The National Register.
London, England, 1821-03-11 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

coach office of Mr. Fagg, the defendant. Mr. Fagg,
whose premises are the Bell and Crown, Holborn, is
proprietor of the Poole mail, and has shares in several
other coaches—the booking office at the Bell and Crown
bring exclusively his own ; and the package in question
was addressed, as MalIV others for the same conveyance
had been before it. The rreel was booked, on tile
let of December, at the Bell and Gown; it was di-
rected " per mail;" parcels of a similar description had
been sent monthly fur some time, and had gone by the
Pool mail. It hippened, however, that besides the
Poole mail, there teas a vehicle called " the Southamp-
ton light Mich," w hich started from the Bell and Crown
at half-past four in the afternoon, and which travelled
in the way of Christchurch; and by that coach, front
whatever cause, the defendant thought fit to send the
parcel directed to the plaintith. The parcel was lost—
on the next day, the 2d of December notes to the
amount of 1,0561. were paid by Messrs. Rogers and
Towgood ; the fraud was not discovered until the even-
ing of that day; even then it was impossible to prevent
the circulation of the remaining unpaid notes ; and the
plaintiffs now, iu bringing the action for 1,3651. con
tended that the carrier, having undertaken In carry by
the mail, was guilty of breach of contract when he sent
the progeny by any other and less secure conveyance.
The Lord Chief-Justice told the jury that, unless
they thought that the plaitaillS had been put to addi-
tional hazard by the change of each, the defendant
would be entitled to a verdict. If they thought the risk
imad been increased by that measure, they Would-find a
verdict for the plaintiffs.
The jury after a few minutes consideration, found for
the plaintiff's—Damages 1,0301. the moonlit of the notes
which were proved to have come in.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7.
JOS LS, V. LEWl£l._

This action was brought by Mr. Jones against Mr.
Lewis the elder, by which he sought to recover a con-
siderable sum of money he had applied to the use of the
son of the.dedendant. The money which aniountellto
7881. was expended by Mr. Jouea in the discharge of
certain annuities and claims upon reversionary interest
which Mr. Lewis, jun. had in au estate. Mr. Jones
also had a reversionary interest in the same property,—
The sum claimed was not precisely a debt, but the
defendant was said to be liable to pay the demand by
virtue of an engagement, which, it was allr6ed, he
entered Into for the 'benefit of his son.

Mr. Mainline, solicitor for the plaintiff, was called
as a witness. He mated that he was applied to by Lewis
the younger and Jones, for the purpose of accomplish-
ing the business. The object was to pay the cmili ICUS of
Mr. Lewis, jun. ten shillings in the pound by the sale
of his reversion. In order to make a good title, it was
necessary to clear away a number of claims. he de-
fendant came to town,-and having consented ►o the
statement in a paper produced by Mr. Visitor, his own
attorney, he said to Jones, " Yuu pay the expenses out
of the purchase money of the reversion, and I will
repay you." The amount of the debts was known at
►hat time, but not the amount of the expellees. There
was an excess paid upon the expellees equal to the sum
the plaintiff tought to recover.
Mr. Scarlet,, fur the defendant contended, that Mr.
Lewis had never made hinifelf answerable for more
than 632'1. which he had discharged by paying 7001.
• Mr. Vapor been called, stated, that in 1818, he was
attorney for Mr. Lewis, the defendant. He was em-
ployed to settle the chairs of that •gentleinan's son. Mr.
Junes and Mr. Lass jun. required him to make out a
satisfactory paper of the charges attending the sale of
reversion. tie accordingly made out the paper. The
share of young Lewis was not enough to discharge the
ennui ies and make a clear title. Is was consequently
prolKned to Mr. Lewis, senior, to advance money for
the purpose. A meeting took place at Munday's cof-
fee-house for the purpose. The parties were all present.
Mr. Lewis was told the sale could not be made good,
unless he advanced tiuel. to pay off the annnities. Ile
at first expressed his dissatisfaction at being called on to
pay so large a sntu, but finally agreed to pay it.
Mr. Denman, after the above evidence, admitted that
ne could not 'mover the whole sum of 7881. but con-
tended that the plaintiff upon the face of the trstisaction
was at least entitled to 2001. more than the defendant
nad paid.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
FRIDAY. MARCH 9.
MEL—. 110136110P1 O. WALTER.
. .

