The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTFLUGE.VCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wiesvunrstrea,
Fat DAY, JAN. 28.
PERJURY.
THE 11110 r. TIMOTHY reverse. .
This was an indictment against the defendant for perjury,
tried before the Lord Chief Justice and aSpecial Joey, at the sit-
tings in last Trinity Term. The defendant was a dryealier at
'Bristol, and also a partner in a banking house there, under the firm
of Powell, Mitchell, and CO.
The circumstances out of which the perjury arose were them:—
Some time previous to the year 1807, Messrs. Powell and Co, en.
tried into the Spanish wool business, but not wishing t's mmear
prominent in that line, being the proprietors of a banking toneern,
they soon after proposed to Messrs. Jones. Welling:on, and Parke,
English woolstaplers at Dedbridge, in Gloucestershire, to form a
partnership with them as dealers in Spanish wool. The proposal
was accepted, and it was agreed that the business should be done at
Bristol, and that a Mr. Ebsworth, who was a woolstapler in that
city, should be the medium through whom the business on the Net
of Powell and Co. should be carried on. It was also stipulated
that the banking-house of which the defendant was a partner
should advance the money necessary to make the purchases, and
that Messrs. Jones, Wellington, and Parke, were to partake of the
profits. In the month of December, IMO, Powell and Co. were in
the possession of a quantity of Spanish wool, which at that time
was rising rapidly in price, in consequence of the news cf the ex-
cesses of the French army in Spain. On the 111th of that month,
Mr. Mitchell desired Ebsworth to write a letter to Jones and Co.
and inform them that lie had effected a sale of 101 bags of Spanish
wool, at a certain price ; but in this letter tha name of the pur-
chaser was concealed ; there being in fact no real purchaser; but
Messrs. Powell and Co., conceiving that a rapid rise would take
place in the price of wool, took it to themselves at a low price,
without however at the time admitting themselves to be the per.
chasers. In the month of February following, Mr. Mitchell ap-
plied again to Mr. Ebsworth to sell some more wool for them *lto,
by his directions, wrote to a tlr. ( tsborne Yates, and informed him
that Messrs. Powell and Co. had just sold a large quantity of wool
to a person Who was about to take it to London, and that if he
(Yates) was in rant of any he must come to Bristol immediately.
Upon this Mr. Yates and his son came to Bristol, and saw Mr.
Ebsworth ; he inquired the price of the wool, and Ebsworth, as
instructed by Mitchell, told him that Sew a pound was the lowest,
as there were purchasers in the market. Mt-Nate.; at first considered
the price too high, but lie soon after determined to make a
purchase, and accordingly returned and ordered 178 bags at
that price. At that time there were not in the possession of
Powell and Co. more than 124 bags, and Mr. Mitchell directed
Ellsworth to go and purchase 109 bags of a perfon by the name of
l'aughad. Ile went and purchased that quantity of wool, at 21w
per pound, and out of that lot he gave 3lr. Yates 64 bags to make
up the 118 beer. In the month,. of March. April, and May,
Spanish wool fell considerably in prier; and, when the bine given
by 31r. Yates in payment of the wool became dee, that gentleman
discovered on the back of them the name of Ebsworth only, and not
of any person for whom Ebsworth was suppmed to have sold the
wool to him. Front this circumstance Mr. Yates began to suspect
that a fraud had been practised upon lifm. Ile therefore wtnt to
Bristol, and saw Mr. Ebsworth, and ir.quired of him who were the
owners of the wool he had purchased, as he wished to have some
conversation with then). Ebsworth did not then tell him, but went
and informed 3lr. 31i.chell what Yates had said. Mitchell directed
hint to tell Yates that the owner of the wool was a Mr. Wellington,
of London. This Ebsworth immediately did. Yates then desired
him to write to Wellington to come to Ids house. Wellington and
Ebsworth accordingly came, arid a proposition was male and
agreed upon for rescinding the bargain, upon Mr. Yates paying
I them ti 00!. to do so, which he did. But, previous to this, Yates
had commenced an action against Powell and Mitchell, to whose
hands ne had traceil the cash paid by him in honouring his bills for
the wool, and with shorn he spoke previously to his purchasing
the 'cid of Ebsworth, and the purchase wax partly made under the
advice of Mr. Mitchell, whom Mr. Yates at that time thought was
his friend, although he (Mitchell) disguised the fact of his firm
being the owners of the wool. This action, brought by Yates, was
never prosecuted. the defendants having compromised it by paying
him a sum of 6.1001. After the death of Mitchell, in the year
181!, Messrs. Jones, Wellingtons and Co. the present prosecutors,
