The National Register.
London, England, 1818-07-05 00:00:00

THE NATIOKAI. REGISTER

that in the event of Itogcrs's failure, a circumidance vet
probable, I preimme the whsle expenses of the four actions
will fall upon you."
Crosu-examined.—Mr. Popkite.: brother came into the office
fur papers during the conversation; the witness had di,.
closed on the saute day what was told hint in confidence.—
Rogers had been a bankrupt sonic years ago ; the witncts
had bonght a lease of him, and paid a small improved rent of
25 guineas to him; but the remainder, 2131.. he paid to oilier
persons. He did not ',now that Popliu's brother had pre-
sented the two bills for Md. on behalf ol Morland.

Gem ge Duke produced the ea US for 16.11. 12s. 3d. under
which the plaintiff had !Well arrested on the 13th of March.
George Wilson. the officer, proved the ception. Rogers
admitted that NO guineas of the debt was for money lent;
but he added that he had been made a bankrupt since.
Mr. Henry Holditch and Mr. Searle proved the various
proceedings with regard' to the s.nunnolises, to the application
to the Court of King's Bench, and to the award of 31r. Reader,
which was proved by Mr. Roe, that gentleman's clerk.
t.arle, on crms.examination, admitted that the arbi.
trator Rogers had stated that lie had been indebted to the
defendant before his bankruptcy., awl that he (Rogers) bought
the stamp for the warrant of attorney. The bill of the wit-
nessamomited to

The plftintes case having closed, Mr. To:,ping, for the
defendant, took an objection to the loan of the action, con-
tending that as the writ on which the plaintiff had been ar-
rested had not been set aside, trevass vi armi,, would not
lie.

Mr. Justice Abbott was decidedly of a contrary opinion.—
The defendant had not !Availed Ule writ as, a justification,
only generally not guilty. It appeared by the avt rid that it
was directed to be set aside. _ _

Mr. T9pping submitted that the defendant had had nothing
to do with the arrest; he hail- inertly put the writ into the
Lund of the officer ; and it had been settled that a plaintiff
was not liable for false impri.omitent, unless he was actually
present at the arrest of the party.
Mr... Justice Abbott.—He is not liable for any irregularity
by the officer, but he is liable for the act of arrest, if it be
illegal.
Mr. Topping then addressed himself to the jury, contending
that all the facts were nut and could not be before tl.em, and
regretting that the arbittatur had not thought tit to give any
direction► whether the present action should be brought. He
agreed that Mr. Kelty's evidence, the chief ground for im-
puting malice, was nut credible .; IN, at all events, that he had
broken the confidence reposed in lain by the deli:infant, to
whuni he came for advice.

Ir..lurtiee A bhott, in summing up, went through the tes-
timony; his Lordship did nut see any reason for refusing cre-
dit to Mr. Kelly, a respectable tradesman ; it did hot appear
that he had violated any confidence ; lie had not sought it—
'only after the defendant had sle,wit him the writ, lie said that
he relied upon him not to mention it again, but no promise
was given. It was much more probable that the defendant
had spoken imprudently. than that the witness had swore
untruly. It appeared, that the plaintiff had been mijostly
confined for seven or eight days, tbouch Mr. Pupkin, with
perfect security to his own claim (if lie ilvd had any), :ight
have released him on the third. Limier these circumstances,
t was peculiarly the province of the jury to assign reasonable
and temperate compensation to the party for the injury by had
received.

The jury consulted fora fcw minutes, and foutid a verdict
fur the plaintiff—Damitees Sl4l.
was admitted on all hands in the course of the proceeding,
that the 18.11. I2s. 3d., deposited in the liand4 of the Sheriff,
had been repaid to the plaintiff, with costs,acculding to the
award of 31r. !Reader.

THUMDAY.

