The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

BUNN V. DUNKIN.

This action was brought to recover the sum of 391.75. 6d.
had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff's use.
It appeared in evidence, that in Ibl4 Miss Dunkin, the de•
readmit kept a school at Maidstone, the terms of which were '46
guineas a year. To which school Mrs. Burn sent tette of her
daughters, and for some reason which did not appear, paid 50
guineas in advance for two years. After Miss Burn bad re-
mained biz months in the school, a fire broke out in Miss Dun
-
kin's rooms, occasioned by her reading in bed, and Miss Burn,
who slept in the next room, ran in on bearing the alarm. She
found the canaille in Limes, and was so alarmed that she was
taken ill of a fever, wet.: home, and ►hortly after died. This
action was now brought to recover a proportionate part of the
50 guineas for the time subsequent to the death of the pupil.
Mr. Platt, for the defendant, submitted to the Lord Chief
Justice, that as the consideration fur which the money was ad-
vanced bad nut wholly failed, the plaintiff could nut recover at
in this forts of action ; and he referred in support of his objt c-
lion, to the case of " Taylor •. Hare," 1 Bus. and Pul. hew
Melt. 260.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that the payments for hoard
and instruction at *shoo' were made at regular intervals, aid
therefore, in his judgment, were so divisible as to support the
action in its present form. lie would however, take the opinion
of the Jury on the question of .act, whether the agreement was
for two years at all events, or for two years if the parties sLould
live. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
391. 7s. 6d.

The Lord Chief Justice did not rise till fire o'clock, and in-
timated, Thai in consequence of the arrear of business. and its
slow progress, he should continue to take causes to that hour
on future days. It was also suggested that the rem t would sit
at nine, iu the sittings alter the summer term.

THURSDAY, DEC, 5.
CO/FEE-HOUsE NAITERY.—PAGE V. EACKF.TT.

The Common Sergeant stated, that the defendant is propriefinr
of the Cocoa Tree, in St. J 1111106.11 street. This kenos' was
brought by the plaintiff as bead-waiter, to recover fur amt
and labour the sum of 401. odd. It would appear that the
agreement was, that the plaintiff should babe 1001. per &maim
for Lis situation, and receive a shillth; from each gentleman of
the club who dint.: there. It was a part of the agreement
that the plaintiff should be at liberty to attend the races, dc.
James Long—Has now succeeded as head-waiter at the
Cocoa Tree, in the room of the pleintiff; does not know what
Page's salary was; witness has a guinea ■ week ; has heard
Hackett say he paid Page 1001. a year. During the time Page
was there witness never knew him 'sr go to diewmarket, but
has known him to go to Doucaster for a week or ten days.—
Remembers in November last his going to Brighton, he had
not been that year to any races. During hi■ absence witness
became bead-waiter. About seven weeks after Page returned
from Brighton to the Cocoa Tree. and saw Mr. Hackett.—
Beside:. the 1001. a year, witness and he dit ided the shillings,.
Each subscriber paid the master ten guineas a year; the master
charged the shillings in his bill ; when Page left there were
320 shillings due to him.
Cross examined by Mr. Scatlett.s—The plaintiff west to
Brighton, in the service of some gentlemen of the club ; for this
lie received a guinea a day—it was to set up • public-house at
Brighton ; and if it succeeded he was to have • genera a day.
lie was going to keep, not a liszard-table or gaming-house, het
what witness called • Fremeh horse. The master did not pay
the waiters their shilliugs until the gentlemen paid their bilk.
Witness collected some of the mosey from Hackett ; but plain-
tiff could slut receive a part. Sonic payments had been re-
ceived, amounting to 50s. i this reduced the account doe. 1 he
320 shillings were calculated liom the books.
William Wakeland was porter at the Cocoa Tree—was
present when the plaintiff returned from Brighton—heard
Mr. Itsckett call on him to bring his account, and Mit he had no
further occasion for his services, adding that lie lied given hint
leave to go to the country, but did not mean he should come
back again.
James Bush, another wailer at the Cocoa Tree, rein, inherit
plaintiff bringing his account, but did not hear w hat
Defendant said be gave trim leave to go to Brighton, but did
not give qini Lave to come back.
The Lord Chief Justice.—The shallop are out order question.

