The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-05-16 00:00:00

LAY INTIILLIOINCE.

6.•••••••••11
CletT Of EING'S BENCH. Vigsvmmirvi,MA, I)
Swigs' at Nisi Priut. Wore Lard Chief Justice
ELLSIMILUGH.

svelte ttttt •
This was an aaion upon a tailor's bill for Ist. gs
the Plaintiff having proved the delivery of the
rood% to the Defendant, and his sons,
Marshall and
ithan, the defence set up was. that the
and ea
fenndant, who was a chemist and di uggiit,
vvender of quack medicines, and alio being one of
fu.,; people called Qiukers. had obje&ed to paying
the slim of 51. odd, for one of his n
th he having
turned to the pomps anal vanities of is wicked
s:rld, and deserted the ways which his father
him to walk in. These two young men had
bcot, dtiring their younger days, reared and dreised
fashion of Qoakers ; and he had paid the ex-
of their clothing ; but, on coming to years
;.t ine.nrity, they thought proper to get rid of those
s, their opinions altered, and the.? pi eferred
dress, according to the fashion of the day, to
e nove simple and less expensive dress of their
I ~mer nt ofessioni Besides this, the one was of age,
I the other not far from it, and they had engaged
.1 business totally independent of their father.
3p;leat however, that the clothes charged by
!he Pia•o•Aff were furnished while the young meu
yse:ne residing with their father, the Jury found a
eedta of 191. 6i. for the Plaintiff.

LLOYD e. L ANL.
Walt lAti atlicni of mom brought by the Plain-
, • respetiable bookseller in it ly-street, Cavern
ciaiti-,quare, agaiest the DefendH aut.e who wns sur.
y on u. that neighbourhood, to recover A f.)is
sue lined by the Defendant detaining an admiasio
t cket belonging to Drury-lane rile:rare. 'C. e
Plaintiff, among other persons, Was the proptiet r
Of several silver tickets iif admission to cue cheats es
and Opera, whit's he let our far the night to those
who called for them, at a certain price. The De-
fendant had hired a ticket for Drury-lane Theatre.,
lust at the commencement of the season, and the
ticket was detained, as was the usual custom, in
older to summits whether it was genuine, and to
pat a private mark upon it, that it might be known
to the dour-keepers as a free-ti7ket for the
mason. Some tune after, on the 26th of
Novanber.. the Defendant had two tickets for
Diury.lane Theatre, tor which he paid the usual de-
psi: of 11. These tickets were marked C.O and No
9'. The Defendant returned the ticket C.C. , bat
it was not discovered that No. 91 w n: vetre-
tuned, ontil some time after, when the DeiVoclatit
sp;:itesi (or an Opera Ticket. whell. neon inv,stiga-
Vol, they found that the ticket Ni.. 91 had been out
Or 53 dos from the time the Defendant teceived
j,, llP'to that period I'he ACtion WAS therefore
broitght to recover the amount of the price, at
:le rate of 4s. 41 • per night, and the value of the
t ekct itself which was a 11. 6s.
The Defence set up wasbo ,ut
that when the Defendant
went to the Theatre, the ticker, No. 91. was stopped
by the door-keeper, and the next mornit:g the De-
fendant sent to the Plaintiff to net
him of it.
1: appeared, however, that from the uprri
vr;lici• the tketr were hired. and the time when
the Defendant made use of the ticket, nine days
bad !fleeted. The LLAIMID Jutroc therefore
"4“"Brgirelrt. it all events, the Plaintiff was en-
ti.li d, for ase nine days, and if. from the evidence,
the dui y ate of opinion that the ticket had been
detained dOing the whole of the time, they would
lad tLeir verdiet accordingly.
•l'he Jury. atter a long consultation, found a
eerdifi to the full amount of 71. las.

r
It.
0
•

Ire
for
LI,
ind
Jed

•
111M1 Male P. R•MVi•
Tills was an anion brought to recovet the earn
of tw-nty-five guineas, the value of two paintings
of time portraits of three favourite horses, belong-
ing to the I)efendant•
-The Ploia:tff was a young artist, and had been
inritca to spr.d some •at the Mendota's. a
C.,. ',lonian of property and Erspeaability, residing
ac Fulham i whom he W. 1% employed, among other
things, to paist these pottoits of the Defend.int's
IV Tree, bet had never received any cumpensoti.,n
}or ;,is trouble.
Mr. Wod, a celebrated artist in th's line, open
examination of the pintoes produced in Court,
thought 25 guineas a very reasonable sans to charge

for them.
On the part of the Defendant, Mr. PARKn ob-
served, that if the Plaintiff in thi; cause could suc-
ceed. there must be an end to all hospitality or
courtesy towards persons of this description. The
Defendant's son, between whom and the Plaintiff a
great intimacy had sitbsisted, invited the Plaintiff to
his father's ht use. to assist him in finishing a paint-
fog he was then about. The Defendant received
him, and treated him in the most hospitable man-
ter ; and, in this course of a visa of seven months.
during which time he was used with the utmost
friondship and hospitality, he happened to paint
these too piaures for his amusement. and as a cons-
planeet to Mr. Ramos. He also painted a room
for the Defendant, tar which it wit stipulated he
should receive six guineas, instead of which. the
Driend.int most liberally gave him a tea pound
toe ; and, after living at his house for seven
ny..riths, he now brought this ael ion to recover that
st-tbch it seas cmtended was never &c-red.
Lord Et truabaotion thought, that when a per-
son so received an hospitable invitation to spend a
rnoe,ths at the house of a gentleman. in this
visy, it was a most ungracious return, to bring him
::30 a CAM of Justice for stall hospitality. In the
cmrse of his life he had met repeated instances,
where attists and persons of taste were invited to
yinAlernim's countt y seats, without the slightest idea
o; being paid for their labours. He recolleted the
it.st rove of Madame Mara being at the house of :4
Noble E.trl, whom he should not name, where he
fist' the pleasure of an invitation. and nobody ever
dreamt that she was to be paid for her singing. In
shwr. it was a common custom for Noblemen and
Gentlemen to invite artists, and persons of that de-
act iption, by spend a term at their houses, butt it
was
never supposed they were to be paid for it. A
there was no proof either that the Defendant had at
all emploed the Plaintiff to pa'nt tl.ese cattle, the
Jury cont.! only find a verdift f tithe an
Defend ti
t,
provided they thought he had givn instruaions
about the matter.--Nerdia lot the Defendant.