The National Register.
London, England, 1822-02-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

The defendant is prosecuted by the Bridge-street Al5O-
- for the publication of au alleged seditious libel.
The case of the King v. Howard and Gibbs was post-
poned ; as was also the {ins v. Clarke, for the publica-
tion of Queen Nlab.
lit the case of the King v. Lodge and alioilicr, truss--
makers, in the Stroud, fur the repeal of their p,o?ltt for
trusses, the prosecutors, Messrs. 54111,101104 nod Co.
withdrew the record.

RIVERS V. ottlemns.
This teas an action to recover a demand fur goods sold
and delivered. This question arose ;—first whether a
larger sum than 41. 7s, tid, was due to the plaintiff ; and
secondly whether the plaintiff demanded payment of
more than the sum when the defendant tcnder'd it?
The defendant, it appeared, tendered 41. 7s. 6d. and
the plaintiff refused it, without demanding any specific
sum. Ile merely demanded the balance of Ins account.
—lit the pleadings the plaintiff replied, there was no
tender, inasmuch as the defendant did not tender the
balance, hut 41.75. 6.1.
Upon this point the Lord Chief Justice held that the
plaintiff should have made a demand tor a specific
and as that demand was not made, 1w considered the
tender good, quival the unless he could prove
a greater sum was due.
Mr. Campbell contended that a demand fur the
balance due was equivalent to a demand for a specific
stun.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Mr. Campbell, 1 think
otherwise.
The learned Jolge. under all the circumstances of the
case, left the dory to consider whether the plaintiff had
proved he was entitled to more than 41. 7s. 63. If they
should be of opinio❑ more than that 5111(1 was due, they
ought to find tor the plaintiff. le case no claim was
made out to more than that sum, the tender was good,
. and the defendant entitled to his verdict.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
'lids day the Sonial JuryCanses fixedifur trial afford-
ed nu information of importance.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
WEDNKSDAY, FEB. 20.
EXTRAORDINARY FEUDAL CLAIII.-NATIIANIEL GAR-
LAND, ESQ. u. JOSEPH JI:KYLL AND TLIOMAS CUM-
ESQRS. TUE EXECUTORS OF SIR CHARLES

fIuNHUttV.
This was an action 'iron .:Itt by the plaintiff its Lord of a
Manor in F. -es, to It:cover 2,6001. the value ut fourteen
hones, which he claimed to be doe 10 hint, VII tltn lit Lail of
the late Sir Charles Buttinot y, ii.trt. a• io's.

---
Sergeant Pell. fur the plaintiff, (welled the case, and from
the evidence it a vile*red Drat the late Sir C. linnhary, of
sporting celehtity, held the manor of Wiels's Park, Essex,
as cam holder under the plaintiff, who is the Lied of the
Manor, and by the feudal customs of it was entitled to the
best 'least of the ten,lit on his demise, as a tic riot. It was
contended, and evidence adduced, to show that by the divi-
sion of the Manor the par.s divided became separate estates,
swirl that the heriots due an the Curd hail been multiplied,
as the estates was separated. The whole h Imo ever, I alten
to Sir Charles liuu•aury ; hut it was contended, that the
light of the Lord to htn(ls for each of the parts that had
been divided still remained the same,-0.1 the death of Sir
Charles Ilunbury, in March last, the plaintdf sent his bailiff
to Burton, 'war Ncisuouket, tile place where the stud he
to Sir Charles was kept, to WlZ:.twenty-two of the
best of them ill satisfaction of lieriots, which he claimed to
be h.s m iyht as the Lord. The celebrated horse S ttttt leosko,
is Well was the property of Sir Charles, and valued at 13001.
was at Yorkshire is hen the bailiff made Ile! SC, Ear e on t lie
s•ad, of which lie masked down twenty-two; and a qui st •on
arose, whether Sonoleoisko should be included in those to
which the pluiotdCwas lodated.
Tile Steward of the manor lead the records of the Court
flaroio tor wove the ins...ion of the uutotir, and that r
thin in lieu ill her•tots Mid been made by the tenants of aetC-

rat part:: of thi•
Sergeant Lent, for the deftffidant, (untended. tout the
cust.iin ut time manor haul not t.een sufficiently pros,-(1, and
that the Jot y should be rutty satanic/ liefint they would give
a verdict for the on SO cauuwusa CLOW,
made
under such extraorthisaiy lie nr,:.ned that
the plaintiff' was wily entitled to four beriott, and matt make
hit election out a thin c JCIZ .11:11 Barton, near ?imolai het,
in which Smolensk° was nut included.
A n it lie's, w ho had been griaiii to Sir C. Buubury, proved
that in Ain it last the plaintiff's huddle:one down to Burton,
and requested to stethe stud allieli view ;rreordingl) shun it
him. W lieu he raw tweniy-two of lite bores, he-said that
was enough, mid refuv•d to tee any more. He
enquired
about Smulentko, %Melt w.it that time in V orkshire,,
Seri:cant Pell called evidru, c in rep') , tool contended fur
the pl. 'lt's right to 1•1 herioti.
Alter a lung legal argument, it was agreed to refer to the
J wisps, the question as to the number ut lieriots In which
the plaintiff was entitled, nut to leave the Jury to decide
whether the plaiutilf had not made his election nt liarl""
of the hoots he was to take, and had nut included Smo-
lensk°.
The Jury, after some consultation, ;moot that the plain-
tiff had made his election it. Batton, and had excluded
Smolt video.

14IURSUAY, FEE. Al,
coN.—ii 'YES V. ➢OYUS.
This was an action an which the plaintiff Chas. Hayes,
sought to le:•Uver damages of the defendant, W. Bonus,
f•.,r CI iiiiinal CouvelsatlOU allcs.•J to hove taken place
between lain mid the wile of the platintith Damages
were laid at 5001.
Mr. Sergeant Lawes opened the case for the plaintiff'
lie shl ULI prove the facts of the criminal intercourse,
beyond h doubt, and that there could he ea pretence for
saying the defendant had been seduced. The plaintiff
was in comparatively very humble cfic.ini-talices,;iial was
in the service of a bookseller as a lineman, anal I,y has
business llCCeSSillily greatly from home. "Flue defendant
was a mai opulent cheimistances, and was; far advanced
in years. The defendant was au 51111) agent, and from
his rank wa., reputed to have consideu tithe official influ-
ence. It would be, perhaps, said that the plaintiff had
received pecuniary kindness from the defendant. Of this
he (Mr. Sergeant Lawes) was nut aware but if it hbuttbi
appear that lie had made pecuniary piesents to the wile
‘f lilt the knowledge of the bn,baud, ur had in ally way
availed himcclt of his properly for the purpose of seduc-
ing her, doubtless the Jatry wunll consider it as tuatlbe
of the most :.et ions aggi avation.