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

_ -
bread. He compared the slice of breed with the lag. Wit-
ness saw the slice of bread and beef afterwards, seat looming,
iu bis dressing 4001111 ; be unwrapped them, and said Ise had
been walking in the garden, and iu the gardener's tool house
he found them there. He said be was sure the gardaer could
not get it finless some of the servants gave it bins. This round
had been dreaded the day before, on the Sunday. It was •
juicy piece of beef. Witness examined them both ; the differ-
ence was very perceptible—gave her master her opinion at the
time, that one was well boiled, and the other coder boiled—
told him his beef was always kept cruder lock and key. Witness
never gave Sharp auy beef cr any person to give to bins—no-
thing of the kind—told master so at the time. These Mice.
lie brought down, laid them on a dish in the larder, and ordered
them to be brought oat nest morning fur the is break-
fast—on the Tuesday. Witness had lived with parson Viells
about two months.—He bias a handsome house—he keeps Man
its, a carriage and four horses, and is a man of fortune.
Cross-oxa mined by the Solicitor General.—Does not know
hew long he has resided in that neighbourhood ; witness was
not dismissed, bat a few days after her father sent for her
home. The loaves need by Mr. Viells were peck loaves her
master compared the bread with the loaf as well as the slice

of beef.
Re-examined.—Tbe reason that her father fetched her home
immediately, was in consequence of his having heard that her
minder had accused her of giving away his beef and bread.—
Her father is a matter wheelwright and keeps his own houie.—
Is now in another place of service. The Rev. Mr. Viells re-
fused to give her a character. Her father took her away at her
own wish.
The Lord Chief Justice objected to Mr. Phillips calling the
defendant •' Poison." It did not become a man of his taste to
use a term of reproach.
Lord Chief Justice—lt is not polite ; I don't say it is a term
of reproach unless used as such.
Richard Andrews, a working labourer in the service of the
defendant, proved that Sharp, the gardener, usually kept his
dinner in the tool-house, and that day asked witness who bad
taken it.
Wm. Andrews, prior to this affair, was likewise in defen-
daet's service ; and when *fitness was racceeded by Sharp, be
gave him up a drawer in the tool-house to keep his provisions in.
Mr. Phillips said he bad other witnesses, but did not think
necessary to call them.
The Solicitor General, as counsel for Mr. Viells, described
him to be a worthy magistrate, and a benevolent man. There
was not the least proof that he had been influenced by a mali-
limos, motive. It was not the value of the article he suspected
to have been stolen which induced him to prosecute. H 6 ob-
ject was to put an end to a species of pilfering, which, to the
defendant's annoyance, as well as other families, was carried on
daily. If the Jury believed that the defendant thought that the
plaintiff had these provisions from the other servants, then
there was an end to this prosecution.
The Lord Chief Justice in bit charge said, there was no evi-
dence that the prosecution was from malice, and the Jury would
consider whether there was inch want of probable cause in the
prosecution as would warrant them in finding a verdict for the
plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the

THE [IM V. BIGNOI.D.

Mr. Scarlett moved to put olf this trial, on the absence of *
material witness.

Ma Judge allowed tke defendant an opportunity to answer
to the allidavit on which the application was made.

BORN v. traaltow.
This fiction was brought on a clause of the 9th of Anne, cap.
14. sec. 2. which provides that every person who loses more
than 101. playing at cards or dice at one sittin4 shall recover,
by suing within three months after, not only the mosey lost,
hat treble the amount for the use of the poor of the parish
where the gaming occurred.
The plaintiff. who keeps the Rising Sun in Windmill-street,
in the parish of St. James, sought to recover 191. his. which the
defendant won at the game of 100, on the 29th of Dec.. 1821.
Theldefendast, who is a shoemaker, not satisfied with win-
ning the money, made a boast of his success to the injury of the
plaintiff, who on that account brought the action.
The winning by the defendant at Christmas, 1821, was
proved by several witnesses, and the Jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages. first, 191. 165.; secoudly, treble the above
GUM, amounting in all to 191. as.