The National Register.
London, England, 1821-08-12 00:00:00

shock was upset; that the accident sustained by the plain-
tiff' arose in a great measure from his own imprudence
in jumplug off the coach in its fall, instead of keeping
his place as the other passengers (lid, who sustained no
damage whatever. It was stated tut the behalf of limo
defendants, that they had offered a liberal compensation
to the plaintiff in consideration of his moderate circum-
stances, bat without prejudice to the question of their
legal liability, it being contended, that though they were
answerable for the careles,ness and negligence of their
servant, or for any accident in default of providing a safe
conveyance. they were not liable for the casualiiv which
occasioned the injury which happened to the plaintiff.
A negoeiation took place between the Counsel on both
sides, before the defendant's case was closed, and under
the circumstances proved, it was agreed to withdraw a
juror, by %%Well the result i,, that each party pays his
own costs.

Stay MAN V. CORDBR.
This was an /lethl by the indorsee against the acceptor
of n hill of exchange for ISM. drawn by One Mayhew.
The case excited considerable interest from the nature of
the defence set tip by the defendant.
On the part attic plaintiff the usual prima facie case of
hand writing, piesentment, and dishonour, aas proved, and
in fact ;Omit ted by ilia defendant.
The defence Set up on the part of the defendant was, that
lie hail been completely swindled out of the acceptance,
with whit hhe airs now attempted to he charged, ler the
follownie rirc 1111 l stauces r•--Persolis of the names of Gibson
and Fumm hail employed the di fendaut, %ilia is a respectable
contractor in Mark•lane, nail one of the Society of Friends,
to sell a parcel of barley, consisting of 94 quarters, an order
for the delivery of a hich had been originally given to the
former for the same purpose by a person of the name of
Mayhew. 'the latter had had dealings with Messrs. Wood-
ley's in the corn trade, hut they hail refused to give him credit
without the guarantee of the plaintiff, for such transactions
as they might have a itli him; and it appeared that the
plaintiff had given a guarantee to the extern of SOW. The
coin in question had been the property of Mayhew, and at
the time of this transaction he was under engagement to
Messrs. Woodley's beyond the amount of the guarantee, and
in order to recover themselves, they were desirous of getting
possession of the curn, as they were promised they al Id
do by Maybe w. It appeared, howeveroliat Mayhew, being
desirous of turtling the corn into cash, had employed Messrs.
blitison and Foram to sell it, and accordingly gave them an
order for delivery upon the captain of the ship in which it
had arrived. Messrs. Gibson and Imnm, in their turn,
having succeeded the defendant in his business on the corn-
exchange, requested him to dispose of it on their behalf in
the usual course of business. In the mean time, before the
corn was actually disposed of, the plaintiff and Mayhew en-
deavoured to prevail upon Gibson and loom to accept a bill
on account of the expected proceeds. This they declined
doing, as it was out of the ordinary course of business. The
plaintiff then, in concert with Mayhew, made a similar
upplicativa to the defendant, and the bill of exchange in
questi 111 l was actually drawn and presented to him for ac-
ceptance. At first he refused, saying lit was only an agent,
and objecting to the form of the bill, that it was not drawn on
account of the corn which Messrs. Gibson and Fomm were
employed to sell, The bill oas Ikea taken away, nod the
tones of Gibson and Fomm introduced into it, and in the
result the defendant was prevailed upon to accept it, upon
positive assurance that the corn should be delivered to the
order originally given in favour of Gibson and Emma. These
circumstances having reached the knowledge of Messrs.
Woudley's, who had expected that the corn would be de-
livered to them as a security tar the advances they were
tinder to Mayhew, they become incensed and called upou
the pl • and Mayhew to account for the deception which
they complained had been practised upon them. The plain-
tiff and Mayhew excused themselves by saying, that it was
too late to recall what had been done ; that an order for
the delivery of the corn had been given to Messrs. Gibson
and Yuma, and that the defendant had actually accepted a
bill of exchange la anticipation of the proceeds. Messrs.
Woodley's, however, complained that they hail been
swindled, and one of the brothers said lie should not leave
the home where the parties net until they performed their
engagement with him Upon this the plaintiff and Mayhew
retired from the counting-house for a few minutes, and on
their return gave Woodleys au order alma the captain, to
deliver to theist the corn in qtasstiou, and at the foot of it
they recognized the previous order, given to Gibson and
Fromm; but countermanded it, inflaming the captain, that
he was not to deliver the corn to the former order. It was
stated, that the very next day Mayhew had drowned himself
and in fact lii, body was found iii the River Thames. Not-
with,tancling the circumstances above disclosed, the plain-
tiff, to whom the hill had been indorsed by Mayhew, now
brought the present action against the defendant upon his
I acceptance.
As soon as the facts above stated were proved in evidence,
the learned Judge asked Mr. Gurney, shat he would choose
to du in the case.
Mr. Gut my said, he would be nonsuited, and his client
was nonsuited accordingly.
Nothing of public interest look place in the crown cowl.
HAYWARD, MS4. tarn O. HORNER.
CHELMSFORD, AUG. B.—This was an acti 111 l upon the
statute of Anne, against the defendant, to recover a penalty
of M. fur keeping a dog for the purpose of killing game, not
being duly qualified.
The plaintitl 's ease was conducted by Mr. filarryatt and
Mr. Jessep, and the defendant's by Mr. Gurney and Mr.
Citify.
The plaintiff was stated to be a gentleman of landed pro-
perly at linseed, in this county, and the defendant a cunsi •
derable landholder in his neighbourhood, in the parish of
Helton liiimsted. Thu facts proved against the defendant
were, that he kept a setter bitch, and two puppy pointers
in his house. The question oils, whether the defendant was
liable in a permit) for keeping a dug for the purpose of kill-
ing game.
Mr. Gurney, for the defendant, submitted, that this
was cleanly not a case within the statute. Tu bring the
defendant cs ithiti the it must 1w clearly Shea a that
lie kept the dog is oh the intent to kill game.
Mr. Justice Burrough ex piessed extreme regret that this
action had been brunglii by at gentleman, described as a man
of fortune acid 'lapel lability, befall..e lie thought it one of
the hardest that ever came ill his Lima ledge ; but lie am
hinted is tell the jury, (list a man as Ito kept a sporting dog,
though theleasits no proof of his hosing actually used it to
des/toy game siu.. liable to a penalty. The same ohsei vat-
thin would nut apply to the keeping of a gull, because
a gun is necessary to the defence of a man's house.—
But there is no occasiiiii fur a man keeping a sporting dog
for that purpose. A common house dog would answer the
übjcet evally wsli. If he act is wog iii his ruling, the