The National Register.
London, England, 1819-05-09 00:00:00

‘looLr, and 1114,ri.

Mr. Gurney moved the judgment of the Court on the de.
fen•innt., ruuv.cted of cou.itUary at the Sittings utter Term,
at t build let I.
i.e def. "dant* were liroto.:ltt into Court in enstoily.
The Chief Jutliee read the iudieiniesill, statla4 that the
d,•fenhint. were tried fora .saavir.,ry to deftaacl v.ttioas
Ira lesmen :11/4 drrlrrr•:.:.lc•t-,c6 iat.d Maneaester good,, by
pa)i:tg fur OW Faillie.l% jib bad 1)11.1. The Learned Judge
the ~ hoir evidence, tite defend/int. pit in

- - -
:ctid.ivut.. The fiiso from Mobrory IStu.lf, compl,liiegi Ih 0

undue elfort,4 had been made by the pet,ous cet mooed %%ill'
the prrr.:ertiti .... to prejudice the public hum fed h•in, bt t I.e
theater it: portial st.riements in the nety.poperpnit.l
lie had n wucp mud seven chi areal dependent on him tor dop-
plrt, am, long uup,iroanov,t Ntruld orrmdon the total itc-
s. 1 .1, lOM of the bol.Lll pot tool of tae property wlcrb he 1)0% •
1.-oak in I artdal it, adm complained of the endmi-
•niir, mid. pr 'he mind, of th- J mu' b.szaii)st
lie 11,11 a %Kr al ad six children, and prayed fur the merry
of the tonirt.

.......
John Kinnear comp' third of prrj ry on the part of ore nr
the viitoestirs at the tri ul, mho .It ore thy' he called ou Wil-
liam Lee is priynit, uul offeied him 400 t to eyril pe.
it vet in his life stir Lee before h, way pointed ou: to him iu
the Cutlet a kitieb lieuich,
Several rrspectable persons dem 'bed him to he an
honourable man in his dealings prior to than transaction,
'fh- Altnrney for the proyerution, handed in en affidavit
in w.aeh he elated he had erammed the affair, of Meyer,
tine of tlre con.pi,i.inrs, and thereby n,ce taiyed ch:.t Meyer
is hen he went nT, hyd acceptances aguihyt him to the
amou at or So,ooo'.
The Cna.t after so:ne deliberation, itniunated that they
did not approve of the hivty affidavit made by the Altroney
for the.proyeeution, in order that the defenernts might knit',
the eni•tenta, :t11:1 Ire able to airtieer it. they were remanded
to be hrou4ht up again fur juitromeot on Mond ty. The
defendants vete thrn taken oat of Court.

Imprenut M•eisbm.—On the sitting of the Cniirt cccc sl
Gentlemen object/ d to lie sworn as Grand-jurymen, al-
leging dolt they were not rreeholdecs, when
Ile. Justice I i y said if they were lunz lessehnlifers
they %lyre fish'e to serve ; in it few ::: i l 'inmates hi.. Lord-
ship said he wished to ...meet all prior he lied made. Ile
had just Inukeil into theAels of Perlimient. 411.1 Mtn his
own masinscript reports, Gail ha found. that it was nil
neeewiry list a crawl juice should pos,e-a cry qualifica-
tion in point of property.

COURT OF CHANCEIIY, SATITIMAT, NiAY 1.
RLDFORD CHARITY.
His Lordship in this case said, that whenever an abuse took
phi a io the charity nt Sedrord for the support i f the poor, and
for the msinte itusec of a school. the ctsr might he btooght before
him by a per-on living in the town. In the Hest itt instmiee, the
eiders of a London Itaish Synagote were eompLitiant,.
a•id he could not consider them as proper parties. lie wonid
distniss the application. so fair as they were concerned, and would
:lext week dispose of it as to the outer parties.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SATORDAY, MAY 1.
BREACH OF CONTRACT BY A COACH FItOPRIETOR.
BARCLAY v. 'loan.
This was an action brought by Mr. Barclay, a gentleman of
reapeerability, to recover from the defend:Am 121. 13s. Rd. teeing
she amount of expenses incurred in unloving his family from
itastings to London. The facts of the case were these:—ln the
month of August last. Mr. Barclay and his faultily, consisting of
three adults and dam children, were upon a visit at Hastings.
flaying detennioal to return to London on Friday, the _sth of
that month. he sent his mother inlaw to the office of the defend-
ant, who was a proprietor of the Hastings coach. to secure
places. The Lady proceedsal to the ollica, and saw the book-
keeper, of whom she bepoke the coach, and paid the usual de-
posit. She particularly specified the day. and the hook-keeper
said, '• it was all right." On Wednesday, the 25th, a person
called at Mr. Barclay's for his luggage, but was of course told,
that as the family slid not intend going until the nstli, it was
unnecesscry to send the luggage so soon. Thus matters rested
till the Friday, when the coach departed without die intended
pa,engers, and Mr. Barclay and his family were left behin&
An expination was demanded, when it was said thtrc hail been a
oil-take. As, however. Mr. Barclay could not remain at Has-
without considerable person;.) inconvenience, and its he was
nut disposed to incur this, in order to indulge the negligence of
the defendant, he sent for a post-coach, and in this manner Fa.
creded to I.ontion. For the amount of the expenses thus incur-
red, the present action was brought.
On the pan of the defendant, it was contended that the mis-
take had originated nn the pail of Mr. Barclay, and not with
the servants of the defendant. To prove this, the book-keeper
and one of his assistants were called. who swore that Mrs. Bar-
clay had bespoke the places for Wednesday, and not for Friday,
and that when the entry wits made, it was read over to her, and
she :omitted to its correclaess. This, however, was negatived by
the fact of Mrs. Smith, one of the. prrtners of the efendant,
having admitted that the disappointineat area from mistake,
and to this was added the additional circumstance of a formal
tender if a post-chaise ha, ir.g been made by the dtfunkt.t, at
the hense in which Mr. Barclay had resides', subsequent w bis
r. epartnre.
The Jury, under the direction of the Learned Judge, found a
verdict for the plaintit—Damages, 121. 13a. 9d. ; etr u, 4.01.