The National Register.
London, England, 1822-10-21 00:00:00

DISORDERLY DOUSE.-ttLX r. IMAMS.

Mr. Carney stated, that this was an indictment preferred by
sea et id respectible of the parish of Marylehone,
aAninat the defendant, for keeping a COI/4111011 brothel, in (.:une•
bet land-streti, em be No% .toad. The iudividuals oho bop-
ported the proaecntitm had act shoat piirVyng ihtir neigliboce-
hob& but still the sink of iniquity ki i,t by the defendant re•
rosined. The defendant, do:itt,-, a em, merahle time, bad ltt
it out to women of be lona, who tmote an imleceut rap-wires
of their peia•ms a• ton v.iiitiotas, iotirarg geoltemen to o
The house havin4 been conducted in that way a considered.,
tint.., the defendant ay..s sp, i. J to by ',cram,' who re,..Sia
st..ated with Lim, on said, lit., I cannot payluy
/lent oithoitt letting nay house to ands p, rsm.s." It was redly
dist satin, tai aml a 131i1111 had bummer give up hostas-
tat.,piog, than sem, a mmeurit. rue hots %until-4A

_ .-.461.

_-~
..

s.•

....

proved In evidence, and the Joey would; no doubt abate the
nuisance by finding the &Nodose galliy.
Dlr. Gettige Matthews said, be lived at No. 55. Cumber-
land-street, Few-toad, le the parish of 31arylebone. Mr.
Diodes was Ike maser of No. 1. Cuoilteihine.-A:cet. lie had
Peva ttoiliti! al the a indows pointini, to then, ail,' toltring litt
to
in. 1 h.. 7 were young 1tin41,6 nut very inodest. Atter the
pro,reutiuu cumweilce.l, blades eti:letl 41.1 the tvituvre, and
nblv.l waat otthuee be bad Oven him be witness said he
had Livers vo oifenee to hiui, but the people opposite Lis
Louse.

llere Mr. Gurney consulted with the derentleees Counsel,
and awed to 1110 Jeep, that the dersudent'•ad tiouseniect to
let a t er.iiet go against hint, !autumn, et the salute lime, list
he would re.:,o%et the saut,ince. " (euht the teamed couusei)
Lc Gums fide gives up the house, he will nut be brought tip Ita
jutigluent."

WLSTNINSTED. ova. 17.
WEST D. WADE.

Thu: was no action by the plaintid, a tailor, spina the de.
fendutt, • toow or the late Ltrut.-Culonel Wade, to recover
• de.ualitl fur cloaths furnished as MUM sung on the death of her

'fha single question was, whether the mourning was furnish-
ed by the plaitiff, arm a specific agreement that the amount
of the bill should be applied to ilie demand the plaintal had
upon Col. Wade Burin.. is life. If such an agierinent existed
and the widow did nut make herself liable, toe plaintiff could
not recover. Ii appeared lied this Colonel bad kept a paint
manufactory. and when the mourning was ordered the plaintiff
sent the widow an order fur a quantity of paint. The value of
the giso.ls so obtained was set iii aniiiust the old deut, and the
phinitill arrested the Jet, nasal fur the awuunt of the mourning.
'llia defence was, that the arrest hsd been wide in violation
of life espresa agreement, and that the plainti.f had made so
excessive charge. (or the pui pose of making the hid amount 10
151. '1 he whole transaction was &milted by 31r. Gurney, the
defendant.' counsel, In be a case of hardship and oppressius.
1 be •;01UU1011 Sergeant, who was fur the plaintiff, iu his reply
answered the case of hardship, by static; tart the defendant
was preparing to leave the country with her children at the
time the plaintiff arrested bar.

MU Lord Chief Jost;ce, in his charge to the Jury. consider-
ed the con :act of the plai tiff reprehensible, hut kft them to
decide • hether an agreement had been made to add the charge
fur mourning to the Colonel's account.
The Jur) found a verdict for the defendant.
6WINUTUN V. PARLINS.