This actiori;hrohgiti4tiveidaltiiii, a newsman
and publisher in Wimpole-street, against the proprietor
of the Times, fo recnver a compensation in damages for
a libel calculated to injure him in his business. The
libel complained of was a paragraph, which appeared in
the Times of the 22d of June last, stating 'bat repeated
complaints had been made of the plaintiff's irregularity
in delivery of the Times, and that they refused to let
him hare papers. It also stated that other newrevenders
would supply the public with the Times mote regularly.
The defendants put in several pleas of justification.—
The most material pita was, that they found themselves
obliged, in the support of the interest of their journal,
to insert the paragraph. The plaintiff, by late and ir-
regular delivery of their papers, had made en impression
nu m) those who receited it unfavourable to the pro-
prietors. They were, tilt:tame, under the uecessil of
explaitiina the calm. of late delivery, and poir Ling out
how it might be avoided.

.1 he Solicitor General, as counsel for the plaintiff,
addressed the July. Ile describtil the circumstances of
the ease to be shortly as fuliow :—.Mr. Ilodoon WaS a
respectable news vendor at the west end of the town.
and from the distance of his connexions from the Timer
ollice,was some time in June last induced in remonstrate
with the publisher of the 7.11/1"4 plper, upon wins.[ he
cow:l6'w an unfair priori:y kil dwrif,i4iion of that jour-
iial—ota cf this muonstialiec solute unpleasant I, ding
arose against Mr. flongson, and the proprietor of the
paper thought proper to insert a roost otleitstve paragraph
in hit journal, not only react:nog on the character of
the plaintiff, but indirectly Ittlsising his customers to

obtain their papers of some other person, as the pro-
prietor of the Times stated he was determined not to
let the plaintiff huve any from his nilice. lle contended
that the motives under which the defeinlanis acted.
gave the plaintiff a claim to considerable damages. The
plaintiff's case was proved, but it did not appear that
any damage was sustained by NM in consequence of
the offensive paragraph.
Mr. ticarlett for the defendant, called several witnesses
in support of the pleas of justification.
Mr. Watkins, pnblisher of the Times, proved that the
plaintiff's servant came frequently for the papers, when
he knew he could not receive them. Ile would then go
away and come again late. an that he could not deliver
them in proper time. Ile generally conducted himself
in a disorderly manner.
The clerk to Mr. Booth, keeper of a circulating.
library iii Duke-street. Manchester-square. proved that
the plaintiff furnished the Timms at a very late hour. It
was on the occasion of the publication of the Queen's
letter. Upon cross .examination, it appeared that the
Timesoffice, on that day, did not publish until a late
hoar.

Mr. 13ooth confirmed the testimony, and added, that
after the Times refused to let Hodgson have papers, he
had received them sooner.

The Solicitor-General made a very brilliant reply.
The Chief Justice summed up, and the jury, after a
little consideration, gave a verdict fur the plaintiff 501.
damages, and 40s. costs.

