The National Register.
London, England, 1823-01-19 00:00:00

41.

18


PROM

lAY NIGIS •

,GAZETTE.

BANKRUPTS.

.1. Beverley, Barge Vaud. Bucklersbury, merchant. Solicitor,
Mr. Farren, King's Arms Yard, Coleman Stnet.
T. Hail, Old Compton Street, Soho, woollen draper. Sols.
Messrs. Bartow and Co. Rasinghall Street.
DIVIDKNI)S.
Jan. 21, J. G-een, Oxford Street, smith-Feb. 4, W. Thorpe,
Upping, hawker-8. J. Hooper, 'Tuley Street, Southwark,
chymtst-4. W. Durrant, Castle Street, Finsbury, tailur-8, T.
W alls. Webber Street, Lambeth Marsh, hat manufecturer-4.
P. and J. Oahe, t„ London, merchams-5, W. Wright,
Tewkesbury, linen draper-4, W. Welsf ad, Tower Hill, mer-
chant-5, I'. Arthur, North. G shopkeeper -10,
A. Holmes, 11. White, and T. 71ndsd, Chesterfield, bat menu.
facturets-15. T. Griffith, 11.11morton, Warwickshire, victualler.
CERTIFICATES to be granted Feb. 4
J. Craney, Snowhill, grocer—J. Robertson, Old Broad
Street, merchant-I. Passman, Old Street Road, me•chant-
J. Aghwell. Nottingham, ironmonger—J. Thurtell. Bradwell.
Suffolk, inerehati•-M. Douglas. Sunderland, coal fitter-4. 1.
and P. Cosset.., Cl,..ient's Lane. wine merchants.-T. Jacks,
lirshopsgate Street Without, Hour factor-J. Beattie. Purtsea,
victualler-F. Robinson. Aston, Warwickshire, dealer.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
M.INDAY, JAN. IS.
lIFAILAY N. AITARING._

