The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

EAURAS v. /.E.4TOX.

This was a bill filed for the purview of compelling the defendant
to accept redemption of a 11110itgaite granted by the olaintirs grat.d.
father in 171X1. upon (Twain lards in the manor of Wickham, as a
security for a sum of 3001. adtanced In him by Mr. I.enton.
Mr. Heald, with whom was Mr. Iliekersieth, appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sugien, and Mr. Illeggisson, for the defendant.
It appeared thst poniession had beau taken under the mortgage in
1780. and an acknowledgment of the mortgage title made by the
deftsalant in the litth November. 1709• TIN application for re-
demption trick lance i t the yar 1819. ten days wiihin the period
when the twenty ;can shored for er:ity of redemption would hate
expired.
rtor 0:1C iltferilant It was corierukel that there had been DO at-
knowkilgtned of the cuorrobe Cite in 1780; or if so, that the

_ t..
~:

PRESS.

present plaintiff was not the party entitled to redeem, inasmuch as
there was not sufficient prior that Anthony Deacon Barran, the
plaintiff', was the legal descendant 1104 heir-at•law of the mort-
gagor. It was further objected, that supposing the right of redentp.
:ion to exist, and that the plaintiff' was the person entitled to exer.
cise it, it did not obtain here, as the defendant must be considered
in the light of a purchaser, without notice for a valuable con-
sideratimi.
The VICS-CHANCELI.OII gave judgment, and expressed his
opinion that the defend:me& was merely a meetgage title, and the
plaintiff' intided to redemption.
Mr. HEALD—I:um Honour will make the usual decree for an
account.
The VICE-Caraticitttox--Vre.
Mr. SVGDEN naked the Court to permit an inquiry into the
sums of money dtperded by his client on the estate during the 40
years be remained in possession.
The Vicx-emartexti.ntt thought the Court too much In the
dark upon that subject to grint the application at present. How-
ever, ht would allow she defendant to present a petition on that
point, to which the plaintiff could scarcely object, when the great
length of time this property had been in Lesson's hands,
and the lucky escape the plaintiff had bye term of ten days were
considered.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WrsTatixaxxx,
MosnAy. Mc. a.

Sittings before the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE and Cernmon Juries.

sowTEIII-16,PRiloa.
This wag an action to recover SW-for work and labour done in re.
pairing a house situated in Weston-place, Battle-bridge.
The defendant is the proprietor or the house in question, the
plaintiff' his sub-lessee. For the plaintiff it war contended, that the
repairs were performed under the direction of the original lessee,
and that titer were nrcearary to make the !inure tenantable ; for the
defendant, it appeared that he had paid 81. into Court, and that,
as to any thing beyond that, it was contended that he was not liable,
inasmuch as he had repeatedly remonstrated with the workmen in
the progress of the repairs, and that in reality these was nu neces-
sity tor them.
The Jury cave a verdict for the.plaintiff, damages 81., in addition
to theta. that had been paid into Court.

OOND v, CL•IiIICE.
This was an actioa to reeoves money lent to the defendant.
31r. SCARLEVT said, that the plaintiff ltd lent 001. to the de.
fendant, tot which he had his written acknowledgment. Two sums
—3Ol. and 2/. 104.--hed been repaid; and the action was brought
to recover tho balance of 171. 10s. The defendant resisted the re.
payment on the ground that he had purchased and sold for the
plaintiff' shares in the Imperial Plate Glass Company, the loss
upon which, he said. covered the balance. The plaintiff, however,
in point of fact, had never. had anything to do with the shares of
this embryo and abortive speculation, nor ever given any autoority
to the defendant to purchase for him.
The written acknowledgment being put in and proved,
11r. 31A RATA?, who was for the defendant, time and said that
hehadno answer to this. •

•
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 171. 10s.
CHADWICK a. BURNING.
The plaintiff is a surgeon and accoucheur, and this action was
brought to recover 91. 7s. for business done in bis professional ea-
pacity.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff, previous to
bringing the action, bad sent in a bill for 31.135. The various
items were attenuated to be proved, hut, in the final result, it was
proved that the whole had been paid except IL 13s.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages IL 135.,
and consequently the plaintiff will have to pay the costs.

