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

LAW NOTICES. Elisont. Withal% i..trochwed to him the new plan for the sashes of
windows ; and told him, if he chow to undertake it, he might hare
COURT OF GIIANCER V. the exclusive right of its sale for that place. Defendant then gave
Its frowner the Vice-Chancellor will hear short Cantles nn l'aic°V iri
ertt,•s father ra model,
e which
he was told must be paid for, and for
r ci 12 toed 1/. 15. , and for some hinges and
f!'wtor'lav'the Ilth of February instant, to be put at tie bead of the other ne tries, 'to the amount of the sum claimed. Defendant
10414% i'directed them t 3 be sent by cartier, who caller, at the Pewter
Vl* % ice-Chancellnr will hear motion% to-rnotrow. Platter, Gracechurch.street. Witness made out the bill of parcel•
In the month of Septentb.v of the following year he called again
on defendant, who said he had placed the model in the shop, but
had not sold any of the sashes. iVitnesa then asked for a settle-
ment of the account, which defendant refused, asserting that he
had ordered only the model, and the hinges he would pay for as
they might be sold. Ile added, that he had caused some circulars
to be printed, in which he had called himself agent. Witness ob-
jected to defendant having so designated himself, and observed.
that he had not authorised defendant to do so on their previnus
interview. Witness did net see any of the goods excepting the
model, which had been forwarded ; hut defendant said lie might
see them if he wished. Ile had instructions to call on one builder
in each town.
Cmss.eitamined by Mr. Sergeant TaDDY.—Witnese assisted his
father in his business. Ile recollected a person having celled and.
tendered, on the part of defendant, U. 15... which witness refused,
having heard his father say that he would not take that sum.
A model of the sash was here exhibited, and the Loan Cuter
Joevico observed that it apneared well csictihsted to prevent err-
wants, employed in cleaning windows, falling into areas.
George Tuely proved the delivery of the goods to a carrier, who
was to leave them et the• Pewter Platter. An invoice wits bent
with them, amt the but was prorrly directed.
Mr. Sergeant Vantait N Sli he supposed his Learned Friend
opposed to him would dispense with the evidence of the carrier.
Mr. Sergeant TADDT—If you cal prove that the goods were sent
to the Pewter Platter, do in.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGH•N.—My Learned Friend is determined,
you see. Gentlemen of the Jury, to tick the Pewter Platter dean.
(Laughter.
The carrier was accordingly examined as to the fact.
This having closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TADDV, for the defendant, said his cm did not, is
his Learned Friend seemed to imagine, rest on the non-delivery of
the goods, although that was a fact which ought to be proved.
What he intended to show to the Jury Irma, that tbedefendant had
been employed as agent to the plaintiff, and that the former eoald
not therefore be called upon to pay for the goods iu question befog*
they were disposed of. The son had said he was instructed to call
upon a builder in each town ; was it not then to be inferred that in
earlittown an agency was to he established ? Witness had gone fur.
ther: according to his own testimony. defendant was appointed as
the sole vender. Now, was it usual to appoint buyers ? Wool not
the Jury conclude rather, that if it were not meant the defendant
was to sell no commirion, it would have been unquestionably to the
interest of the plaintiff to have obtained as many purchasers as he
could get ".• These were questions for the decision of the Jury, arid
he should support then' by proving facts which would set any
doubts they might entertain at rest.
William Moeller, son of defendant, recollected plaintiff's son
calling at his father's in 11123. Ile then said that he wished to
appoint one agent in each town, and if defendant declined be.
coming one. he Should apply to another builder in the same place.
Witresb'S father consented to become agent. and to pay foe a
model, which was to regulate him in the putting up of the several
parts of the sashes together. Plaintiff's son asked what quan.
ttty of hinges he should send ; observing, it was usual for an order
to be given for a dozen of each sort bat defendant ultimately
ordered only half that quantity. Witness recollected the young
man calling in September. The printed circular was shown ao
him, and he approved of it. saying it was a very good thing.
The printed circular was then put in. and read by the Clerk. '
Examination continued.—The plaintiff's son then asked for the
account, but witness's father declined paying for more than the
model, on the ground of his having been appointed agent.
Croas-mantined by Mr. Savant VlV:GHAN.—Witness put the
bill of parcels on the file. There was no settlement as to what
COTTiSSIVIS his father was to have : he was to make whatever
charge he might consider a proper remuneration.
Mr. Sergeant Vautittax said the defendant had been served
with a notice to put in the bill of parcels.
Mr. Sergeant Taimyr declined putting it in, unless his Learned
Friend would consent to put in their answer.
The Loan UHIET JUSTICE.—Then I will ask the witness as
to the contents of the bill bf parcels.
The witness was then examined accordingly. The goods were
not charged for on commission in the bill of. parcels. There was
no complaint of this made until plaintiff's S3ll called on them in
September.
This closed the axe for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant Vauctiart, in reply, said that his Learned Friend
bad withhed, from a consciousness of the weakness of his cause,
whatever testimony was calculated to throw any light upon the
transaction. The bill of parcels had not been put in, and the
reason was evident ; it was the choke-near of the cause. Why, if
the transaction was to be on commission, did the defendant object
to receiving the dozen of hingea, and give an order for the half
amen only ? The Jury should consider the objection was not
made until September, when plaintiff called on them for a settle-
ment of the account.
'flie Loan ell tEr Jc !vice. then provedell to sum up the evi-
dence. The Jury were to decide whether tine goods were to be sold
on commission or Dot. If not they would find for the plaintiff for
the 19/.3r., deducting the G. 15s. which had been paid into Court.
The evidence of defendant's son appeared conclusive as regarded
the agency • but in answer to that were the contents of the bill of
parcels. there was no fixed rote of profit. Dependant was
to get as much as he could. It appeared to his Lordship that a
person appointing an agent would be likely to fix the amount of
profit to die vender, that the aide might not be injured by his ra.
pacify. The Jury, however, were better judges than his Lordship,
who had learned no more of business than he had gleaned in the
course of thirty years' practice in that Court, as to whether the
manner in which this affair was transacted was such as usually
characterised the appointing of agencies.
The Jury, after a new minutes consideration, delivered a verdict
for the plaintiff, deducting It. 15s.
COURT OF EXCIIEW-117,7VEDNEsnAy, FEB. I.

