The National Register.
London, England, 1818-07-13 00:00:00

LAIVINTELLIGEXCE.

COUR C OF KING'S BENCH, TuEsmt v. JuLir S.
ICICS V. 6014 DON .

A qui tam action, nosokr mat. 7 Geo. IL, to recover ape.
naky of 4001.: the statute provides, that any person making
a contract for the sale of stock in the public funds, a ho, at the
time of making the contract, shall not be possessed or en-
titled to the stock, either in his own right or as trustee, shall
forfeit the sum of 5001., half to the King, and half to the
person instituting the snit.
Mr. Gurney stated, that the defendant land formerly done
hominess upon the Stock Exchange as a jobber, and upon one
occasion, early in the ,ear 1817, he made contracts for the
purchase of stock at a tame day, to floe amount of neat ly
40,00 W.: these were wind acre usually known by the name
of time bargains, and one of them was with a Mr. Joseph
Lightfoot, a geonlentait alto dealt in put blie aecuritics,mod
always haviug the stork to to ansfer at the time appointed. To
him, the defendant, Mr. Gordon., had agreed to sell 5,0001.
consols; and the bargain having been entered into on the
20th Jaanary, it was to be eompleted on the next settling
day, floe 27th February. On the 2Golt February' however,
a Gentleman made his appearance on floe Stock Exchange,
who, on the pail of the defendant, Wrenn' the individuals
who load bought stock of him, 34. in she pound, which was
accepted by some. Mr. Lightfoot, however, would not ar.
cede to this sto rangerneut, aoti when next he saw 7ir. (fordo'',
some time sirens artk, he ta poked him to fettli his contract,
by trenskrring the stork from his name to that of Mr. Light-
foot. Gordon, however, dee lamed that he had not the stock,
and he refoosed to pay the difference in the price between the
2901 January and the 21th February, setting Mr. Lightfoot
at defiance, by alleging that the bitr4ain was originally illegal,
as he had un stuck at the time it was made. Uader these cir-
cumstances, the defendant could not have much right to com-
plain that he was sued for the penalty on his illegal bargain ;
and although a former plaintiff (a ho was the brother of Mr.
Lightfoot) had been defeated, in eonsegnenee of Mr. Light-
foot's conscientious admission, on his examination, that he
employed the attorney, and was responsible for costs, the pre-
sent plaintiff, a total stranger to the parties, would too doubt
be able to orcore., for Mr. Lightfootscarcely knew that the
present action had been brought, and must assuredly had
oohing to tin with tht Costs.

Mr. Joseph Lightfoot was then plat into the box, and he
ing interrogated by Mr. Topping, tot the defendant, on the
roir dire, he denied most absolutely that he had any thing to
do with this action —he had not spoken to the attorney about
it; and knew nothing of it, until he was served w ith a sa hprena,
enclosing a g • he found a very comfortable thing.
He denied that he Weld to revels.. ails part of the penalty.--
Ileing examined in chief, he 1110WV.I tile bargain, as mated by
Mr. Gamey ; he had entered it its a nook 5.0au1. 3 percent.
Consols, at 63 for the settling tiny, which was ou the 27th of
February, 1817. At the time ae made the purchase flow the
defendant, the witness had money at his bankers. Martin,
Stone, and Co., and stork far beyond the amount of the Isar-
gain. He was ready to complete the purchase on the 27th
of February, but the tit limdant slid not make his appear-
sure, and the witness bought 3,0001. Consols of some other
person, at a loss of 2121. 10s. %I lieu he neat saw the de.
fendant about eight days afterwards, the witness required
him to transfer Ilse stock, which he refused to do, alleging
that he had none, and that the bargain was illegal. 'l•he
witness then said, " You are a very pretty gentleman, Mr.
Curio., 4 will you pay me she &tiro es,ci ?-I.lasing that he had
made the bargain with him at (13, awl had 114".11 essuspelled to
boy on the 271 h of Feltrimi v at 611. 't•he slefesitiam, how•
ever, would do neither the one nor she other. haling the wit
ness that he might bib% Isis action if he thought tit.—Cross-
exan o i tttttt Mr. Lightfoot said, that he was 110 gambler in the
stocks, and was well known by the Ildllll. Of Joe Lightfoot.
He slid not know also had heard lire has gaia, perhaps sc.
venal. plaintiffs auto my now ars the same a, in the
tanner action. but who the I.l4i:ili' was he 110 not k
He had had sollle 111..111110 „ills the deft inlaut before this
tran.acliuu; tie had haaglit 2,03;i1. lied. Aim., Nod he might
have survived or paid him some slitlei mice% The :online
day was the 27th ill' Febi Italy ; but when the bargain ma.
nrsile. die date w 3. 110 i nu•n:liuurd, only tlse• settling day. Ali.
Hrudrtsun t•atuc 1.. the Stut•k Lt,..liassge issi the 2(itle of Fe-
binary for the defettslasit, and made a proposal of an di-
lailite 1111'111,

