The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-08 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Moan!, Y, Dix. 2.
(Sittioys bejw I the Loral Chief Joulice.)
u.tiluit v. 1,a1:111Ns.
This action was brouilit by Richard Carlile sgainsi the defen-
dant, one oi.the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, to recover
compemed ion for loss sustained, iu cimsequei•ce of nut sidling
co tam books wn- h the Sheriff's IWaYA•II water a writ of Inuirtri
.b.rirts, in plyiuxut of a line imposed ou the plaithiff by this
court.
Mr. Scarlet( stated the circumstances to the Jury. It was
as action brought by the pi/motif against the defendant, as
one of the lair Sheriffs of London, to recover compeosatioa in
damages ha it loss sustained by the plaiutill.n Consequence of
the latter having neglected to sell certain properly, seized by
him under a writ of twig; facias, issneil from this court in
November, I bl 9. The simple question for their consideratiou
and determination was, whether the Sheriff had a right to seize
the property of the ph to keep the property in his owu
bands, and never bring it to sale, thus depriving the unfortunate
matt oil .use resources to which he looked for the liquidation
of • &Me to which he had been sentenced, and consigaing him
t • prison fur life. Ile had received sentence uf imprisonment
fin Iwo years, mail war also ordered to pay a Min of 1,0001.
and to he iurtlier imprisoned till such line be paid. 11111111 e
titately tutu the pa.ising of ibis sentence a writ of Lvioni Jbrinr
was issued, directed to the then S:ierilis, Mr. Rodin ell, who had
since died, and Mr. Perkins, the present defendant. In order that
the July might see the duty which tais writ imposed, he would
now take the liberty of reading it. It commanded the said
Sheriffs the goods tool chattels, and tenements of Rich rd Carlile
to aril/ft, and to cause to be levied thereon the sum of 1.11001
which it further conontooled them to bring into (molt, at West-
minster, before a cei tool day iu the ensuing tom. Under this
wi it the duty of the Sheriffs was plain anti simple. They ought
ti have laid hold of the property of Mr. Carlile--have converted
it into money, and have paid that money into court at the time
atipultited.-11try had 1141 business to exercise any sort of judg-
ment an to whether it was proper to sell or not to sell :—They
had 110 light to exercise any discretion of their own. le this
Midianite the Siterill's plot, eded to take the w bole of this man's
properly. They aftet e'ards sold a very small portion of it, and
the reitsic. Hier they kept in their possession till the proton puss-
aueut• The return which they made to the writ of lariat i j'erioe
was this," They had levied certain goods and chattels; tit:Richard
and sold some for 511.711.-211. his. of which they hail
paid for two qmotets assessed taxes, and 31. 4a. for expetice of
bale. The rest of the goods, (diey added) they did not feel
themselves justified in selling, end h bay temsdned in their hands
to be disposed of as the cow I should direct." A• 4st other
Noll.s were 23 copies of the Bishop of blended' 's Dercitee of
UK Bible, the it wh'ch a 111,.1e pions or a slime useful work in
atopport of the Christian reli6ion did nut exist. II wan an answer
lit tact to the celebrated wo. It of Thomas Paine, anti contained
s lumen's or the 1141ra at mot most toiohjectimiable untui e.-
1 lucre were sweet al other Wlllks equllly free Irons 11111.allUll, and
the whole was of the value of Iwo thousand pounds, had they
been sold at the time sr izure. flay mg retained the
worti ty io his own heeds, and has ins *befell deprived the
plantiill of Ilie Ink sots of pay tog the penalty imposed upon him,
be t Mr. S.) felt a conlideut hope that die Jury would, by their
ertiitd, elle w bill that be had moot ill opposition to his own
entrusts as well Its to the law of the Mud.
Mr. Hayward the phin.iff's attorney, was then called, and
pitirtiteeti as examined copy of the last! 01 Pauli fa,4a.,,
tiiiert-d to the delendrol, and also a copy of hi. town.
Chad.. Blown moved do:seizure of the plaiutirs property
in November, Ihl9.
Mr. Janice Gi Millie, bookseller, had examined the scherlet,
rsaevvd to the Sao rettoo, and valu,d the books there
demo/lied at 14101. Ile eselode.a in this valuation the winks
mulch had been prosecntid as lineltous. Many of these winks
were celebrated in time lionises of Hi:galore, end were to lie
remind in every Imukselitri's shop iii 1•01/111.10. This was the
plaintif's case.
Mo. H. Copp.. r oi:tressed the Jere on the part of the defen-
dant, etnaltitiliug that tat bad no fight to recover, no
as he Ind laid by without takitig any steps, whirls he ought to
lst, done, to at celei,te *M• sale by the Sits:riff 'the I ..... 111011
rap ordinary proceeds.% in such a ellac wax le. VIA V 10 Ibe cool..
for the writ I code)-mac etp, our, which would have compelled
the Sheritts to sell.
No wi•tiesist s we..: called for the defendant.
The Chief Jet lice told tbt Jirv, that if the Sheriff delay col .1
salr, whtieby the goods were driesiorated in value, he was
tiodaalett dly Wide to all Set' tio/cs ivasontlide eaube eonhi
be a:lowa fur Lis Laving au fulbwuo la sell. It was fat the

