The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-24 00:00:00

S

31'0

-

THE M

INAL R:

FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. Mr. Nixon ordered end paid for the pliathstr-prate ail types I
•—somar- in question, and they were deposited in Pall-matlilleort.—
_, B.ANKRUIiTS. e'-••10 . .., • Afterwardss, a fags" rarinicci Hatliweeld lis a paper oeljed
ET Woodward, Detby, innkeeper.'vfolicitdir Mestra.Xell The Observer of the Times, of 'which' Mr. Soot became the
and Co. Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. editor and p y
rinter. Tha Jury were aware that the daily
W. Sanders, Bristol, tistimonget. Sols. Messrs. Clarke and newspaper ca/led The Times had a very extenaiv• circelatiou .
F. C.
Co. Gray% In., Square.
Co. Chancery Lane.ookworthy, Bristol, bookseller. Sols. Messrs. Pools and therefore the proprietors of several other papers had
wa C
imitated its title in the hope of sharing in its success.—
d
B. Wainwright, Hereford, ma star. Sole Messrs Daz and —This was the case of the paper its question which Mr. Scott
:t. .
Co. Guildhird Street engaged to print and edit, and to enable himto perform the
W. S. Williams, Brampton, coach master. Sole. Messrs. printing, he removed the types of Mr. Nixon from Pall
Robinson and Co. Charterhouse Stittaie. Mall Coed' to Cetherine•strect, where the Observer of the
In VID:.:NDS. Times was conducted. Tide, however, was not all ; for he
Nov. 30, A. Anderson, Philpot Lane, merchant-23, W. caused an exeontion against himself to be levied on these
Law, Copthall Chambers, Throemorton Street, merchant—Dec. effects ; and then, vatic., they wereput np to sale by
14,
T. Samson. Lyen, cotichmaker— 14, IL Purdock, Andover. auction, uffered to heroine their purchaser. Notice was given
etailehThilltet.;--14, G. Lows. Commercial Buildings, Min 1
- -- to the Sheriffs not to sell ; but they persevered and sold the
Lisle, wine merchant-14. J. Howley, Willow Street. Bankside
o proerty ; and had thus made theinaelvas liable to the present
cure' merchant-14, T. Kilwards, !Lighten, merchant-14, B. !
Bliatiorough, Belgrave Street, PLIIIIICO, rowleePer---10, J. action.
Walker, Nicholas Lane, insurance broker-13, J. and J
To support this case on behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was
Thompson, Newcastle upon 'Fyne merchants-1 t, W. Sandford given to show that the types and printing-press were ordered and
and J. Hoz, Salient, dyers-14, 11., T. and P. Farr, Bristol. Paid for by Mr. Niiem. Mr. Ilatlaway stated that lie engaged
merchants ...11), V. Ockley, Terrington, 1,/ortiilk. general shop_ Mr. Scott to point and edit the (Werner of the Times at a salary
lot:per—it, W. Timer cal J. North, Mold Green, Yorkshire, GI 161. a week, but never heard the name of Nixon till after-
Fancy clothiers—i 1, T. Ilirat, Marsh, Yorkshire, cloth dresser— wards. The °nicer who took the property in execution obtained
11, D. Thornton, Kirkhearun, Yorkshire, victualler—in, W. admittance in consequence of a servant of Mr. Scott cuming
Kemp, Bath, banker—It. 11.. Frost, Macclesfield. and J. and M. and asking some question, which gave him the opportunity to
Ashton, Liverpool, timber merchants-40, N. Nicholls, Holborn enter. The seizure, and the offers of Mr. Scott tourchase of
Bridge, balter....l 7. 'F. I lalliday, Old Sou•h Sea House, Broad the auctioiseer, were also
proved. p
Street, merciant—lti, J. Coppard, sen., Mitcham, drug grinder
—Hi, T. Morris, Barton upon Humber, and IL Nicholson,
Mr. Gurney, for the defeedant, expressed his confidence that
•Glantford Briggs, bankers-11, J. Hampshire, Kirkburton, be should be able to alto N that the property was partner.
Yorkshire, fulling miller-10, J. W. Sanders, Newcastle Manx alilli property, and therefore rightly taken by the Shatilr ; and
Tyne, merchant—i 7 J. B. Player, Bristol, bottle liquor liter- m
that, even giving eelt to Mr. Nixon's share in it, lie was in-
clam—Jan. 12. I'. emitting, Csuale Cou.t, urchin .Lune, iner • debted to Mr. Soott in leiwards of 19:11. To establish this case
chant-21. W. G. Haney, Battle, Sussex, manufacturer of he called Mr. Scott.
gunpowder.
It was objected to the competency of Mr. Scott, that by es-
CERTIFICATES to be granted Dec. 10. teblishing the validity of the execution he would discharge
H. Bryant, Norwich, leather cutter—W. T•vedilell, Marshy, himself from the debt due to the original plaiutiffs ; bat a re-
Cuinbeiland, common wrtier—J. Parr, Stand Lane, Lancashire, lease from them was produced, which rendered him a competent
email manufdetuier
witness. lie stated that the property was part of a premien*
of 5151.t0 be advanced he Mr. Nixon, and belonged to the
partnership. The original debt was due to t'.e landlord of the
premises where the business was carried on in Pall-mall-court,
which lie possessed before the commencement of the partner-
ship, and continued to possess now. He never sent any one le
point out the goods to the Sheriff, nor was there ally collusion
between himself and the plaintiff in the action. Mr. Nixonu
was DOW indebted to his more than 1991. : he had a share in
the profit of printing, though not of editing the Observer of Ike
Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
WEHSE'SDAY, ROW. 20.
THE MERMAID.--HELLERYO. uottrurr.
Hr. Hart moved for an injunction to restrwi4 the defendant
from disposiog of, or sending out of the country, the figure of a
mermaid, or the supposed figure of a mermaid, low exhibiting
i t St. jallie4.ll street, by the defendant, under the following
circumstances :—The plaintiff and defendant were partners in
the ship Pi, kering, trading from the port of London to South
America. The defendant sold the ship in South America fur
6.11001. and bum thence proceeded to Batavia, and purchased
the figure in question for 1,2001. out of the proceeds of the sale
of the ship. He afterwards went to the Cape of Good Hope,
and exhibited the figure to great profit, from whence he brought
it to this country, and was now exhibiting it in it. James's
street, and reinst d to account with the plaintiff for the profi:s ;
and threatened, if the plaintiff interfered, that he would dispose
ut the figare, or take it out of the country. He (the learned
counsel) therefore contended that he had stated sufficient to his
Lordship for the purpose of grauting the injunction.
The Lord Citancellor—" is it positively sworn that the figure
was purchased out of the proceeds of the axle of the ship, and
that the plaintiff and deft 'Want were jointly iuterested in the
proceeds !"
Mr. Mot answered, it was so sworn.
Lund Cliauectlor—" Take the injunction.

