The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-12-09 00:00:00

HAMBURG!! ANI) ALIGNA PAPIRS.

ALTONA, NOY. O.
Private letters from Paris, received by the way of
Holland, announce th.tt the French troops have
taken possession of the Castle of .St. Angelo. At
Rome. They write from the Attwrian States.' that
the Army of Neutrality, in Gallicia, has received
orders to disband, and that the regiments which com-
pose 4, will return to their old quarters.
Accesses sworn Lemiswg, of the $O-h of October,
.state, Osiris letter from Odessa announces the ar.
tieal,ln that tows, of General Sehasti sni, who con-
*Owed his route for L'Abirdle de iYord
Aires. SO.)

CONITIIIITINOPLE, OCT. 12.
The Grand English Fleet, under the command
of Admiral Colliagwpod, has retired from the
.Archipelagot but a small squadron, artier the or-
ders of Admiral Calidor,,remains ofF t: .e Darda-
nelles, and biodeedes them so, stsißly, that not a
teasel can enter or depart without being taken. It
is said, that the hagfish Minister, Sir A. Paget,
whoa) the Porte refused permission to land at Con-
stantinople, is on board this squadron. 'the Porte,
in making this refusal, decFsred, at the same time,
that it could not avgaciate, but in concert with its
allies. Tne Englisft Miniv.r has, it is said, since
made new proposals to thethand Signior.

•
LAW INTBLLIGENCE.
•—•—•
COURT OF KING'S BENCII, S.
Sittings sit Nisi Prins, Wore Lard ELLisineossottstii.

I.IIIIO4VIONTO V 0 AAAAA D.
This was an aftinn brought by a bricklayer for
the price of work done by him for the Defendant,
who refried to pay on account of the insufficiency
of the work.
It appeared that the Defendant was a wiee.mer-
chant, and being in possession of a house at a place
called Bluegate Fields. near Shadwell. the walls of
which were in a tottering condition, he. in the
month of May, last year, employed the Plaintiff to
take down the front and rebuild it. • The Plaintiff
did so ; but in about a month afterwar 't it was
observed. that the new wall bulged considerably.
On the part of the Plaintiff, however, two brick-
layers and a carpenter were called, and deposed,
that although the wall did bulge a little, yet, that
it was not owing to the insoffii.i,ncy of the r;401-
tiff's work, but that of the carpenter W/o had been
I employed in shoaling up the joists and floor of the
house, and that although bulged, it was sufficient
to stand for 30 years. They had compared the
work with the bill delivered in, and thoug.st the
charges fair and reasonable.
On the paPt of the Defendant, several surveyors
and bricklayers were called, who stated, that the
building was totally insefficient, and likely to prove
dangerously its tumbling down ; that it bulged
more than two inches outwards, at the height of
8 feet, and at the height of 1l feet, 6 inches, it
bulged two inches and a half inwards ; that this was
owing to the wall not being properly tied to the
floor, there being a full inch b.....wecn each of them.
and that it would be impossible to Teethy it other-
ise than by taking thefwhole down and rebuilding it.
The Learned Juno e, in addressir:-, the Jury. ob-
served, that this was an aftinr to t -cover the ex-
pense of work done, which w,.. !o be presumed
meritorious work, otherwise the Plaintiff could have
no claim. The inestien therefore. was, whether
the Plaintiff deterve.l any thirg (or work that had
not proved henefici ato his employer ? Ca•es had
occurred of th:s na.ure, where a Learned Prede-
cessor. Mr, Justice B •Iler, had been inclined to
think that an aetion ought to he brought merely for
negligence in d nag the work ; but he (Lord Filen-
borough). thought that the rotten rule was, that
where the party suing had not done any beneficial
service to the other, he was nut entitled to payment;
but it any degree of service was proved to have
been effeard, he could claim to that extent and no
further ; thus leaving the employer at liberty to
bring his aCtion for negligence if he chose. In
other words, the Plaintiff's claim in the present
case was to be co-extensive with beneficial service
performed. Doss these grounds, if they thought,
from the evidence adduced, that the building was
only fit to be taken down, the Plaintiff would only
be entitled to the expense of the bricks used, which
were proved to have been 1800, at the rate of two
guineas a thousand, which would not even defray
the expense of taking them down. The suet in the
bill claimed, amounted to 2;1. I ls. 3d. against
which there was a set-off for liquor, which the
PI sintiff bad from the Defendant. It had been
alleged by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant had
agreed to ply the whole bill, if the Plaintiff would
consent to take it in liquor, but of this there had
been no positive proof.