noxx

Jury to deeide, looking at the schedule of the works, wheth 3
there was such resitoitattle etounti.
The Jury retired, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, out. abutting ; costs forty shillings.
Tt EaDAY, 9LC. 3.
SCOTT V. WAIIIIMAN AND WILLIAMS.
This action was brought against the defeehants, who fulled the
°Ric,. of Shea Ifs of latinuon end Middlesex in Iffl9, to rt not er
a lutes sustained by neglect, in the part of the Sitetill's officer,
to take good seem ities to a replet in bond.
The Plaintiff, a broker, WAS employed by a lady, named
Woolf, to deatrain at premises occupied by a Mr. Magrath, in
\i albeek-sueet, for enema of rent, amounting to 221. The
goods were accordingly distrained to the amount of 701. and
the defendant sued nut a replevin. The plaintiff having teat ersid,
obtained judgment for Mrs. IA mile Ile then applied to the
Sheriff's officer toe delit ery ul the goods, o: the bond Illicit by
the di:lead:lets. They banded over the bond, having Mr.
Hat nes, .1 title-waiter, at four shillings per day, wages, and
Mr. Mabherley, couch-maker, securities to the ailment of tool.
The plaintiff refused to take bond, considering the securities not
in a state of eulrency , and brought this action..
Several witnesses proved that Mr. klebbcrley'a credit was
nut good soon after Ins name wee attached to the bond.
Mr. ‘larryatt, for the defendant contended thet the Sheriff's
officer Gill, Nile tet/k tile heed, 1101 no remote to suppose, in
IbID. that Mr. Mahlie•ley'e credit was laid, and therefore he
was justified in taking the bond.
The Lord Chief Justine held, that if a Sheriff's olTicer does
not use diligeticuin tatting good securities to a timid; the
Siserilf is liable.
The Jury fount.a verdict for theepleint4f—Dgpege.s 701.
• THE KING v. itl
This was an indictment agaiust the defendant, for assaulting
Henry Aughtie, on the eleventh of April last.
According to the evidence the prueecutor, who bail some
denting with the defeittlant in the run, line, went to his shop in
Holborn, where Burt carries on the business of a maker of
straw bonnets. Ile saw him in a back pa:lout. Aughtie amid lie
wanted :t proper hill ; there wits something Wren.' upon the
face of that hich be had. he deft:oil:tut then took bin by the
collar and violenhy cliove him out to the street under the hack-
ney coaches. The witness got up again, went to the door, and
said, " In this all I get when I apply fur my The
defendant then seized him agvin, end struck biro seems! blows
in various rots of the body. Ilis mouth bled, mid he was so
much injured that he could not follow bid business for seven
weeks; he was obliged to walk wills a stick. The defendeut
was as big a man as Gregsun the !roses..
Cross-examined by Mr. Audrews.—He was sober. He did
not say, " Tom Burt, you ate a swindler." lie did not put
himself in a fighting pustule, nor accuse the defendant of be-
longing to an infernal gang in Bridge alreet.
John Jones, a porter at the George and Blue Boar, mid be
SAW the defendant pushing the prosecutor into the street. The
proxecator fell. and the defendant fell on hint. Ile did out bee
Aughtie use any abusive language.
Mr. Andrews addressed the fury for the defendant, and con-
tended his client was justified iu wiiat be had done.
Elizabeth York, the defettelanes soma, proved that Anghtir.
wa. drunk when he came into the Atop. He asked fur a prover
kill. The defendant told him to go to his ofUee and tuantine
the hooks. Aughtie called hin a cheat and m scoundri I, and re •
fused to go out when ordeted to leave the house. Ile went up
in the lea table, and etrnek the defendant. Mr. Berl then look
him by the collar and boned Lim out of the parlour into the
soup. The ptosecutor wasaftei w aids turned into the st.elt.
Garlic, the defendant's Antiguan, endeavoured to prove that
Auglitie had made hint promise to give a false account of the
111.9090 km, saying, he would make him a prerent fur so doing.
The witness added, that lie signed a paper, (produced) which
as. dictated by Auglitie. Ile however, declared tile whole
contents o. the paper la be false.
The witness was severely censured by the Judge for signing
what i.e knew to be lalse.
Aughtie being called again, declared that he had never die-
tamed the contents of the paper. The Jury fouud the defendant
guilty.

