The National Register.
London, England, 1819-03-22 00:00:00

MILLWOOD •. BOND.

The plaintiff stated, that he was engaged he
the officer, on Saturday morning the 27th of Feb. be-
tween I I and 12 o'clock, ;o hire 25 men against Mon-
day-am 000 itt g, for the three remaining days of the eke-
lion, at ss. a day each, and himself to be captain of
that gang, at 7s. a day, and that the Saturday was to be
included as a day for himself, that accordingly, on the
Saturday and Sunday. he did collect the men as he was
directed, and asaentliled them at the hustings; that the
orders given to Bond to him, were to parade the men
about iii a gang between the hustings and the market,
throughout the day, but to station them in the front to-
wards the close of the poll, and to call out " Lamb for
ever," and to make as inneh noise and confusion as pus-
to prevent Mr. Hob:nose from being heard.
Question he the Coott.—have yon been paid any part
of the mom:). I was paid Ws. on account, by Bond,
who promised to pay me the remainder on the Monday
following the election ; but he did not.
By the Court.—Then you have had no more? Yes;
Captain Prescott sent 'in me by one of the men of my
sang, to the Brown Brat, its Bow-street, on Monday last,
•to receive ss.' which he said he would nut trust Bond
•with, as he had had 271. on the Ttitsday to pay the men
with, for whi:li lie had Bond's receipt, and Bowl had
had 21. more for himself besides. Capt. Prescott then
paid nye and told me to make Boud pay use the rest,
and to tell that to the Conn. . .

The defendant. Bond, admitted the trantaetion, but
•slid he had kept the plaintiff well. The Court ordered
•the defendant. Bond, to pay the balance, Lis. and watt,
kwithia a month.

MOORS V. BOND.

The plaintiff stated, that he was hired by Bond on
Sunday the gsth of February, in theafternoon, at Perry's
wine-vaults, in the Adelphi, with many other persons,
at bs. per day, to assemble at the same house next morn-
ing, which they did, and Bond directed them to go to
Corentitartleti, and place themselves in the front of the
hustings for the day, and sing out, " lamb for ever,"
anti to his anti hoot when any hotly cried nut lift Huh-
house, and if any body gave hint a 1/1111C11 on the head.
they were mint them again ; and whets Mr. Hobhoine
spoke, to hi.s and hoot m prevent his being heard ; that
after the close of the poll they were to return, and he
would pay them. Bond did loot come till between 7 and
8 in the morning, and Maid he had been at a great many
coffee-houses to look fur the cc 00000 nittee-mat., who was
to provide the money, but could not anti him unless he
went to his house, which be did not like to do, as it
would not look well.

elltSiioll by the Court to Boutl.—Who wao that per-
son? _ _ - • -

Mr. Hodgson, the Clerk, interposed, and said, that
was note question for Mr. Bond to answer, as it would
tome before the House of 'Commons ; and sitting as he
did, he (the Clerk) was bound to protect Bond. Bond
told the Court that the Committee-man of Mr. I.aettb
who promised to pay was out of town, and he could not
get the money.
Plaint;flcominued—Bond offered them on the Mon-
day night a ahilling a-piece in part, and rromised the
►emainder on the Tuesday morning. " We did tuu take
it, but said we would take thetwo days together. He sa•el
heslioald b,ta the y ready, and we might have it be.
fore we went in the morning, or if we liked, take both
days together at night. Bolid ordered us to be at the
sante public house in the looming, and go to the Inv,
flogs as before; but he did not conic to pay us as he
promised. Going up so the hustings we met him, he
said 'go in the Itieihtso, and I will pay you to night.'
After the pull we went to Peru's, and waited there till
Cm o'clock at night, but lie never came. and 1 then sum-
:waited h i to." . . . . .

Bond admitted that he knew the plaintiff, and that if
he had gone to the Brown near out Nlcanday laNt, he
would ha% e !wen paid by a gentleman of the C 1111 l unite%
who 4114.1141ra there for that intrpwe.

By the Court to the !Vld tel you to
ito 19 the Broom 8e...r to be ii.tidt—No, lie did not, for
1 had not seen biot.

1).(1 you kilow ilia, you should have gone there to be
paid ?.--1 did not.
Omit ordered Ruud to pay the amount of 10a.
and costs in a minnli. In %%t irkjfond nureed.

