The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-12-03 00:00:00

L.

COURT OF KING', BENt.II, WlaTbli:•4l Cs, Dec. 1.
Silting: at Nisi Prosy, &Jere Lord ELLSSCOROCGM.
DEFAMATION.
10555 r. NI? L. c kit .
This was an aaiiat brought to recover damages
for certain slanderous words spoken by the Defend.
ant, to the prejudice of the Plaintiff's eharaam..
It appeared, from the statement of Mt. GA It ROW,
and the evidence of the witnesses, that the Plaintiff
was a shop-keeper and porter, living in Off-Alley,
Hosckinghatn-street, Adelphi. The Defendant was
.paimney-sweeper : and, on one or two occasions, at
dk neighbouring public-house, where they had fte-
fluently made merry together, when el tied with
gin, some words arose, and much mutual abuse,
and the Defendant called the Plaintiff a thief, and
said, " You stole a crate of China from Mr. Piper's
shop in St. Martin's-lane."
Mr. Easeitie, in a very pleasant, humourous,
and ingenious speech, rallied his friend (Mr. GA s-
now) upon his gravity in stating the Plain'itt's case
1111 Ode of so much aggravation, that nothing but
taw damages could make sufficient reparation for
He ablifirveds that it certainly was a heinous offence
is money-sweep, to bLicken the Plaintiff's cha-
rs/het He commented with much force on the dis-
tress and ruin that would eventually be entailed on
the lower orders of society, if aaions of this nature
were tolerated in the supreme Court, from the
great and heavy espence attending them. lie had
a number of witaesses, who could prove that the
charge of thief had been bandied about by each of
' - parties. He should not, however, consume
time of the Court, by any counter-evidence to
a trumpery action.
Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
s 40s.
4 ASSAULT.
• LEVICK V. WILLtANso N.
- Mr. Gait now stated that this WAS an action to
.cover damages for an assault. The parties were
both respectable tradesmen living at Hanwell. The
Plaintiff was a carpenter, and the Defendant a
plumber- The Plaintiff had put his son apprentice to
plumber ; and the cause of the assault was, an idea
entertained by the Defendant that the lad, when out
of his time, would set up in the village, and thereby
injare the Defendant's business.
Two apprentices of the Plaintiff proved the
'• assault. The Plaintiff was at work in a ditch, mak-
ing a drain, when the Defhtidant came to the top of
of the bank, and addressing him with " d—n your
eyes, Teddy, where ate you. up to your eyes in din?
you have no business there, get out of it, or I'll
knack your head." These words, with other abuse,
were followed by his spitting in the Plaintiff's face,
who cautioned him not to repeat that salute, telling
him, that, if he did so, he would knock him down.
. The offence was repeated, and the Plaintiff kept
word by knocking him down with a sort of shovel
filed a navigation tool.
jr.s PASILIC, for the Defendant, stated, that Lis
was drunk at the time, and that he had re.

calved personal injury from the Plaiiitiff. The De-
fendant bad been irritated At seeing the Plaintiff em•
ployed in a job more fitting aplumber that' a cat pen-
ter.—Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 40s.

USURY

• PAIMEN AND APO[MER VTDEN.
This was an aftion to recover 1001. ; the amount
of a bill of Exchange, drawn by the Defendant
upon, and accepted by, the Hon. Mr. T. W. Co