not being satisfied with the accounts rendered by the defendant,
filed a bill in the High Court of Chancery against hint and his to-
partners, to compel them to give an account of the sales, profits,
&c. of the Spanish wool trade during the partnership and in that
bill interrogations were put as to whether the defendant and his co-
partners had not, in December, 1808, made a fictitious sale of 101
bags of wool, and that whether, in 1808, the defendant and his cc-
partners did not receive a sum exceeding COOL for rescinding a bar-
gain made by ahem with a person named Osborne Yates, for the
sale of a quantity of Spanish wool ; and for which sum no accounts
had ever been rendered to the The defendant, in his
answers, denied these facts, and that the sale of the 101 base was
not a fictitious sale, but the same had been bought by them at the
valuation of Mr. Ebsworth, with the consent of all parties. Upon
these denials perjury was assigned. The facts thus stated were
proved by Ebsworth and his wife, Mr. Osborne Yates and his son,
anti also by Mr. Wellington, of the firm of Jones, Wellington,
and Co. The defence was not that the answer of the defendant was I
true, but that the falsehood arose from mistake, and that the busi-
ness having been principally conducted by Mr. Mitchell, the de-
fendant's partner, he (the defendant) knew little more of the trans.
action than what that penal communicated to hitn. The Jury
found the defendant guilty.
The ATTORNMY-GENERAL last term obtained a rule calling
on the prosecutors to show cause why a new trial should not be
granted.
Mr. Sea LTTT having this day shown cause against the rule,
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE read his notes of the trial.
Several affidavits from the parties interested and others, were then
put in sad rend; after which,
Mr. SCAHLETT, at considerable length, argued against the
rule being made absolute, and contended that from the facts proved
in evidence, at the trial, and from certain letters written by 61r.
I:bsworth to Jones. 'Wellington, and Company, which hail been
I found since the trial, and row produced, all seising to corroborate.
the testimony of that !moon, it was impossible that the defendant
should be ignorant of the truth of the circumstances related in the
bill in Chancery, which had been so directly denied by him. lie
(Ale. Seatlett) anticipated that the Attorney-General would say,
even supposing the matters stated in the defendant's answer were
false, yet they were immaterial, inasmuch as the whole suit being
as to an account between partners, and the defendant being now
willing to be charged with whatever mfr., the plaintiffs in the suit
should allege against him, they could not be damnified by his false
swearing, and that thereff re the answer did not form a ground for
• pmsecation for perjury. But he (Mr. Sesrlett) dissented alto-
gether from that pmposition, for it was impossible to say that the
matters inquired after in the bill were immaterial ; and not being
immaterial. it was necessary for the defendant to represent them
truly, in order to govern the decision of the Loral Chancellor, the
result of which could not be known, roe how it might operate;
and therefore it was not raw in the power of the defendant to do
away the effects of his false swearing, by merely offering to take
neon himself the liability of those dealings which Fe then denied
all knowledge of. Ile therefore submitted that, for the reasons ht
bad urged. the verdict should not be distubel, and that a new trial
(melt not to be granted.
Ir. Merryatt was to hare followed 81r.Searlett on the same side,
but the Court postponed the further hearing of the ease to a future
day.
05000 AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES Or EINNING) 1..
This was an action of troves., tried at the lest sittings at Guild-
hall, London. before Mr. Justice Littledale and a Special Jury, to
recover of the defendant a certain number of hales of silk, which
were alleged to hare been the property of the bankrupt, and deli-
vered by hlin to the defendant on the eve and in contemplation of
his bankruptcy, and as a preference which was fraudulent as
against his other creditors. It was proved on the trial, that about
• week before Kenning left England, and, which constituted his
act of bankruptcy. he had in his possession thirteen bales of silk;
that on the following day his porter missed those bales, they haying
been, late on the preceding evening, removed from the bankrupt's
premises. The defendant being known to have had some extensive
dealings with the bankrupt, who was a nephew of the defendant's
wife, at was considered advisable to inquire of him as to throne
bales, and also as to other bales that had been traced to him. The
clerk of the attorney to plaintiffs accordingly called on the defend-
ant, awl demanded some East India warrants, entitling the banks

