the 5.11 of Elizabeth down to the present
period, from which it appeared that ihe custom of
the manor was heriot-custom, and bad airway* been
acquiesced iii toy the tenants.
11. hen the cause proceeded thus far--
The Cwt., JUSTICE said, he thought the action
hail bier,. wily sustained, as far us regarded Gla-
ciers and ILlockhursi, saving the allegation that lie
latter should pay a double heriot. It appeared the
tenement of Buckhurst hail roily been divided in
one iustauce, by two brothers, who, under their
father's will, had taken as tenants in common—
but that, un the death of one of the brothers, it
haul been united, slid continived sir ever since. It
was, therefore, a question of law, whether, under
these circumstance, two heriots could be demand.
Arti. The PlNitititi might take a verdict for 1001.
subject to the opinion of the Court, to reduce the
wertlict,•if it were finally held that a single ficriot
could wily be demanded for lluelthurst.
A verdict was occordiogly recorded fur the Plain-

COMMON JURY.
lIESSITER V. CLUTTERBUCK.

Thin was an action on a bull of exchange, dated
the 11th of March, 1819, for 701. payable two months
after (late, drawn by a per-on maned John Bart.
lett, accepted by the Defendant, and eudoraed over
to the Plaintiff by the drawer..

Mr. CHITTY .said, lie understood the defence
was to lie, that the name of the drawer and his en-
dorsement, were forged. The drawer of the bill
wus u person who resided near Frume, in Somer►et-
shire, and carried on on extensive trade in woollen
Cloths. lie had some dealing' with the Defendant,
cud this bill was given iu consequence. Bartlett
was all Illiterate maul, and by no means a good
writer. He therefore was in the habit of getting
ht. daughter, Mary Bartlett, to draw end accept
bills for hint. She had, in fact, drawn and en-
dorsed this bill, by her father's directions. This
he would prove, and he would be then entitled to
a ye; diet.

The hand-writing of the Defendant, as acceptor
of the bill. having been proved—
Elm. Bartlett was called, who stated that her
sister Mary was very ill, stud could not give evi-
dence. lier sister wale, she deposed, in the con-
►taut haiiit of drawing and accepting bills by her
father's direction— and the present bill was so
drawn and endorsed by her sister.
Mr. CAMPBELL sul * ted there was not suffi-

cielit proof that the bill iu question was drawn by
order of the father.
' The CHIEF JUSTICE said there was no room to
doubt the fact—there was the strongest presump-
tive proof that it was drawn by the father's dire*.

.N~ ..

• :.

The aartrialat.ra. far7hr I)• W•.• I•". '1
proarml. mail their %via hut the I.l4;tlitrst 14•111.111 i file
helietiog that he hod not received ti valmilile con.
vat ton for the hill.
Verdict Fur the Phstotiff for 70f. with itilettat.

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS, Guti.onau.,
Unmet. ivLy 20.

Sittings after Term. heyore the Chief Justice end
Special Juries.

PAYNE r.

Ths wits an action to ree:lver si mom of money do-
on a bond. The Plaintiff and a Mr. Lamds catirit
oil business tn,trther no hoto.fowliers.
Paving between thew. the came 11, an agree-
went to dissolve the paritiership..attil thePlaiiitaT
confirmed so give op his share of Ole stocks sod
sines. to° Mr. hough. in consideration of oyeetrimg
security for the Mae of the firmer. and the swriiof
?Oa supposed prdit. The dissolouno
took place, and Mr. Lough *procured the 'Defen-
dant and a Mr. Selby to pass their hairdo to the
Plaintiff for 2,337/ the former for 7331. the laitre
for the remainder. The present action was brought
to recover the sum of 733/.
The claim was resisted on the grooms! that the ae.
corners had been obtained on fake relorvelit.t ttttt♦
of the state of the affair. of the firm. Tire Plain.
tiff, who had the sole keeping of the arristislie. pie.
tesidinii it was perfectly militant and wife, which wao
not the fact. Mr. Lough having barn triode a
bankrupt very shortly after the partnership was
dissolved.

The Court was occupied • great part of the 11,:y
in examining the nserits of the case, and serried
witnesses were called and examined on behalf' ~1
the Plaintiff; but the justice of the demand, afti
peering to turn in a great degree on accounts be.
tweet. the partners and other persons, 41 matters to
difference were referred. by the consent ..f tootle
parties, to the arbitration of Mr. Psitu.i.S, the
harri.ter.

LONDON SESSIONS, TUESDAY, Jrf.T 20.

STEAM- ROATS.—IM PORTANT CASE.
ISROoKSON C. THE WATENMEN'S COMPANY.

