The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-07-02 00:00:00

MEMBERS RETURNED.

a Edwards.
W. Wynn.

STATE 01

LANCASTER, JUNE 29.
Gladstone
Dovetou
Cavrthorne 1,613

SONERsE.T. JUNE 19.
Lengtun 1,032
Lethbridge 1.644
Dickiume

DEVON, JUNE 44.
Ebringtuu
Bastard
Acland

WILTS, JUNE 30;
Methuen
Loop Welles*,
Bennett ... 6 1,336

kAW

. •
VICILCHANCV.I.L.OIIII (XIURT, ILitrieurs lig,
SDISIDAY, JULY I.

,otisaA-Hpun.
• **TRIM V. TAYLOR.
Sir SAMUEL I{oMllllll' stated.. that this was a
renewed motion, calling...if Mr. Waters-to pay in-
to Court the rem or 34.161/. 1-wing the balance
the purcliawe money of the Opera House. The
.Master reportol. that there were a covissiderahle.stint
due to Mr. Waters a. encumbrance., ou the Opera
House: rherptintw had been taken to that i•eport,
Nod un their utglied before his II ttttttt r, sourer
of the were allowed, and rollers 6-eil hark to the
Nl.l•ter, fur bin, to review ha report. The (?peril
lions,. was sold with an that the por-
ch ise money was to lie paid rota C.,oi,t in ti few
weelss. Mr. usurers hail cossasslerssl.le hie
build., which he oliKla Ids pay sow Cowl.
His Honour the Vii:E-Cusscti.Lutt vie.heil
disianclimi to he taken between that part of the
report which had heen referred back to the Master;
and the soma not consideied ea encumbrances on
the Ooera Home.
Sir SAM U ROMILLi held that the Stliole pear.
chase money iniglst, to lie paid into Court at once.
for lie clad not see islls+- Mr. %Viler% should be put
into a better silage/jou Mail ally other prison alto
might have become the purchaser. tl'hen the sale
took place, there was a referetize to tilt Niaster re;..
specialist Mr. Waters.. euctitubratices.
The Vicx-Citatmei.t.oa—" It appears that the
Master's report, reimecting the encuintirenceS, was
made long sabsequeut to the sale or the Opera
House."
Sir Saltust. Roilit.t.* said, that the perchawe-
Money was to have bees pall in December, isld,
but uh account of au agreement befween Mr.
tett and kr: Ttylor, it *as ptietpoued tit) the April
folloniag; but when that tune came, Mt. Waters
was net prepared to pay it into tobrt. lo the
month of August following, an order Was made by
the Lard Chancellor; that a part of the .parchapc
1 shoeld be litiihediltely paid into Court.—
Hia • at the same tide disclaimed ally no:
teatime of pwilsog Mr. Matti in a better situation
thee any bthef phrehmer wisuld huge beet!, except
that he was Ito etibilebriatteet on the raite, *hose
debt was ascertained; and that it was not necessary
for him to pay the Whole sorb into Court, tor if he
did, he would only have to get an ordee to get what
was due to bite paid out egoist. He (Sir Samuel)
had no doubt but if the bidders at the titter of the
sale had known that the purchase money would not
be required to be land into Court until tile Au-
gust following, they would hat, bid a ankh higher
The VicitaCtliitcsit.iii—'l I cannot thick of
ordering M. Waters to pay the sum referred bat k
to the Master into Court—for he could not see the
miscarriage of the 'Master's report, and that it
would opetate•to his disedvatibige. But if Mr.
Taylor wishes the whole semi to be paid into Court
it one!. Ise vadat apply to the Lind Chancellor, at
tie is the most proper lwrion to determine what
ought to be done in the case:"
Sir SanuEl. Real il.l.lt—.' The great objection
to an application to the Lord Chancellor as, that
the exceptions must be reargued before him."
Mr:tdrutt; dtglicitor for Mr. %Waters, said, that
Mr. Harris's. (the .proprietor of Coient-Garden
Theatre) annuity was certainly Su encumbrance,
althntighit had bees referred back to the Muster.
Sir SAISUSL I cannot colluder it
as an encumbrance: his Honour liai 'noninsured
that it i not."
The Vics-Cissiicatong, Certainly the evi-
dence before me at the time was tint sufficient for
the to call iten encuiithrance, for I i that tin va-
luable consideration had been given by Mr. Harriel
for the ahadity. Take the order, air Samuel; with
the provisoes I beim mentioned, without. piriudice
to any application that ditty He thought proper to
be made to the Lord Chancellor."
Sir SAIIOEL Itoldt.LT" The dulls not allowed
to Mr. Waters, as encumbrance., ire, the sum of
6.839 i. ; tradesmen's bills, 1,400/. and expiators
3051. malting in the whole, CORI. Which Mr.
Waters ought to pay forthwith into Court."
Mr. HacT, Codnsel fdr Mr. Waters; aid, that
this *ay of viewing the case had taken him by sur-
prise, and he was quite unprepared to meet it at
present, as the Solicitor who instrutted his Learned
Frieud (Sir Samuel) had informed him that he
went for the sifible sum, 34.0001.
The VICS-CHAncssLos-41 Certainly an appli-
tation to pay 34,0001. into Court applies to all purls
of that sum. 1 should, howeter, be sorry that
Counsel should be taken by surprise. Therefore
let the further consideration of this motion stand
over until tomorrow morning."
• THe SANS v. Ttl s SADtE:
Sir Salami, RokatAt moved that Mr. Waters
might be compelled, by an order of that Court, to
insure the Opera House for a proper itittoulit.
Taylor, on making inquiry at the insurance Aces,
found it was wily insdred for 20,000 L although he
(Mr. Taylor), by the lease of waii bobliti to
insure it for g 4,0001.
Mr. Haat. Counsel for -Mr. Watery, said; 'het
he understood. hid client had insured it for 26,060/.
Sir Samuel. Rdult.t.x—" That is not the cuss."
The 171cx-Citticxt.r.oll—" You had better as-
certain the enact .tits it is insured for, mid bring
this motiou on with the preceding one to-uantrow
morning."
COURT OW ILIRG'II BRAM, GIiti.DNALL.
twsoilestsa*, Jut.* 1.
•