COURT OF CHANCERY, THURSDAY, MARCH 8.
TEAR DIRECTORS OF TII6 N ATIONAL UNION FIRE SOCIETY

V. TIJOS. BIGNOLD ililt.

Mr. Wetherell stated that the Court had formerly
granted an injunction to restrain the defendant front
receiving any money on account, or interfering in any
way with the affairs, of the National Union Fire Society.
lie now moved that the injunction should be dissolved,
on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction in this
case. The defendant had filed an affidavit, in which he
stated that he was the principal founder of the National
Union Society, which had obtained a large share of
public confidence. The defendant was appointed Secre-
tary of the Society, and was to manage the whole of its
affairs, as the other directors were wholly ignorant of
the principleVttsuratice. The society went on pros.
perously fo Bate under the auipicea of M r Bignold,
until some 'slimes arose between that gentleman and
the directors, consequence of which the latter took
possession of the books and papers belonging to the
society, and carried them to the house of one of the
plaintiffs, Mr. Driver. The directors, who are the
plaintiffs, then applied to the court for the iojune-
tionwhieli had been granted against the defendant.—
The alleged grounds on which they made their
application were, that the defendant had destroyed
certain receipts belonging to the society. The
learned counsel denied that their allegation, or miscon-
duct on the part of the defendant were true ; but, allow.
ing them to he true, the plaintith had no right to bring
them tinder the consideration of the Court. According
to the deed by which the society was established, the
directors were empowered to correct any misconduct OR
the p;•rt of their officers. If the directors found that
the defendant had been guilty of any misconduct, they
might have framed some by-laws to remedy it : if they
thoneirt that the defendant was in possession of any
balances, due to the society, they ought to nave appointed
an auditor to examine his accounts. After having acted
in this way the plaintiffs, had they found it necessary,
would then have been authorised to come into court to
claim relief. The plaintiffs, however, had assumed,
that where a particular mode of proceeding is prescribed
by the laws of the society they may repudiate it, nod call
upon the court to interfere. If this principle were
adopted, every private dispute which might arise ill
in neckties or this nature would be removed from the
private forum by
.which it ought to be determined, and
referred for decision to this court. The learned grit.
tletnan concluded by praying the Court to dissulve the
injunction.
Mr. Fonblanque, for the plaintiffs, opposed Mr,
Wetherell's application. He contended that the in-
junction was granted on full and sufficient grounds
The Court, when it made the order in this case, was
natilified. that Mr. Bignold had been guilty of acts of biro-
liation by destroying certain receipts belonging to the
society ; that he had omitted to pay duties on insurance
at the Stamp-cake, although he knew that the society
was liable to certain penalties for neglecting to do no,
and that. im fact, he had omitted to do every thing
which he had stipulated to do, and had dune every thing
which lie ought not to have ne.—Judgment deferrea

HYDROPAOBIA.—A report lately made by tin Russian
Councillor of Stale Levaishein states, that an old soldier,
living in a village in the circle of Belewsky, had frequently
cured 1114:11 and brutes who had been bitten by mad dogs.
He reduced into powder the IVaser Maintain (41/sma
13 lantaga) and having strewed it on a alive of bread mid
butter, gave it to the patients to eat. The Coutleilloe
observes, '• I cave little credit to it, until accident fur.
niched me with a proof' of its efficacy. One of my bro.
theta lionntis went wad and hit the hunt wan; the
ordinary operation was performed, to prevent the ;quell+
;pities' of the virus, and the wound healed; but in a new
weeks all the symptoms of hydrophobia appeared. The
huntsman was taken to the old soldier, who administered
o doses of his remedy, one in the evening, the other in
the non Mil, and then said this man might be unbound+
and tukeu home without danger. Thu Longman wine+
rienced great weakness, but bad no fits either of delirium
or hydrophobia. In a few days he Num/ himself perfectly
cured, and he has row lived 18 years without leaving any
I elapse:L-41w Water Plantain growl in worst's-6 ; the
root test whim au onion, with thick fibres. It reniaihs
miller water till the latter end of May, or tile beginning
of June; it dowers all the summer, anJ may he gathered
at any time; but the best is at the end et' August. the
roots are well washed and cleansed, and deed in the
shade; when diy, it is pulverized and athuilaitered as
alum.