This was an appeal to ilie Court to se. a.tdr the
cooviction of Thomas Brooksois and others, pro-
prietors of the Engineer, Nlargate strain-lin:it. by
the Mast-r and Riders of the Waterinens' Com-
pany, for Catrilig a areatrr number of paWrilg-ri
than is allowed by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. BoLI.A ND appeared for the Appellants. The
conviction, lie said, took place in A rril last, when
the boat of his clients was on lite. way between
Gravesend and London. She had on board, it an-
reared, 99 passengers, and it bring then contended
that she was not authoriser! to carry more t;oiti lilt, x
conviction took place, by awarding a penalty of
191. i 0..; that is 104, for r 'eh additional vassen-
ger, beyond the specific number allowed by the
Act.

Mr. BOLLAND said, that steam-boats were never
contemplated by the Act of Parliament. The 10th
George H. and the 34.1 i of the Kin;, of
'4 tilt-boat, row-barge, or any other boat, or
the largest of winch was of considerably less nninage
than %team-boats. It would he unjust, therefore.
to affix the penalty laid dose a a very phi Act of
Parliament, tor an offence whirls never could have
been foreseen. Here lie could not help remarkniv,
that when the late Lord Stanhope talked of the
introdiscliou of steam-boats, and was bold crouch
to ainneipate their crossing the Atlantic, his obser-
vations were regarded as the reveries of a maibisiana
lie (Mr, B.), however, was one of those who gave
credit to the prognostications of his Lordship, and
had lived to are the day when steam-boats had ac-
tually crossed the Atlantic, and arrived safely in •
British port. If the Legislature, therefore, had
not foreseen ti e use or strain-bosts, but left this
cotes °misses in the Acts, provision s.iouitl be made
to curet them. and not have recourse to other enact-
. minor, to the injury of a great and useful
The Act 11111111.9p.i11y apviiril to owl tile
like, carrying but sixty, whereas steam-boat; ~ere
capable of carrying hundreds of persons. Upon
the whole, he contended, that setting aside the non-
description of the boat. that there had he. n but one
offence committed, rod the parties who convicted
his client 114,1 acted wrong.

The RECORDER 1.41141, they had acted right. The
clause in the. Act was, 4, that if any master, steers-
Mail, &e. of any tilt-boat, row-liarge, or tiny other
boat or wherry oball be worked, &e. and take on
board any one or more passengers beyond &c. that
for every suck °Price trey > hall forfeit imd
&c. He was decidedly of opinion, that every ad-
ditional passenger constituted a tlibtinct offsnce.
Mr. ALLEY then proceeded to prove the case.

Samuel Sparrow said, that hr vknew Bionkpon,
the Commander of the Engineer steam- packei. Oa
the 10th of April lie saw lipr between Giatesend
and London, hating on board 99 passeogris. The
fares he believed were between two sii.d three shit.
lingo.
Cross-examined.—He did not see Broukson paid
the fare by any of the passengers.
Mr. BOLLARD now submitted that the cape was
not made out either in low or in fact. In the first
place lie contended, that thts boo was hot within
the meaning of the Act ; and secomtly, that it was
not proved that the Appellant hail aoi kid eitbrr fur
hire or gam. The fact wee, that the prohibition rif
the Legislature extended to boats, &c. of hot inure
then 15 tone, and the tonnage of the steamboat
was perhaps 300 ! Upon these grounds the cob.
victim), lie contended, must be q
Mr. ALLEY Raid, he Me, ut iipiutoti, %yid, los
friend, that it wee slot so much the kit l of 'mit, lint
the dangerous nutaher of patiPeingeis, w kith was con.
te.oplateJ by the Legislature.
Mr. floupssia upon read the dilute from the
Act, to chew that the boat of %Ir. Lit ouktusi did nut
within the description Wilk iii
The Itscoatie. zwasd. there WAS ceri,iiiiiy.snme.
thing in this, and it struck Min torcilaty lost the
steam-boat in question partook as much of the
principle of • ship as a bust.
Mr. BOLLARD said, he felt conscious that • die.
tress never would have been attempted ' be levied
to pursuance of-the contitction.
The RSCORDRR sod Ilse COURT
to.examine the record of the conviction,
disioNtstatitbilltz it was there suiteti.te '

I

klt

,~.

o-r'.....,,,...

einpird its bt Itvivtl
Ism then proceede4
victiost. tvhen tt ANN
‘4l' .16 144. " ate

• N.

..•
~,offence," and not offences." If the penally eg.
lencied, as it midst, in kw, to every individual be.
,yond the prescribed polisher, it could not of comae
be called a offence. 'This objection alone,
therefore, waiving the point of otoit-tle•criptinst of
the hoot (which might hive been moire folly eon•Zi.
sieved by the Court) was 'Mal to the conviction,
which mutt he quashed.
Mr. Atlrr hoped it *Mild not go ibrosii, that
because of such an error in 'Words, the proceeding*
were, in themselves, wrong, and that masters of
there boats were to be'allowed to carry stielt:t nom-
her of passengers as might lead to great igi.chief
EA danger.
Mr. 001.1. AND also United, that an useful and
valuoble a discovery oe the steam-boats was not to
he exploded or injured upon grounds that were not
only not elm-table, but illegal.
The Cow*? ordered the appeal to be allowed,
and the conviction quashed.

i