The National Register.
London, England, 1819-03-29 00:00:00

C.IUSES.

••••• owl roihY s Y. J.' we. -....Undefended.—This
wa, brought to recover the sum of .4/. 16a. 64. for
burley and delivered. The delivery of which hem,' ea-
tisnic only proved, the Jury, under the direction of his Lord-
ship, tonal a verdict fur plaintiff - Damages 44'. 16.. 64,
Li tea sad .abler.. v. J Se4e,e.—This action was brought
ti recover 10') .advanced on a promissory note by the 'I Yea
surer of the'hlandesle Friendly Society, with an arrear of
interest. Mr. it Sulker, the sabscribing witness to the note,
having proved the hand writing o• the defendant, the Jury
found a verdict for plaintiffs for lII'. sa.
To v. C No defence —I his action was brought
to rezover for flour sold and delivered. and she pro.
mice ot payment beim!, proved by James Houghton, the off •
cer, when he arrested the defend ant, a verdict was given for
plaintiff for 28.51.
R Ice I Breit v Rain. Lemen.—Undefended.—To recover
the sum of 34/. 18.. :U. for work and labour done to de-
feud:lnes mill Verdict for plaintiff, damages Mt. Ins. 2d.
Dae . n e 4 E d Illighe: v. Ri. hardeon.
—This was an action of ejectment to recover the possession
of about 17 acres of fen land at Hilgay in this county. It
appeared that the defendant took possession of this land
about five years ago, but not under any am-cement, nor had
he ever paid rent to the plaintiff 'I he defence pet up was;
that the plaintiff bad no title, and that even if he had, the
defendant was undertenant to a Mr Hedge. '1 lie plaintiff
having saticactorily proved his title to the land, and the de
fendant nut being able to prove that he was undertenant to
Mr. !ledge, the Jurv, under the direction of his Lordship,
found a verdict for plaintiff.
Green ...if If, v. Batmen end 11-1/:, for an assault.—Green
is a shopkeeper at Swanton Morley, and the di-fend-tat a
wheelwright in the same parish.—lt appeared that the two
females had some trifling dispute, and a few blows passed,,
which were of a trifling nature; but the defendant, by en-
deavouring to prove that the plaintiff caused the dispute,
strengthened Green's case; and a verdict was given fur
plaintiff, damages 40..
Yvv,g, (c'erk; v. ',Mc—Record withdrawn.
Medal sadnd r. v. Hawkins end o hers— fins was an issue
out of Chancery to try the vat lity of a will made in the
year 1779 by Robert Pur.glove, late of King's Lynn in Nur-
tolk, blockniaker —lt appeared hat Mary Hawkins. one of
the defendants, who now wanted to invalidate the will,
proved it a few years since in the proper Ecclesiastical court.
Frances &rotor, one of the subscribing witnesses, proved
that in the year 1779 the lived servant with a Mrs. Hawkins
(sister to the testator) and one of the said defendants; that
she well recollected being sent for to Mr. Pursalove's house
to attest she execution of his will with two other persons.
several other witnesses were called to prove the hand writing
of the testator, the death of one of the other subscrib-
ing witnesses, and that searches and inquires had been
made to find the third witness but without effect Copies
of admissions were produced to show that persons entitled
to property under the will, had been admitted under it. It
was sontended by the defendant that, part of the will being
written in the margin without any reference, it tended to in-
validate it; but it appeared to have been all one hand writing
and written at the same time, and not introduced after the
will was esecu:ed: and the. Jury being satisfiedmf the fact.
they did, under the direction ot his Lordship, find a verdict
for .the plaintiff.
:/ An Halle. v. At biheiten's of flee Hundred of Heppieg in
111n.f.1k.r-This was an action under the Black Act, 9th Geo I.
c. `.i2 to recover the sum of MI. being port of the loss which
plaintiff sustained in consequence of two corn stacks and a
barn and other buildings having bean wilfully-set on fire
in January 1818. la appeared that plaintiff-6 the owner and
occupier ot a 6111411 farm at Lessingham in Norfolk, and that
one Thompson was indicted and tried at the last Lent
assizes. on suspicion' dist Ise was the person who set fire to
piaintifrs peoperty, but that he was acquitted. Witnesses
were called to prove that the necessary forms required by
the above act had been complitel with. Plaintiff'sson proved
that, previous to the fire, he suspec•ed there were evil dis-
posed persons in the neighbourhood; a calf having been a
few nights before suspended in an outhouse belonging-to the
plaintiff and some harness thrown into& pond —that heand his
father were induced to watch the premises for several nights.
and they actually watched till a very late hour in the night
preceding the fire, which happened in the morningof the
.?9th of January. 1818, between 5 and 6 o'clock, and that the

damage was between'4
and 5001 —Other witnesses were in
attendance to corroborate the above facts, hut the defendant's
counsel being satisfied that the plaintiff* property was wit.
fully set on fire, and that more than 200/. damage was in-
cursed, the Jury, under the direction of his Lordship, found
a verdict for the plaintiff for that sum; and his Lordship, in
by charge to the Jury, regretted that by the provisions of
the art no more damages could be given.
h, Kt. g v (.;:wirns esd tellers —This was an indictment
for an as,.tult alleged io have been committed at Wells. on
the l'Ale of August PSlti On one Henry Thomas, a Custom-
I louse offe:er; and the prosecution has been conducted under
the direc!ion of his Maysty's Commissioners of the Customs.
A Special Jury was summoned, and notice of trial was given
at the last summer assiref, but Ott the day preced ng the com-
mencement thereof, the solicitor for the prosecution counter-
mandei it. Another notice of trial was iiven for the.e as-
sizes ; but as scarcely any of the Special Jury attended, the
counsel for the proseeeition declined to pray a Tales; and the
cause, after a vast espense to the defendants, who have tw ce
sublime acd above thirty witnesses on their behalf, stands over
till notice of tel.', t'e again given.
We think the defendants would do right to petition the
Ilouse of Commons for relief against the vezatious delay and
e pense•
It.lieer v. flstwer.—This was an action to recover the
profits of certain glebe land, at Sake, which was occupied by
the defendant after he had reigned the living. Both par-
tes are clergymen and brothers. Many objections were
taken to the form of action by the defendant', counsel, and
ultimately a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent,
for Izitg. 6i. W. subject to be reduced to 50'. 9s. by the
opinion of f he Court of King's Bench on a point of law.
Sem, v was action to etc-over 300!. and up-
wards. the amount of dilapidation. suffered by the defen-
dant on the ',afore-mentioned living 'of Salle. Thiee sur-
veyors ware called on the part of the plaintiff, to prove the
amount of repairs necessary to be donee and on the part of
the defendant, several workmen living near Salle, for the
same purpose. Ibe Jury returned aNcrdict for plaintiff—
, damages 2501.

MARCH 2g.

/lipoid v. framer. ..4n this scion Messrs. Bignolds, of
Norwich, sought to recover Wad vc Isich tbey had ads towed
to one Event, t , and which had been guarantied to t lieu, by
the defendant, who had
.joiued Evesiett in a note for Iwo,
*I he note had been delivered up to EveneA under fake rept e.
sentations. as was stated by the plaintiff,. Mr. Morgan, sin
the part of the pla' 'ffs, wa. called to give evidence rr.peet.
ing the note, or some cons creation which hr,d pas.ed on the
subject of it, but could state nothing which could be rectivssl
as evideuce.-The plaintiffs were nonsui.ed.