COG!
11.0Xmox cm/tits

'X OF KING'S PENCIL
TO DC 'MILD BY COMMOS 7rlllBll OX
SATIAITIST wtzT.
Olo.len • Para Jane. • Abbott
'll•4(taa • Bern • Pritchard • Staten
tlealteett • Dolan took • Gawkier,'
1),..t*4 a Lamar. Browne • Prerwer
`.‘ r C.ut- Chapman • Slash
. e Ott Slennie • Curter
-Carer • Sla.er Gould •Creaker
aßladbury • Plunkett Feeley 1 Spring
11;t=gton it Lance- (loom • Alcalo
'Farling • ItstMS
at V Taylor Edenbmough •W.
"..4attet• Lonely Slaxfield.
-01• Mis • KNOW Edwattlt • Veztea

Flotigvon ♦ )lortr
Meek!mut • Fty
Berkley ♦
iVall v Potter.

Jeffery. v Benison
Broune v Todd

Stilt V Wood

llowctoft v (;romp•

Tobin r Trimmer
111srm r Winter
Peyne r Gurney

lend • Alarkell j Brame v Sutton
[kr NlKldlew • Sit.' ill be

fritla!

th. 10th of

ge next ,inotat Sitting wit. _ on Any,
Leroary. The Net London Sitting on Saturday, the 11th of
*l.Qhl :tory.

COVRT OF COMMON PIXAS.
The thitd Sitting in Midd'tux will be on Wednesday next, the
Sth of February. The third Sitting is London on Thursday next,
the.Wth of February.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR% CoURT, WitoxisDAT, FEB. I.

JACIIION r. nowt.