Mr. JAIIICN ITellll. librarian at thy 3 per Cent. Con‘ol3
Rank (II Englattoi, prayed that the tiefentlant had no >tor/.
during the *110:e of Ike year Ist/ .

.„...
PL. (i. Cr.i‘t 1., fr the tboi•lh 'ma !muse of Nl:Win, Slone,
And Co. 114.110‘1•11. VIA MI lilt 2;01 of February, hill, Mr.
Ligliireer had 2,9661. in 'Wed' hawk.

ouserved, that Mat sum was not equal to
5,0001. CUL1,14..

31r. Jurtice Abbott admitted it, adding, that the defendant
would not b.• le., balite even if it were MIMOO 11141 the ihtt•
gain 141.1 been oteszal cm the pint of Lightfoot.
;qr. •fniipitic then !II hatittril tihit the evidence did not site.
laiii any ut the count, in the tleclArmiton ; the contract was
eel 11111 111 all Of as to he co.lipleteli 06 the 27th of Fe-
broas , it OpipeAred that it was to be completed on
the flay.
e I 11,11.11 that it was well known at the time
that tiie retiiiag day 44.1. on the 27111 of rebut/sty. and he
caite,l h4l.h. I.;giatotit, %%Ito confirmed the statement; it
knot," by 16,11..41%1.m the 29t11 oljallllBl, that settling
war the Yllh ul I rin cars forhitt tog.
. ly, who war on the moue able as Mr. Toppitis,
cited tilt' tel4t• of Payne c. Hayes, (Bull. N. P., 1451, in *Well
it. 144.1 been held Ittat though the =ldol August, and the open.
mg. t‘ we• emirerithle term*, us the contract declared upon
the tiltitit .11111 tisi.t proved was the latter, it was a 141111
eon Vi 1.1,1, the illaisititl egoist be ntrierritited. In this
ease the cuutt4et ought IC brut berm set out itsts for the settling

JULY r 3.

day, and it ought to have hewn followed by au awe' mew, that
that settling day vans the v7tle Feb.
Mr. Justice Abbott eunretleel that the anthoritv was ha
point, hat he overruled it as not law ; the cage was one of
those that respelled the South yea bubble, and the Courts
had admitted almost any objection Yoe the sake of a► oiding the
Contracts.

511. 'Popping then took :mother objection, that the present
action bad been !brought too soon ; it had been commenced
on thy very day %%lien the plaintlif in the former silit hail been
nonsuited, and befhte judgment of non.nit bad been obtain.
ed ; consequently the pi eiient plaintiff bast ho /mist stanch
breath:, , ivagmneh as the other party was not out of Court.
Mr. Chitty further enforced this objertion, drawing a ii
tinction between qui tam and ether actions; but Air. Joisiire
Abbott over-ruled it williont lie,itaiiun, on the ground that,
if it were of any avail, it ought to have been pleaded in
abatement. •

Nit-. Topping admitted that he had no defence upon the
meritv, and after a few words from the Learned Judge, 114
jury found a verdict hie the plaintiff, 3AI.

