The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-15 00:00:00

DU LLOCK V. M A LEAR!).

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an auctioneer,
to recover a loss sustained by the sale of a horse, which did
not answer warranty.
11ae plsintiff wanted a horse to go in harness, and was told
Cue defendant, who is a gentlemaut residing in Bedford-place,
tussel-square, had one to suit I • . The defendant's coachman
said the horse would go with the greatest caution, and that he
might be driven with a uetdleful of thread. The plsintilf gave
eLuty guineas for hon. On the lit at trial he went to narrow,
mot, nen:unsling to the evidence of the plaintiff s g mom, he began
Licking without the least piovoration, in such a way that it was
unsafe to drive hint. They tried him slam, on a jouiney to
Ascot, and he proved equally restive. Ile was only six times
in harness, and the plaintiff found bias ungovernaltle. The
pfaintdi ' the horse would not suit hint, applied to the
defendant to take him back. On his refusal be sent the horse
to Aldridge's stables, where he was sold for 27 gu;Deas. The
espence ui keepiag the horse before he was sold amounted to
I 11. los. aunt deducting the sum fur which the horse sold, the
the nlainli l sought to teens er a balance of •Bil.
Mr. who was with Mr. llullock when he drove the
horse to Ascot, proved that the animal Luoke the hotness, and
Liked violently guMg and returninl next day.
The plainaili s groom proved the horse was kept in the plain-
lilt's stables. Oue guinea per week was a fair charge for the
laep of a house in a gentleman's stable.
Mr. Gurney, (Of the defendant, said the horse never was a
kicker berme ho got into the hands of Mr. Bullock.
The def •ndant's groom being exsmined, described the horse
to be as tante as a lamb, lie had driven the lit.rse through
Smithfield :Market on tattle day, and in the heart of the City of
London. The horst. was always quiet and safe in loirness.
The Jury, under all the circumstances, found a vardict for
the plaintiff.—l) infa2es 111. Costs -10 s.
11ILDNEbDAY, inc. it.
TIM KISU V. JACIESON AND OTHLIIS.

This was an indictment against George Jackson the elder,
George. Jackson the younger, and one Jervis, for a conspiracy.
They were charged with procuring a commission of bankruptcy
to i,sue against George Jackson the younger, for the purpose of
trading the father, G,orge Jackson, to prove a larger debt
under the cominiasion than was due from Jackson the younger.

This prosecution had been twice before the court previous to
the present indictment, which came upon a rule obtained for a
uew trial.
Mr. Sciurlett stated the case.—The prosecutor, Mr. Fos, had
established a medical business in Bishopsgate• street, mid being
desirous of disposing ofit, was visited by Jackson the younger,
who finally became a p..tchaser, for the sum of 2,0001. Part of
the sum was secured by a bond, and Mr. Pus was preparing to
enforce the psyment by leginl ItICeIIIS. wheu lie was stopped by a
commission of bankruptcy, such out by Jackson the elder, sod
Jervis, the father-in-law of Jai ksus the younger, in which the
father elsimed a debt of 1,70111. The prosecutor cousioering
the whole a colourable transaction, intended to defraud him of
his claim on the younger Jackson, commenced this prosecution.
Mr. Sisirlctt called witnesses, who supported the case fur the
prosecution.
The Solicitor General for the defendant, addressed the Jury
at considerable length.
The Lord Chief Justice chvvd the Jury, and they found,
witUout hesitation, all the deleudants not guilty.