'WOOD r. WOOLER.
The plaintiff in tithrution is a printer. carrying on business in
New Church-court, in the Strand t the defendant it Thomas Jona-
than Wooler, the weal-known editor of the Block Dwarf. This
action was brought to recover a sum of 231.. being the balance of
an scrount for work and labour done in printing *eventl number* of
a periodical started in the autumn of last year. called the llf echa-
wits' Chronicle, which, after lingering through a few numbers, was
given up.
Mr. (3uusrEY and • Mr..K ELIA' conducted the plaintiff* can;
Mr. SCAItLETT and Mr. CIIITTI• that of the defendant.
It appeared that' tbe o►igir•.al account was 88(., of which Mr.
Wooler had paid ISt. He resisted the payment of the residue, from
the exorbitance 6f the charges'. The plaintiff, however. enforcing
payment of 'the whole, Mr. Woolsr determined to avail himself of
a defence which he would not have resorted to but for this. The
plaintiff, Mr. Wood, had been in partnership with his aon.in.law,
/11r. Keene, which partnership was subsisting at the time the work
in question was done. This action ought therefore to have been
brought by them jointly. The only question for the Jury was,
whether or not the plaintiff and Mr. Keene were partners. To prove
that they were not, Mr. Huitxt v called
Mr. Keene—l know the plaintiff. I was with him the greater
part of 1824. I was to have entered into partnership with the plain-
tiff, but no psrtranship deed was eves executed.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Mr. Wood is my father.
in.law. He has been in business marry/ears. He has carried on
business In New Church-court two or three years. The premises
have berm fitted up for printing offices at a considerable expense.
I ant liable for it. Sly father, Mr. Wood, has been compounding
with some of my creditors at 10s. in the pound. Sly creditors were
compounded with last summer. A partnership was contemplated,
but no agreement-wail ever drown or signer+. Ido not recollect that
I ever gave instruction to the boak.keeper to keep the books in
such a manner as that no partnership transactions might appear on
the face of them. My father might have given such instructions,
but not to my knowledge. Ido not recollect that 1 have ever pro.
posed to Mr. Woofer that I and my lather would do this business
jototly. I and Mr. Wood had separate offices. (The witness here
admitted that he had seen a bill made out to himself by Mr.
Wooler.) I was in the habit of making out bills fur Mr. Wood
against some parties as if I wan the creditor.
Mr. SCARLET? put ID a variety of letters and papers, tending
to show that Wood and Keene had carried on business in partner.
ship • and, among others, two checks which were payable to Wood
and Keene.

Mr. SeaILETT Isere handed in a paper, purporting to be an
agreement to print for Mr. Woofer a newspaper, called the Nation,
which was signed by 11r. Keene, and in which he contracted to do
this jointly with 3lr. Wood.
Mr..SCARLETT, for the defendant, said, that this was the first
of a series of similar actions which were now pending. Ile said,
that in point of fact Wood and Kane were partners, but wished
to keep this partnership secret. Their transactions were carried on
in this way : Certain pats of their business, such as fitting up their
premises, and in which they would have to be the payers, were
done in the name of Keene, and then, he being insolvent, Wood
compounded with his creditors, paying them so much in the
pound. In other eases, where they were to be the receivers, the
business was done in the name of Wood, and they shared the
spoils between them.
Mr. Kelly, examined by Mr. CHITTY-1 was a clerk in the
printing-office in New Church-court. I was on the establishment
of the Nation ; after this 1 went into the office when the Me-
chanics' Chronicle wu printed there. As I was to be treasurer, I
gave a security, headed " Wood and Keene." They desired me
to keep the books so that no partnership should'appear on the face
of them. I repelled this with indignation. Persons were in the
habit dunning into the office and Inquiring for Wood, or Keene,
or both. Mr. Keene had apartments in the office, and managed the
business.

Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—Wood's name was on the
door.

Mr. Dimon, examined by Mr. ScAn LYTT—I know Wood and
Keene; I was employed in printing the Roman Empire for them.
I always considered them as partners.
[This witches proved a cluck drawn by Dr. Gilchrist, which
was drawn " Payable to Reeve and Wood."]
Mr. &ebbs, examined by Me. CHITTY-1 always considered
Wood and Keene as partner..

Wm. Evans, whu engraved the plates for the Roman Empire,
gave testimony to the same effect.
John Thompson—l am a worker for Mr. Baines. The stereo_
graphic plates for the Roman Empire were prepared at of our
boost. When I went to get the settlement of the account. I wan
always referred to Mr. Keene. The first time I saw Mr. Wood he
said, how could we have the impudence to make out our account
in the names of himself and Keene. Ile said that it must be made
out in the name of Keene, who would pay it if it was 3,0001.
The Loup CHIET JUSTICE told the Jury that it they thought
the walk had been done by Wood, they would find a verdict for the
plaintiff; hut it' they thought it ha .1 hem, done by him in partner-
ship with Keene, or if it had been dune by Keene alone, then they
would find for the defendant.