_

rupt to claim, at the East India Company's warehouse, sitteen
bales of silk ; he den demanded diorteen other bales, and tt: a
thirteen hales already mentionnd. The bankrupt said, that, as
the warrants, he had paid the prompt money on them, in order
prevent the silk being linfeital, and he should therefore not give
them up ; that the foortnen bale were his by purchase, and so als
were the thirteen other hales. The defendant, on the trial, sue-
ceeded in allowing his ken on the warrants, and also his bona psi
Purchase of tl+ fourteen bales ; but as to the thirteen other badie.
although he endeavoured to show that they also had been purchased
by him from the bankrupt. in proof of which two bills of parcels
were put in, yet the plaintiffs' Counsel, on inspecting those bills.
anti fending that they related only to the sale of six bales, and oat
to thirteen, and that the dates of the bills of parcels did not corresS
pond with the rime of the delivery of the thirteen hales, enforced
this upon the Jury as conclusive evidence that the bills did not
refer to the bidet which were sought to be recovered • and the Jury
concurring in this slew of the ease, found a verdict for the plaintiff
for the thirteen bales, the value of which was to be ascertailial
by a Mr. Smith, a silk.merchant, and who was one of the Speend
JUT y.
Mr. MARRTATT now applied on the part of the defendant for i
rule, calling on the plaintiffs to show cause why that verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. His ground fat
ro doing was, that although Fe failed at the trial to make it appals
to the Jury that the 13 bales found in the possession of the defend-
ant had been tons fide purchased` by him or Mr. Kenning before hit
bankruptcy, yet he now should he able to adduce evidence of that
being in reality the fact. It was stated at the trial thit t de-
fendant had been examined before the Commissioners, tinder the
commis-sleet awarded against Kenning, and that in that examina.
t ea he fully explained to them the whole of the tmnenctions he had
with the bankrupt, anti pe'rticularly as to these 13 bales. It Be.
pea-ed by his statement, seven of the thirteen bales were ob:
tamed by him from the East India Company's Starehotow, and
that six only of the Wet came from the house of tile bankrupt.
Now, this circumstance he (Mr. Alarrystt)nn the trial, entirely;
' reerlooked, conceiving that the two bills of parcels would have
covered the whole 13 bales. He was led into this error by the soil
dance of the bail:napes porter, who spoke as If tf,ei whole 13 Wet
hid been renitlet from his master's premises OR the night in,ques.
Lion to the holt% of' the defendant. The 'rills of fmrcef• however.
' Including only six bales, the Jury were led to infer that they re.
hoed Inquiet another transaction, and gave their verdict under the;
impression. But ns it now appeared by the affidavit of the defend.:
ant, which he held In his hand, and also by the minutes tif his
examination before the Commissioners, that seven out of the
tiyjf-
teen bales were obtained by him from the warthoin eof the East