On Friday inarnin; Mr. Ritchie, Master of the
Cjie, Liverpool trader, was carried into Glaagow a
eJry,..:, in the London mail coach. Ile WWI Hpra-
zen.ly in good health until the thee when +he coach
%via starting thou IL:al:ton, when he pare a loud
Lcr3arn, and fell one of tic ps-isergers in it cuti-
wnised state, timi it is their epithet' that life uas in.
"tautly extinct.

'VSM=NATIONAL NIGISTER.

ASSIZE I.VTELLIGEACE.

KENT—LENT ASSIZES.
Nods/one, Mach 17.
CIVIL SIDE.
CRAMP AND ANOTHER t•. 11.1YLJEY, CLERK.

This was a case of rather a biumulrr 'mime. It was
an action of mow by the plaintiffs, as churchwardens
of the parish of St. John the Baptist, Margate, against
the defendant, as rector of that parish, to recover the
value of certain black cloth which had been put up in
the parish church in respect to the memory of the late
Princess Charlotte of Wales, but which the defendant
had converted into his own use by having it made up
intocoats,w.tistcoatt, and other arueltv of apparel.

.c.t,e was enndtte:e(l by Mr. Gurney
and Mr. Chitty, and the defendant's by Alr.Cornyn and
Mr. Holland.

It a,.peared that the plaintiffs, as churchwardens of
the parish in question, wishing to pay proper respect to
the memory of the lase Princes. Charlotte,, had pur-
chased a quantity of black superfine cloth and cash-
mere of a woollen-draper at Margate, for the purpose of
covering the pulpit, the reading desk, and the commu-
nion taule of the church, during the time allotted for
public mourning upon that melancholy event. The
cloth cost 37i. Os. gip. and was nailed to the places above
mesni tttt ed, where it remained for six weeks. At the
end of that time the plaintiffs sent fur the woollen-
draper to take dowu the cloth again, and give then. the
amount of it.; then valise to be placed to the account of
the parish. The delemlant, howet er, having been ap-
prmal of the intention of the plaintiffs, took steps to
appropriate a portion of the cloth to his own tie, the
remainder of which was dit Pled hetweeu the clerk and
the sexton. The defendant afterwards employed the
same woollen-draper of whom the cloth had been origi-
nally purchased, to make I a coat, and other articles
of clothing, from the cluth so taken and contested.
Some seemed to have arisen in the parish in con-
sequence of this act of the defendant, who was charged
by report with having stolen the cloth. He was after-
wards applied to for the purpose of accounting to the
parish for the amount of the cloth taken, but having
declined all communication with the plaintiffs, in eon-
SLIVICIICe of the coarse imputation cost upon him, the
present action was brought.
The defence set op was, that it was the general cus-
tom of all the parishes in the kingdom to allow the
rector to take a portion of the black cloth put up in
churches on the occasions of public and private umuni-
ing, and that in all t vents such was the CU6Will of the
particular parish in question.
B.tyley objected to the evidence of general
custom, but allowed evidence to be given of the custom
of the particular parish.
Witnesses were then examined upon this latter head,
bin their evidence went to b hew dim in two instances
where private individuals had pot tip black cloth in the
church, out of respect to departed friends, the rector,
the parish clerk, and the sexton had beet. allowed re-
spectively to take a portion of the cloth so put up. The
general impression of the witnesses was, that such was
tile genera I usage.

Mr. Justice Bayley, in his address to the Jury, laid it
down as the ride of law, that no peraion had a right to
hang up what are called ornaments in the church, with-
out the leave of the rector, because the freehold of the
church was in him, and he might make his own terms
for that leave. In general, where private individuals
hung black cloth in the parish church, with the con-
currence of the rector, there was a kind of nuderstand-
ing between them that the cloth became the property of
the rector. In the present case, huwever, there bad
been no bargain between the plaintiffs and she defen-
dant. with respect to the terms upon which the cloth
was to be hung in the chute!), and consequently the
latter lanl no right to take any portion of the cloth, be-
CjUSC by law be was not entitled to take such a property,
unless by matter of arrangement or agreement between
the parties to whom it belonged. Under these cir
stances the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict for the
value of the cloth which the defendant had converted
to his own use.

The Jury found for the plrintiff—Damages 151.