The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-03 00:00:00

JARS V. AINSWORTH.

Mr. Wingfield *aid he Was instructed to make an application
for the commitment of the defendant, for having married a ward
of the Conil, knowing her to be so at the time lie married her.
The hill was tiled in September, at which time the marriage
took place. had been filed, in which it was sworn
that the defendant meditated the leaving of the country. The
learned conn.,l was proceeding to state the circuitistauces of
tht else. N hell

Lord Chancellor said, " Can i commit any man without
gi% ing him an opportunity of being heard."
Mr. think there are instances of commitments
when it %sal awurn that an individual meditated leaving the
country.

The Lori' Chancellor-- I mar mkt. out an order to restrain
him from taping the inlant %ith him. 'There will be no great
halm if lie 1101'n It are the country provided we keep her here.
Mi. Peps b.—l am afraid, my Lind, that the order to restrain
it (mid be itinperatibe i lie *ill he gone to.morrow.
'I lie Lord Chaittellor— I cannot help it. I Will grant an
order to rest rem the defendant and ell other persons horn
I...itig the infant out of the kiiiAtiotu.
Mr. %% in,i,tield—N% ill your Lordship order the infant to
attend !

The Lord Chaocellor.—Yes, I will direct that the service of
my minutes shall he a good service, and that the defendant
shall Ming the ward into Court to-morrow. If you can hind any
proper person to take care of her, I will make an order that
forthwith, upon the service of my minutes, the defendant shall
deliver her up. Either you or Mr. Popys evn take her.
Mr. W ingfirld—Let Mr. Pews have her, my Lord, be is
the junior counsel.
141. melts wis then issued.

COURT OF LINC'S BENCH.

MONDAY, G4:1011E6
This day the Lord Chief Jubilee sat at Guildhall, Loudon,
to dispose of the remaining causes on the paper.

l'E%RsuN O. 11.-,LVING_ ANSI ANt;1111111.

This was an action brought by Mr. Pearson, against the de-
fendants, as proprietors of the Tooting and Mitcham coach, to
recover a compensation for the injury he had received from the
defendants' servant. The parlieulaiii of the Cane were as fol-
low : —On the evening of the Illst of February last, about
seven o'c'ock, the plaintiff was returning to town, with his
wife and tild, in his chaise, and when arrived near the foot
of bonitos Bridge, he observed two stages and four coming at
a furious ra down the bridge. Alarmed for the lately of
those with hin he drew up near the kirbstone, and stood still
to let them ass. The that passed clear, but the second,
which wins the dien :cot's coach, taught the wheel of the chaise,
threw it over, and broke it to pieces. The plaintiff' and Mrs
Pearson were thrown oat, and -eriously hurt. The holm.,
which was a very fine one, ran away, and was so much in-
jured that lie was obliged to lie killed. The defenco set up
WAS, an attempt to prove that it was nut the defendants' coach
which did the •Jautage.
_ .

The Jury found at,rdirt for hue pluinlift.—Daulagen 2001.
uiclinuosov

This was an action to recover from the defendant the valne
of a 1001. Batik of England note, which had been stolen from
toe plaintiff, and it was alleged to have come impropetly into
the hamlet of the defendant. Front the evidence it appeared,
that the note was stolen from the plaintiff by a boy, named
George Biggs, who wet in the plaintiff 's einploy, and who had
since, with his brother Richard Biggs, been Wird and cuu-
vicled at the Old Bailey, and both transported.
A witness, named Jane Sornerfield, deposed, that in March
last, she went with Richard Biggs to the Rosemary Brunei,
St. Catherines's hill, where they met George Watts. Riclisid
Biggs here gut into trouble, nod was taken to the watch-house.
George W'atta afterwards look the witness to the defendant's
house ; ►be had the 1001. the bailie now produced, in her pos-
session. She was instructed to ask Wolie SOI. for it ; she did
so, but said it was a Bank Post it..te, and he would only give
501. She did ultimately take fifty sovereigns. He ask. d her
where she got t ; she said she was an unfortnnate gi6, and
got it from A gentleman iu the city. He told her, if she ;;.it
any more to let him have them.
Mr. Smith, a goldsmith, proved having received the note in
question from the defendant, for some Napoleons. It wss al►o
proved, tlist this was the note stolen by George Biggs.
Mr. Denman commented on the improbability of the story
told by the plabitirs witnesses, and the character of the
principal one, and contended no verdict could be found on
such evidence.

Thu Jar) found a verdict fur the plaintiff.—Damages 1001.
—coats -M.
NDITAKER V. DOARDNIAN AND ADoTDFR.

This WAS un action brought by a corn and lour factor to re
cover a lust sustained by the improper delivery of a quantity
in flour. It appeared that several sacks of flour bad In, it
ordered to be shipped on hoard a vessel at Yarmouth. called
the William, instead or which they were shipped on hoard the
Irsoalham, and never reached the plaintiff. The alleged Ins.
by the wrong shipment was 501.
Sevin, witnesses were examined to prove the plaintit's
case.

The Common Sergeant contended that the plaintiff had an
property in the flour to enable him to oopport the in lion, but
the Jury, under all the ittunstances, found a vardiet iOr the
plAintill.—Damages, 501.