The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-01 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER:

On Thursday the Lord Mayer, attended by the Recorder and
the City Solicitor, went before the Barons of the Exchequer,
to lender an recount of his Mayoralty.
. .

The Recorder, in presenting the issues of the Mayoralty,
addressed the court upon the 'subject of Cie merits of the late
Lord Mayor. That meritorious individual had, he said, exerted
himself upon every occasion to preserve the tranquillity of filo
Metropolis and to render the ntm. et facilities in the transaction
of public business. It had fallen to him to meet with the dis-
tinguished honour of attending upon his Majesty as Causer% ator
of the River Thames to the limits of the City jurisdiction, when
the King went to visit his Northern dominions, and also to re-
ceive his Majesty on his return. Upon those occasions the
directions issued by the late Lord Mayor, for providing lo-
calities at the royal embarkation, were deserving of the highest
approbation. and had met with it already from his fellow
Citizens.

The accounts were then given in, and the Ilwrons having
bowed to the late Lord Mayor, his Lordship left the court.
This was the second instance within a century of a Lord
Mayor having rendered up his accounts on auy other day than
that preceding the 9th of November.
LLOYD v. N El.:1)1,1 M.

Mr. Jervais stated the case. The plaintiff, he said was a
widow, who brought the present action to recover compensation
for the serious injury she had sustained by the defendant's neg-
ligence in driving his gig, the effects of which she would carry
with her in the grave. The plaintiff's husband was formerly
an extensive silk mercer in Cranbourn-eourt, but being reduced
in his cireutitstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to as-
Slat in their mutual aupport, by berown personal exertions. On
the evening of the 12th of August, the plaintiff and her husband
went out to take' walk in the Regent's Park, and as they were
crossing the road in front of the park -gate, the defendant in his
gig drove fut. ly over them both, by which they were so
grievously ininred that the plaintid''s husband died within
the hour ; and the plaintiff bersele, although she escaped with
life, had suffered long and painfully, before she rout(' leave her
bed, having lost the use of her right arm. A coroner's inquest
bad been held on the body of the plaintiff's husband ; a verdict
of manslaughter had been given against the defendant ; on
which charge lie had since been tried. and acquitted at the Old
Bailey. But the acquittal on that trial was no answer to the
present action, which was brought for compensation for the
ifijitry sustained by the plaintiff Prow the defendant's negligence.
—They could not take into their consideration the loss of her
husband , but they would consider the pain she had suffered,
ulll WAS likely Still to sull'er, the expense she was at, and the
great and lasting injury she austa....d in the loss of her arm,
and consequen inability to procure her future support.
Witnesses proved the case as stated by the counsel for the
plaintiff, and
Mr. A lolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant at
great lengto. Ise had at once (arrest to pay all ihe expences
arising from him ; hut he was not the opulent man lie was re
presented, and had a family of tea children to support, which
put it out of his power to offer more.
'rite Chief Baron charged the Jury, that whether the defen-
dant was drunk or sober, made no ditterence is the ease, if they
believed the accident had been caused by his itnproper driving.
It could be no justification of the defendant to pull up ins korai:
just heaire the accident happened, if by his own improper cuu
duct he hail tivfie it imp arsible then to stop hi it and it was
agreed by all the witnesses that jam before he bad been driving
furious' v.
The ittry,after a short eotisoltation, returned a vedict fee the
plainf.ff—Dantaces 2351. They mentioned it was their wish
to lease this defendant 2091. after psym;nt of the surgeon's
bills, which were stated at 351.

-~•

-•.
379

FRIDAY, hue. 29.
THE AITORMEY GENERAL v. LITTLE.
This was a proceeding instituted for the condemnation of
three bale, of silk, charged to have been smuggled.
The Attorney General stated the Cale, which was afterwards
more fully detailed In evidence.
Mr. Beckwith, of the firm of Beckwith, Bamford, ned Var-
nish, silk-mervets, in Maiden lane, neat Cheapsnle, deposed to
the elTeet, that in the latter end of August, Ih2l, the defendant,
Little, called at their warehouse, and asked fur Mr. Bamford.
The latter was not in the way, and the defendant introduced
himself by saying that his name was Little, and that lie had
known Mr. Bamford before. Ile desired that the foreman,
Avery, and the shopboy, who were present, might retire.—
They did so, and lie then told the witness in the presence of
him partner, Mr. % enlist', who remained, that he Gould sell
them any quantity of silk they might want at a price the amount
of the duty below the price in the market. •' Then the duly
could not have been paid," the witness observed.—" The d—l
a shilling duty do I ever pay," replied the defendant, and the
witness having, from the declaration, been made aware of the
business of the defendant, asked hitu a variety of questions as
to his mode of dealing, and with whom he dealt. The ;defen-
dant said he supplied persons in the trade with silk to the
amount of 20,0001. par annum, and that be supplied one-third of
the cambrick to the amount or about 90,9001. per annum. fie
mentioned the names of houses at Turin, Leghorn, and Valetta
ciennes, from whirls lie bought his silk. lie offered the witness
three bales of silk et 42s a pound, at the usual credit. The silk
of the description which the itel,ndent offered was at that time
worth 465. It was subsequently agreed opon by the witness
and his partner to take the silk which the defendant offered at
40s. cash, as they did not choose to take credit iu such a trans-
action. The defendant wished to send it neat morning. The
witness in the mean time went to the committee of the silk-
trade, and informed them who bad been with him, and what
had beendone. As it was arranged, he gave information at the
custom-house, and Lawrence Russ, the °facer, was appointed
to he in waiting in the morning when the goods were sent.
Mr. Varnish and Mr. Avery corroborated the testimony of
Mr. Beckwith, and Lawrence Ross the custom-house officer.
proved that lie seized the three bales of silk, and that he went
to the house of the defendant, where he found only 17 pieces of
cambric, which were afterwards reword, as it was proved that
She duty had been paid ; they tried a cellar door in the house,
but could not open it.
Evidence on the part of the Crown was called, to show that
the price at that time W.ll 4Ss.
The Jury said they would not trrunle the Attorney General
to go any further iuto the case, and they immediately returned
a verdict fur the Crown.