tußanit AND OTHERS V. WILIANs

The plaiMiffs, who reside near Thirsk, in Yorkshire, brought
the present action to recoi er from the defendant, proprietor
of the Glasgow Mail, the sum of :MOl.. being the value of a
parcel intrusted to Miscreants, and for which they had never
accounted. The short facts proved were the following :
The plaintiffs being desirous of sending 2001. to London, ad.
dressed to Messrs. Smith of Bow-lane, went to Messrs. Brit.
to,,aod Co. the bankers at Ripon. Ou making the necessary
deposit, a \I r. Robinson, clerk to Britton and Co., put up in
a parcel 1601. pound in one I/01111d, and 401. in two pound
Bank of England notes. Ile addressed them as directed by
the plaintiffs, and earned them to Mr. Farrar, the post-master
at Ripon, stoting that it was a packet of value, and a equesting
that he would send his boy with it to Borough-bridge, that
it might go by the Glasgow mail, parcels for which were
hooked at the Crown-Om. Farrar agreed to send his buy,
hut refused to be answerable for the safety of the parcel
Rubinson answered, that that was not a matter of
doubt; and the loiy, named sturdy, took it accordingly
to Stott's, the Crow minn at Itorongh-hridge, a here lie
paid 24. for booking' and 2s. lid. for the carnage. The
package an ived in London, but was Ott re stolen by a clerk
of the defendant, at whose lodgings the envelope was limpid.
These particulars were proved by Robinson, Farrar, and
the boy Sturdy, enaction the part of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Scarlett, who was for the defendant, cross-examined
them, as to their knowledge that a notice was posted in the
coach-office at llormighinidge, that the proprietors would
not be responsible for any parcels delivered to their care
above the valued/1 unless insured accordingly. Robinson
admitted that he had heard of the existence of such a 'twice
in general, but not as applied to the Glasgow mail in par.
ticulat. l'ai rar was not acquainted with it ; and Sturdy,
the bus, swore th t. at he had srit none its the office, though it
WJS admitted no all hands that It was pasted against the wal
in large char:whoa. lie hail nese r said that he had seen
such a notice, littt Ito had observed it since the loss of the
parcel in question.
Ale. Searlutt, in his address to the jury, argued, that it wss
to be pees omed that the agents to Ilse plaintitls were sepia hat-
ed wills the existence of the notice. The object Of SCI din;
11.11C11, like this by crotches W4' to AVOW heavy pn• ag,,
whirls was chat steel upon every single note; and if part:• a, iJr
Ilse ..Ake of *dviii 4 a littli
must abide by the ettot,equences.
Mr..lnstice Abbott, in snnunulg np, observed, 11 at the
okicet of these notices li citric is was to tin away Ainr their
colon 11111 l lAN bi;ity ; but they would Milt
Hales% it were shown that the notire hod es•int• home to the
konwledge of the party transmitting. It tar jusy found that
that knowledge existed Mii Ite in 111 Ole
tiffs, which was not contended, or in the agents they hod ems
plOyed to toloc the parcel to the coach otliee, limy would rind
a vi rdirt fur the defendant.
The July deliberated for souse time, and at is si Ut returned
a yes diet fur the plaintiifs,

° JULY 5,

COUWV OF• EXCHEQUER.
7416 ATTORNEY GENT RAL v. COATE.I.

ow

Mr. Deanery stated, that this was a pi Ut,; ;:etion Com•
mcnced at the instance of the Commissioners of Stamps
against the defendant, who it; a minter at Wirkswotlh,iu
Derbyshire, fur the recovery of two penalties of 101. each,
for selling mist:is:Ted Alm:mucks, and of the sum of 41. 10s.
being the amount of stamp duty upon a quantity of A/inatiacks
printed by the defendant upon nustamped paper.
That the Commissioneis of Stamps had great reason to
believe that very extensive hands had been committed upon
the Almanack Duty of late years ; that the present defendant
was suspected of having been concerned in these practices
fur many years past ; and that the offence would be satisfacto-
rily proved by the witnesses whom he should now call.
J. Meahur stated, that he was a shoemaker residing at
Mapleton, in Derbyshire; he went by J. Potter's desire to
Wirksworth, on the 23d of November last, and purchased
three quire of slums, (a cant word for undamped Almanacks',
ofJ. Coates, and paid him Is. 21. per quire; he went again
on the 2d of December, and purchased three quires more ;
and again on the 9th of December, and purchased Ore?
pines more: the Almanack is called " Paddy's Watch ;" hr
delis ered the whole of the Almanucks to J. Potter.
J. Putter, k a Stationer residing at Ashbournc, and an
Agent of the Stationer's Company in London, who are ma-
terially interested i❑ the suppression of this species of fraud)
stated, that the unttamped Alinanacks produced were those
which were delivered to him by the last witness.
The Chief Baron said, that the case was clearly made out,
and the Jury found a verdict for the penalties, and the amount
of duty,

BOARD OF EXCISE, JULY 1.
THE KING V. GRAHAM.

The defendant :s a brewer, residing near Watling-street.—
On the .Ist of May, he was detected by W. Royer, an officer,
using some liquid, for the purpose of giving his beer a high
colour. There was a quantity of the liquid found, and it was•
stated to be burnt sugar mixed with-molasses.
In the deknce it appeared, that he had not long followed'
the trade, as he bad been a brewer only one year He said,
that he was ignorant of being liable to a penalty in conse.
queme of using such liquids. He was convicted under 11,
penalty of 51.