WEDNESDAY.
TAPP V. CURTIS.

- - An inane directed by the Vire Chancellor, in 'wrier to agree-
tail) the validity ut an assignment, dated the 24th ut' October,
1816, and which, it was alleged on the part of the dedendant,
had beck given by Chao les Tapp to his brother Thomas Tapp,
Chad.. Tapp bad been in partnership with a prison of tha
Willie of Cl.4l%Vtluer as roachnial ens until they failed, and' Ire-
came bankrupts iu January, 1816. l'he assign))) lit was eta
carriage 41)41h:traces, which had been jobbed by a gentleman
of the name of Cowell, at 901. per a 111111 l n for five )ears, and
it was made without notice to him. Time Jury f i a sere
dirt for the defendant. The minor circumstances were alto-
gether uninteresting and unimportant.

THUR'DAV.

GEORGE AND WILLIAM RANDALL V. GAVINTLET CLARE S AND

THOMAS CRAY,

An action for nioney lent (with various other counts for
money paid) mailer the followiug cirenisistauces :
Gauntlet Clarke, tow of the defendants, previ tttt s to 1813
carried on business air* a Mr. Whitehead as Black a ell-11411
factors : that pannership w.s dissolved at Otte end of thiit
year, and Clarke etattiimed to trade in Ida wile name, anti
apparently upon his oast aeration, until the summer of 1514,
alien he .topped payment. In the mean tisne„bawevet, viz.
on the 10th of September, ISIS, he entered ion) seeset arm
tides et pal tneraliip with & r. Thomas Gray (the other de-
fendant), a gesitleman residing at Cheltenham It was sti-
pulated that the name of Gauntlet Clarke only should ap-
pear in the firm ; that each patty was to bring in a capital of
10,0001., and that Gray at the end of a year. if he saw teasue,
should be allowed to retire, under certain conditions ; salad -
ke the partnership anent continue for II years, unless one
of the pat niers gave pis months' make fa Wl' • g, and made
the other a conspensatimi of 2,0001. Berme the dissolutio&
of the partnership between Clarke anti 14 hitehead, Clarke
had been a considerable dealer in acme ttttt odatien bills, and
he continued the practice after that dissiitution, and after
the signature of the new articles between 1 • sets and Gray.
He was in the habit of raising money in flits way among the
merchants and tradesmen with whom he did busitiess, anti
among others with M. lo and Stucker, diapers, to the ex-
tent of g,OOOl. per mouth. From the ptainuffs lie fomented
assistance also by two bills, both flaked the Sth of Mare'.
1814; the one for 3001. and the other for 478 t. as. 6.1. This
transaction, it will be see a by a compariun of dales, was
subsetpit sit to his pal tnership with Gray, who- before the
failure of Clarke had get an assigument of all the panne,.
ship property, and who had of course taken it pelt Intuits-It the
payment of all the pas Inc. ship debts. The a hule question
in this (*Wise was, whither the hills in questiiiii mere to be
considered a partnership debt, or whether Clash& had ob.
tallied the acceatances of the plaintiit tacitly lor pus oau
private use and aceommodation.
Mr. Seashell conducted the ease on the past of the plain-
tiffs, stating the genet el principle of law, that a sleeplog
partner like Gray must be liable ter all I•ll:4ageiiii•iiiin of pis
lUodjutorsu li Ade, pi us idvd Ihoseraea,rwtul, aetr
for tile purposes of the business In Whit II they sere mutually
cot:emu-4a The plaintiffs had lent their acceptances to the
defend:nit Clisike, who conducted the aft iii of hinisell and
Gray, and had paid theta when due. Clarke hail ailed, but
Gray was still a wan 4.1 tat ge property, and was bound to
repay to the plaintiffs the iminey they still. 0111 of pocket,
1.,e the aecimistiodatiim lit the firm to is hit It lir beleitged.
311.. "tuners 1.4)) she plaintiff-. Mr. Slut ken and
Me. jdllllelit, %%VIC tie II called, 1.010 proved by
Clarke, I lie fore and atter his Imam-, that the bills its
question and nthei,. arse obtained fur the purposes of the
trade, and that Sties had been applied to the parhncrshsp no-
Tin thin lit these a ilt.tsseA said, Clatke told
him that the properly assigned by Itim to Catty exceedt 411
al,uool anti beat the I 011ett is was pettedly 'invent at die
snit t,t the dissolutlim.