WEDNESDAY, DFC.

COOPER O. 4AItHA f, I •Cl• A• D A NOVI ER•

This was an action by the a coach-maker, residing in
Osford-street, against the late Slkrilis of London and Mid-
dlesex.

It appeared that Ilse plaintiff had let to hire, in May, 1820,
a barouche to a nian wised Ashby, a stable-keeper, against
wl an execution having issued, this cart iage was taken along
with Asliby's goods, sad sold by auction, notwithstanding nu.
lice had been given by the plointiff to the auctioneer that the
carriage:was his properly.
Et idence was called to prove that Ashby hal hired the car-
riage. and bad made several payments on accitunt. The Jury,
under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff
—thumps, 311.105.

vorNc V. GAR, ING.

This action vv aa brought bv Ilse plainiiir, a widow and admi-
nialrai•ix, to recover Zeta. alleged to have been lent by her
deeea.ed husband to the defendant.

Uillintn %elk, the plaintiff's Naar, an old man, proved
that the husband had wade his ilauAlder, the plAintill, pencil
down what sums were owing to the deceased.
. .

on his cross-extoeittatiori by Mr. Gurney, this witneas ad-
milted that his daughter, the plaintiff, was sers sot fur set mai
years to Jones Young, the deceased, who, being etiremely
ill, cPnie to London, and was married to witness's daughter
only 21 hours before lie (lied.
Mr. rurney, for the defendant, contended that (hia was no-
thing but a conspiracy between the father end daughter.
The laird Chief Justice übsct ved, the question for the Jory
wan, the credit they would give to the evidence of the father
of the deceased, as opposed to the testimony of the father of
the widow. The interest of both the fathers in the cause; his
1.-wdship observed, was nearly equal ; and the one was as
likely to be biassed in his ■s the other. The Jury
would vay to which of the stories credit attached.

The Jury, without lesitatiou, found fur Ilse plaintiff. —Da-
tua.,;.• 4al. and costs.

WADI' r. DEV AL L.

