The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-06-03 00:00:00

LAW LVTELLIGEA-CE.

COURT OF KINWS BEkCII, Juxe 2.

The hoar. CHIEF JUSTICE sat this day at Afsi Prius. M
Guildhall, and dispneed of several COMMOII Jury and undefended
causes.

*WITMER T.. TAYLOR.
This wan an action on a promissory note, made by the present
defendant in (Firmly of the plaintiff; a ridow lady, as payment of a
composition of sa. in the pound, upon a debt due to her from a
person naed Shaw.
Mr. SCAmRLETT stated the case, and the defence which he anti-
cipated would be made IN his Learned. friend, Mr. Marryat, and
put in the Dote, the hand-writing of which was admitted.
The Loan CIIICY JUSTICE—WeII, Mr. Marryat, what have
you to saw to this ease ?
Mr. MARRYAT—My hoed, I am this moment told that I am
not to defend my client at all. (A laugh.)
Verdict for the plaintiff* for 315/., with interest and costs.

LIDNER r. GROSOIIS.

The iilaintiff in this case was a boarding-school mistress, re-
residing in Stafford-place, Pimlico, turd the present action was
brought to recover the sum of M. ss. for beard and education fur-
fished to the defendant's daughter. The question here was,
whether, inasmuch as another quarter had commenced, when the
child was taken away, plaintiff was not entitled to payment for the
whole quarter.
Mrs. Kidner, the mother of the plaiptar, stated, that in the
summer of IBM the defendant's daughtei came as a boarder to the
plaintiff, Lod was to pay at the rate of 20r. a year for her board;
she continual till the Joh of June, 1823. onto which time the hoard
was paid. She continued until ie 2Sth of that month, when her
' father came and took her away without ant notice, leaving the
plaintiff to expect her back again. Mina' heard no more front
him until the lh:h of August, when his son attic to settle the
-account up to June Sth ; plaintiff then told the young man she
should expect to be paid fur the quarter which bat commenced.
Cross-examined.—There were but two boLtuen ; witness, hat
daughter, and the two boanlers, slept in one room. but it was a
large one ; defendant's child was never put to heat carpets. Plain-
tif was not in the habit of examining small domestic animals
through a microscope I never saw any of the little animals alluded
to in the microscope; .did not keep up a stock of them in her own
head, and when that frock failed go to the heads of her boarders
to replenish it.
Mr. Kidner wsa Called, alio corroborated the statement of the
last witness.
Mrs. Rovinelli lives next door to plaintiff; witnesa's daughter
was under the care of the plaintiff, and witness was in the hjghest
degree satisfied with the plaintiff's care of her child, and of tr.: im-
proverupt which she made under the plaintiff:
The LOAD CHIEF J VSTIOE asked Mr. Gurney if he could re-
sist this.
Mr. tittntrav admitted he could not. The father of the child
had a strong feeling on his mind that he was bound to resist pay-
ment; here it appeared, however, he was mistaken.
Verdict for the plaintiff, Cf. Ss—Costs, 411 s.
JOHNSON r. BURCEiS.
.

This was an action brought by Johnson, the pleintiff, ngainst
the defendant, to recover a compensation for the damage he bad
sustained in conseouence of the negligence of the defendant's ser-
vant, who had driven a horse and cart belonging to defendant
against the home of the plaintiff, by which that animal wails° much
injured that he died. tom the evidence it apmi. rerl, that on the
16th September last the plaintiff was coining along the Mile.end-
vied, tow7rds Londan, when, near Charrington'e brewhouse. he
was run against by the art of the defendant, which was dri‘ ing
furiously towards Bow' on its wrong side the road. The shaft of
the cart came in contact with the off-side of Mr. Johnron's home,
and entered the animal's side several inches, when it tfrolce Nimbi
off. Mr. Johnson was thrown with considerable violence, and much
Burt—the wound in the horse's side was so large that a man might
have introduced his !land into it. The horse died in a few minutes
after the farrier was called in. The value of the horse was esti-
mated by plaintiff's witnesses at between 40/. and At
Mr. Throw:nate, for the defendant, said, he shculd dispute
two points; first, the talueof the horse, and next, the liability of
the defendant. The fact.. of the case were, that Mr. Burgess had
called on business at Mr. Cozens's in Mile-end-road, where hg left
the hone and cart standing at the door, and in his absence the
nephew of Mr. Cotens, a deaf and dumb boy, got into the cart
and drove away, and owing to Ms infirmities and want of skill,
caused the accident. The Leaned Gentleman called the father
of the dumb lad, to prove that the defendant had not entrusted the
cart to the boy, and also a person who stated that the horse was
not worth more than 12/.
The LORD Curer JusvircE said, the question which the
Court had to decide was, lint, Whether the defendant had or bad
nut entrusted the cart to the dumb lad; if he had, thei the boy
was his servant for the time, and he was liablo; if the contrary
was the fact, then defendant was not liable. They would next
have to consider the question of the value of the horse, and decide
both points on the evidence before them.
' The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 301.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2.