The Jury immediately returned a •erdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ItloxnAy, Dsc. S.

Middlesex Sitlings after Mlchnelmns Term. lefore Lord Chil
JNstice BEST and Common Juries.

IDCNII V. CLAM AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff; an attorney of dray'r.
Inn, against the defendants, to recover damages for the injury
sustained by hint in consequence of their committing a trespass on
his chambers on Sunday, the let of December, 1822.
Mr. Sergeant WILD; said, that the cause of action had arisen
as long ago es the Hi Dec. 1822, and the action was itself com-
menced immediately after but the plaintiff' had afterwards, in
consideration of the very long intimacy that existed between him
and the 31eura. Clarke, one of whom was one of the defendants,
given up the idea of bringing the cause to trial: nor would the
Jury ever have been n -üblei with it but fur the subsequent con.
duct of the defendant, a:r. Clarke himself. who, in a letter written
by hint to Mr. Hicks, had caked hint a scoundrel for having cont.
menced the action. It wan with a view to vindicate his own cha-
racter, and not for the sake of the damages, therefore, that the suit
was resumed and now brought into Court. The plaintiff was a
respectable attorney, and his chambers were in Dray,' Inn. The
Alessi% Clarke were, and had for many years been, very intimately
acquainted with the plaintiff, sib= they employed in various
actions in which they were concerned either as plaintiffs or defend-
ant,. It happened that 31r. T. Clarke was made a devisee under
tha will of a 31r. Stoddart, the validity of which was disputed, on
the pound of the inasnity of the testator t and prongs were
instuuted to set the will 'aide. One of the actions which arose in
consequence of the will being questioned was that brought by a
Mr. Dew against Mr. Fletcher, a tenant in possession of some of
the premises devised by the will. This per,on being merely the
tenant had no icterest to defend the acti,n. tint Messrs. Clarke,
being desirous diet the arise should be defended, authorised the
plaintiff. as their attorney, to give an undertaking to Mr,
Fltidter's solicitors thu: they sou;d indemnify their dint ft. it