This wax an action brought by the plaintiff to recover of the
defendant 4701. 10s., which the plaintiff had lent, an I the de-
Ilanelent had promised to repay. The plea was, that no such
'sorry haul ever been leut to the defendant, but that it had been
paid over to lum by the plaintiff in discharge of different sums
of money which the plaintiff had lost to him at play. flu this
point issue was joined.
The find witness coded wan John Bewley, a brother of the
plaintiff. He stated, that the plaintiff was • dealer in 111101.
SA tobacco, residing at N 0.49, in the Strand, and tied the de-
fendant is a clerk in alianking-house, and also carries on busi-
sines* as a coal-merelent. On the 29th of May, 1820, the
defendant came to his brother's shop, and asked him for a
loan of 1001. Ilia broth:or replied, that he could not then
spare 1031., but that he world let him hove 701 ; and he was
actually drawing a cheek for that sum upon his hankers, when
the defendant said, that lie wanted • few shillings for some
purpose or other, and desired that the check might be made
out fur 701. 10e. This was Letordingly done. On the 7th •f
June, in the same year, the defendant again called upon his
brother, and said he wanted 3091., hut that he did not know a
person cacept the plaintiff to whom he could apply for such a
loan. His brother, after some con% ereation, gave him a cheek
on lis booker for that sum also. On the 2d or October, 1820,
the defendant again called upon his brother, said that he wanted
Money to pay for some costa, an h asked the plaintiff to lend him
1031. for that purpose. His brother replied, that lie had not
that sum by him to spree, hut that lie a ,uld give him a check
for 501., and accept • bill of recitals e to ft • sante amount for
I int, payable three or four months after del*. The defendant
said, that this would do ; and the check awl the hill of ex-
elienge were immediately handed to him. 4,n his promise to dis-
charge at the following Christmas all the money which bad been
lent him. Subsequently to that period his brother again asked
the defendant is his hearing to repay the sums which hail beet
'deemed tl him. The defendant promised to do so, as soon as
•ver he (meld ; and added, that if he had had back all that
had been lost to bin (the plaintiff) at play, the plaintiff would
owe him money.
Cross examiner) by Mr. Scarlett.—Before the 29th of May,
he had seen the defendant once or twice, did not think
oftener, at his brother's house, in the Stetted. Ile aas acci-
dentally at one time in the shop, at another time in the counting-
house, when the defendant called on his brother about these
loans ; it was thus that he had overheard the conversations
which be bad detailed to the Jury. His brother was not in the
habit &lending moneywilbout taking an acknowledgment for it ;
he did it, however, to two or three individuals. Ile knew that
his brother entered the 701. 10s. iu his books as money lent to
the defendant.
John Willis, a clerk in a banking-house, proved that the bill
of exchange for 501., drawn by the defendant, and accepted by
the plaintiff, bad been paid iuto their house by Messrs. Hall
and Bevan, coa'-nierehante.
The paymente of the cheeks by the plaintiff's bankers, and
the lodgment of the proceeds in the hinds of the defendant's
bakers, was admitted by the defendant's Counsel.
The plaintiff's ease then closed.
Sir. Scarlett, for the defeuoe, charged the witness Bewley
with flat unqualified perjury, committed for the purpose of re-
covering front his client a sum of money which the pleintill had
paid to hint as a compromise fur certain greater SUMS which be
bad lost at pley. After commenting upoo the iniprobahility of
the plaintiff's lemliii; such a suns of money, without taking an
acknowledgment fur it, to a person whom his own brother
proved never to here been in his house more than two or three
twice, and also upon the likelihood, supposing ills money to
have been actually lent, of his having allowed two years to
el eine: before lie made any effort to recover it, the Learned
GbaniMman proceeded to detail the circumstances on which he
rested his defence, and which will be beat übtlerstood by the
re.daa me he called to substantiate it.
' Joseph William Cooper, of the East Kent Militia,
stated, that on the 22u1 of May, Iti2ll, he dined at the Pineza
Coffee-house, by invitation of Mr. Houlgive , who then kept it.
On that day he met at dinner Mr. Waterman, of Eases-street,
Strand, Mr. Bewley amid Mr: Sparring. Mr. Bewley he know
before ; Mr. Spurring he did not. It appeared to him from
their cantina, at that time, that Mr. Healey and Mr. Spurring
were complete els-augers to each oilier. In the course of the
evening curds were itorielneed, and all the party played except
Mr. Waterman ; lottery was the game played. At the begin-'
wing the stakes were only shillings ; but Mr. Bewley noon pro•
posed higher stakes, and, with the eve ption of the witness,
half-crowns, crowns, pounds, and as forth, were anon staked
by all the patties. 1. 0. U's, and small pieces of cards, were
weed instead of money. Mr. Bewley was the loser ; witness
thought that 51r. Henley owned that lie was a loser to the
amount of 301. or tool. Iluidgsion and Spurring were, lie also
thought, both wino, is. No settlement was made that evening,
at least in his presence. Houleuon invited the same party to
diva at his Omni:Jere, in Clensent's-sun, on the ensuing Friday,
the 2lith of Slay. They (hued there accordingly ; a lady dined
there with them. Play was introduced there atm, in the even-
lag. Tie witness [dived a little higher titan he did before
played Grown stakes. There was WO play between Mr.
Bewley and Mr. Spurring, out at *hose suggestion he could
sot tell. I. 0. U's were again used. Berme tiepin., the de-
fendant was going away ; he first event to the plaintiff, who
was mending near the tire, and said, " It is a large sum you
have Imo to-night." Willies,. dieu4lit that lie said rather more
this 10 Mr. Dewily Willa reui.ul end said, '• l hope
Le tot uueasj J it tma will call nu we ta MOKIOW, I %ill gie