Siteins after Tern, irftore Mr. Justiet Assort;
aid Comma Jerks:
MidRiST *Jaded.
Thii area en action of trover, broadht in *emit
certain Ronda; the property of the Plaintiff, which,
it was elicited, the Defendant had didatsfully cars
vied one. and converted to his own use.
Me adolUttarr this sctibd *d. in reality
brooiht to try the validity oft carnntiselon of
bankniptcy, Whitt, had been sued
Defendant etsinit the Plaintiff.
herd Olth ki. brother, a baker ref'
sebhire. 661 aid not connected •
ins on the business. Indeed.
t.nce for saying that he vise d
lit did net knit* what debt the

- ---
-pi--
1

n surd oat by the
Olt". the Plaintiff
r, residing id Saari.
rd with hid* id earr)e
I. thrte One nb
drilla+ ebd thalituana
peifiidnieg credtwe

elaioned from the Plaintif lie was au attorney,
awl perhaps had door some business for the Plain-
tiff's brother. but certainly he had no demand on
him. lie had, however, sued out a commission of
bankruptcy against each of them, and had himself
appointed sole assignee. He then seised on the
Plaintiff's poverty, of which hr had kept
Dion ever since. The direct question was. whether
the Plaintiff was a trader, subject to the bankrupt
law*.
James Tutton knew the Plaintiff in 1815 and
1816. He also kurw Mr. Walker, the Defendant,
woo seised his (witness's) stock. on ground
which he rented front Harvey. Ou the 6th of Au.
goat, 1816, the Defendant entered Plaintiff's pre-
end carried away au account-book belonging
to hint.
Mr. &harm, for the Defendant, observed, that
this was an action of bow, but no conversion was
jawhich was necessary. in order so sustain it.
lbeard that the Defendant had Carried away a
book, and some evidence ought to be called to .hew
that the Plaintiff had demanded it beck again, and
that it had been refused. He should now state the
facts of the case, and unmask the Plaintiff, who was
*frigid to bring this action in the county where he re-
sided. He and his brother, who were in partnership
as timber-merchants, carpenters, and bakers. were