This was a bill praying for an account of the tents received by
'the defendant Rowe and his father since th. death of the mother of
the plaintiff, for an injunction to restrain him from receiving these
•rent' in future, for an order to deliver up the deeds and indentures
;oeuvre to the estate in question, and foe the appointment of a re.
*rivet. _ .

t'pon the marriage of the father and mother of the plaintiff they
were seised of property which was limited to the father. Mr. Pope.
„ea life, asd to his wife fur her life, with remainder to such children
a• the survivor should appoint. Mr. Pope died without appointing
"r 1 person, by which Mrs. Pope. the survivor, obtained the power
of appointment, in virtue of which she did appoint the plaintiff,
Dshrdah Jackson, previous to her second marriage with Mr. Rowe,
'.7`,e defendant's father. Before this marriage Mrs. Pope alto ear-
c..teid a deed of lease and release, by which Howe became purchaser',
r* tile estate for a valuable consideration, levying a line at the same
;.Itlllo. _ _

MV. RAPT. in reply to nn nhgemtien of the Vice-Chancellor,
*rated the, the trin‘netinn was preeiriely that of a purchaser without
rorke. Cu in the case of a tnoriglge being concealed from a pur.
eMeer.

Vrce•CttnxcEt.con said, the proper course would have
been to plied her title in fee simple, derived by the will of Mrs.
Promklin, and in that case the settlement might be supposed to
byre been concealed ; but the Court holds that persona have im-
plied notice of every thing that they might by due diligence have
•xgovered.

•Mr.daar professed himself to be so incurably stupid that be
could not comprehend the distinction.
The Vtcr-Cosmcr. Limn wax quite surprised at the doctrines
he had heard. No property could be secure if persons not them-
selves entitled to it, estate could make • conveyance of it to an-
other. The objection was fatal to the plea, though the demurrer
alight be supported.
Mr. firs t.t) questioned whether this would be any advantage to
his client. The Court dues not permit (t imi? defence' to be made
by plea, and the same feason must hold against a plea and demurer.
Two pleas might be admitted by a special order on different parts
et a bill, but not on the same part. The plea and demurrer were
'hate to the same part.
Mr. llAae had known in the course of his exnerienee, a gentle-
man who had a peculiar affection for pleading, who used to have a
is lea and demurrer alternately like the squares of a chequer board ;
ha at is by no means a general practice.
TheVict-etisscs:t Loa said, upon consideration he would al.
low fhb demurrer and overrule the plea. There is reason to think
th►t the defendant had all the deeds in his peesession, and hid thus
tell as well as implied notice.—To stand over for three days that the
defendants mar consider what is proper for them to ask.