The plaintiff' brought his action against the defendant, en.
of the tide Sheriff's for Middlesex, to recover a compensation
for loss, occasioned I the improper conduct of the Sheriff's
officers, in raking an ioccrrect bail bond.
Itlr. Gurney stated the case. It appears that the plaintir
was the indorser of a bill of exchange for 101. He sued out
a urit against John ‘Vhite, the acceptor, who was arrested,
and his attorney put in bail for him. Neither %% bite nor his
attorney knew into %hos.: hands the bill hid fallen, but White
hating been arrested, on a writ issued by Mr. Ewington, by
Amino blunder on the part of Hopwood and Neighbour, the
Sheriff's officers, a bail bond was prepared in the name of
ing..ave. It was sent to the plaintiff-4 attoiney to be exe-
cuted iu the name of %%Ingrate, wrote upon an ermine, which
had been the us ..e of Arabella. The hood was filled up sod
executed against N't hit • and Mor.mii, one of the bail iu the
name of %I ingrate. Thc plaintiff 's attorney supposing, as it
came from tike Siltriir, and was reg Mar, brought two actions.
in kith of which he was nonsniicd. The costs to the plainulf
amouhted to 1331. besides the less of the debt, which natio
tie whole 1.1131. Tim) sum beelow sought to recover on the
ground, that it had been occasioned by tile usinolotact of the
Sheriff.** 011iCCra.

Mr. Ilult. for the defendants, r,iresented the mivtake to he
an immccnt oversight, which produced no benefit whatever to
the Snelitr 's °Ulcers.
The Lord Chief Justice could not consider it a case which
admitted of palliation. After the error had occurred, instead
of a remedy they ►utrered it to go to the plaintiff's attorney.
knowing It must produce the loss which ultimately fell on the
plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff.—Damages 1584
GORDON e. CANNA:Lt..

The plaintiff, who had been an (Alice, in the Portuguese
service, brutia,lit his action against Mr. Campbell, surviving
partner of Mr. Stewart, an army a,ent, to recover 1501.
which the plaintiff stleged bad been transmitted to the sad
partners, to be Laid out in the 3 per cent. annuities, and which
bad never been accounted for.

T..° Common Sergeant, who stated the case, said the pia:a-
tilt* was a British °nicer, lhl6, and twelve years pre-
vious, had served ill Portugal. About th•it time he was re-
quested by Aleaars. Campbell and Stewart, army agents, to
place his affairs in their hands, and allow them to become his
agents. lie acceded to their request, and sent them 1501. the
fruit 01'12 years' service in the Peninsula, with instruction to
pu.ehase stuck in the S per cet.ts. Mr. Stewart received the
ISUI. which wit paid to hint by Messrs. Cox and Greenwood.
Some time after the transaction Mr. Stewart died, and in the
accounts sent to Captain Gordon no notice wile taken of the
1501. The plaintiff left l'orugal and came to England in Ihdl,
sod immediately called un Mr. Campbell, time surviiing partner,
fur payment of the money. Mr. Campbell said he knew act hing
shoot it. The uansirotion war. a private concern with the lute
partner.
ithesses were called, nod letters read in support of the
statement ; but theme was ground to sup lose the transaction
wax exclusivaiy between Mr. S..uwart his friend Captain

.11r. Smitten for the defendant coati oiled, that it was a matter
in whicu Campbell was out revuusilda. The Jury (*mid
• verdict for the derendat.t.

BRANT V. PEACOCK.

This was an action far a 01111iCi01111 arrest. The plainlif
alleged in bin declaration, that rho defendant falsely, malici-
ously, and without renamitible cause, sued out a writ against
Vim, and held him to hail, knowing there wan main- due.
It mode/used that a person named Jones, who lived at Cam-
bricl,te, bad dealings with Peacoak to a large amount. In June,
Itv:IO, he gave him a bill of esiliange, MIACII had been accepted
by Imam, the plstn'a, for Jones. The bill was dated 2116
June, 1620, and was for 501.; it become due on the 27th of
October. Jones saw that Pcicock had not paid the bill away.
and he paid hies a sum of WO.; 501. of which was to go to Ilia
payment of Srant'n bill. Peacock at the Wile time amid lie
Gould nut hive the hil/ up. as et was al some distance. Junta,
however took a memorandum oldie payment to he applied to
the bal. Thin happened iu Nutria:Jet. 1/324, and Meld months
after the defeinlmit thoJglit lit to ear lirtint. The plaintilf was
arrested and taken to a lock up house, where he incurred es-
peso •. The action was set down for trial ; alto one sgainnt
Jones; and In,tb Lein; referred, it appeared that the Omaha 'a
bill had been owl. and the deleitdatit paid dm snail is loud'
actions.