. S

---. ~,~

-• Y.
• •
I.
'V
••• .111. • 9.414 •

T TIE NI

Ama

%It 71k
7 ‘.•

MIONAL It

you part of the muney in cask and a good bill for about 5031.
14'3001." The witness then proceeded to mate, that about
eight or nine days afterwards be ,aw Mr. Bewley a•nin,
told hint that be bad settled his business with Mr. Spurring,
Ile said that Spuag bad given him back a bill for Vol,
which was as geed as the Bank, mid had taken 31101. cash fur
it. This be looked 1...111 as such handsome imoduct, that he its-
tended to give Sparriii,i the handsomest snull*.bot that he had
in his shop. On the 12th of bill., telce tile same parties
dined together, tha witness paw on Mr. Sparring's mantle-piece
the tuna-box which Mr. Bewlay had presented him with. On
tee 12th of June, however, which was the day before, Bewlay,
and Spurring met at his house. Bewley said--" Mr. Spiir•
ricg, ion owe me a dinner." Spurring replied—" I do, and
tun ready to give you th.: very best dinner the Pima cant
alford." " No," replied Bewlay—" I'll not dine there ; I
would rather dine at your own house." They dined accord-
ingly at Mr. Spurring 's lodging., in Seymour place, New-
roue. After dinner, Mr. Bewley and Mr. Hodgson cut the
cards for sums so large that the witness said—" Good God !
Bewley, what are you at?" and received in consequence such
a retied' as made him hold his tongue for the future. About
one or two o'clock iii the morning," continued the witness, just
as we were going away, Bewlay said to Spurring —" Cowie,
Sparring, you must give my revenge." They cut the card.; in
consequence, and a matter ended in a few minutes by Sparring's
winning 3001. Bewley then said, Gentleman, I can't pay
you, for lam at this mo.nent exchequered for 1,0001. You
mut not uk me for motley for ive or six months to come."—
On my return Irons Canterbury in the October following,
Bewley told me that he had settled with Spurring ; he said
that he had given him a check on his bankers for 501., and
accepted a bill of exchange for 501. more at three or four
months. He likewise said th t Spurring was not to ask him
for any more money till it was convenient for him to pay it.
continued my visits to Ilewlay for some length of time after
thin transaction. I never heard him at thai time say that he
hail lent Spurring money. lie tint told me so in last May.
lie always raid how well Spurring had behaved to iiiin."
Cross-emoninni by Mr. Marryatt.—Though I have often been
at Mr. llewlay'si lupine, I never saw him play for large stakes
heron the 20th of Kay. I have not seen liodgauu for a
month, and I do not know where he is. lie does not keep the
Piaci& Colfee-house at present, but his brother does.

Has Hodgson been a bankrupt!—Of course he hu.
The Lord Chief Justice.—l think, r. Marryatt, the witness
has given you a very proper answer. lie says, of course, he
has.—(A laugh.)
The witness's cross-essminstion continued.—Hodgson bad
been married, bat his wife is dead. The lady who dined with
us at his chambers, in Clement's-inn, was called Smith. I be-
lieve she lived there. I do not know where she lives at pre-
sent. I only know a little of Hodgson, I knew him from
going to the Pisitas Coffee-Louse, where I was a member of
a card club.

This was the easoonthe part of the defendant.

Mr. Marryatt replied, and contended that the witness whom
he had produced was fully an worthy of credit as the witness
produced by the other side.
The Lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence, and left it
to the Jury to decide which of the witnesses was most deserv-
ing of credit.
The Jury, witbaat hesitation, returned a verdict for the
defesitlants

PERJURY—THE KING C. HARRIS.
or-General stated, that this was an indictment fn

perjury. The parties were both clergymen ; Mr. Harris wan
Lessee under the Crown of the Chapel in Spring gardens, and
bad let it to the Rev. George Masters, the present prosecutor,
at a rent of 2501. a year. This under lease was granted at
Lady-Day 1b21., end at Michaelmas following the first Valf
year's rent, 1201. became due, and was applied fur by Mr.
Harris. Mr. Masters claimed certain deductions under a !ease
for repairs, &c. which reduced the sum, as he contended, to
921. 2s. lid. and that sum he tendered, but it was refused.—
Mr. Barris afterwards made an affidavit of debt, for the pur-
pose of issuing • writ against Mr. Masters, and in that affida-
vit he swore that 1001. was due to him, and that no tender of
the same had been made to him. Upon that affidavit a writ
issued, and Mr. Masters was arrested ; he now In his turn pre-
ferre,! this indictment for perjury, the perjury being alleged
upon LLIOAB parts of the affidavit which swore to 100/. as the
sum due, and to no tender having been made. The prosecu-
tor also urged, as a proof of malice, that Mr. Harris had en-
deavoured to procure his arrest on the Saturday night, with an
intent to prevent his performing Divine Service in the Chapel
on the following Sunday, as by tenting to do au his lease would
have become forfeit.

The Jury, after hearing the evidence in support of the in-
dictment, and on observatinn from the Chief Justice, that the
whole was a matter of account, and might reasonably be in-
ferre.l to have arisen from mistake, rather Vain an intention
to commit wilful and corrupt perjury, found the defendant Nut
Guilty. _

Ter.sunr, JAN. 14.
MEDICAL RIVALS.-lILNTLK v. HUNTER.