This was an airline against tht• defendant for assisting in ■
fraudulent removal of goods. The statute of C'eo. 11. pro.
tides, stint soy person fraudohmllt removing goods, or sssist-
Mg in the removal of goods io evade pet ment of rent, shell he
liaide to illy floul.le the tslue Or the g Is so removed.
The ec!ruilant's son h!•d rented a house belonging to the
pl. intilT, in the nighboorhuod of Horton Crescent. Arrears of
rent being due, the landlord was preparing to distrain. and
Mr. Dev...l thought proper O. tensor e the gcods clandestitiely.
A tan tl,cw up to his door, at live is the morning, and tieing
loath d was drawing orr. The wt,'cittuait refov d to alloo the
wan to proceed, and knocked up a broker in the iteighloort hood,
suppostag he had some clam for parish rates. The looker hail
no orders to stop the goods, 101 l knowing the plaint 11', he fol-
low(.'. the vuu tu ISatttts,.a, where the goods wcrt tr Leived by

I, .
.••• • •

I.

the defestlent. end placed. ia • loft. The phtietifr followed ths
goods to distrain, and the defendant denied Ilo•y were in his
house. The gocda wero however discovered, and suld fur 141.
on which the plaintiff brought this action.
After a statenwrit of the above: facts, Mr. Marryatt said the
plaintiff was entitled to double the value of the goods ; but if
the defendant agreed to pay the arrears of rent, amounting to
271 a verdict fur that sum was all the plaintiff required.
Mr. Gurney on the part of the defendant. consented to that
proposal, and the Jun found a verdict for Itll. which included
motley paid by the landlord for 111111. P.

ILLS V. tionsT.
The plaintiff, who keeps a ludgiug• Louse in Mortiener-street„
Ca% enilibli-square, brought his action to recover 75L lot lodg-
ings. 'liquors, and pray isions supplied to the defendant.
it iappuireit by the defence to the action, that the whole of
Ihi. demand occurred at a period when the defendant was under
age, aid the right of t►e plaintiff to recover, turued upon the
credit doe to the plaintiff 's housekeeper, who proved a pro-
mise on the part of the defendant to pay when he cause of
age..
. . . . .

The Learned Judge left the Jury to decide on the qnestion,
whether a promise was made to pry after the defendant came of
age.
The Joey found a verdict for the plaintilf—Damages 711.
ILVERY V. FLI6II/.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was a linen-
draper in Marcloonont-street, Russell-square, to recover from
the defendant, a livery Astable keeper,* sim.of 621. for goods
delivered to his wif . Mr. Flight had turned his wife out of
doors, sad r. fused even to clqkver her clothes .to her friends
who applied for them, and thertibre she was utfi,i'ed to provide
herself withnnore, fur. which the law made her lousbauti
Tue defence was, that.the wife tied forfeited her claim tu provi-
sion fount her husband by adultery.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it was absolutely necessary
for the plaintiff to show that the wife was excluded from her
Ism:band's house, without clothes : beeause otherwise this large
quantity could not be necessaries, fur which alone,.in say case,
1110 husband would he liable. There were only two eases in
which a man was liable for goods supplied to his wife ; one was
the ordinal:l case where the ponies were living together, and
the goods ordered by the wi.'e were sent home, in which case
ascot was presumed ; and the oilier was, where the husband
turned Isis wife away without cause, and then made himself
liable fur necessaries suitable to her statics. Now, to show a
prima facie liability, the evidence of Mr. Chambers was neces-
sary ; and that evidence must be taken altogether, as disclosing
the cause for which Mr. Flight excluded his wife from his
house, awl refused to pay the debt she had cuutracted. •
The plaintiff was nousuited.
BURN V. DUNKIN.
This action Nab brought to recover the sum of 391. 7s. Gek
bad and received by the defendant to theylainliff's use.

