The National Register.
London, England, 1822-02-17 00:00:00

W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S KENO!.
THURSDAY, FEB. 14.
OWEN V. Vl.llTli

Mr. Marryatt stated, that this was an action of trovcr,
to recover a gig and harness, under the following circuin-
suttees. The plaintiff had been in the habit of hiring
horses of a person named lltrkins, who was in fact the
teal defendant in this case, and from whom Smith had
an indemnity, After having hired horses for sometime
of 'firkins, the plaintiff was persuaded by him to purchase
a horse and gig of him. The plaiutiff drove down to
Chelttnliam with his new purchase, where he sold the
horse, but sent the chaise and harness Lack to tiuuth
Smith to he taken care of till lie returned to WWII. Soon
acct he did return, and ap -lied for his chaise, when he
was told by Smith that I.Lrkiits had taken it away, saying
it had been improperly obtained f t him. Smith at
the saute time stated, that he had got an indemnity from
Miklos, who would base taken it away by force if he,
Smith, had refused to give it up.
This case was proved on the part of the plaintiff, and
that the chaise was worth 401.
j\lr. Scarlett, for the defendant, stated that the plaintiff
had been known to Mr. 'firkins by the Milne of Hoare,
mid not by that of Owen: toat the chaise and two
horses were obtained by the plaintiff upon all agreement,
that they should not be taken away from Birk ins's stables
till they were paid for, and that bwquently the plaintiff,
in breach of that contract, took them away without pay-
ing for them, lle called winiesses to prove these facts ;
in which, Iniwever, he failed, and it limiter appeared
that for the first horse and chaise the plaintiff had given
a7;ili of exchange.
The Chief Justice said this was sufficient to vest the
property in the horse and chaise in the plaintiff, and the
purchase of the second horse was another contract alto-
gether. Whatever toilth be the complexion of the case
tie .1 try must decide according to the law.
The July found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
421 —costs 403.
TRIDAY, TER. 15.
EMERY V. QUERY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a car-
penter, to recover WA. lent to the defetulant,a shopkeeper.
The defendant alleged that he was not entitled to call on
hint to pay the above suns, because the plaintiff by brutal
violence and improper conduct had compelled his wife to
leave his house, arid seek board, lodging, and necessaries
in the house of the defendant, who supplied her with
necessaries to the amount of 231. and upwards.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had
occasionally been tortured by" the green-eyed monster."
His Wife wrote a letter to a youth named Latham, and
a discovery of the epistle occasioned touch unhappiness.
After repeated misunderstandings he told his wife to go
to the house of her hither. The latter having nu ac-
coninuxlation for her, site went to the house of the de-
fendant, where she remained 14 weeks. During that
time Mr. Gabby supplied her with clothes, necessaries,
and lodging. There was no proof that the woman was
guilty of adultery.
Mr. Nolan, for the plaintiff, contended that there was
no evidence to prove Gubby paid for the clothes said to
lie supplied to the plaintiff's wife. Ile was willing to
admit the defendant wag inuring to a claim for lodging,
but it could not amount to ally tiling like the sum which
the plaintiff sought to recover.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the Jury had to decide
whether the defendant had a fair claim for 251. The
law would compel a Mall to pay for necessaries supplied
to his wife. 1 here was no proof of adultery. The
plaintiff expressed jealousy, and thinking his wife be-
haved improperly, compelled her to quit his house. Ile
directed her to go to her l'ather's house, and if site had
gone there the plaintiff must have paid for necessaries.—
It was in !goof that she had no clothes when she went
away, and that she had since been furnished with ap.
parch If the Jury thought the articles supplied worth
251. tlicy ought to hind a verdict for the defendant.
'l'he Jury found a verdict fur the defendant.
COOPER V. wAtTHMAN AND ANOTHER.

This—was an action agatwa the late Sheriffs, for an
escape, permitted by thi..ir officers. The plaintiff, who
is a tradesman, in the nei,4lthouthood of Bond-street,
being desirous of arresting a debtor named Davidson,
who was in a lock-up house in King-street, Soho, a
w a Irma was put into the binds of the officer, but before
it was executed, the party was suffered to escape.
In the course of the trial it appeared ►hat there was a
misnomer its the writ, and the plaintiff was nonsuned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
REECE V. J. LEE, BEN. AND T. E. LEE, JUN.

This was an action brought to recover damages for an
assault alleged to have been committed by the defendants
upon the plaintiff.
Sergeant Iltiflock, Mi. Adolphus, anti Mr. Chitty,
conducted the case for the plaintiff.
Sergeant Vaughan and Sergeant Veil conducted the
defence.

The case slated on the part of the &Ilona', who is a
grocer, residing in the City-ruad, by the evidence of the
witnesses, was, that on the ',ad of September last, he
ordered a blacksmith to fix a scraper by the side of his
door. As the smith was at work, the defendant, Mr.
Lee, who is a confectioner, and livvs at the next door,
came out, and, exclaiming in angry manner that the
scraper encroached upon his premises, otdered the smith
to desist; but the latter worked away, without paying
the slightest attention to the orders git en by the defend-
ant, whose anger was thereby increased to a desperate
pitch. Ile immediately fetched a cooper's acz and
hammered in that pit of the scraper which he conceit-
ed encroached on his premises. The smith, or rather
tinker, ran in to complain of the prejudice done to his
work, when we plainriti ordered him to do it over again,
and gave Ilan an iron crow to protect himself against the
defendant, and ordered him not to lie afraid of return-
ing any blows that might be bestowed upon him. The
tinker set to work again, finished his job, and left the