indicted at the Devon Alain% for conspiring falsely
to charge • respectable member of the legal pro.
+feiwieu with the crime of perjury. They were tried
et Wells before Mr. Justice Dampier, end were
districted. Judgment, however, was not prayed
against them, as they expressed contrition—and
the prouecutns or the indictment agreed to press the
matter no farther. provided they paid costs. They
requested the present Defendant, who had nothing
so do with the prosecution, to settle the businem,
and he advanced the sem of 4971. to defter the ex-
penses. 'flieir personal pioperty not being
trout sectiti!y for such a sum, they agreed to give
s security on certain lands held by them. When
payment was demanded, they made some demur
*bout the security. but Mr. Walker insisted on
their refunding the money. They then gave him a
power of attorney, which he imagined would enable
him to m4l the lands, in default of payment—bat,
onfortsuately. they were copylield. and cense.
quaintly he coeld not toech them. The parties
kept him at arms length, and would neither pay
him the money they had borrowed nor give him
good seeunty. He therefore entered op judge
merit an the power of attorney and arrested the
Plaintiff. He remained in prison two months
(which constituted the act of bankropm7), and,
at the expiration of that time. he sued out the
commission. He had new explained the nature stf
the debt mid act of bankruptcy....and he was peen
pared to chew the trading, by a number of wit.
newms.
Jesse Pnithem knew the Plaintiff, James Harvey.
and his brother, Jeffery Harvey. They were timber•
draliug seven or eight years ago. He knew them
to buy a lot of timber six years ago. He knew
that James went to work sr a carpenter. Thiry
bought flour, which was made into bread. and sold
by them. He recollected. about twelve mouths
ago, James uttered to sell him two deal planks.
Henry Thomas was acquainted with James and
Jeffery Harvey. They carried on the baking busi-
ness. Their bread was taken out in carts and sold
at the shops around. That was within three years.
He was ',resent ut the sale of their goods. James
Harvey mid, half of every thihg on the premises
was his. Some difficulty arose as to dividing a
horse—and wittiest. advised James Harvey to cat
him in two.
Mr. Justice Ansorr—" That was an ingenious
way of procuring an undivided moiety."
John Mtsggs levied on the premises of James
and Jeffery Walker, in Sept. 1813. James said
one half the goods were his, and he would bring
an action agaiiist the witness if more were sold.
He particularly declared 41, What's Jeffery's is
mine—and what's mine is Jeffery's."
To rebut this evidence, Mr. MARBTATT called
Hannah Harvey. the wife of Jeffery, who stated
that her husband was a miller and baker. James
Harvey aseisied his brother a little in making the
bread, but he derived no profit from the business.
He accounted to his brother for any money he re-
ceiired.

Jeffery Harvey was nest sworn—but hieessmina-
tion was objected to by Sir. SCAILLITT. as he had,
along with his brother, been found guilty of a con-
spiracy. The objection, however, fell to the
ground, as no judgment had been prayed. The
witness then stated that, in 1815. he carried oti the
business of a baker. in which he was sometimes as-
sisted by his brother, who had no interest iu the
trade.
tross-ezaariserl.—Witness had borrowed money,
and was made • bankrupt. He had brought his
action to try the validity of the commission. He
and his brother were not tried at Wells, for a con-
spinsey. They were indicted—but he did not re.
collect that they were put in the hands of the Jury.
Serjeant Pell, lie believed, made an apology to the
Jury for them—but they were not tried.
The beetroot of this witness corroborated his tes-
timony.
James Tutton deposed, that he never under.
stood James aura Jeffery Harvey to be portlier*.
Mr. Scaaucrr and Mr. M•aittarr spoke to
evidence.
The Jury returned a verdict for the Defendant—
thereby establishing the validity of the commission.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Roaltall a. TOMS.
Mr. GURNEY stated, that this action was brought
to recover a reparation in damages for a serious
injury inflicted at the Plaintiff, by the Defendant,
from the hisest and most malicious motives. The
Plaintiff is a respectable jeweller, residing in
Pall-mall, and the Defendant an attorney, living
is Dean-street, Soho. The partite had known
each other for many years, during which Mr. Pup.
kin had acted professionally for Mr. Rogers. The
latter having become indebted oa several bills of
exchange, which were token op by Mr. Rogers, he
gave to that gentleman • power of attorney,
. con-
fessing a judgment, ail • security. Tins metro-
'tient placed the person and property of the indi-
vidual who gave it at the mercy of the party who re-