li. Min r) :u, for taw defendants, said that this rause was
one of we i.tuupt itatputittut s, 141 4%11. Gray, who bad initudy
lost the 10,011jl. nuts whir!* hi: entered into parinciship mitt,
Clatke : and lust been betiost called upon to pay many heavy
dennainls. Ile intistrel that the hills bettiVt: Ilse (.44111 hi.d
nothing, to du watts Ilse partsiceship ilreG lily, excepting 111 Ins
way-1 Ilan Choke. hems: fusitol to find 11 Cllllll6l Of 10,0004
had iesartt•d no lin., mode of ratting motley ; and it was Ili
setileil principle of law, that for bombs-4 d capital fur the
putpost, of tomolcurlug tristir with anollicr permit:, Bi:it
Ulher pt rsito ws• no; linble ; it was a pm ate acid inditioleal
deist, WI 411 tllllell Mc. Cita,. had nothing to t:::. In with,
Usti hr u,nl nett r bruitglit :Is his stipulated capital, hot bstil
phi it oft trout nine to time, *llll at length failed, after Mrs
Gray bad advattreil, in lentil rash, the whole sum relintrt J by
the at titles; the bills in qittAlien were 'go a here to be found
in the joint :teeeinitN nor did they ever nuke the it appear-
once al the bankers of the tints. Under these circumstances,
he apprehended that the jury would not fix Mr. Grav wilts
the payment of mat• .e eie iI, front .he runtractiots of which
he 11441 never rre••nved tire sfehtest benefit.

Mr. Philiest. an attorney at Gloucester. swore to the great diffi-
culty Mr. Gray had tilways is bringing Mr. (lurk: to any thing like
an amount: though urged -repeatedly. he had never brought one
shilling into the concern. The witness. had astivhliced 7,140431. to Mr.
Gray to meld,: lain to tnect the dem:outs upon lain utter the failure
of Clarke.

.11r. 'Thacker. who had limn one of Clarke's assisttnts in hosi,
nesi. gale cri.leacJ to the bill transit:lions or Clarke. The latrine/
ship between Clarke al.ml Gray wss kept mere; from *niul. Clarke
spent i:bout S,uuOl. npon a house in Ilampton-wiek 'lliere was co
entry in tiny of the books of capitol brotie,,lit in either by Gray or
Clarke. 'l'i)e with, s, did not knew of any dealings in goods bttweat
Clarke and the imontitlk subsequent to the partnership with Gray.
The witness admitted on cross-examination, that at the signature VI
th 4 artic:..s the snick utight worth bat bow much at U wds

TULY 13

paid for he did not know ; he did not think that :the pone= was.
even then in a- advent state.
Mr. Scarlett-called a witness of the name of Wilkins, who con.;
tradicted the evidence of Thacker., that there had been no dealings in
goods between Choke and the plaintiff subsequentiu the partnership
with Gray. The learned Countel then addre hitttsalEtn the.l ury,
observing that there could be no safety in esiminertial transactions if
the plaintiffs did not obtain a verdict : sleeping pacmera must be re..
spoissible for the debts c retracted by
.these whom they tmsted with
the manageineat of.the business: he insisted Oust Mr Gray had been
attempting a sort of fraud ulna the plaintiffs, by resisting.the pay.
ment of this debt under pretence that Clarke had obtained the accept-
. anew with a view to make them a part of his capitaL Thacker had
aimitted that the sa.sca wet wusth 7,0001 and it might be inure;
.aid than perhaps was the capital of Clarke.
Me. Justice Abbott summed up briefly, leaving merely :the sines-
.tion to the jury, whether thepruduce of the bills in question had been
applied to the general purposes attlic trade, or other
'The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

POLICE.