Mr. Scarletten your Lordship sees he paid him up the
half-slarterthe time he went away.
Mr. Common Sergeant—There appears some misunderstand-
ing in this case. Perhaps we shall clear it up another day.—
Plaintiff oonsuited.

WOLF V. LEVY.

Mr. Scarlett stated the ease to the Jury. The parties belonged
to the Jewish persuasion, and were of the same trade ; and ac
cording to the old proverb, .. two of a trade cannot agree."—
There was another cause of quarrel—their Irving in the same
neighbourhood, as dealers in old clothes, in which there was a
nnespotition which of them should sell cheapest. They lived
is lieuming's-row, St. Mary's-lane.
Jonas Smithy, an Israelite. saw the row. Mr. Levy came to
WAl's door and struck him • blow on the ear, first with his
right hand fist and then with the left; Mr. Wolf gave no pro-
vocation. When witness was in the shop next door, he heard
high words, but could not repeat them.
James Burgess, plumber and gluier, Green street, Soho,
saw Mr. Cell hit Wolf two or three times, with all the violeuze
he could ; Wulf rondo no residence at all ; witness is one of
Mr. Wolf's customers- there are several other Levys live in
the same neighbourhood.
Mr. Gamey, ,or defendant, said he never would consent dud
the parties being of the same religion, the same trade, or living
in the same neighbourhood, should be an excuse for an assault.
It was not, es the levy must have beard, the first time the wolf
cemplained of the lamb without cause (a laugh.) Now, the
caus. of quarrel was the very provoking language Mr. Wolf
made use of—" D—n you, teefl you can sell cheaper tan I ;
and you know you robbed your creditors of 7001. and dot
prove."
Mary Arndt lived next door; beard Mr. Wolf mill Mr.
Levy s house-breaking sou of a Is---k ; he had not a thing of
his own in the house, for be bed robbed his creditors of TOOL,
and his brother was transported for felony ; upon which the
plaintiff came and put his finger in his face, and the other pushed
hint off the pavement. Mr. Wolf ran out, as she supposed, to
get witnesses, saying, " Now I'll de fur you—l'll soon bring
you to your bed on a boodle nfstnw !"
Cross •examioed by Mr. Scarlett—What are you Mrs.
Arnett, Mr. Arnott's wife.—What is he A ladies shoemaker.
The first thing was Wulf putting his finger in Levy's face, end
Levy pushing Wolf off the pavement. It flurried witness so
that she could hardly tell what further passed. Beard Wolf
say something about Cheating people out of 8001. worth of
pickles, and that the glass bottles would stick in his throat—
never said to her knowledge, that Wolf was en ill-used man—
witness never visited Wolf—does Innt know about his being a
pleasant or unpleasant man—bas talked with hint at his own
door.
Mr. Soarlett addressed the Jury in reply. He trusted the
plaintiff was at least entitled to nominal damages.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, if the Jury found for the
plaintiff the damages would be very small.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one shilling, and one shil-
ling costs.
SEW:MON.—PALMER V. LEGGETT.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, as natural guardian
of his niece, agiinst the defendant, who bad seduced her, and
thus deprived the plaintiff of her services.
Mr. Gurney stated the case. The plaintiff kept a straw hat
manufactory, and his niece lived with him as servant.—The de-
fendant was a gentleman of fortune, who lodged in the plaintiff's
house. In that situation the defendant had freqaent opportuni-
ties of conversing with the young woman, who attended on him,
end he succeeded in his plan of seduction. On the 2titli of last
April be presented her with a piece of bride cake. The circum-
stance reached the ears of her aunt, and some examination
ensued. The niece made a conleasion of all that had happened,
and declared at the same time that she was pregnstpt. The de-
fendant left the lodgings, and the plaintiff, who supported his
niece during her accouchetnent, brought the present action to
recover costs and charges, as well as compensation fur the loss
of her services.
Ann Allen was examined.—ller appearance was that of a
spriahtly girl of nineteen. She confirmed the statement of the
learned coetisel.
On her cross-examination by Mr. Scarlett, she said she did
not tell her stint the defendant intended to leave his lodging...
The charge of 51. Ills. for the midwife and doctor was proved,
hut it did not appear that the plaintiff bad been at any expence
for another servant during the confinement of his niece.
Mr. Scarlett addressed the Jury for the defendant. lie con-
tended, that they ought to look at the testimony of the young
woman, Allen, with considerable doubt and suspicion. The ap-
parent levity of her manners would no doubt reduce her claim
to demaser* If such a person was to obtain implicit credit for
all she alleged, any artful woman might first decoy a wan, and
then ruin him by legal proceedings. Nominal damages in such
a case would be sufficient.
The Lord Chief Justice summed op, and the Jury found a
verdit for the ptaiutiff—Damages, 251.
FRIDAY, DEC. G.
DERNASCONI V. REECE AND ANOTIMR.

