The National Register.
London, England, 1822-02-18 00:00:00

_
ISA

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.
TBUNSDAY, FEB. U.
OWEN O. SMITH.

1 Ir. Marryatt stated, that this was an action of trover,
to recover a gig a lin harness, under the lollowinxcirconr
stances. Tile plaintiffthail beets in the habit of hiring
horses of a person named atkitts, Will) was in fact the
real derendsitt in this case. and from whom Stuitit had
au istileinititv, Atter having hired horses fur sometime
of Hirkins, the plaintiff was persuaded by him to purchase
a horse and gig of him. The plaintiff drove &twit to
Cheltenham with his new purchase, where he sold the
horse. but sent the chaise and harness back to Smith
to be taken care of till lie returned to town. SO4III
:c ter he dill reltint, and ap for his chaise. when he
was told by Smith that B:rkins had taken it away.saying
it had been improperly obtained from him. Smith at
the Sallie time stated, that he had got an iiitleentsity front
Litrkiits, who would hate taken it away by force if lie,
Smith, had refused to gave it up.
This case was proved uti the part of the plaintiff, and
that the chaise was worth 401. . . .

M r. Searlen, fur the defendant, {WA that the plaintiff
had been known to Mr. Birk ins by the name of Hoare,
and nut by that of Owen: that the chaise and two
horses were obtained by the plaintiff nixie) an agreement,
that they should not be fake' awayl Birktin's stables
nil they were paid for, and that subsequently the plaintiff,
in breach. of that contract, took them away without pay-
ing Mr them, He called witnesses to prove these facts ;
in which, however, he failed, and it Mrther appeared
that fur the first hone and chaise the plaintiff had given
a bill of exchange.
The Cute( Justice said this was stiflicient to vest the
praperty in the hone and chaise in the plaintiff, and the
purchase oldie second horse was another contract alto-
I her. IVhatever 'high be the complexion of the case
the Jury intim decide according to toe law.
The Jmy found a t erdiet no the plaintiff—Damages
j'il.--cosib 40s.

FRIDAY, FYB. 15.
EMERY D. DUERR.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a car-
pe ilicr, to recover 261. lent to the delendant,a shopkeeper.
The defendant alleged that he was not entitled to call on
lino to pay the ahri‘e sum, because the plaintiff by brutal
Allence Sil improper conduct had compelled his wif: to
leave his boost., •ind seek board, lodging. and necessaries
iu the house of the defendant, who supplied her with
ne ci-ssaries to the summit of 251. and upwards.
It appeared from the evidence that the pl • •ff had
occasionally been tortured by" the green.eyed monster."
II is woe wrote a letter to a paiith named Latham, and
a discovery of the epistle occasioned much unhappiness.
After reik•ated misunderstandings he told his wife to au
to the house of her father. The latter having nu ac-
comitiodatiim for her, she went to the house tit the de-
fendant, where she remained 14 weeks. During that
bane Air. Gobi:), supplied her with chitties, necessaries,
atid lodging. '1 here was 114 proof that the woman was
guilty of adultery.
Mr. Nolan, for the plaintiff, contended that there was
no evidence to prove Gubhy paid for the clothes said to
:he supplied to the pla rs wife. Ile was willing to
admit the defendant was entitled to a claim for lodging,
but it could not amount to any thing lake the suits which
Lie lama sought to recover.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the Jury had to decide
whether the defendant had a fair claim for 101. The
law would compel a man to pay for necessaries supplied
to his wife. There was nu woof of adultery. The
plaintiff expressed jealousy, and thinking his wife be-
haved improperly, compelled lief to quit his house. He
directed her to go to her father's house, and if sne had
gone there the plaintiff must have paid fur necessaries.—
It was in proof that she had no clothes when she went
away, and that she had since been furnished with ap.
pared. If the Jury thought the articles supplied worth
1151. thty ought to feud a verdict for the defendant.
•1' he Jury found a verdict for the defendant.