had entered up his judgment at the Slatriff's.office,
and sued out a fieri facia:, which would give him
priority, if an execution were levied, before any
other creditor. In November. 1817. every shil-
ling was paid—and. when Mr. Popkin was asked
for the warrant of attorney. he said it was filed, and
completely done with. Between November and
March the Plaintiff and Defend nit had a difference.
There was nothing. however, iii that difference
which ought to have excited the enmity that it did
excite is the mind of Mr. Popkies—who, on, the
13th of March last, without one moment's notice—
without any real claim fur money then due—with-
oat may thing that could raise the slightest suspicion
in the mind of Mr. Rogers, that the Defendant
was, or pretended to be, a creditor—caused him to
be arrested by a Sheriff's officer for the sum of
1641. This was near a month before Term corn-
nsenced--and, being au arrest, in execution, the
Plaintiff could net give bail, as he might have
done had he been taken on wane process. He
could, however. if Mr. Popkin had gives, his Cull-
sent. have paid the 16.51. and the Sheriff'. pound-
age, which would have insured his liberation, at
the time. leaving him the opportunity afterwards of
moving the Court to set aside the whole of the pro.
reeding,. Application was made to Nlr. Popkin
for his consent to let the present Plaintiff pay over
the money demanded to the Slirriff, th.t lie might
be set at liberty and be suffered to attend to his
besinesa, but the Defendant was inexor.ble—he

would give no consent. He wee, as soon rs pos-
sible. summoned to appear before a Judge at
Chambers. But, as it was in the middle of the
Assizes, and no Judge but Lord Ellenborough iu
town, a delay necessarily took place. The Defeat!.
ant knew, however, that he was not compelled to
attend until the third summons was served on luau
--and for that he waited. During this period—a
period of eight days—Mr. Roger. had the misery
of remaining in cu►tody. When the parties op-
peered before Lord Ellenborough his Lordship
made an order that the money alleged to he due
should be paid into the hands of the Sheriff, who
should keep it until the fourth day of the next
Term, giving to the Plaintiff the power of moving
to set aside the proceeding.. When the Term com-
menced, the Plaintiff applied to the Court of King's
Bench to set aside the warrant of attorney. and the
execution entered up on it, on the ground that
nothing was due to Mr. Popkin. Cruse was 'hewn
by Mr. Topping against the rule Nisi then obtained
—and the case was referred to Mr. Reader, who.
having heard the parties, awarded, that though Mr.
Popkin bad caused execution to be issued fur 164/.
there was not one farthing doe to him. What
could the Defendant's object be for serving this
warrant of attorney 'gait.. a man who owed him
not a ? It was evidently done for the pur-
pose of oppression—if it were nut, he would have
allowed the Plaintiff to go at large. when he offered
to pay the money into the hands of the Sheriff. He
would go beyond surmise, however. He would
prove. out of his own mouth, that he contemplated
the ruin of Mr. Rogers. The Plaintiff had a next
door neighbour, a Mr. Kelly, who was a partner
with him in some bills of exchange. This indivi-
dual called on Mr. Popkin on the subject of those
bills—and, in the course of conversation, the De.
fenchtut said, in answer to • question from Mr.
Kelly... Here's that (producing a writ) which will
do Rogers's bovines*. Pay there bills immediately
—for, if he should fail. a circumstance not itupro-
brble, the whole expense will devolve on you."
Here the object was avowed. Immediately before
the arrest, he had taken an opportunity to prophecy
the ruin of the man. whom he was persecuting, to
his next door neighbour. Mr. Rogers war not,
however, a hankrupt—but, if he had eacaped that
misfortune. Mr. Popkin was not to be thanked for
the circumstance—for he had given as much pub-
licity as possible to the situation in which Mr.
Rogers was placed—and thereby expiated him to a
sudden call, when, pe►hips, he was iitiprovitled,
from every person to whom he owed a shilling. The
Learned Gentleman then called—