COrIIT OF KING'S BENCH, WiDNESDAY, Fla. 1.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION—JOIIN BULL.
THE RING v. WM. IMACKELL.
'ir. SC AR r. ETT moved for a rule to show cause bhy a criminal
,• :Omar ion should not be tiled against Wm. Shackell, the printer
aced publisher of a Sunday newspaper called " the John Bull." for
.a Übe!. The application was made on behalf of Lord Arundel. It
appeared that the editor, or some person for him. had inserted an
article in that paper, In which the writer had thought fit to use the
name of Arundel, anti had attached to it a statement of pretended
facts which his Lordship considered to be vrry calumnious and in.
;roue to his character. The Learned Counsel then read the
mi.eged libel, which stated that the Roman l'atholics were at pre-
sent extremely anxious to have it believed that the persecuting
mmeiplcs of their religion were changed. Every body knew that,
according to the old creed, it was the ditty of all good papists to
procure as many converts as possible, and a story which they (John
ull) had heard, confirmed their opinion that all which had been
rel by certain learned and able men reepecting an alteration in the
ioaples of popery was mere humbug. The story related to
Lord Arundel of ii ardour, and was to the effect that there was in
(f.l Lordship's service a Protestant gardener named Freake, who
}ad lived in the family for two generations, but who had been dis-
missed from the service by his Lordshi, not for any breach of
trust—not for insolence—not, in short, fur any crime whatever,
tut -because lie had refused in his old days to embrace the
dentnablc doctrines of popery, at the urgent solicitations of
bit Lorshhip and his chaplain, a popish priest, who threatened
et.ret with the lags of his situation if he persisted in his re-
ao:ution to die as he had lived in the Protestant faith. In
se7pert of this motion the Learned Counsel read the affidavit of
Cis Lordship, in which he denied that he ever had a person as a
(greener in his employ of the name of Freake, and that he had ne-
ver dismissed any person from his service on account of his tell-
g! OA principles. But his Lordship proceeded to explain the cir-
t.:l..stances which might have led to the use of the name of Freake.
Be had had in his employ a person of the name of Pricker. in the
capacity of bailiff, who had been in his Lordship's family for a
great many years, and who died in his service. That man had a
son of the sante name, who was his Lordship's houee-carpenter,
and was discharged from that situation on account of drunkenness,
std engaged in some other capacity ; but he had since been rein-
tested In his former situation of house-carpenter, and held it at this'
tone. the Lordship further stated, that he formerly had in his'
service a foreigner of the name of Freake, in the capacity of a ant-
eft, but who only remained with him six weeks, he being then
apprehended on a warrant fur an assault. The affidavit proceeded
to state that his Lordship's servants consisted of Catholics and
Pritestants. and that his Lordship had only discharged seven see-
yam since be had come to his title, four of whom were Catholics
s^.d three Protestants, but neither of them left his service on ac.
court of his religious opinions ; his Lordship also denied that I
either he or any priest in his family. had ever endeavoured to pre.
vial, by means of threats or persuasion. on any person in his see.
trice to induce bins to change his religion. The Learned Counsel
was !proceeding to read the affidavit, but was interrupted by
The Loan CHIEF JOrrtCP:, who thought that he had stated
enough to entitle him to a rule to show cause.
The rule sou accordingly granted.
A; two o'clock the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE Sat at Nisi Prim',
and tried several causes, but none of which were of any interest to
ttic public.
..—,............_
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WYDRESDAY, FES.I. '
—,--
The Court was occupied during the whole of the morning with I
the justification of bail.
ttnionist ether persons who appeared as bail ails one who
ea: himself a posse, in the employ of the East India Company,
at Hertford College.
Re was examined by ilr. Sergeant Vanotrate. who inquired of
his tam property be possessed I—My situation brings ore in 114 L
a
year.
AIL Scoreant VaUGMAR—What., do you get a !earl/ salary. as
olf wterlsol. ?—No (my salary is only 20/., but have my
boar!,, and I consider my peequWtes make it worth that to me at
lesst.
y: r. Sergeant VA Troimw—llave you any other property ?—Yes;
1 Lave a freehold through my wife.
Mr. Sergeant Vaticinate—Will you swear it is a freehold ?--•
If any opposition were to start fir the County, I think I should
have a vac. (Laughter.)
lie. Sergeant Vaunicrite was proceeding to press the bail as to
hi. conipetenev. when
• Mr. JusticiPaait interrupted the Learned Gentleman try sug-
peering that it would he as well fee him to remember the bail
EN a load. ILllighttl.)
Asill accepted.
The hoed Chief Justice left the Court at a little after 12 o'clock
at fay ceases at Nisi Prim in London.
[3.lftfece et Nisi Pf iitf, Guildhall, before tlse Loan (:nice
Jusvice.j
TULLY IP. BUTCRIR.
Mr. Seeigeant VAI7GHAN stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff resided in Kenton-street Brunswick-square, and was in.
venter anti patentee of what wait eilled " revolving window.sashes."
The defendant was a builder, and lived at. Epsom. In the spring
44 1e23, plaintiff sent Lis son, who officieted as traveller, to
Xpsom. fro the purpose of procuring orders fur the newly-invented
sash. The son called on defendant, who, after looking at a model
of the improvement, gave an order to the amount of 191. 3s. This
order was executed, WI the defendant had refused to settle the
fibrilar* domed. rut of the goodsi constituting the order was a
00 the Aar Ewa,
itli; 3.1., and oil: sum tient: t
g'ldsad would " would
whee/Zethee7.piaintiir be proved
enut'itileted
O ft Ibilassisse defined.
aides Lawerissi called and examined.—lfe was son to
, Op . employed by his. father u traveller, its the
wiktir
ltdiumilif • IWO( OD she OCCODOiDit, who was a builder at

DANIEL v. ROWE.

