The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-11-10 00:00:00

GORDON V. .GORDON.

This cause came on fur further direction, the
circumstances of which we have already reported.
Mr. WINGFIELD, Mr. HEALD, sod Mr. 1%1-
[INS, were !word lOr the Plainla
The new Lord Mayor, attended by the Re-
corder, then entered the Court below the liar,
when the Recorder, in the name of the Lord ?Mayor,
invited the Lord Chancellor to %tumid the Civic
feast. His Lordship bowed assent.
After they had retired, his Lordship informed
Mr. I-/art itlat he would hey hiw tu-inurrior to the
case of Gordon e. Gordon.

COVRT OF KING'S BENCH, Mosout, Navasota 9.

CAMERON (Hui OTHERS T. the duignees of LAING

Wed SILITIO.

This wits an action of trover tried before the
Chief Jostire at Cruildhall, during the last Sit.
tinge. The verdict was tor the
Mr. Mitall)tATT now spplted fur a rule for a
new trial ott two lamas.; Anil. as to the palidity of
the petitioning creditor's debt ; and, secondly, its
to the admissibility of certain depositions
,its evi-
dence. The petitioning creditor's debt avow out
of a bill of exchange hie 961 and a fraction. This,
lie contended, was not sufficient to i
petitioning creditor's debt : but it was conteiols
ed that the petitioning creditor hod * tight to add
the interest to the principal sum, which, as the
bill was over iLue;upwaiets of twelve months, would
more than markt up the stain constituting u good
petitimaing creditor's debt. Ile, Mr. Marrysit.
had HOW to COOltlid that, as It was not stated CD the
face of the bill that it was to bear interest, no in.
ternkt COUII.I lie added to tits principal sum. The
other point, as to the odinisiability of evidence, the
ettduee objected to, was the de:iorition via person

. .
*lamed Connolly. tn:rdc iwfore the. Cramlssiatrtis
utarkr the r s U hotssrea
the thole I.t ras..kh..4 tins 41ris1•iiion and thy trial of
the rectum ; and tr avireared•llad, try ean-tAte, the
rlrptwssuns 11,1(1 /rail iirAlf " Dritn.itiogi
of
(, tiy, rimier die Conhirraill”, uhl6oolll'lc'. im"
soled ogaihst .1 wit-i Lents...." Allotre.rs it orpreared
that the hir.krtort's script. twos (irorge, and oot
Jmne-, Ttri. eror, Mr. ANifisit said. had
the sdteet of I ola I int: the deposal fors altr.g. t her.
The (.'ravacc said, they w..uld grant .she 'OP trt
she* Ciall.e• I'll the first mind.. tviddint giving any
opiulun an illy second.—Rule granted.,

•
The KIN O. on the prosecutinn of Ilie.Cnnunissionets
• If lir, wirk I inrionr. r. Se:t.i. and trrisv.its.
• M-. l'scs It LETT sant, Shia WO+ WI issiliviiiietst pre.
ferre&atpiiiisi the Defendants for a moonier. met
tried befits Mr. Baron Wood,. at the last Northern
Assizes, when a verdict wag taken its part f.r the
Clown, and in part fur the Defetesbuitit. ,He now
applied CM the port at the Crown far a pew trial,
gn the grounds of a istis-direction on the part or
the Learned Judge rho tried Air cause. By the
evidesice produced at. the trial, ;it appeared that
the fisi:erineli employed un the ..River Tared had,
fur the clinveniesier of thejr, tared ie
&Anent pasts of the stream four huge heaps of
himall, winch they called Batts, •olini was further
by the titled Of .
Will 800, rs.irkwall Batts, and Red Cow
Batts. Thew heaps of stio,,es bat) the effect of
inaterislly.isijuring the sarrigaii )))) . and rendering,
it in many lintrinierS extremely (hinge ))))) a; It.
deed, 111411.: vessels hid been, orrinusly Injured by
!lien', and spine totally lost. These were the
nitionicrs complain• d of, and which the Corniteitl-
stoners sought to have removed. 'Choir facts were
proved, but .it also appeared, that tan of these
heaps had existed fur a
.period beyond the memory,
of wan. With respect to the tuber tan, however,
it vous•proved that they haul been raised withiss the
last 50 years, mail persons reinilketing the har..
hour when they did nest exist. Upon, this evidence
the Learned Judge directed the Jolty to find for
the Crown, on the two recently raised Lam: but fur
the Defendsiotr, as regarded the other two, which
had existed beyond the memory of Ilse witnesses whit
had been examined. rails direction
.the Learned,
Counsel eubitioted was incoireci. Hr sitibillittetf,
that a advigable river sod u turnpike-road were as.
intlar,. A dangerous nuisance could nu more bit
tolerated by prescription and towage on the one
than on the other. 'flue 'missile* aid, even greater
iss the case of a river than of a road. A river, on
arm of the sea, was the properly of the sCrnwri
but the Crown could not grant what would be it
nuisance io 'be public. or owld such a nillininett
be supported out the ground of press ripiive
Rule granted.