Sittings after Term, ivfbre Lord Chkr Justiv: BEST and a
Coalman Jury.

sins r. KINDON.
Mr. Sergeant TADitv stated, that this was an action for defame-
eiein of character. The plaintiff was far several years an officer to
the Sheriff of Middlesex. (In the entry of a new Sheriff to office,
it is usual for the officers to give in sureties (both the old officers
and candidates) about eight weeks before the 29th of September.
The plaintiff gave in his sureties, but was objected to owing to the
defendant, with whom he acted, saying, he was a thief, and had
sobbed him several dross.
In proof of this Mr. Hopkinson, the Under-Skeriff of Middle-
sex, was called. He stated, that it was his duty to take the sure-
ties of officers for the Sheriff, and having one day met with Mt.
Kindon, he said to him, "Crook tells me that Sims, who formerly
lived with you, Is a thief, and has robbed you several times.'
Kindon replied, " What he has told you is very true, and Crook
knows all about it." Mr. Hopkinson gave this as a reason for not
accepting Sims es a Sheriff's officer.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VArOTTP.W.—Crook came to
me and said that Sims was a thief, and had robbed Mr. Kindon ;
it was in consequence of this information being confirmed by Kin-
don that I refused to admit Sims.
Several respectable attorneys proved that they had employed
Sims and Kindon frequently, and had lately declined to employ
Sims in consequence of the slanders current respecting his cha-
racter.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN contended that Sims was not in part-
nership with Mr. Kindon. but had acted only as his assistant, and
as such had not always paid the full money which he received for
arrests and otherwise ; but it was attempted to bolster up his chit.
racter by the evidence of several witnesses; the Under Sheriff of
Middlesex had no right to publish the confidential communication
of Mr. Kindon.
Mr. Hopkinson (interrupting him)—l must correct you there,
Mr. Sergeant Vanghan, it was not *confidential communication—
Mr. Kindon told me I was at perfect liberty to tell Mr. Sims.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN proceeded—At any rate Mr. Kindon
did not speak maliciously ; but he would prove that Sims was in
the habit of embezzling several sums of money, which he received
for allowing persons under arrest further time.
A gentleman was here called, who stated that in ,March
he gave Sims two guineas for allowing a further time from arrest.
Mr. Sergeant TARDY objected to this witness, on the ground
that the plea stated June 1822, and this affair was stated to have
taken place in March. If the defendant relied on antecedent facts
for justification, they ought to have been entered on the record.
The Cll tEr JUsTict said that the record stated direr: times.
In cross-examination the gentleman said, that in December fol-
lowing he received a letter from Sims, telling hint not to tell Kin-
don of the two guineas, as he anti Kindon had quarrelled.
The Cuter Jt7eT ICI said, that this rase was most disgraceful
to both parties, and a robbery on the public—especially that portion
of the public who were in distress. The plaintiff must be non.
suited. .

Plaintiff nonsuited accordingly.
PARKINS it (Mint:TT.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action to reco-
ver the value of a horse sold to the defendant. It appeared, that
one day Mr. I'arkins taking n ride out to Kensington, called on Mr.
f:obbett, who seemed much delighted pith the horse on which Mr.
Parkins rode, and expressed a wish to purchase it. The horse was
an excellent hunter, and as Mr. Cobbett had a great aversion to
turnpikes, he wanted shone that would carry him over turnpike-
gates, toll-free. It was cenainly very hard for Mr. Cobbett, who
had expressed in ore of his publications the great pleasure he felt
in taking a rural ride into the country—it was certainly very hard
for a gentleman of his rural habits to he annoyed by the ansenti-
mental demar.d of two-pence, for a toll.—No : he would get him-
self a hunter that could carry him front one cod of the kingdom to
I the other, free of all kinds of tolls and turnpikes.—(Datighter.)
Ile purchasedi this horse from Mr. Parkins for 401., and after hav-
ing used him for six months, I.e then returned the horse to the
plaintiff as being of no further service. The horse when returned,
was disabled, broken.knee'd, and in a very bad condition alto-
gether.
After hearing the case, the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff:—
Damages, 401., being the price of the horse.