The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-16 00:00:00

THE KING V. THE EARL Of CADOGAN.

This was an indictment against the noble defendant, for not
repairing a wall and bank, laying between the River Thames
and a public highway in the parish of Chelsea. The particular
place appeared to be a row of hooves West of the Bishop of
Winchester's Palace. It was alleged, in support of the prose-
cution, that the noble defendant, who Is Lord of the Manor, was
liable to repair the wall and bank from the East to the West
cud of Cheyney Walk. Lord Cadogais could not be liable,
without the Jury believed the Lord of the Manor bad re,raired
time immemorial. _

Mr. Gurney, who appeared for the prosecution, stated, that
the trustees of Kensington turnpike were ansitme to try
whether the Earl of Cadogan was liable to make these repair*.
The spot in question was near Battersea-bridge. The wall ran
along the bank, and a row of ancient trees stood between the
wall and the high road. The roots of those trees had damaged
the wall, and the noble defendant having refused to make the
repairs, the trustees commenced this action. He should prove
that the wall had always been repaired by the Lord of the
Manor, and the question would be whether the mirk Lord or
the parish were to make the repairs.
Several witnesses proved the situation of the wall, and the
repairs made by Lord Cadogan.
Mr. Scarlett called witnesses, who stated instances of repairs
done to the wall by the inhabitants living opposite.
The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to cousider, whether
there was evidence to lead to that conclusion, the defendant
would be liable to the prosecution.
l'lte Jury found the defendant guilty, by which his Lordship
is liable to repair that part of the wall which *laud* tin his
manor.
net bocit in MALLARD.
This sou an action brought by tile pleintiff, an auctioneer,
to recover a loss sustained by the sale of a horse, which did
not answer warranty.
•':!te plaintiff wanted a horse to go in harness, and was told
l'.e defeb!lant, who is a gentleman residing in Bedford-place,
The defendant's coed/wan
Kum:el-square, had one lo soil him.
said the horse svuuM go with the greatest caution, and that be
might be driven with a needleftil of thread. The plaintiff gave
eighty guineas for him. On the fist trial he went to Harrow,
and, aocording to the evidence plaintiff's groom, lie began
kicking without the least provocation, .44 such • way that it was
umiak to drive him. They tned him again, on a journey to
Ascot, and lie proved equally restive. He was ,'"11eil times
in harness, and the pleiontf found him ungoveruin..4.- The
plaintiff Wing the horse would not suit hint, applied to :41e
defendant to take him back. On his refusal lie sent the horse
to Aldridge's stables, where he was sold for 27 guineas. The
espence of keeping the horse before he was sold amounted to
1 1/.loe. and deducting the sum for which the horse sold, the
the plaintiff sought to recovers balance of 4SI.
Mr. Simms, who was with Mr. Bullock when lie drove the
horse to Ascot, proved that the animal broke the heroes*, and
kicked violently going sod returning neat day.
The plaint:des groom proved the horse was kept in the plain-
tiff's stables. (hie guinea per week was a fair charge for the
keep of a horse in a gentleman's stable.
Mr. Gurney, for the defendant, said the horse never was a
kicker before lie got into the hands of Mr. Bullock.
The defendant's groom being examined, described the horse
to be as tame as a lamb. He had driven the horse through
Smithfield Market on cattle day, and in the heart of the City of
London. The horse was always quiet and safe in heroes..
The Jury, under all the circumetauces, found a verdict for
the plaintiff.—llama; es 441. Costs 40s.
wensealetx, Die. 11.
TIIE ILlmi v. JACIL‘o% A‘l) OTHERS.
This was au iatlichuent against George Jackson the elder,
George Jackson the younger, and one Jervis, for a conspiracy.
They were charged with procuring a commission of bankruptcy
to i-sue againet George Jackson the younger, for the purpose of
enabling the lather, George Jackson, to prove a larger debt
under the comniiiiaion than was due from Jackson the younger.
This prosecution had been twice before the court previous to
the present indictment, which came upon a rule obtained for a
new trial.
Mr. Scarlett styled the oase.—The prosecutor, Mr. Fox, had
established a medical business in Ilialiopegate. street, and being
desirous of disposing Oil, was visited by Jackson the younger,
who finally became a purchaser, fur the sum of 2,0001. Part of
the sum a* secured by a bond, and Mr. Fox was preparing to
enforce the payment by legal means, when he was stopped by a
commission of bankruptcy, sued out by Jackson the elder, and
Jervis, the father-in-law of Jackson the younger, in which the
father claimed a debt of 1,7001. The prosecutor consiatring
the chide a colourable transaction, intended to defraud him of
his claim on the younger Jackson, commenced this prosecution.
Mr. Srerlett called witnesses, who supported the case for the
prosecution.
The Solicitor General for Cue defendant, addressed the Jury
at considerable length.
The Lord Chief Justice charged the Jury, and they found,
without hesitation, all the defendant* not guilty.