It appeared in evidence, that in Miss Dunkin, the de-
fendant kept a school at Maidstone, the terms of which were 2
guineas a year. To which school Mrs. Burn sent is.te of her
daughters, and for some reason which did not appear, paid 5111
guineas in advance for two years. After Miss Born had re-
mained ►is months in the school, a fire broke out in Miss Dun-
kin's rooms, omssioned lay her reading in heal, and Miss Burn,
who slept in die next room, rail in on hearing the alarm. She
found the curtains in flames, And was so mistimed that she was
taken ill of a fever neat home, and sinrtly lifter died. This
action was now Inou;lit tun cover a proportionate part of the
;id guineas for the time subsequent to the death of the pupil.
Mr. Platt, for the defendant, submitted to the Load Chief
Justice, that as the consideration for whirl, the looney nits ad-
vanced had not wholly failed, the plaintiff could nut recover it
in this form of action ; and he referred in sumort of his objec-
tion, to the case of " Taylor v. Ilsre," 1 Bus. and Put. New

Rep. 260.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that the payments for hoard
and instruction at school were made at re•gnlar intervals, and
therefore, in his judgment, were so divisible as to support the
idiots in i.s present form. Ile would however, tske the opinion
of the Juty on the question of tact, whether the agreenseut was
for two years at ill events, er for two years if the pasties should
live. The Jory found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
391. 7s.

The Lord Chief Justice did not rise till five o'clock, And in-
timated, that in consequence of the srreor of business, and its
slow pogrom, he should continue to take causes to that hour
on future days. It was also suggested that the court would sit
at nine, in the sittings alter the summer term.

T.ICRSDA V, DEC. S.
COFFEE-11OCaE 11 AITEICS.—EAGE V. RACK ETT.

The Common Sergeant stated, that the defendant is proprietor
of the Cocoa Tree, in St. James's street. This action was
brought by the plaintiff as head-waiter, to recover for wink
and Idiot, the soot of4lol. odd. It would appear that the
agreem, ml was, that the plaintiff should have 1001. per annum
for his situation, and. creels e • shilling from e•ar.h gentleman of
the club who dined .There. It was a part of the agreenteut
that the plaintiff should he at liberty to attend the races, Sc.
James lamig--11as now succeeded as Lead-waiter at the
Cocoa Tree, in the room of the plaintiff; does not know what
Page's salary was witness has a guinea a week ; bas heard
Hackett say lie paid Page 10111. a year. During the time Page
was there witness never knew him to go to Newmarket, but
has known him to go to I) :aster for a week or ten days.—
Remembers in Igor ember last his going to Brighton ; he had
not been that year to any races. During his absence witness
became bead-waiter. About seven weeks alter Page returned
(tom Brighton to the Cocoa Tree, and saw Mr. Hackett.—
Besides the 1001. a year, witness and lie divided the shillings.
Each subscriber paid the master ten guineas a year ; the master
charged the shillings in his bill; when Page left there were
320 shillings due to him.
Cross examined by ➢lr. Scat lett.—The plaintiff went to
Brighton, in the service of some gentlemen of the club ; for lids
he necired a guinea a day—it was to awl up a public-house at
Brighton ; •nd if it succeeded he was to have a guinea • (lay.
He was going to keep, not a hazard-table or ganinigliouse, but
what witta•ss called • French house. The master 411,1 not pay
the waiters their shillings until the gentlemen paid their hills.
Witness collected NOllle of the money flora Hackett ; but plait--
tiff would not ►ece•ive a part. Some payments bad been re-
ceived, amounting to 50s. ; this reduced the account due. The
320 shillings were calculated from the books.
Wakelend wan porter at the Cocoa Trre---was
present when the plaintiff returned from Brighton—Loud
Mr. Reek ell call un him to Ming his account, and that he bad no
Anther occasion for his services, adding that he had given hint
leave to go to the country, lint (lid nut mean be should comet
back again.
James Bush, another waiter at the Cocoa Tree, remembers
plaintiff !bringing his account, hat did not Lear what passed.—
Dekinl4.4 ,m,l lie gave him leave to ear to Brighton, but did
not gtve yin I:aVe to come
ill, Lord Chief Justice.—The bliillingc are out of the quortiou.

Mr. Scarlett—Then your Lordship see' he paid him up the
Lalf-quatter from the lime be want away.
Mr. Common Sergeant—There appears some misunderstand-
ing in this case. Perhaps we ►lull clear it up another day.—
Plaintiff nousuited.