•r

the costa that should be incurred ; and the papers were then
placed in the plaintiff's hands, to conduct the defence to
he termination of the suit. Subsequently, however, Mews.
Clarke wrote a letter, declaring that they would not be answerable
for any colts in that action ; the plaintiff consequently discontinued
the defence, and Fletcher not having any interest in the question,
suffered judgment to be recoveted against him. Upon this 31esars.
Clarke ezpresaed themselves dismantled with the conduct of Mr.
Hicks, and some letters of rather an unfriendly character were
written by them to that gentleman, which in the result induced
him to request llileaarL Choke to appoint some other person as their
professional adviser. An appointment was accordingly made from
Messrs. Clarke to have their papers. which were in the possession
of the plaintiff; delivered up to them, and in the month of Nov.
1822, one of the plaintiff's clerks was ee,ployed (one days in ar-
ranging and making &schedule of the papers, and which were all
given up to Messrs. Clarke except a few, which it was appointed
should be taken on the following day (the filth), but Mr. T. Clarke
did not keep that appointment. Among the papers thus given up
were those In the action against Fletcher. But Mr. Clarke (the
defendant) and Boote (a person in his employ) came to the cham.
ben of the plaintiff on Sunday, the Ist day of December, 1822,
and applied to the plaintiff's clerk, who resided there, fur the re.
matntler of his papers. The clerk said he knew nothing of them,
or if he did he could not take upon himself to deliver them up
without the sanction and authority of his muter, who was not then
at hie chambers. The defendant Clarke said he would not go
away without his papers, and immediately went into the offices
where the papers belonging to the clients of the plaintiff were kept,
and under the pretence of lookirg for his own papers opened a great
number of base', containing the papers of other persons, and
threw the papers all about the office. The clerk remonstrated with
the defendants, and begged them, for his sake, to desist, but the
defendant Mr. Clarke put himself into a great passion, and cisn-
tinned throwing the papers about for some time, after which lie
and the other defendant went away. On the plaintiff learning this
}le naturally felt much hurt, and in his anger commenced the pre.
sent action, but when his feelings began to cool, and having
settled all his accounts with Messrs. Clarke, he gave up the ides
I of pursuing the action, particularly as be and the Messrs. Clarke
had been on terms of the closest friendship for many years. Mr.
T. Clarke. however, afterwiirds wrote a letter, in which lie called
the plaintiff a scoundrel for commencing this a-tion at all, and it
was this circumstance which compelled him, in his own justifica-
tion, to bring the question before a Jury ; hut the plaintiff had
not even now any desire to obtain large damages, and if the de.
fendants would now admit that Mr. Hicks 's conduct was perfectly
correct and proper he would consent to take a verdict for nominal
damages only.
This proposition not being acceded to, the Learned Sergeant
called his witnesses, whose evidence supported the facts stated by
him in his opening speech.
Mr. Sergeant LAVES addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant. He designated the action as one of a most frivolous and
triflingdescription, and the trespass being laid in the declaration
to have been committed on a Sunday, was a piece of arrant affec-
tation ; as, according to the nature of the action it was quite im-
material on what day the trespass were alleged to have been com.
mined. It had been proved that these parties had been living
upon terms not only of ordinary intercourse but of friendship, and
throughout the period of their acquaintance it appeared that the
defendant, Mi. Clarke, had 'tetra In a manner towards Mr Hicks,
that ought to have induced that gentleman to have passed over a
little offence of this description. It was one of the greatest mis-
fortunes that ever happened to Mr. Clarke to have been appointed
a devisee under the will of Mr. Stodilart, for he hail been in-
volved in lawsuits ever since ; after, however, all this litigation
the validity of this will was clearly established.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said his Learned Brother was saying a
great deal more than he RSA justified In doing.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he could not help it. He
wished he could have prevented half that had been sail on both
sides. There seemed to he a rivalry who should waste most time.
Mr. Sergeant LAWES proceeded to comment on the irrelevant
matter that had been introduced into the cause, which was
one that ought never to bare been brought at all. Bet the Jury
would not engraft or incorporate into their consideration anything
that might have taken place between these parties at a time subse-
quent to the trespass; and, he thought the smallest coin of this
realm would be amply sufficient to meet the justice of the case.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, if his Learned Brother had
said two hours ago the sentence with which he had just closed his
address, this case would have been over, and he would have had a
verdict against him for nominal damages only. Therefore, if It is client
should now,have to pay more money he would have to thank himself
because it was distinctly said at the outset, if thedefendants would
admit that 31r. flicks had acted vighly, that was all that would be
asked. His Lordship thou that Mr. Hicks's conduct in thin case
was correct and proper. Blame had been thrown upon him for not
carrying on the defence in the action against Fletcher, but that was
the defendant's fault the having rescinded their own undertaking to
pay the costs of the defence. There was no evidence that a single
paper was left in the plaintiff's custody belonging to Mesas. Clarke,
but if there had beau. was Sunday a proper day to go for them 1
Ilia Lordship agreed with his Learned Brother. that there was a
great deal of mock moderty sometimes displayed boon these
matters ; but still, unless a necessity existed for these papers being
used on the Monday, it was a very indecent and improper thing to
go to an attorney's chambers on a Sunday, at i time when he hoped
all professional inen were at some place of divine worship,to require
documents to be given up. It was for the Jury to say whether it
was not Mr. Chirke's own fault In the first instance that the anion
was brought, and whether Is was notiela own numerous dispute/cm
that had induced its being continued.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Darhages, 291.
FIRTH V. HANNAH AND RETSY.
This was an action of teaser against the defendants to recover
the value of a quantity of leather taken by them from a man named
Galley, in the employ of the plaintiff, who is a boot and shoes
maket, and converted to their own use. Hannan pleaded the
general issue. The other defendant pleaded, In abaternent, that his
name was Betsor and not Betsy.
It appeared that Galley was tenant to Betsor, and on coining
home one evening, with some leather from the plaintiff's, and find-
ing that his wife was not within, he went in search of her. Betsor
putsued him, and gave him into charge of a watchrnah, saying that
he was clandestinely removing his goods to avoid a distress for
rent. They went to Hannan, the constable of the night, who in-
spected the contents of the bag which Galley had with him, and
after hearing Betsm's story, he told Galley lie might gal about his
business, but he detained the bag and the leather. The parties
went before the magistrate the next day, when the constable said
that Betsor had called while he was out, and had got the leather
from his (the constable's) wife. Betsor, who was then called
Betsy, corrected the error, by giving his name Betsor. It was,
however, proved, that on the service of the writ, Betsor compared
it with the original, and did not make any objection at the time of
its being sued in a wrong name.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Nor was he bound to do so. He
saw that lie had a good defence, anti it was the stupidity of the
plaintiff in calling him by the wrong nanie after the defendant had
himself once before corrected him. This defendant, therefore,
must have a verdict. But with regard to the constable, his Lord.
ship thought there was sufficient evidence of a conversion against
him ; for as no charge of felony had been preferred against Galley,
the constable had no right to interfere, much less to detain the,
leather.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff as against Hannan—
Damages 31. 101., the value of the leathei, and a tionsuit uitgaiust
Betur.