This was an action for work and labour. The plaintiff, •
plasterer, sought to recover from the defendant, Doctor Reece,
a person well known to the public, the amount of a bill for re-
pairing certain premises of which he was considered the pro-
prietor. 11 appeared that Doctor Reeee bad established a
'Medical Hall in Piccadilly, and Was desirous of forming
another in Clarendon square, Somers Town. The defendant
had a partner named Want, who bad since become a bankrupt.
The plaintiff was employed to do the repairs at the house in
Somers Town, and when he sent in his bill, be was tu.d the
defendant was not liable.
The Jury found a •erdict for the plaintiff for 24/. 7s.
LADY BLANSCOSILI D. BRIDGES.

This was an action against the defendant fur making an ex.
erosive distress.
Mr. Conley stated the case. The defendai t was II tailor in
itleinheini-street, liond-street. The plaintiff lo dged in hi. house
at the rent of 40 guineas a year ; she bad so Sired some rent
to he due, and on her return from the cow try the defendant
requested payment. She asked what it was? Ile said ten
guises' ; and she took ten sovereigns and ten shillings out of
Let purse to pay bum, but the defendant refused, from an im-
...) proper feeling, to take the tender, and meet a broker to dis-
1114ty
1 'Main; furniture said to be worth 401. was taken for 10 guineas.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaitotiff, awl gave her 5!.
1 " MALICIOUS PROSECMON—LETMAN V. WILSON.
..,,,,:;_tbe plainiitf sought to recover compensation In damages for
!malicious prosecution.
! Mr. Gurney described the defendant, Mr. Wilson, to be a
builder, who had erected a number of houses in Spa-Gelds.—
One of the houses in John-street lie had let to a person named
Norris, who under-let it to one Pike. The latter gave no•ice
to Norris of his inteution to quit. The i Lace was received,
and the goods of Pike were removing. '4l e defendant hearing
of the rcutot al, put in a distress for grow d-rent, pull forbade
the p orties to rem.. e the goods. A seen. of riot aid tumult
ensued, and the defendant committed an a, souk on Cs: wife of

. REGIST En

Price. An action was brought against him for the assault.—
The cause wan set down for trial, but in consequence of the
absence of a witness, it was put of Wilson then obtained st
list of witnesses to be examined against him, and indicted the
whole for a conspiracy to remove goods in order to evade pay-
ment of rent. The indictment was called on, and no witness
appearing, the parties were acquitted. The plaiutiff then
brought his action fora malicious prosecution.
bo defence was offered, and after proof of the above facts,
and that the attorney's bill for defending the parties indicted
amounted to 1831. the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 4001.