Me. Baron GRAHASIpI9Weaei (as soon as the Court sat to-day)
to give judgment in this cause. He said that ha thought the rule
should be discharged. The practice of the Court tind all the au-
thorities was opposed to entertaining such a tule as that which was
here required to be made absolute. The plaintiff had an unques-
tionable right to the appearance of the principal. The defendant
was in custody, and must have remained there but for the inter ott'
Lion of the bail, and if any charge of cruelty could be fairly made
against either party, it should be attached to the bail rather than
to the plaintiff In this case.
Mr. Baron °ARROW said that he had yesterday delivered an
opinion oselhis case. As, however, it was one of considerable no-
penance, the Court took to this day to consoler what judgment they
would give upon it. lie was now of the same opinion as his bro.
ther, Baron Graham, which was formed upon the atithorities which
were cited yesterday. The case which occurred in the Court of
King's Bench 4A years ago, where a Mr. Boarhow was brought to
the steps of that Court upon a litter, with great danger to his life,
was one of great hardship: yet the Court held it ro be the law. Ile
believed, however. that in that instance the appearance insisted upon
was previous to trial. The case of Cock and Bell was decisive on
this point. It was futile to advert to the Mho,' anity of the case.
The bail had entered into recognizances either to produce the
body of the defendant, or to pay the amount of those recogniaances.
The party then had two alternatives, and if they were influenced by
feeling's of kindness and humanity by paying the an.ount of the
recognirances, they could free the gentleman for whom they had
become bail from the inconveniences attendant on an appearance.
Mr. Baron Hv t.i.ocz said that he thought the rule might to be
discharged. It was, he said, a point of practice, and nut to be de-
cided by general principles. He could not himself understand the
distinction between a moral and a legal impossibility, and with
gees' deference to those who framed such a dies ipction, lie
would say it was contrary to the principles of the common
law. It is a principle of that law that " Atlas Dei
tremble Tacit injurium," and therefore he could nut understand
how a man could be required to perking what it was morally im.
possible to accomplish, bye visitation of Providence, when the law
says that " the act of God does injury to no man." However, by
the authorities referred to in this ease, where an tacourenience,
atom by an au of God, that *heel* be-borne by the bail rather than
by the plaintiff.
In reply to an application from Mr. Burton to .51r. Jones, that
that grritleman should nut press fur costs,
Mr. Baron Ilus.t.oca said that as Mr. Burton had had the ad-
vantage of his rule he should pay for that convenience.
It was the opinion of the Court that as the application was made
contrary to all the authorities, the party snaking that application
should bear the costs.

Mr. Bunou said that he bad relied on the case of Cock
and Bell.
Mr. Baron Ilt:LLoca said that case would not answer his
purpose.
None of the new trials being ready to be proceeded with, the
Court adjourned shortly after eleven o'clock.
We regret to state that it;hn Campbell, Esq., the
Accountant-General to the Court of Chancery, died on
Tuesday evening, at his house in Berncrs-street, of a short
illness, having only been cc.‘fined since Friday last. Mr.
Campbell was in the 75th year of his age. Ills complaint
was an inflammation on the chest.

The Menai suspension bridge was opened to the public
on Monday, the 30th of January, by the London and
Holyhead down mail passing over it at two o'clock in the
morning. The horses trotted over it iii their regular pace.
Although a heavy gale of wind was blowing at the time
there was no perceptible difference in the motion of the
coach, whether on the suspended road-way or on the
masonry arches. About nine o'clock Sir Henry Parnell
and Mr. Telford crossed over the bridge in Ilse travelling
carriage of the laity*, and during the whole day 'liters
from all parts of Carnarvonshire and Anglesea passed over
in their carriages, besides numerous foot passengers. In
the evening the workm.ii were regaled with it substantial
dinner and abundance of eirr le du. The intonvenient ferry
across the rapid Menai estuary is thus; at last, annihi-
lated, and another important facility g:s.;.n to the Inter-
course between the two kingdoms.