ItAptsDEN tr. ETRI.IDGF,
Mr. RAINE applied to the Court for a rule t.,
thew cause why their vliriti!il not he a new trial
granted in this rare, which *WISH itetlins her pemal—
ties under the Po.t llorse Act, tried before Mi.
JusticeAyley, at York, otitis a verdict was found
for the Defesidritt, Fla did nut make this HilpheNT
firm without being frilly aware of the ilitticutiiv, lua
had to encounter. He was not igisoraut of the rule
which the Court had Ishii:loan, namely, never to
disturb a verdict fur the Defendant in a penal ac-
tion, hut on the Iv ouod of a mimlirection usi the
port of a Judge. He loul now, however, to submit,
that there was no rule without all exception—and
he was sure, if their Lordships would erg: grant it
in any case, they would in the present,
The Ctillrfr jets rtes—r" Have you nay instance
of so exception to the general ride?"
Mr. 'LUNE t.iti4l, he had no such case; but lie
was peramided Ihr prevent was one which called fist
an exception to the general rule. it was ins actin's
founded rarthe 48th of the Xing, chop. 98, ore. 7,
to recover from the Defendant revere' penalties of
14.11. each, for not entering, in his weekly recount
delivered to the cr.ilector, the lettings of different
horses for travelling.

The CHIEF A/3'MB Before it is necessary
for you to state your case, reniume the preliminary
objection established in the ease of Broke awl
Middleton.”

Mr. RAlNE—tft In that case it 6 Laid the Court
wil/ never giant it new trial in the penal action,
where thr verdict is for the Defendant, except in
the case of the misdirection of the Judge ; but
surely, my Lord, the Court will agree that the
n►isronduct of the Jury may be much inure dan-
gerous, and productive of much greater inischier
thou the misdirection of a Judge. Here the evi-
dence ,was all for the plaintiff, and so the Learned
Judge summed up, and the Jury, against that
evidence, hituida verdict fur the Defendant."

Mr. Justice B•fittEfri“ J thought it Well is clear
case for the Plaintiff; but by no means a favourable
one. The Defendant regularly delivered his tickets
to the post-bopi, who left them et the toll-gates;
list he afterwards omitted to insert the juurioes iu
lila weekly returns. The question was kit with the
Jury. whether this omission was made by mistake,
or with the intention of fraud. The mistake was
discovered by a comparison of the returns with the
tickets left at the gates."
Mr. RAJNE—...-" Yes, my Lord; but if the De,
fondant had recovered these tickets from the gate.
keepers, the fraud could not have been iiiiicovered.
The Court mud) will not say that they will only
notice the slips made by a Judge, whilst they will
pass over gross miseouduct, to call it by 1.10 Weiner
a mime, in a Jury."
The Cuter JuaTtcs-s-‘0 The decision in Bloke
and Middirton was by no mean; a homy one. Its
that case Lord Ellenborough Niel, a rule hail beets
laid down and acted upon for upwards of fifty Sears,
and the point is now reified, that in the cave of la
verdict tor Defendant found against evidesice to p
penal action the Court will not grail it rule for *
new trawl. 1 repent what was said in hat ease by
Lord Ellenburougli. The rule is slow hill down?
plat tin Court will nut interfere in it verdict against
evidence under such circumstances as the present,
unless there is gripo misconduct apparent on thy
part of the Airy. lu the present pisv, thoutigis tlio
Jury might have decided wrong, yet there was on
such proof of anisioliaviour u would induce the
Court to break through titesule so wisely lath 44,"
uu former

The rept of the Court egreed in this tkpianun, NnJ
the upplit..:ttluti aI he liear t! )))))) pil vial. r, ,11.. i!

WICK* A•. 001111.6 ti.

