The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-04-01 00:00:00

PRAIIIMAMD v. CLAM.

This cause occupied but ■ few minutes. Mr.
Charles Prisokard. brother and clerk to the Phin•
tiff, proved the delivery of a bill, for business doh',
to the amount of 81. 9s. 6d. and Mr. Warren. of
Langport, proving the reasonableness of the charge,
a verdict was immediately given for the Plaintiff.

SNRJEANT D. WAYLAND.

This cause excited considerable interest.

The Plaintiff is a coachman, and was lately in
the employ of Mears. Lucas and Reilly, of Bath.
During the Wiltshire election Plaintiff fell from
the coach-box, whereby his shoulder was disln.
caws,. Ile was conveyed to Devizes, and placed
under the care of the Defendeut, a respectable
surgeon there; but Plaintiff perceiving that he had
leer) improperly treated and neglected, he brought
an action injuring poaperis, to recover damages.
John Dowell, a farmer' also lately in the em-
ploy of Nears. Lucas and Reilly, attempted to
attach considerable blame to the conduct of this
medical gentleman, both for want of skill and atten-
tion ; but in his cross-examination admitted, though
very reluctantly, that be had never seen • patient
treated with greater attention and humanity than
the Plaintiff had been by the Defendant, a Mr.
Mac Portend, Mr. Way land's son, and an assistant
of Mr. Mac Forteud's.

Mr. George Norman, surgeon to the Batliaises.
ally Hospital nearly 20 years, gave evidence at con.
stdersble length, which being upon the whole fa.
vourahle to the conduct obsessed by the Defendant,
mid Mr. Standen, an eminent surgeon of Ibis tows,
deposing that he shoold, under similar circuits.
stance.. have pursued precisely the same mode of
treatment, _ . .. .

The Learned Judge stopped the proceedings by
asking Mr. Williams (Counsel for the prosecatioa)
if he would proceed nay further
Plaintiff nonsuited.

SUFFOLK LENT ASSIZES.

(Coitiorat front oar Paper of Thursday.)

tfollond, Esq. v. Inhabitants of the Hundred of
Plontesgute.—The Plaintiff, who resides at Bea-
hell, sought to recover 781. for damages by a fire,
which had been wilfully occasioned by some un-
known incendiary.—Verdict for Plaintiff, damages
501. 15s.
Wuriug v. Melton.—Verdict, by consent, for
1501.
___ __ .

Mallet v. liagers.—Tbe Plaintiff, • plumber and
glazier at %Voodbridge, sought to recover of the
Defendant, who was described by the Counsel for
the Plaintiffs. an auctioneer, a bailiff, and a bit of •
lawyer, money received by him, under • distress for
resit made upon the goods of a tenant of the Plain-
tiff. It appeared that the Plaintiff being unable to
write, his wife, at the request of the Defendant, had
signed a paper which she had not read, but which
she understood to be ao authority for a man named
Simpson to distrain, who accordingly was put in
poaaeloion as bailiff, and distrained a quantity of
malt for 18/. being half • year's rent. The defence
rested upon the circumstance that Simpson him-
self acted as agent for the Plaintiff, and had offered
to pay over the money to him, mid that be had re-
fused to accept it. '
The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—
Damages 181.
Wo/ron v, Fleteher.—This action was brought
to try the question of a right of common claimed
by the Defendant over a common in Eyle, con-
taining about 90 acres. Witnesses were called to
prove that the Plaintiff and others used the com-
mon in right of the land which they held in that
parish.

Mr. Serjeant Fume. for the defence, stated, that
he could shew an exercise of a right of common
attached to the premises, now in possession of the
Defendant, in the year 1792. since which time to
1818, it had not been used by reason of the pro-
perty belonging to au old lady who did not care to
do so.
Mr. Serjesnt BLOSSETT objected that unless the
Defendant could shew some right of commonage
within twenty years, his evidence was inadmissible ;
but the Learned Judge said be thought it a goes.
tiou for the Jury to say whether by such nomusage
the tight was Imt. Evidence was given of a single
instance of the exercise of the right in 1792, which
was very equivocal, and the Jury found a verdict
fur the PI tiff
Wilson v. Hervisoxe—This woe an action brought
to !vivre,. a sum due to the Plaintiff, for a quam
tity of fish sold and deliveied b him to the Dr.
fendaill. Verdict for Plaintiff—Damages 1041.