Mr. Pollock. stated, that this was a proceeding II :tire farias,
that the detentlaut, under a penalty of 20001. should nut practice
physic within two miles of Tower•street, in the city. The de-
fendant had sulfured judgment by default, and the Jury were
here called on to awe ma the damages.

Mr. Searlett stated, that Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff, is a man
with a large family, of high professional respectability ; the de-
fendant, his nephew. Ihe Jury would find the benificence of
the plaintill. had not only extended to the defendant, but to his
broCier and mother, for which the defendant had at an early
period expressed hie heartfelt gratitude. The plaintiff bail
educated and brought op tue defendant to bin profession, and
allowed him Md. as his assistant.

A very alrecUng letter ratite defendant's WIIA here referred to;
it was addressed to his father, and written in 11310, expressing
boundless gratitude and alfection to hie uncle for the benefits lie
had received from him, mid invoking a thousand blessings on
him and his family.

His apprenticeship having expired, the plaintiff engaged him
as assistant for seven rears ; he accordingly entered into thin
bond, not only voluntarily Out cheerfully. Six years having ex-
pired, the plaintiff* proposed a partnership between himself, his
lion, and the defendant.. The defendant first agreed, but atter-
vomds dissented.

Another letter was referred to, written by the defendant to
the plaintiff, exprew,ing the strongest feeling.. of gratitude and
affection.

Iu t 420, the defendant took a shop within two or three doors
(Whitt uncle, Netting up for himself, and carrying awry Lis uncle's
practice ; haring brought his action fur a breach of totenant on
a former occarion, his U11%1,6114) seeing it war between near re-
lation*, proposed a reference, which took uncle
was more ■tt'ected by the defoiiiinnt's ingratitude, than any eon-
aii!eration of penally of the bond ; the defendant's baseness was
such, that after this reference, which caused him to icniove, be
• nil kept up the competition, through the medium of another

....

lb '

person ; and then he himself elute back sod carried oe the
fluidness in the same place as before. So great was the injury
Mr. Hunter, the phentilt, had mama, he cou d neither procure
a partner or an apprentice with a premium ; because the answer
was, your nephew carries on the busiuess next door, anti hero
is an effectnal competition. it was a painful delicacy Mr.
Hunter, the plaintiff, woeld be ender to prune special tlante.,er,
as that several of the uncle's patients bad ten him, sud gone to
his nephew ; but the Jury would assess the damages from the
general estimate of injury sustained.
Mr, Charles Simpson, attorney, produced defendant's letters,
which were put is in evidence.
Witness prepared articles of partnership between the par-
ties in 1819, with which the defendant expressed biterelf
satisfied. Defendant was to have a fourth share for fourteen
years—objections afterwards came from the defendant, Who
wanted to be second partner in the firm instead of third. The
treaty commenced in June, 1820. The plaintiff finding de-
fendant practising in competition, desired wattles to write kits
a letter for the forfeiture of his bond.
[The letter was here put in, threatening to put the hood in
force, unless lie removed from the neighbourhood.]
Witness received no answer.
Cruses-exantined by Mr. Wilde.--The plaintiff carries on
business in Mincing-lane, corner of Tower-street—defendant
in the next street, which is Crotched-friars. The bond recites,
that in case of the death of Mr. Hooter, sen. the business was
to be divided into three shares; one of which plaintiff was to
dispose of by will, the other two between son and nephew.—
Witness believes defendant quitted his uncle not by hie desire,
but even without taking leave. In the last cause the vihi-
trator awarded about 3001. damages and costs.
Re-examined.—The defendant by the articles was placed on
the ante fooling as plaintiffs son.
Robert Coots was servant to Mr. Thomas !tenter, of
Crotched-friars, not the assistant, only to make hiateetf useful .
waited at table.
Mr. Scarlett.—Did you carry out medicines ?—I doe% know
whether they were medicines.
Mr. Searlett.—Did you carry out parcels which were sup-
posed to contain medicines ?-1 can't swear that they conta:ned
medicines ; I won't swear that.
Mr. Searlett.--Your evidence is the more valuable. that
you swear with su much caution.
Witness carried out parcels supposed to contain medicine.
to shout a dozen, or nut so many.
(Examined as to different patients to whom be carried what
he suppose I to he inedicinee.)
Mr. Thomas Hunter kept books, in which be wrote himself.
bat witness ;mild not read the language, it was not for witness's
scholarship. There were various sorts of things iii that shop
that witness did not like—things that imitated medicines, gal-
lipots, jars, bottles, &o. His master's shop was mere lam
an apothecary's inside than out ; can't say whether it was an
apothecary's shop or not ; has seen things taken out of large
into small bottles, ad witness has worked a pestle and /neuter.
Thomas Hunter wits en the door, and a night bell which wee
occasionally rung in the night.
Cross-examined.—lhiuks it was in Octeber or Nov. 1820.
when witness caine into the defendant's service; left about
a year and three quarters ago.
Francis Henry Moxey remembered defendant being tenant
to witness's mother in 18211—bas seen the medicine-bottlea in
the shop, and the name of " Surgeon" on the door—a itnesa
learned from the defendant that he had burned or destroyed hiss
b • ties within the six months—the shop was shut at the time
the atbitration was finished, but cannot speak to dates—sever
saw any business carried on until defendant returned after the
arbitration—the man that came in defendant's essence merely
kept the house ; the cause was, he believes, tried in June.
Re-examined by Mr. Scarlet'.—When the arbitrator was
examiaing the shop remained as before, only the name taken
off the door. Has heard that defendant left at the expiration
of his bond.