This war 111) k11..d brio, t tlAt- C !.j 1,;440

I" •

at Gnil,l6ll, during the late Sittings, end woo
' lientight t recover the penalty of 3001. from the
Dermilitit, on a stock-jobbing transaction. The
transaction R 11,4 what II drnornioated a tine b.r~.uu,
tittered into on • preceiliog day, by which ilor Dr-
frudant wildritnisk to deliver a certain portion of
siNick oil the followilig 27,11 tloy of February. In the
d-el ,ration it 11 U 111.4. t birth that the Deft-inlaid under-
took to deliver a certain portion of snick on die next
d v. At the trial it was proved that psi.
d .v was tevileroimil tii be On Ow 27 Is of Fe-
aod the J.sry fn I a verdict for the "Plain-
tft i'ssr slur to 1141 yof 5001. Mr. Chitty
now ap-
l.l.ed lor a role cause why this verdict
I! 11l not ho t soil a sionstin giaiated, on
the grim') 1 or .1 eiii i.ioce between the contract, which
iiirliti d the 27 Is of February, and the declorii-
tints, which 'at tons that the stock was to be deb-
arred on the next settling day.
The Court granitil the rule to chew cause.

COCRT OF COMMON PLEAS, a
NtiTMIXITER,
MONDAY, NoIMBIBER 9.
Before Chit/ Justice Da Lt. As. the Iron. Justice
BURROVGH, and she lion. Justice

Mrigirk GoonWIN, ELLIS, I,Eirt9, rod RenDER
}laving oo the t.4111‘, situ rr►lrrrd 11110 Or
er.rufy rerun iy. were adootted Atiororyt of the
Court.
THORNTON and OTHERS V. PKERRETT.

This case 6.1 been tried at the bittluolo niter List
Term •t Guildhall, and a verdict given fur the
D-fentlata.

Mr. Serjeant VEST now moved for a rule to set
aside the filmier verdict, and grant a new trial.
The Plaintiffs are brewers, the Defendant is a
pohlican. The Defendant dealt with the Plain-
Ur- for his beer, and contracted a debt to them.
I le 11)Solvent, and an allisliCUtltrill
was made to the Plaintiffs to enter tutu a coollosi
onion, the !Mention, reigngitig In pay I the
pound. They refused unless on the condition,
that the luso:vent should hind himself to continue
takiiig h,. herr hunt them during the on:expired
part or the tern of his house. The I osolvent agreed,
avid a chin-e to that elf ct wit inserted in the deed
of composition—the Plaintiffs *to torts stairuitriiig
that their beer should be of good quality. Afar
wards, however, the Dvfeintint (teased to take
bet r from 1611), an,l sold the rent tinder of his
lease qt 510/. The Plaintiffs hail I gilt the
action to recover the (11ffterVI:Cr between the c po-
sition money and the full amount of the dein, oil
the ground of the alleged (,:each of contra( t. The
Learned Counsel rested his inesein motion on tlir,.e
a.—that the ',illative uf et/silence on the
Isomer trial had been strongly in favour rf the
Plaintiffs—that the Judge's charge lima inclined
the &rile way—and that one of the Jury It,d gene
into the loot with such priiii.lices on his
ought In hire disrpial.ticd I • I.ont seuving 34 a
Juror. 0.1 the trial it had been clear that the De-
litdant Irid ceased to take his beer from the
Piaititilf-; the wily questlim then that remained
fur the roll itleration oil the Jury was, whether the
latter had lorioshed him with a good article. To
establish this, t'itty haul brought forsard one of
their Hai' tato, who proved, that the brer nith
which lie had been supplied was taken from the
same v4ssels as that furnished to the free publicans ;
and another strong fact on their side was, that the
edr of the beer had also increased, bring, in 1817,
double of what it had been in 1818. In answer to
this the D. fetidant had uuly produced two wit-
nesses; one a servant, who staled, that he lead of-
ten obirt Ltd to the brer fur nut being bright
enough; laud another, a customer, who had fre-
quently complained that it w.,s too slide, which
was uoly a matter of taste. The action was of
Brest iinportatice to the Plaintiffs, nets merely ou
accOutit of the value of the soul due to them, but
the (i ility of their beer having been impeached,
they %car noxious to establish, by a Special Jury,
that thia charge was unfounded.
The J USTICL: —" I did charge its fivoor
cf the Planittfis, at the same time 1 ilisapprottal
very mulch r.f the nature of the action, and of those
c•Jolr..et :iere by a publican is put at the mercy
of hatter.. and eompel;ed to take beer from them
fir a certain number of years. lii this case It &y-
-rlard ihr deed obliged the Defendant to take beer
for tuelve years. However, there was much weighty
evidence on the part of the Defendant, and toe
Jury had the case under them several hours. I see
no reason fur grunting the rule."
Nlr. Justice PARK—" I agree perfectly with my
1.-timed Brother in other respects as well et its his
tiliservattui.s on publntsliouscs. I consider these
contracts to he both oppressive to individuals and
mous to the public. I am of opinion that the
t valence has been inflicient to support the verdict."
Mr. Justice llnuaoucti expressed himself ;
against granting the rule.—Rule refused.