The National Register.
London, England, 1822-02-24 00:00:00

t that the references to the places from whence they had
been quoted were not—and on this variance the plaintiff
was nousuited.

TUC-ntY, Fill. 19.
SPORTING CAUsE.--WOOOROFVE V. lIELPS
The plaintiff, a loss student, residitr.; in I.,.icesterslitre,
brought his ae.loll against the defend:on, a dealer in dre:,,,
residnig i.e Edgeware-rued, to recover the slim of 1:1l. pant
fur a setter doe, named lionaur, which tile deicudaut crud-
muted true bred.
'Elie ease was stated by Mr. Gurney, who called several
witnesses to move the dog was not stautieli.
The warranty of the. dog was admitted.
Mr. Scarlett, fur the defendant, contended that the dog in
question was trite lured at the time he was sold, and called
the following witnesses :
John Smith, fOrint.l I y a servant to the plahnilf, said he
remembered the iloig cot ,to Dee by, with Ills master, nit
the Bth of April. They omit out to Icy the dog, witiifour
others. Ilunour behaved well. They found three or lour
brace of parreideo, and the dog pointed out live times in
the cour.e of day. lle went with Captain Allen, a
sporting the'
who took Monate, tied three utter dugs.
They found several coves, anti although the tither dogs ran
assay from the birds, Mintier remained steady. The wit-
new was present when the do,g ass pthchaseti of the defen-
dant. 11. s coaster neat out shouting ono other geini:nevn,
itud touk the dog with thin, In the opinion of the oitueLs
It was us guild a dos as ever wes sliJI over.
captain Allen, net officer, who had been accustomed to
the sports of the held from the time he was able to bear a
gun, stated, that lie weet not with the plaintiff, Juhei Smith,
and others, to try tea: deg.—llonour appeal. d to him to be
ft well broke in dog.
Honey Adams, under gamekeeper to Lord Searborongli,
said, be broke in the dog which WAS the subject of the
action. The dog was as good as any in England. lie
went from the witness to one Mattocks, who cave him to
a boatman at Derby, from whom he went to the defend-
ant.
Mr. Gurney in reply, contended, that the question was,
whether he was a staunch setter tel the (low the plaintiff
bungld him. If he was tint, lie did not attswer the war-
ranty, and the plaiutaf WAY entitled to recover back the
money paid.
The Lord Chief Justice called the attention of the Jury
to the question, whether reasonable-notice had been given,
and set Oliiily, whether it appeared upon the evidence that
the dog was su well Woke in as to be able to point well
with strange dogs ? if they thought, tinder all the Mr.
stances, that the dog answered the warranty, they ought
to find a verdict for the defendant; if it did nut, the
litaintitY would be entitled to recover.
The Jury found a verdict for pl. ' •ff—Damages 181.
WtONESDAY, FE8.20.
WOW) V. aIItEET, JUNIOR.
This was an action bronglit by the plaintiff to recover
a compensation in damages for a serious loss, occasioned
by now•pec lot matter: of an agreement.
Mr. Williams lead the declaration, by which it appeared
that the deri admit promised for a Certain consideration,
to employ the plaintiff as printer of a certain newspaper,
for a ceel.llll lime, at a stipulated price. It went on to
state, that although the plaintiff was really to do the
business accui ding to agreement, the defendant ceased
to employ Min.—Tutu defendant rictus J that he made the
above prontise.
On the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, the
parties finally agreed to icier the question to a gentleman
at the bar.
'flee Jury under the direction of the Judge, found a
verdict fur the plaintiff, with 4.1001. damages, subject to
refeteuce.

RATS V. MESSRS. HODGES.
This action was brought by Anise Hate, widow, agates
Messrs. Hodges, respectable distillers, to recover Use sum
of bi. 13s. 3d. Ming ass over payment of money she had
paid to the clerk of the del cud:nits fur goods sold by theist
for her use.
The question was, whether she had paid 251. of the
money on account of a debt due front her deceased hus-
band, or whether she paid it on account of goods which
were to be supplied to herself.
Mr. Searlett stated the ease. The plaintiff was the wi-
dow of a victualler, who kept a politic house, in White
Lion-street, Seven Dials, anti the defendants supplied her
late husband with spit its. Her husband having been
backward in Isis payments, his credit with the defendants
was restricted, and they gave notice they could supply no
souse goods without cash. Mr. Bate stied some time
since, leaving a person, nanted Csowder, Isis executor,
who finding her ill bad circumstances, lent her *451. to
go on with the business on her own account. Knowing
the defendants would not supply her without cash, site
took the money to the desk of the defendants. They
took the cash and sent her a supply of goods, but hi the
course of her pay smuts 'erased to !end goods fur 81. odd
shillings. alleging that vise had made the first payment of
'5l. not on her own accuitiit, but on account of her bus-
band's debt.
The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to consider vs !te-
ther the plaintiff did yr did Rut pit) Die Yak. on her de-
cs slut husband's account.
The J ury.fuund a-verdict for the defendants.
THURSDAY, FEB. 25.
STREET W. SMITH AND OTDERS.
This was an action against the Hundred of o,sulstone, to re
cover in. 14s. the amount of damage done to the office of the
Cwurier newspaper, by a tUßlllitallS IVA, which assembled when
the 11:11 of Pains and l'euilties against her late Majesty was given
up in the !louse of Lords.
The breaking of the windows at the Courier office by the
mob, had the amount of this repairs b,ing proved, the Jury
found a verdict lot the pluintiff—Dainages 551. 14a.
cuaral. AND ANOTHER V. TUE INCORPORATED SALE-