On cross-examination be denied that he ever said to ➢lr.
Miller that the press and type■ were Nixon's separate property.
Henry Reynolds, the articled clerk of the last witness, stated
the types were intermingled with partnership property.
The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to say whether they
believed Mr. Scott's statement, or that of the other witnesses,
under which direction they found a verdict fur the plaintiff—
Damages, 2301.

TUESDAY, NOV. 19.
ELLIS V. AttMsTRONG.
This was a question under the Enclosure Act, and the point
to be decided was, whether a ditch was to be cousidtred a
ft nee.

The Lord Chief !twice referred to the pleadings Anil evi-
dence in the cause, which was tried before bite at Guildhall.—
His direr lion to the Jury way, be thought that a retitle ander the
The Solicitor General shewed cause against the rule. The
act set forth that a good and suilicieut tplickset was to be planted.
Johnson's Dictionary gave this definition of a fence—a boun-
dary, a dyke, or wall. lie (the Solicitor General) contended
that a river was a sufficient boundary, but not falling within the
term fence.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MONDAY, NOV. 18.
TUE KING f. CLARKE.

Chief Justice Best—A ditch is a very sufficient boundary in
fortification.

The defendant in this ease, who had been convicted of pub-
lishing an afr istieal libel, entitled " Quesu at the sit-
tings of the Eist term. Guildhall, London, was this morning
brought up is receive the judgment til ihe

'lite Lord Chief Justice read the libel and the evidence of its
politic:duel by the defendant, as adduced on the Unit, and men-
tioned the fret of the Jury having strongly re•eummeuded the
dependant to the merciful considevaion of the Court, on the
grwind of the state tit destitution to whir 6 be had been reduced.
The defendant sow put in an idliJav it, sluing; that lie had
discontinued the aide of the offensive work, after he hail bees
indicted, anti submitting that be Lad not, either on his trial
or otherwise, aggravated the crime with which he bad been
accused. He also entri kited, as he was completely destitute,
that the Court would rather increase his term of imprisonment
than call upuu him to bud sureties for his future goof behaviour,
as be should out be able to procure them. lie did nut rare if
it wits solitary confinement, as lie had some literary works in
bawl, to which lie wished to apply
Mr. Gurney addressed the Omit iu ic,gravation, and in for-
tilde leims called their Lordsl:ips's attention to the bilious
character of the libel.
The Chief Justice asked the defendant, whether, if the Court
wale disposed to let him go upon lily own recognizance, to
come up on any future day for juilgineut that the Court might
choo►e to dot et, be was prepared on oath to give up all the
twice oldie libel which were is his possession
The defendant said he was prepared to give up the only Iwo
copies whbL were in his possession ; hut that all the remiliniii;
copies had been detained by the printer for a debt of 501.
which he owed him, and were new selling at the tuschi,,e, of
which his Lordship was nu doubt aware, ler the benclit of the
piinter, and nut hit his benefit.
Gorey said, this was an additional aggravation of the
pi ismier's ulfeuce, as he stated on the face of the wit► that be
was himself the printer.
3. he Chief J ustiee—W ill you give up the name of the printer
'roe defeudatit replied, that, although lie and the primer were
at varianc.:, still, uuder the agicesocut into w liieh they had
originally entered, he could out fairly give him up to pro-
secution.

The Chief Justice observed, that the object of the Court
would be to ►ecure the copies of the well' which were unsold.
The defendant was then permitted to retire, upon w undir-
standing that he should come up again this day ',ie.:might, and
in the iutertin have such communication with the solicitor of
tbc prosecution as might lead to the object which the Court
was desirous of elluctin4—naui;:ly, the entire suppres►icn of
this moat blasphemous publication.

Solicitor General—A fence, brook, or rivulet falls under
certain distinctiona. He apprehended a fence, according to
the terms of the act, did out mina a ditch or a Ole, but
a hedge.
Mr. E. D. Jones supported the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice thought if a dike, ditch, or rivulet
had been sufficient, thousands of pounds ought have been saved
under she enclosure act.
The Court, however, refused to disturb the verdict.
Tile ►olicitor General intimated Lis intention of bringing a
N% lit of Error.