AiWNSION HOUSE.

'Abraham Jacobs. au extensive dealer, residing in Petticnat•
lane. was charged as follows:—In the night of the Itth of
April last, the preinises of Mr. Young, paper-manufacturer
.in Carter.lwite, 'fooley-street, were broken into, and paper to
a largeationitit taken away. Since that period the officers
.lied hueu actively engaged in endeavouring to trace the pro-
perty, and a few days•3ince a part or it to the value of alumni
.931. was found at the house of a *respectable •tradeamais in•
purchased it of the prisoner. The
Aulgste, who said he
.latter being applied to, could give no satisfactory account of
the possession, and was therefore taker into custody. He;
svas fully committed for trial at the ensuing Surrey Assizes.
'Bail to any amount was tendered, but refused by the Lord
hlayor.
Thursday Ann Ebbs. a young girl, was brought up charged under
-the following disgraceful circumstances .
The prisoner lived servant with a poor wan named Dupree, and
. had the care of two children. one Pre, and the other 17 nionthsold.lr
slut ,
Werit.esday morning, her master desired her to take the children v
to their mother, who sells frisk in the street. in order.that the younger
one might receive its usual nutriment. She, howevcr, went another
way, and remained absent all day. Towards night the lather be
came alarmed for the safety of his children, and went in search of
ithe prigmer. After wandering about fur several hours, he at.
:length found her near Shoreditcb church. in a state of intoxication.
surrounded by a mob, and the children in the care of other persons. 4
The youngest appeared to be dying from want of nourishment,
and from the effectsof a wound in the back part of the head. which
he learned was occasioned by the prisoner suffering it to fall front t
her anus upon the graund. A surgeon to whom lie applied acixised •
a warm bath at the only means of preserving the life of the infant.;
and the father hastened house to procure one, but the child died soon
after his arrival. Mr. Edintiorough, surgeon. of Fore-street. who:,
attended the child at house, attributed its death mainly to the wound;
the head.
The prisoner did not deny the clumce, and seemed to treat the cir-
cumstance with great levity.
The Lord Mayor observed, that the charge was one cf a very
serious nature, and demanded ample investigation; and the.prisoner
must therefore be remanded until a coroners jury could tietagaline
upon the matter.—llerasoded accordingly.
.Bow STREET. .

Tuesday William Charker underwent a final examination
before Mr. Birnie, an a charge of uttering a forged 11. Bank
note, knowiug it toJ%e sorand with having others is kis pos•
-session. The prisoner has hitherto beets a very respectable
7oung titan, an?. there is some mystery attached to the charge ;
it has been under investigation since the t till of June, on
which daythe tendered note to Mr.lobn Brown, the,
landlord vf- the lionthamptou-arins public-house in Camden
town, io paymeet for souse liquor, through.the waiter; and
there being some doubt as to the note beirsg.good, from the'
paper being thick, &c. it was refused being-taken. He re-
qtfeted Mr. Brown, the landlord, to advance him is., as he
had not money enough to pay his reckoning, which was done ;
but the landlord having some doubt as taxis conduct re.
specting the note, he informed J. Smith and his party of the
patrol of the circumstance, who searcheil•bins and found
'fifteen shillings in silver, two 11. notes, andowt of•atiother, in
•a pocket-hook; these were sunning numbers or segue-ids,
.and another loose in his pocket ; this has proved to be num;
be red next to.a.note be had uttered at 31 provers in the city.
—He accounted for asking fur the loan of ss. on his watch,
whets he had. lis. in his pocket, by saying he wanted to pay
the lA4. to a -shoemaker. Mr. Brown did not give him in
charge of the uttieecti, and there was no proof that the notes
foetid upon him were fm genies ; he was not detained in cuss
tody ; hut lie ..voluntarily attended .at the office at the time
appointed, when the account lie gave of himself, being iu Ake
employ of Mr. Jones, a jeweller of Coridsill, proved to be
correct. The notes foand Nom him proved to he furger;csv
and he said he took them limn his uo►•ter for wages, which
was denied by blr.•Jon, s ; and he having no other account
to give respecting theta, be was I'lllly-committed cur trial.
QUEEN SQUARE.
Tuesday 3. Billington was hilly committed for picking the
pocket of ,liiimitters, of Bout-street, of his gold watch,
chant, and aeols. The prosecutor was near the gale of
Burlisgton-house whets Sir S. Itamilly's chanting procession
was entering, and feeling his watch pulled irons his fob, lie
seised the prisoner, who was nearest to hint. Au officer of
this office saw the vl honer drop the %awl.
UNION HALL.