Mr. Alexander Kelty, who stated, that he is a
jeweller, and resides at No. 5, Pall-mail. The
Plaintiff lives next Jour to hint. The Di Pendant
is an attorney, living in Dean-street, Soho. He
never saw him but once, Oil the 11th of March last.
His reason for visiting hint was to pay two bills of
exchange for SOL each, which were drawn by Ro-
gers and accepted by witness. Fie told Mr. Pap-
kin he expected Mr. Rogers would have taken up
one of the bills. His answer was, that " ha had
not—and. he supposed, he would not." Witness
inquired whether he was on friendly terms with
Mr. Rogers? He answered " No—quite the re-
verse. To convince you of this, see what I sin go-
ing to do." He then pulled out from amongst his
papers, • slip of parcluneut. It was ■ writ. De-
fendant said, " Perhaps you don't understand
what this is. This is an execution—but mind, it
is in confidence I tell you this. I don't expect
you to name it again." He also observed, that
" Mr. Rogers bad used Mr. Morland very ill. He
had served him with a copy of a writ for 9/. although
he had been a great friend to him." He advised
witness " to pay both the bills—for, in the event
of their not being paid. four actions would be com-
menced on them—and, if Mr. Roger. became a
bankrupt, a circumstance, he pmumed, not im-
probable. then the whole expense would fall on
witness, as the acceptor." Witness paid the bills.
Cross-examiard.—lt was in perfect confidence
that this statement was made to him. It made •
deep impression on his mind—but he disclosed it
the same day. He bought a lease from Rogers—
but lie paid his rent to two persons who owned the
house—and did not consider Rogers as him laud.
lord. lie heard that Plaintiff hail bent a bankrupt
some years ago. Mr. Poplin' did not tell him tit
the course of conversation, that the two bills had
beet) discounted by Mr. Morland. He heard that
was the case afterwards. He pill a small improved
rent to Mr. Rogers. The whole rent was '5135
guineas per annum. He paid 5151. • year to Mr.
Rogers.
George Duke produced a writ of espies ad
satisfaciendam, sued out, on the 48th of Febriniev,
lain, by Parr Popkiii. It was sued out. nomi-
nally. fur 3001. anal directed a levy to be made fur
1641. Ws. besides poundage, &c.
George ilson stated that he arrested Mr.
the writ produced, on the 13th of
/ the instructions of Mr. Popkin.—
to witutea's brother'. lock-up•ltouse,

No. 1, Warwick-court. Holl.orn. He remained in
custody from the 13th to the 201 h of March.
Cross-examined.—Plaintiff told witness, in an-
swer to a piebtion, that he had had one hundred
guineas of %h. Popkin, but that he had been a
bankrupt

Henry HiWitch, clerk to Mr. Serie, Plaintiff's
attorney, .erred three sununonses to the Defeudant
to attend belore one of the Judger of the Court of
Ktog's Bench. Defendant attended on the third

Mr. Serie, Plaintiff's attorney, deposed that
the Defendant attended before Lord Ellesibo-
borough on the third summons. Witness before
that applied to the Sheriff to receive the money,
bet he could not. 04 the 19th of March, Lord
Ellenborough made mi order on that occasion.
Defendisi.t's brother attended, and opposed Plain-
tiff's liberation. On the 46:11, in consequence of
the order, the money was deposited with the
riff. and the Plaintiff MAO divch.irged. to the
ensiling Term a rule Nisi was obtained to set aside
the proceedings—and, on cause bring shewn against
it, the twitter was referred to Mr. Reader.

Edward Rowe, clerk to Mr. Reader, proved that
Gentleman's award. The instrutnetat was reed,
which negatived the existence of any debt being
due from Plaintiff to Defendant and saddled the
Defendant with all the costs consequent on his so-
i“g Out the writ--except those incidental to the
award, which wrra to be defrayed by the parties.
iu equal proportion.
Mr. Srrle was again examined. The additional
costs (.sot including these paid by Mr. Popktr)
which the Plaintiff had incurred, amounted to 44/.
Plaintiff had pa II hint that soot.
(Toss-examined.—Witness had got all the mo-
ney b,rk, and the respective emu., except 431.
On the eaatuivatiuu before Mr. Reader, the De-
fendant proved, that when Mr. Rogers became a
bankrupt, he owed I B5l. Witness was inclined
to think that the Pleintiff admitted he had procur-
ed the stamp. un which the warrant of attorney was
drawn up, and that he kid read the iiritrument over.
This wia the rase fur the Plaintiff.
Mr. Tormo and Mr. ESPIN ASSE contended
that the present action would nut he. It was an
action of trespass, and the writ yet remained in
force.

