The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-07-05 00:00:00

I OUTFITY AND ANOTHER V. WARD.

This was adtion against the Defendant, as a com-
mon carrier, for the recovery of 41. 2s. 4.1. being
the value of a parcel of hats delivered to him to be
carried to Woodham Ferret, near bfalin.
The Plaintiffs, who were hatters, sent a parcel of
hats to the office of the Defendant t‘s be iurwardt!..l
by his waggon, to a place called Woodlat,J Ferres,
within seven miles of Malden, where die waggon
sets up, and to he there delivered to one Datl;el
Drown; bin the hats never came to the hands of the
said Daniel !imam. Some months after, the Hairs-

tiffs traveller, Mr. Bolsertson, being in that country,
found out that Brown had never received the
goods ; and having applied at the D4endant's
waggon office in Malden, he f ,und they had not
been delivered, but still remained there. By that
timz, Brown had styplwd himself from another
quarter, and did not want the article. The ques-
tion the. was, whether th- c !r• ;-, blutid to de-

liver the goods at the pLt cof • it being some
distance from that wh-re -;..! ,••• • •.•,•,n set up'? But,
upon the cross-examil it;.”l • t traveller, it hav-
ing appeared !hat, soin, to the transac-
tion in questinn, a s;mi!ar ;-- -col had been sent by
the same cliv,:yance th- same place, and was
returned again by the carr.,:r, it was held that he
was only bound to carry as far as Malden,
and was not bound to deliver them at IVociland
Pyres ; the Jury found a \'erdia for the De-
fendant.

RC).11311.T) V. FM;LASD.

This was an elicit" for the use and occupation•of
four rooms belonging to the Plaintiff in Cherrytree-
court, Alder-rate•strect. I: a;peared that the De-
fendant, accompanied by one Mrs. !ones, we:lt to
tare the rooms from the Pi iiatittf, who was a widow
lady ; for %illicit he was t spay at the rate of 2.21.
per annum He and ...tones came to take pos-
session ; and the laver br'oe;ht with her a tea-board,
by the way of doing it I:: a :none form .1 m.,..ner ; it
turned out afterwards, tau the Defendant had
taken the lodgings far one Drury, an engraver,
who, having occupied them about two months,
complained they wene toe aoisv for his purpose, and
offered to give up Cie f,•: • e.si ea, upon payi•.g for
the time he had ; t tender of :Y.. 13s.
was first made by Engl.; i, ::•:d afterwards by
Drury, both of Wili.*:"! were r. ed by die Plaintiff,
who contended she was in to the fall half
year, and that she had le,. .!.e premises to Defendant
and not to Drury ; she, therefore, brought this ac-
tion against the Defendant. On the part of the
Defendant, it was contended that Drury was the ac-
tual occupier, and that the Plaintiff had represented
the situation as being as silent as a church, and that
not a mouse could by heard ; whereas, on the con-
trary, a watch. raker lived sip stairs, whose wheel
and hammer were continually at work, to the great
annoyance cf the Engraver. The question, there-
fore was, whether the Plaintiff could sue the person
who made the contrail, or the occupier ?
Lord ELI EN soanurat said, that the question for
the Jury was, whether the Plaintiff ought to de-
mand payment of her rent from Drury or from the
Defendant ; she conceived she was suing the per-
son who made the contrail, and in all cases where
an Agent does not name his principal, he is bound
himself. --Verdiet for the Plaintiff, Deets Peunds.

DF.FANI

TAILOR U. NIN!CS.

In this case the Plaintiff was a young Attorney.
and the Defendant a Farmer, both residing near
Dunchurch, in Warwictaliire.
Mr. EasoMt stated the case of the Plaintiff, and
expatiated largely upon attael:s made on the cha-
racters of professional men. The words made use
of by the Defendant, in a conversation with his
neighbour Good, and one Mrs. hornbury, were as
follow "He has but little bu,iness, and he is likely
to have less; he is the d—dest rascal that ever
came into a parish, and deserves to be shot through
the head. He has been trying to establish a society
to prosecute felons, for his own purposes ; his the-
raEler is so well known, the neighbours will have
nothing to do with him. He has but few jobs, and
is not very likely to get any more."
Mrs. Thornbury proved the words made use of ;
but, upon her cross-examination. the weinld not say
what had been the previous conversation, nor an-
swer any question that was put to het. She was
the only witness examined.
Neighbour Good was in Court, but was not called.

Lord Es trig 110110U011 observed, the words made
use of were words of abuse and obloquy, not of spe-
cific defamation. It WAS rather an odd circum-
stance that Good, who was present at the conversa-
tion, and then in Court, was not tiled ; and there
was much reason to think, if the whole of the evi-
dence had been disclosed, it would have been less
in favour of the PlAtintif.—Verdia for Plaintiff,
Os- Stahl:.