G. King, a prisoner.-in the Cotenty• Gaol at Newington,
upon a charge of felony, was on Tilesday•charged.bv a fellow
prisoner, named... Joseph Warrington, with knot:S.4w bin: down
anal rubbing him. It appeared that Wart ington was coin.
milted to prison as a vagaraut ; s few days a tteevvarils King,
aohen no person was neat. knocked Min clown and robin I Inns
•of ii. Or. 211 Which was concealed in the hitting of his wait-
Coat. Wstringion made his complaint to LIM LIU% trawl. of
• the prison, who ealised:Ning to be searched ; but nu money
being found sin , and he st retool) denying the theft, it was
considered that the charge wilt a fabrication. Warrington,
..bow ever, Us his omit' I solicit:snow:, iletimed the Superin.
tendent of the gaol to go to the .f of whose he was kinarktd
down; and obseiv ino a hole tit the slone..lloiir full at ulster, I
while the other pal is of the pavement ars :.dry, be lotil in his
hand, and with a tin:mitt y tit mini, he posh it out the money.
A detainer wa. lodged acaimit hint fur it e rehltery.
Hoon v. !Nita-01.-11ns VW an information nitiler the new act,
Liar regtuating the charges to be /UAe ey uremia,. in keying distresses
.Sra rent.
The plaintiff is owner of a considerabl.: number sit homes. and the
defendant is a broker reading a. Clapialim and hae. ,nurally boon
-fispployeil by the plaintiff to levy upon *kWh tenants as were in arreat
fotrent. In May last 111: sit instructed to seize the guotis oh a poor
woman. with six children. who were unable to pay Mr. Hood the
money she owed him ; but his Welings of compassion being laths!
..10/0 .aetino by lliw flisLuasta sausauna W We tissioem.ouc. Janata,

THE 'NATIONAL REGISTER.

he omitted to levy the distress accordiwg to his instructions, but
allowed a fature ttme fur the money to ha pummel, and when it
was ,paid into his hands a fes dap. afterwards, he deducted ss. flhr
his trwuble, mid handed to the landlord (the plaintiff') the remainder
of the money. For this deduction the landlord exhibited his ia-
tianr.ation.

Mr. Tlaunuu, solicitor for the deftaidant. .conteraled that the Act
applied only to cases where a ten:nit had been overcharged; and then
only where.a distress had actually been levied. In the presentia-
stance, the complaint WWI by the landlord, anti .nl.l distress had ever
hew nutde.

.
Mr. Carr, for the plaintiff stated in reply, that the solicitor for the
defendant had only given lib attention to a part of tho Act. The
Act hail made it highly penal.fora broker to charge either tenant or
ilandlonl, or any other person,,••• for any act, ossaten,or diing, unless
such actalsall have been really done." In the Cabe Urine the court.
the defendant had perforinul no act of broker e, and yet he had
made a charge as if such act had been really onaed.
The Magistrate ai,rreed with Mr. Carr in, via constructi,n of the
statute, but stated Ins unwillingness to inflict the penalty, when it was
evident that the defendant kid emit, partly from ignorance of the
law, and partly from a feeling of virtuous compassion. He should,
,therethre, direct that Mr.-Ingrain should make repayment of the
overcharge, and defray the.custs of the proceedings.