The National Register.
London, England, 1821-06-11 00:00:00

JACOBS V. JONES.

'lbis was an aetinii for an aisault. The *lnn" is a
glass-cutter in Charles•street, Soho t the defendant clerk
to a wharfinger in "Ittaines-street, who was, it appeared,
in the habit of eat iying Good► tor the plaintiff. On the
day in questiou the defendant called on the plaintiff for
bill due from him to the defendent's employers. The
defendant urged immediate tiaymesit, god eatd the bdt

had been standing above two years. Plaintiff said that
was false, and defendant continuing to use impertinent
observations, the plaintiff desired he would lease the
shop, and he would call on his employers and pay it.—
Instead of which he seized ihe plaintiff by the neck-
cloth and struck him several times, dragged him off the
steps and kicked him.
Ttte defendant's counsel acknowledged that an assault
had been proved, but urged in mitigation the provocation
which his client had received. The Jury found a verdict
for the plaitita—damages 3UL—costs 40s.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE O.
HALL r.

r. Scarlett stated that this was all illO.lOll, fur money
had and received by the defendant for the use of the
the defendant pleaded that he was not liable.—
Mr. Hall was formerly in the army, and had retired,
after realizing a kw hundreds. At this time he Liam-
tunitely 441 W au advertisement in a public paper lor a
partner in an advantageous concern, capable uf advancing
a few hundreds, on which a large profit might be made
with OA or trouble. The reference lit particulars
was to the Echo-office, Newgate street. Mr. Hall
applied to the Echo-idlice, and was iufur,tred the concern
was a patent collet: roasting concern, and was situated in
Worcester Place, gurenhithe. Mr. Hall applied ac-
cordingly at Queenintle, where he found Arnold, the
defendant, and a person named Burgess. lie answer to
his enquiries he was told by Arnold that he and Burgess
were partners in the concern, but that he, Arnold,
having got an appointment under Government, he could
no longer attend to his concern, and was thertlire de-
sirous of disposing of it. Mr Hall was sliewn the
machinery, c. and also the books, from which it
appeared the concern was a very profit tale one, and
Mr. Hall being tuld he would have nmbind to do if
he became a shareholder but come at slated periods and
receive the profits. Mr. Hall was at length prevailed nu
to give Mr. Arnold 4501. in cash, and a bill for 501. for
his share of Inc concern. About three weeks after Mr.
Hall called to enquire about his profits, butt was told at
present there was none, as they had been enuaged in
clearing of some old stock. Upon this Mr. Hall ap-
plied to Mr. Arnold for explanation, and to have his
money back. The plaintiff accordingly took a friend to
look at the concerti, and discovered that there was anothe
partner u hum he had never heard of before, a Mr. Wield,
who said Mr. Arnold had no right to sell without his

George Gieve, a friewl of the plaintiff, was called, who
proved having called ma the defendant at the request of
the plaintiff, and that the defendant acknowledged
having received awl. of the plaintiff fur his share of the
COMM'.

John Ready,another friend of the plaintiff, also proved
that he had seen the defendant, and that the defendant
acknowledged the concern, whilst he was in it, produced
but a small profit, and his conviction that, after be had
withdrawn his personal attention, it would still worse.
Witness had been on the premises, and did not consider
the stock and machinery as worth noire than 1501.—lie
ads ised 11 r. Arnold to settle the affair with plaint tl, and
seemed inclined to do so.
Ur. Scariest said he would now call a clerk frcni
the excise to shew that Arnold had no juiciest ill the
concern.

Mr. Buwlbey produced the books from the office, and
by the entry of the premises inqueqion n appeared that
the annual licence for roasting coffee was on the yth of
December, 1814, granted to Field and Allen On the
15111 Of DeceMber, 1815, it was renewed to Field and
Burgess, and so it had been continued down to the pre-
sent time.

The Chief Justice said he was not aware that the act
of parliament prohibited any person from becoming a
partner unless his name was entered.
Mr. Scarlett said he could cat ry the case no further.
The Chief Justice said, the opening had mat been
made cut, and the p.aintill must he ninisutted. The
plaintiff was accordingly called and nonsuited.