JENKINS AND ANOTIII:R V. IMEnTLPII, ESQ.
This was an action brought by Anne and Charlotte Jenkins, to
recover damages from the defendant for the injury they had sus.
tamed in consequence of a false return made by him, as Sheriff for
the county of Hereford, toe wit arteries espies ed nztisf octet, dam
which had been sued out against them.
It appeared by the statement of Mr. Sergeant TADBY that the
two plaintiff's, together with two other" sisters, were seised as te-
nants in common to a cottage and about eight acres of land. &imam
at Credden-hill, about four miles from the city of Hereford. Un.
fortunately for them, within a few yards of these premises resided
a Mr. James, a very opulent solicitor. In consequence of his opu.
tense, he enlarged his house, and was desirous of enlarging his
grounds around it, but which he could not do without getting some
part of the plaintiffs' eight acres of hind. lie accordingly pur.
chased the share clone of the RiPIeTS, who was not a plaintiff to this
action. and then applied to the Court of Chancery lot a decree that
the land should be partitioned. The plaintiffs were, by these pro.
ceedings, put to a great expense, and Mr. James ultimately suc-
ceeded in getting both the plaintiffs into Hereford gaol on the 221 '
of June, 1821, a here Charlotte Jenkins remained till the 20th of
klatch following, and Anne till the 21st of Jdne. 1822. While in
confinement, Mr. James, who was determined to get possession of
their property, set about doing It by instituting proceedings of out.
lawry against them ; one of the :consequences of which was, that
the property of the outlaws was forfeited, sad became vested in
the crown. As a toundicion for these ptoceedings, throe co. oat).
were issued, upon the third of which (being the tansies) the Sliciff.
had returned non Cot interns; or, in plain Englieh, that the par-
ties were not to be found in his bailiwick. This return was made
at the specie' instance and request of the plaintiffs' agent, Mr.
Platt. The usual steps were then taken to an outlawry, and the
two plaintiffs were outlawed ; or, as the law designated it, when I
applied to women, waived. The lend was then taken possession of
by the crown, and a lease of it was immediately obtained from the
Commissioners of Woods anti Forests by Mr. James. But it art.
peered that at the very time the return was made by the Sheriff,
that the parties were net to be found, Charlotte, one of the
plaintiff., was then living at her cottage, keeping a day-school, and
the Sheriff...officer wits was employed on the occasion actually re.
sided within a few yards of her house. Not only so, but the other
plaintiff, Ante, was at that time in the custody of the She-
riff himself, she being, on the return of the writ, which wax in
Michaelmas Term 1821, apriaoner in lleteford gaol, end had been
then appointed the matron of that gaol by the visiting Magistrates.
It was therefore contended that the Sheriff must have known where
these partiedwere. The anion being brought jointly, the Learned
Sergeant did not mean to ask for damages tor the individual suf-
ferings that each of the plaintiffs had separately sustained. They
were in thejnint occupation of the property, and had incurred i
joint expense in the suits brought against them by Mr. James.
That gentleman, it was true, had paid part of those expenses, Mr
when the Court set aside the waiver, or judgment of outlawry, on
motion of the plaintiffs, It made the rule absolute with costs;
but mill those were only the costs baween party and. party,
and not as between attorney and client. lie therefore should ask
the Jury damages file the joint inconvenience the plaintiffs had in-
curred, and for the joint expenses they had been put to.
The necessary proof was then given es to the regularity of
the judgm.nt or waiver.
Jolllarilicy. the keeper of the gaol of lleteford, examined—Miss
A::n J e:Air s came into my euatody the 281 February 1821, and re.