II

SURREY RESSIONS.
MONDAY, MARCH 5.
es,
RFCEIVING STOLIIN 00005.
James Pinslard was tudiesed for feloniously rereiv big
ernue weariug apparel, and a conside:rable quantity of
household property belmegiug to Mr. R. Ramsdell, a
tradesman residing at Norwood. Elizabeth Pindard,
the wife of the prisoner, had been convicted on Saturday
of having stuleu the property in question from the house
of the prosecutor, where site had livedfor a considerable.
time, sometimes as a weekly servant, and sometimes as a
chair-women. Property had been continually. missed
(luring her services there, and at length suspicion felt
upon her, and stolen property to an jultbunt that sur-
prised the prosecutor, was found in her possessiou. The
offence had been committed under circumstances of a
very aggrov.sted nature, and the court sentenced her to
be transported seven yeas. It was fur receiving the
property so stolen knowingly, that the husband was
How trued.
Hanituand, a constable, produced a variety of pro-
petty which lie had found.
Mrs. Itainsien, the wilco( the prosecutor, identified a
considerable portion of the property found upon the pri-
gutter, part of which she proved to have been stolen, and
part of it had been takenaway by souse ruhbers who
broke into the house.
Mr. Tinton, the counsel for the prisoner, contended,
that there was notels of the property for which the pri-
soner was now indicted fur having feloniously received,
knowing it to have been stolen, which had not been
identified at the trial of the principal ; he had, therefore,
he contended,'a right to prove that the evidence in that
case did nut warrant the general verdict which had beets
given of guilty.
The court asked the counsel what evidence he' had to
prove his statement ?
Mr. Teuton said, that as he must have the best evidence
that the nature m the case would Admit, he should pos•
pose to examine the worthy chairman himself, and cell
upon hint to produce his notes of the trial.
The cbairman said, that he had very little recollection
of the evidence distinct from his notes; but he had
never heard berme of a Judge being called upon to be
examined before himself.
The bench consoltecl upon the application, bids it
appeared they did not think ought w be acceded to;
but some persons present having stated that the
learned counsel was misinformed upon the fact, and that
the property in question had been identified, he did not
press his application.
The 'wheeler and his wire were also convicted upon
a second indictment for roboine the house of lie. Hol-
loway, a person in the saute neighbourhood.
The Chairman, in passing sentence, observed that he
had never seen an instance of persons escaping detection
during so lotra continued a course of crime. lie then
proceeded to sentence the husband, James Pindard, for
receiving the goods !video by his wife, to 14 years' trans-
portation, and for stealing the goods of Mr. Holloway
the two priumers were sentenced to be transported for
seven years each, to continence at the expiration of their
former sentences.
A young lad, named Wm. Paynter, was indicted for
having feloiliously embezzled sevenpence, the property
of Mr. A. Satter, of Peckham.
The Chairman said, that there could be no doubt but
that the phonier had beet ettilty of continued depreda-
tions on the property of his employer; and, under the
very aggravated circumstance of the case, he sentenced
the prisoner in be transported for seven years.
CIRCULATION ON RAD MONINY.
The following prisoners were prosecuted at the in-
stance of the Mint
John Becket, a young man, was indicted for having
uttered a couuterlett half crown, at the shop of Mrs.
Iludscn, at Camberwell, on the 19th of February.
It appeared that the proseetarix keeps a baker's shop
in Camberwell. The prisoner lied often been a cus-
tomer foe tteopenny loaves, biscuits, See. which be had
Laid for generally with half-crowns. On ruinous one
of them the copper made its appearance, and on a *tas-
sel:rent occasion his tunics was examined more scru-
pulously, when another ba'l half-crown was detected.
On his being taken into custody he behaved with the
greatest impertinotiee—said he suppesed she meant give
him a ride to Ringston, which he enould like very well,
as a few months regular living, and the change of air,
would benefit his health. It appeared that the prisoner
had dealt wish other bakers in the iseighleturlotod in the
same way. Ile was found Guilty on two charges.
The Chairman sentenced the prisonei to be imprison-
ed for six mou Its in the common gaol, and to find su-
ties for his por“) behaviour.
Michael Brady was also convicted of tittering one
hall-crown, and being a determined utterer, he was
sentenced to be imprisoned its the common g.ted fur 12
months.
Diana Whiter was charged with having had in her
possession a quantity of half crowns, with intent to cir-
culate the SAIIIC.
A Police Officer stated, that he saw the prisoner upon
the stroll in Sufrol k-street, and she being au old acgnaiit
lance he took her into costody and searched her, after a
most desperate resistance, when lie found six bad half;
crowns in her pockets, carefhtly wrapped no, that the
brilliancy or their appearance mieht not he injured by
their being Intobied annul its the pocket. Same more
bad motley Was I.ollml concealed at her lodgings.
The jury found the prisoner entity, and the court sen-
tenced her to be imprison:Al for twelve months, and find
sureties to be or gruel behavinur.
The neighbourhood o' Camberwell, Nt witigion, and
Kennington has recently been inundated with kid
money. The prisoners loaned part of a coositieraele
sang of utterers, who had seated themselves ill 111:il
neighbourhood.
A girl about 17 years of age was tried for striking an
old lady who had been rather censorious. The deent-
dant gave as a reason for essanltiog the old lady, that
she had heard that the prtbecutri4 intended: to swear