_
ventry. .
. Mr. O•aitow, for the Plaintiffs, observed, that
u all the hand writings were admitted, he should
not then trouble the court, but reset ve any observ-
ations he had to make until he should hear what
the &Fence might be.
The defence set up was, that Parker and Becket,
IF the Plaintiffs, who were stiveismi:lis and pawn-
brokers, in Princes-street, Soho, had committed
usury in discounting the note in question, by insist-
ring, that the Defendant (vho was a gentleman It'-
, siding in Furnival s Inn, not an attorney, but in the
• habit of raising money for gentlemen upon mort-
gages, annuities, atc.) should take a quantity of
goods in pat t of payment, some of which %vete after.
10
wards sold for one third less than they were charged
to the Defendant ; but this point %%holly tStiled, as it
appeared the goods were fairly sold, at the price
marked on thew: for sale, when exposed in the shop
windows.
Upon the evidence of a Mr. Stephenson, it ap-
peared that he was in the habit of getting hills dis-
counted for the Defendant, and had procured the
bill in question (which was at two months) to be
discounted by the Plaintiffs, from whom he took 401.
sv, rth of goods in part payment, and handed over
the cash and goods to the Defendant, &dotting 31:
per cent. as commission for his trouble. He had
g got a similar bill done in the same Way fur
. • the Defendant, by the Plaintiffs, some time before,
which being paid gave as air of credit to the second,
but he could not recolea for which of the hills he got
a winch, a diamond necklace, and pair of diamond
ear•riegs; he 'Aid he bought them at a fair price, for
hr had at them in the window, with the prices
Marked:4N them, before he chose them. The last
tides MITC. Emden, he understood, did not like,
, and he offered to change them for any other piece of
Ilk jewellery she pleased
The Hon. llr. Coventry was then examined; he
said he gave the bill in question, along with others,
to the amount of about 10001. to the Defendant, to
procure cash on them to take up ether bilis, and for
other purposes. At the time the bills were drawn, it
was agreed that the Defendant was to have 101. per
cent. for becoming the drawer, and for his trouble
in procuring the money on them. On his cross-exa-
mination by Mr. GA 'NOW, he said that this was not
one of the turf transaaions—it was to pay debts due
by bills. dtc.; honorary debts were generally paid in
hart cash ; the money was advanced about the time
of rile da,e of the bill, and the agreement to pay the
101 per err t. was entered into at the time of making
the bills—he was not in confinement at that time.
Mr. G A R ittJW, in speaking to evidence, anintad-
vetted with Ott severity on the confine of the De-
fendant, who 6y :Lis defence had made his own con-
dna die means of defrauding the Plaintiffs : he en-
larged wit:: great ability tt,ton the melancholy spec-
tacle, as he termed it, %%Lich the Court had been
witness to, in Mr. Coventry, a young man of a most
eoesourable and high family, who, he begged pardon

for the expression, by his extravagance had brought
:airnself to a gaol ; it gave bin great pain to see
a member of such an honourable house in such com-
pany, and he wished it might be a warning to all
young noblemen to avoid the Turf as they would
their utter ruin. lle then continued, that there
were a certain description of vermin who ever watch
that Courts of Law as well as the Pulpit, not for
the purpose of amending their moral, or readying
their conduft, but to find out how they might best
prey upciin the community at large with impunity,
and take in every honest man they should meet
with. He concluded by saying, he had thus 14.
bowed this case, and took up more of the time of the
Court than he would otherwise have been justifiable
in doing, for the purpose of letting the public know
what harpies they had to deal with; andhe trusted the
Jury would think Mr. Coventry had given an in-
correa account of the transaaion, and give his
client a verdia to the full amount. He contended
that he stood for a butte fide holder, who had given
full and valuable consideration for the bill, ar.d to
whom no charge of usury whatever could be at-
tached.
Lord ELLeMIOSOVCH was of opinion, that the
usury committed in the formation of the bill vitiated
it, and that it could not be recovered ; but he re-
commended to the Jury to give their Verslia for
the Plaintiff to the amount of the goods which, at
the time of discounting the bill, he had sold to the
Defendant.
The Jury accordingly gave a verdia for the
Plaintiff—Damages 401.

•
L.W.
COURT of KING', BENS:! f, WlaTbli:•4l ts. Dec. 1.
Sittings at Nisi Prtri, hitiore Lord ELLSSCOROCGII.
DEFAMATION.
1055% r.
• This was an aainit brought to recover damages
for certain slanderous words spoken by the Defend.
ant, to the prejudice of the Plaintiff's ehar.s&'r.
It appeared, from the statement of Mt. Gas ROW,
and the evidence of the witnesses, that the Plaintiff
was a shop-keeper and porter, living in Off-Alley,
Rockingham-street, A cirlphi. The Defendant was
.110imney-sweeper : and, on one or two occasions, at
die neighbouring public-house, where they had fie-
fluently made merry together, when el tied with
gin, some words arose, and much mutual abuse,
and the Defendant called the Plaintiff a thief, and
said, " You stole a crate of China from Mr. Piper's
shop in St. Martin's-lane."
Mr. Easeitse, in a very pleasant, humourous,
and ingenious speech, rallied his friend (Mr. GA s-
sow ) upon his gravity in stating the Plain'itt's case
• as one of so much aggravation, that nothing but
large damages could make sufficient reparation for
He abeirred, that it certainly was a heinous offence
• in sehimney-sweep, to bLicken the Plaintiff's
cha-
raQsv. He commented with much force on the dis-
tress and ruin that would eventually be entailed on
the loiter orders of society, if aaions of this nature
were tolerated in the Supreme Court, from the
great and heavy etpence attending them. lie had
• a nember of witnesses, who could prove that the
charge of thief had been bandied about by each of
the parties. He should not, however, consume
the time of the Court, by any counter-evidence to
a trumpery anion.
iitte Jury found a verdia for the Plaintiff—Da-
sups 40s-
ACCATTI.T