The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-04-14 00:00:00

UORT V. Ili 'GARTH!.

This was an action to recover compensation foe the lots
&MO/. stock, 6 per Cent. Bsiik Annuities, alleged to have
been incurred by the Plaintiff, iu consequence of the ne-
glect of the Defenrhiat. The stork in question wee offered
to the Plaintiff to purchase, and represented to him as the
property of Mrs. Shaw, to whom, as the Plaiutiff was given
to understand, it would fall ou the der-castor an 46ge1l lady,
named Bennyworth. It turireil . out, however, that Mr.
Hennyworth bad sot more than a life-interest in the property,
which went to his wife on his decease, and descended to her
children. The Defendant hail been employed in his profes-
sion of an attorney to examine into the title of Mrs. Shaw,
relative to the property, and, if good, to cause the truster
to lie effected, which was subsequently accomplished by
the Defendant. The deed was signed in 1813, and in 1818
the Plaintiff being informed that Mrs. Beesitywurth was
dead, made spplicatiou at the Bank to secure his purchase,
■nd received for answer, that there was nu stock which an-
swered to the description be gave.
Besides the general issue of nut liable, the action was re-
sisted under the statute of limitation, the declaration not
having been put oil the record till 1819, ■od the cause of
action not having accrued within six years after. Proof was
also offered of the ditlaulty which lay in the way of obtain-
ing satisfactory information, hither from the trestees of
Beonyworilia will (one klieg dead, the other ston in-
vestor) or at the Bask. The Cassese' for the defence urged
situ the accordance of the Plaintiff, although he was made
folly acquainted with the risk be ran in closing the purchase.
The Cates JOITICV said, that it was the business of an
attorney to protect his client, and the Ikfeudant should
have prevented the Plaintiff from paying his mosey under
such imperfect information.
The Jory found a verdic► for the Plaintiff—Damps,
340/.
RI:AD AND OTHERS n. ATKINSON AND OTHERS.

The Defendants In this ease bid been appointed assignees
to the estate of Meatus. Butmer, ship.owners of South
Shields. The Plaintiffs are rope.makers, and had furnished
ope and cordage fur the ship Lord Cathcart, the property of
the bankrupts estate, in 1817, for the value of which they
now Fought to recover 3401. 19a. 10d. It was alleged that
the Defendants had continued the business after the cumnsis-
Rion, which was dated 1814, fur the benefit of the creditor..
They were therefore liable.
On the other band it was contended, that the Hubner. re.
teived their certificate within the year of the date of the
cuminiuion, and that the business and property of the estate
had been given over to their management. The Plaintiffs
were creditors to the bankrupts estate, and were conaeiqus
when they furnished the goods in question that the Bulmers
were the persona taking the reef it, and not the assignee..
Joseph Bulmer had throughout been the chief person in the
management of the estate, which became again insolvent
after the contraction of the debt sued fur in tbe present
action.
The question was, whether the Plaintiffs were tonatione
of the responsibility of the Buttners when the goods were furs.
nished. This was proved, and it appeared that all the ships
belonging to the estate had been sold; except rinse engaged
, in the transport service, and it was commonly known that
the Bulmera had bought several of then,.
. _ . -

The Counsel fur the defence pointed out, in siditlon, the
great iliustlee of making the. oisignees of the commission
taken but in 1814 answerable five all the debts contracted by
the Bulmers since; whereas the assignees of the new corn.
mission would like the whole of the effects, and yet no divi-
dend beyond the first 10s. bad been received by the aid
creditors.•

The Cuter Justice was of oplainn, that the credit bad
been given to the Bu'mere, and not to the assignees ; al:
though, for the advantage of the estate, they bad retained
the legal title of the unsold ship, in the transport service,
Bud lied assisted in conveying one of them, proof of which
had been put in by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs. This
proof had its value, his Lordship observed, but was subjects
like all other evidence, to be contradicted and refuted by
more weighty evidence leading to a different conclusion.—
No application bad bees made to the assignees for payment
of any accounts from 1814 till the time of the present ac.
tion, although no further dividend hail been paid. This
chewed that the assignees were not considered responsible by
any of the creditors.
The Jury concurred, and immediately gave a verdict for
the Defendants.

CAST IRON COFFINS.
BRIDGMAN a. BUZZARD.
Mr. Currey opened this case, the declaration of which
stated, that the Defendant had caused the Plaintiff to be
taken up, and confined during a night in prison, sad brongbt
before a Magistrate, before whom the Plaintiff was examined,
and the complaint was discharged.
The Defendant pleaded first that be had ant mulled the
illegal imprisonment ; secondly, that the Plaintiff had
caused a riot in St. Andrew's church.yard, by bringing a
cast iron coffin to he buried there, and causing disturbance
whets the burial was refused.
Mr.Scaar.mcontletried Ike pleadings. The Plaintiff was
the inventor of the cast trues eoffitis. From the laudable
sympathies of human nature, in striving to secure tiro
mortal remains of relative. from the heartless rapine df
the resurrection men, and the retentlent steel of the dis-
secting house, dae Plaintiff's laventiou had become very
popular. The Plaintiff, in the exercise of his bushier',
bad conducted the fuueral of a Mrs. Gilbert, who was
lobate been buried in a cast iron coffin, to Sitiut An-
drew's church-yard, Holborn. This the Defeudaut had
discovered to be criminal, though by what part of the law
of the land it became so, no one could tell. The Dellodent
was a Churchwarden of the parish:of/it. Andrew, and arriving
on the ground from a parish feast (a suet of entertainment
less known to the lan of the land thou the crime of burying
in a cast iron coffin), at the time when the codfiu was to have
been ounsigued to the grave, not only übjected to the inter-
orient, but caused the Plaiutifflo be abut up in the Giltspnr-
street Cumpter, wherehe was detained all night, from whence
he was taken before the Magistrate, and afterwards dismissed
es
before stated. The caption and imprisnesneut were fulls
proved, as was also the orderly deportment of the Plaintiff
and his party up to the time of his being seised and conveyed
to the Gillspar Cotnpler lay the order of the Defendant,
The case for the prusecullieu being closed,
Hr. Gunitittr, the the defence, pleaded, that the Defend.
aim, as a parish officer, was fully entitled to justify, even If
the plea had hero merely the parent ileum of not
He uudrrtuok to make good the justification, and proceeded
to call 'evidence fur the purpose. The witnesses, however,
although they were very aumeruas, sad their deposition'
occupied a large and tedious portion of the day, proved
nothing as to the disorderly behaviour of the Defendant, be-
yond thesecumulaticus of somber' attune the church-yard,
on the day its question, the lOrti of iliac last, the particular,
of which day's proceedings are already before the public.
The Cater JUSTIGE was of open for, that the Plaitetilr was
entitled to a veidict, because if his cundwet had been as dis-
orderly as the defective evidence 'had attempted to prove it,
the power of the churchwarden only exteediug to the bn,'.
• Gera of Ilse chore-hyen!, the Defeodant had uu sight to do
MUM tbau have ranged the Plaiskff to be exindled from
thence into the street.' His Lordship ,_tenoned the Jury,
however, to be temperate its awardirg the damages if they
found fur the
The Jury, after a short eonstaltatioo, gave a verdict for
the Plaistilf—Dante;ee IDOL