The National Register.
London, England, 1821-06-10 00:00:00

HILTON V. TANCLRILD.

The plaintiff iu thiscase was a wine and spirit-mer-
chant, and the defendant a gentleman of the profession,
holding a situation in the six clerks' office. The present
action was brought to recover 161. 175. for wine and
spirits supplied to him.
The defence set up was, first, that the time of credit,
six months,had not expired,w hen the ac►ioll was brought;
and further, that, at the time the goods in question were
ordered, the defendant was not of age, and that circum-
stance was stated to the plaintiff at the time the order was
given ; and further, a gentleman, named Benson, in
whose house the defendant then was, stated, that the six
111011l1IS. credit was necessary, as the defendant would not
he of age, or in cash, till that period had expired. .1:11e
goods were furnished in January and February, and the
action was brought in April. The friends of the defen-
dant had since offered to pay the debt, but refused to
pay any costs, considering the action was improperly
tuought. The plaintiff was non-suited.

JACOBS V. JONLS.
This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff is a
glass-cutter in Charles-street, Soho the defendant clerk
to a wharfinger iii Thatnes•street, who was, it appeared,
in the habit of carrying goods for the plaintiff. On the
day in question the defendant called on the plaintif•for.s
bill due from him to the defendant's employers. The
defendant urged immediate payment, and said the bill

bad b"..7=rifilibi mg above tiiii7rPgiritmyea said hat
was false, and defendant continuing to vas impertinent
observations, the plaintiff desired he would leave the
shop, and he would call on his employers and pay it.—
Instead of which he seized the plaintiff by the neck-
cloth and struck him several times, dragged him off the
steps and kicked him.
The defendant's counsel acknowledged that an assault
had been proved, hut urged in mitigation the provocation
which his client had received. The Jury found a verdict
fur the plaintiff--damages 301.—coats 40$.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6.
HALL V. AENOLD.

Mr. Scarlett stated that this was an action, for money
had and received by the defendant for the use of the
plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that he was not liable.—
Mr. Hall was formerly in the army, and had retired,
after realizing a few hundreds. At this time he unfor-
tunately saw an advertisement in a public paper for a
partner in an advantageous concern, capable of advancing
a few hundreds, on which a large profit might be made
without risk or trouble. The reference fur particulars
was to the Echo-office, Newgate street. Mr. Hall
applied to the Echo-office, and was informed the concern
was a patent coffee roasting concern, and was situated in
Worcester Place, Queenhithe. Mr. Ilall applied ac-
cordingly at Queenhulie, where he found Arnold, the
defendant, and a permit named Burgess. In answer to
his enquiries he was told by Arnold that he and Burgess
were partners in th., concern, but that he, Arnold,
having got an appointment under Government, he could
no longer attend to his concern, and was therefore de-
sirous of disposing of it. Mr. Hall was shewn the
machinery, &c. and also the books, from which it
appeared the concern was a very profit ible one, and
Mr. Hall being told he would have nothing to do if
he became a shareholder but come at stated periods and
receive the profits. Mr. Hall was at length prevailed on
to give Mr. Arnold 2501. to cash, and a bill for :in!. for
his share of the concern. About three weeks after Mr.
Hall called to enquire about his profits, but was told at
present there was 110114 as they had been engaged in
clearing off some old stock. Upon this Mr. Hall :T-
-idied to Mr. Arnold btu explanation, and to have his
money back. The plaintiff accordingly took a friend to
look at theconcern, and discovered that there was soothe
partner whom he had never heard of before, a Mr. Field,
who said Mr. Arnold had no right to sell without his
consent.
George Gieve, a friend of the plaintiff, was called, who
proved having called nn the (kleinlaut at the request of
the plaintiff, and that the defendant acknowledged
hafting received 3001. of the plaintiff for his share of the
concern.

_ .
John Ready,another friend of the plaintiff, also proved
that he had seen the defendant, and that the defendant
acknowledged the concern, whilst he was its it, produced
but a small profit, and his conviction that, after he had
withdrawn his personal attention, it would be still worse.
Witness had been on the premises, and did not consider
the stock and machinery as worth more than Ml.—He
advised Mr. Arnold to settle the affair with plaintiff, and
seemed inclined to di so.
Mr. Scarlett said he would now call a clerk frem
the excise to chew that Arnold had no interest its the
concerts.
Mr. Bowlbey produced the books from the office, and
by the entry of the premises inquestion it appeared that
the annual licence for roasting coffee was on the 9th of
December, 1814, granted to Field and Allen On the
15th of December, 1815, it was renewed to Field and
Burgess, and so it had been continued down to the pre-
sent time.
The Chief Justice said he was not aware that the act
of parliament prohibited any person front becoming a
partner unless his name was entered.
Mr. Scarlett said he could carry the case no further.
The Cnief Justice said, the opening had nut been
made cm, and the plaintiff must be 1111 l 'malted. The
plaintiff was accordingly called and nonsuited.
DAVIS V. WHITE.
The plaintiff, a milk vendor, in Wardonr-street, Soho,
sought to recover compensation its damages, for an as-
sault committed by the delendant, who lived servant at
the house of a gentleman in Swallow-street. The trans-
action upon the whole appeared to be more the effect of
accident than design, and the jury gave one farthing
damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE T.
bUDD ♦. DUGGIN.
The plaintiff, in this case, a young lady, 23 years of
age, sou,:lit to recover a compensation in damages fur
breach of promise of marriage.
Sergeant Vaughan stated the ease. 'rite question the
jury hail to try was one of great importance to his client,
who like many other young women ha•l been deprived
her prospect of future comfort in life. It had long
l.t.ett the practice of juries to compellSdie 110110110)1C
Wlicti a clear ease was proved against the party
breaking his promise of marriaae. lit the present in..
stance the jury would doubiltss consoler the platistal,
wider all the circumstances of the case, entitled to con-
siderable damages. N 1 is Budd Was the dilllglitCr of the
Late house•kcepet and trtastirer of the Richmond theatre.
The defendant w•is a young matt reputably estalMshed
as a hatter in Neweale-street. Ott the death of Miss
Budirs parents, about four years ago, she was placed
tinder the protection of auto, who stet tier to acquire
a knowledge of r;ie list tri 11111 l •na b,i incs ot Mr. Slier,
who carried oti that hit.iness in the city. Ihe soli in
slr. Salter at lost ',aid his addre•scs to her, hut the de-
fendant became a inure tattooed suitor, ;mod was ad -
tett her admirer. The Minn icy was continued ler
aNsofatices of tilatflotooy, until a few mouths titre•,
Wiwi' the (kleinlaut became cool in his attentions. and
at last refused lo marry, making as an excuse some re•
IL climb; on the plalltlitl'a ceraci y. From 1111 l emus
litters which were read. we giro the following extract as
a :air sample. without incout eisieticing mar compositors
by an adherence to the origin! togra-phy.-7.
Ocar Miss-1 take the liberty of otter inure twritintr, of
winch intrusion 1 hope you will excuse; and must bed