India Company, this explained the whale affair, amid actona teal for
the bilis of parcels being for six bales only.
Mr..tustice letrtcrnatdt.tirhen the only purchase trod the
bankrupt was six bales ?
Mr. MARRTATT—Ves, my Lord. But the porter spoke as sit
all the thirteen went to the defendant's house, and therefirfe I cer-
tainly did not direct sty stention to the seven.
Mr. Justice IrtTTLEA ALE--DO you seek !lot. a new trial alto-
gether, wady to reduce the damages ?
Mr. 51 AAAAA seek for a new trial er.;tainly, my Lord.
because die Jury, thinking that these sir bales could not be pars
of the thirteen, gave a verdict for the whole, whereas the seven ob..
rained from the East India warehouse, and the six mentioned
the hills of parcels, will make the thirteen.
The Cover granted a rule to show cause.
IN RE 'TAGIL •
It will be recollected that this individual. *Win a year and
ago, being then a prisoner within the rules of the King's Deno
Prison and enjoying the benefit of the day rules, attempteditn cow.
mit a serious assault on the persoa.of Lord Darnley; whecupon an
oriter was made by the Judges of this Court, that the Marshall of
the King's /tenth should withhold from into the tatmyntent of the
dry rules. On au early day Mr. 3lerrewether applied to the Court
to suspend that order, stating that Mr. linkh was very ill, and chap
he required the benefit of a warm bath. Tie Court. conceiving
that it was as practicable f,;i• him to have a warm bith within the
rules of the prison as viefliout, refused to interpoee, or to suspend
the order.
Mr. MEItREWETHER this day again applied :6 their Lordships
to suspend the order, at least to the end of the Term. He state
that he had an affidavit, in which It was sworn that Mr. Bligh was
in a very had state of health, end that his medical attendants had
recommended the use of the .arm Lath as absolutely necessary foe
him, but that no such path could be haul within the rules of the
prison.
The Loan CRIER JusTlCE—lnottead of taking a day rule
could you not take an order for his being allowed to go to aortal
wann.bath in the custody of a turnkey, sho should see to hie
being brought back within the rules as aoou as he had used the
bath ? • ~ it ,
Mr. MERBEWETIIER said was now one year, and nearly tome
I quarters of another, since the order of their Lordships., which he
now wished to he suspended, had been made, aid he trusted they
would consider that a sufficient experiment upon Mr. Bligh as ta
the peaceable nature of his disposition.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—But he cannot get anybody to be surety
fur him, or he may be out altogether, may he not?
Mr. 31ERREWITUER—I aso not aware. my Lord, that he is
under any circumstances that required sureties.
Mr. GURNEY begged to explain. Ile had exhibited articles of
the peace against 51r. Itligh at the time he was enjoying the day
rules, and their Lordships, instead of blnding him over with
sureties to keep the peace, thought it would be sufficient to deprive
him of the day rules; so that instead of there being any hardship
I h his case, he ans row, by the lenity of their Lordships, taking
the benefit of the rules.