Mr. Gurney, for the def. uthint cinteoded that the action
could Ppl he inaiiitiined. !lei e wa, no prowl of malice. It
~an a proceeding arising out of pecuniary timisactionb between
the pdatecti, and tile ellect the Hurl of the
deli idiot.
Tee Lord Chief Justice was of opinion the action could he
sustained al the Caine tint, the Jury mt.:lit to con:oder weeii.ee
Were was proof of malice. The Jury t..uuuJ a leidict for the
planititi—llaulagea Idl.
FIIIDAY, OCT. 18.
COOKE O. H. PiEOENT HELL.

The p'aintilT brought hiv action aAninst the defendant to re-
cob,. r money had and received tini:er the following
•tal,eeh

Al r.Cnoke k an engraver, in St. Martin's-lane, and the ile-
fohisitt, accordin,i to his own statement, is a barrister, r si-
ding at No. 1, 'loyal 'terrace, Adelplii. The defendant had
fib, reputatimi of being • genealogist. The plainitil, who is
the nephew of a Mr. Cooke, who died in 179:;, pusses:bit of
lar_c estates, considered himself heir at law, and I e applied
to Mr. !Jell to make out his title. Ile detailed his claim, and
Mr. Bell said Ire had no doubt ho should be able to establish
the plaintiff's title to the estate, and also get him a Peerage
dor...ant iii the family. airs CLiuke some lout after his app:i-
cation received the followi-g letter :
" St have reflected oo the statement made by yon, re-
lating to the a states of your deceased uncle, and as Barristers
cannot legally tiling actioas for Les, I have suffered by my
inability to carry oa last actions with elfect. As it will be
necessary to make out a pedigrea to show your aflioity to your
deceased uncle, according to the law of gen.2.ilogy of descent,
I could not 1.,r any sum less than Zia compile a pedigree, and
Rise such advice as I could impart, consistently with my ro-
tessioual duties." " 11. A. BELL.'

The plaintiff baring received the above let;;;,t1;;;I:tthe
tlefen:laut had examined all the records told charters enrolled
since the reign of William the Conqueror, cid not having so
much looney, went to his friend Woodburue, who advanced
w.:icli was paid to the deieudaut. On .be 4th of Weather
fuflowing the defendaut wrote auotber letter. ut stsnitauce as

SIR,--I encl. se you the p.-digree of Sir Anthony Cooke,
am. the demise under which the family estate came to your
uncle's possession I have devoted the whole of my time since
the 21st of October to your business, and as that Mute is vs-
.

Wahl, to me, you are my dehloe. There are Counsel's fees to
be paid, and u. I wait more money io carry uu the war with
vigour, you must procure souther fond."
The defendant at the same time fJrnished an it econnt of the

money eapenoed. The ileitis were curious. Mr. Cooke again
consulted his friend :dr. Woodhourue, who gave molter draft
for IOU!. which also was [mid to the defendant. A fete dnys
after the payment of the second sum the plaintiff and his
friend called ou the defendant to ascertain what prowess he
Lad nude, when, to their great astonisament, ithey were told
be had left London for Ireland, mid would not he back before
March. On the defendants return the plaintiff and Mr. W.
waited on him, and asked *hat progress be bad made d The
defendant said, 1 hare eaaniiald many records, and the pro-
secution of this claim will cost more money than I thought ;
the issue is doubtful. and I think it licVer to go no further.”—
The plaintiff replied. Then give me back my money.". This
the defeudaut refused ; and in a few days feruished the plain-
iiir with an account. The items were, lat,utiences on various
occasions on what was termed Mr: Cooke's business, and some
of them were really
Mr. S. IVoteibotwn pioeLd the a'iose !ads.
There was no defence to the action
The Lord Chief Justice said, it seems to me a professional
man would upon hearing the pliant:4's ca.e, say, that the
time which bad elapsed presented so many difficulties, that it
was oarless to eap:nd money. For my own part, I have no
doubt respecting the transaetion, and if the Jury think the de-
fendant II'tall( to cajole the plaiatill', and IL it he tenl, steps
in the business, their verdict twist he fur the whole sum of
our huin:red and fitly pounds.
Mr. Scarlet, who was Counsel for the plaintiff, 6314 to save
his client from the chance of Inviug an action brought against
him by the defendant for any services which lie alight have per-
formed, he should consent to take a verdict for !did.
The Jury ituiuediately found a verdict for IOU!. damages.