Mr. Justice ABBOTT overruled the objection.
The Plaintiff had not pleaded the writ, he had
merely pleaded not guilty. Had the Defend-
ant pleaded the writ, the Plaintiff would have
had au opportunity of amwering it. He would
have applied to the Court to set the writ aside, and
thus the plea would be removed.
Mr. ToePtast—" Here Wilson arrests the
Plaintiff on a writ delivered into his hands at
the suit of Popkiu, but there is nothing to
shew that he hid any timing to do with
the caption, except as Plaintiff in that action. Ile
could nut, therefore, be liable for the arrest and
false imprisonment, as had been decided in other
cram"

Mr. ABBOTT—" He is not lirblr for the irregu-
larity of the officers—but he cestoluily is for the
arrest which he ueeasioim."

Mr. Touter/ then addressed the Jury for the
Defendant. He regretted that this core had riot
been left entirely to the decision of Mr. Reader,
who was acquainted with all the circumstances
connected with it—circusustairces which could not
properly be submitted to a Jury. One point
was omitted in the award. which he was exceed-
ingly sorrry for—namely. a direction that no ac-
tion should be brought on any point connected
with the business. It ought not to have been
brought before that Court. Mr. Reeder was the
proper person to assess damages, if any injosey were
sustained. He trusted they would severely scru-
tinize the evidence (particularly that of Mr.
Kelly. who admitted that he had betrayed the con-
fidence reposed in him) —and. above all things,
drat they would guard themselves against giving
vindictive damages, which were unknown to the
law of England, mud ought not to be tolerated in a
British Court of Justice.

Mr. Justice ABBOTT *Unlined up the evidence,
expressing, most clearly. his opinion, that the Plain-
tiff was entitled to a verdict.

The Jury, after a short consideration, return-
ed a verdict fur the Plaintiff—Damages, 8441.;
costs, 40s.

ADMIRALTY COURT, DOCTORZCOMMONS.

to two othe► vessels, to which otherwise the ene-
my would out have surrendered on that °cos-
Gioia. The fleet under Lord Gambier, although
adinitted to be not within gun-shot of the eueiny,
still formed a part of the general, continued, and
co-operative engagement, which was directed under
the immediate rye and authority of Lord Gambier,
and who, from the sentence of a Court Martial
upon his conduct, must be taken to have acted
with judgment and diacretion in the disposition
of the fleet on that occasion. The quebtion
was, first, whether the fleet was not originally asso-
ciated with the five ships, for one column's purpose.
Secondly, whether any ilhowvvrance had taken place
by which the fleet would be excluded the benefit. The
first referred to the original transaction. the lilock-
ailing on the part of the fleet, and their being in
readiness, like any auiwal of prey, had any part of
the enemy attempted to escape, to be ready to grasp
and prevent retreat. The Learned Ju.lge referred
to the correspondence between the Lords of the
Admiralty and Lord Gambier, and next to the
disposition of the respective ships, called the In►ide
awl Outside Squadron. Its taking a view of all
the facts and circumstances of this case, there was
no doctrine could he found against those principles
he took to he established, opine winch his opinion
was founded, homely, that this was a combined,
coujnuct. and co-operative eagagrenent, from its
origin to its fiend tsrininitinii. If wrong in that
view, then he was fundamentally wrong altogether;
hut 1w was hound by the facts to give it skis chit-
racier, and as such to give the fruils of it to the
fleet, iii admittiog them to share in the head-money
awarded.

Lord Coclirane'r Counsel immediately intimated
au appeal from the Stolen Cr.

sow lITRTIrt.

et - •
ceased the power. He could. at shy hour. enter up Gorge Wiles
estecuti tttt against his goods, or take his person into Rogers. under tl
eustody. In 1811 all the obligations un this warrant g March log. by I
of attorney were completely discharged. Mr. Popitin ' He was taken to