3i

Mr. Al ERNEWETHIR thefturged it upon their Lordships, thk.
is a w.sequence of the long confinement of Mr. he rem*.
rented ;het hi. private affairs wtre becoming much deranged, whicla
made it necessary for him to see and consult with his professional
advisers and others; and he therefore hoped they Lordships would,
is consideration of this, and of his ill state of beakh, grant him it.
benefit of the day rule.
The COVRT said, it 11,1111 neeetwy, even fur Mr. 81;gh's ow=
good, that I.e should be confined within the rules, and that they
could not therefore grant hits anything beyond the order for has
bring permitted to go to the baths, and to visit his professional sd.-
visert, in the custody of an officer, who should conduct him safely
bark as soon as his business was done.

TUT XING v. CARLTON AVM orttrite.
Mr. it t:asELL begged to remind their Lordships of thecae bOr
had mentioned to them the other day, that of Sir George Chetrerntio,
in which he (Mr. Russell) had to argue in support ofa critnima ip
formation against the Br WA Press, for a libeL
The Lotto Ceuta. J rsrit•E—Bring it on what day you plays.
It has been partly heard, has it ?
Mr. RusseLL—Yes, my Lora.
COCItT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wra-ratawitta,
'SWAT, JIM 28.

f

SINCLAIR AND ARbTlitt P. STETT'SSOR.
This was an action tried before the Caller JCST wit, at Weser
minster, at the sittings after lait term.
It appeared on the trial that the plaintiffs were the soignee% of*
bankrupt of the name of Pricier, and the defendant was a dlstißee,
who, in the latter part of 11123, had become desirous of selling •
distillery plant that be had in Wardour-street. The bankrupt
offered to become a purchaser, and the defendant, in nonsequesce
representations made to him eonlm'ning the property posseeted br
the bankrupt, agreed to sell It him for 1.5004 The bankrupt pa 6
3001. down, and the rest was to be paid by instalments, and in case
the bankrupt should not be aide to pay them regularly at the tine A
agreed upon, he was to pay 101. per cent. per annum on the 1,2001.
The bankrupt accordingly took possession of the premises in De-
cember. 1823, and in the following May a commission of bates
ruptcy was issued against trim ; uplift which the deferdant then yes
took possession of the premises, on the ground that the represses.-
tions made to him, touching the bankrupt's responsibility, erre
fraudulent.—The Jury found a verdict foe the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN no* moved for a new trial, On tie
ground that the bankrupt was in insolvent circumstances, and had
committed an act df bankruptcy prior to the /oh of May ; also that
the defendant had been induced to enter into the agreemen! on false .-
and fraudulent representations. He contended, on the anthority ef
" Spurrier v. Mayan." in Ist Veser, jun. page 527, and of
" Floycr r. Edward." in Cowper. page 113, that the e
for paying 10 per cent. on the Instalmeats which might be a armee
was not usurious.
The trovax distinguished thit case from those cited by the
Learned Sergeant, inasnitteh as those went case* of letting, as*.
this was a complete sale ; and the 10 pee cent. here bargained fat
wan clearly for forbearing the payment.
Rule refuses!.
PARROTT ANTI AROTLIER a'. COLLINS.
This was an action for a malicieus arrest, tried berme Geneve
Justice at Guildhall, when the Jury found a verdict tor the plain-
cfra,_eistnages, 341. The plaintiffs being assignees of a bankrupt,
named esswell, had employed the defendant, a solicitor, to to hue
the bitsiness. His bill of costs amounted to 1001., but was rrdueedi
by taxation in fel., and for that sum he caused the plaintiff, Col.
lint to be arrested, altbaugh the plaintiff had a setoff against bell
of Mt
11r. Sergeant VAPOTIAN, on the rill of the defendant, row
plied for arule to s',na cause, why • new trial should not be hal,
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, there not heist
a psi-glee of Neat to show the •xis!ence of malice ; indeed, tile
Co unity might be i-ferred from the cessideeste behaviour of the
Sheriff's officers to the plaintif, acing under ten defendant's apes
cial directicns.

The COURT were, however, of opinion, that the want of prob.
Lle cause for the arrest was sufficient evidence of makes.
Mule refused.

The Court of As .1 at Paris have condemned to five
years' solitary imi•risonnient, and to wear the iron collar,
a man named Bidal, a labourer, convicted. by the declara-
tion of the Jury, of violence towards his father. The
unhappy fattier had endeavoured to extenuate his soia'‘
fault by denying that he had struck him. He was present
at the time of the decree, and was moat sensibly touched
by the infamous condemnation pronounc.ll against Aida/.
he advanced to the fcot of the Judgment-seat, and said,
bursting into tears, as if a part of the punishment were to
fall on himself—" Ah ! Gentlemen, spare 11l at least the ex-
posure." This scene greatly affected the hearers..--Jearnel
des Debut:.
We are requested to state, that the child found in Gray's
Inn on Sunday evening, was not taken to the parish
workhouse. The Society of Gray's Inn is protriaing fair
the chill