Mr. John Berridge lives in Tower-street—Mr. Hunter, the
plaintiff, attended witness's family. The defendant attended
generally as assistant—remembers his setting up for himself ;
and not soliciting but succeeding his uncle's business in wit-
ness's family. From Nov. 1820, to May, 1821, witness paid
him 351. 10s. When he Caine bark front the North be called
on witness respecting a bil which defendant said he had mis-
laid. Witness has no doubt that at t:iis time he was attending
patients generally.
Mr. Wilde putt it to the Jury whether the defendant bad not
made ample retnrn to his nncle for all the favours he had re-
ceived, by having served him faithrully rot so great a number
of years. The defendant, having already paid 3001. damages.
mast Litre had a great struggle, therefore, in the present in-
stance, that heavy damages he would never be able to pay.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, the Jury bad not to try
any question, but simply to assess damages for a breach of the
agreement after November, 1820. It was impossible to pro-
duce evidence of all the patients the defendants might have led
away—the Jury, would, therefore, form a probable and general
estimate from Octobar, 1820, to June, 1821, the loss of busi-
ness the plaintiff bad sustained.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 501.--ecosts 40s
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 15.

PRICE AND OTHERS V. LICE.
The Solicitor General stated, that this was an action to re-
cover I.it 1, for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. William Percival was traveller to the plaintiff in Mare'',
1521, when he saw the defendant, Mr. Thomas Lee, of Kid-
derminster, carpet manufacturer, who ordered a yomility of
cream of tartar mid lac.elye. Witness mentioned 7s. 3d. per
pound. Mr. Lee offered Os. 9d. Witness made a memoran-
dum of the otter—observing, it Wan rather below witness's
limits ; that was as to the lac dye. Witness informed the de-
fendant he should transmit his order—and, if he did not hear
from the house, lie was to conclude the order would bo
executed.
Cross-examined.—There was no agreement to wait for the
order being
The Solicitor General observed, • verbal and conditional
order in this case would out take it out of the Statute of Frauds.
The Lord Ciiefluatice observed, a part acceptance would
take it out of the Statute of Frauds,-The cream of tartar was
an absolute order, the price being agreed upon on both sides,
and the delivery was complete.
Letter put in from defendant to the plaintiffs
Gentlemen,—We cannot take the goods invoiced. Your
traveller Nes to transmit the order, and you were to say it you
accepted by return of post."
. . . . .

Ii wow admitted the defendant received the cream of tartar,
bat refused the Inc dye
Mr. Gurney observed, both parties in this CIAO were highly
respectable, only the mistake arose on the plot of the plaintilrs
traveller. The marks t prices of these articles were falling, and
therefore it was important the pinintilTs should send an answer.
No answer arriving, Mr. Lee could wait no longer, and there.
fore purchased of another at rt. It was only titter the fall of
the market the idaintids thought vrrper to supply the order.

IPP"