The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

JIJIIISUICIIo9 OF TIIE MAUIsTICATES OF DOVER.

Mr. Jervis skewed cause agsinst • rule nisi, directing •
Habeas Corpus to the Captain o: his Majesty's ship Gloseestetr,
to bring up the bodies of two individuals who bad been carried
on board that ship, under a conviction of the magistrates of
Dover on a charge of smuggling, under the provisions ut the
statute 51' of the late King. Ile admitted that the offence had
been committed within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of
the port of Folkston° and that the conviction of the defendants
had taken place before two magistrates of the port of Dover,
who, it was contended, had no jurisdiction ; bnt he (Mr. Jervis)
contended that they had jot isdiction. The act gave jurisdiction
to the magistrates within the limits of the port in which the
hula or vessel detected in sina:gling should be taken.
Mr. Littledale WWI heard in support of the habeas.
The Lord Chicf Justice did hot cousider it necessary to give

an opinion on the question, whether the magistrates of Dover
had authority to take cognizance of a smuggling transaction
within the Jurisdiction of the magistrates of Folkstone. In cake
he had beim called upon to decide that question, his opinion
would, most probably, have been against the authority exer-
cised against the magistrates of Dover. The second question in
the case was mo►t material, namely, whether the magistrates
were not bound to chew on the face of the conviction that they
bad the authority they had exercised t—The conviction was
had iu consequence of that deficiency, and the writ of Habeas
mu►t issue. . .

Judges Bayley, Holroyd, and Best, were of the same opinion.
Rule l'ur the writ of Habeas Corpus mode absolute.
....

BRIDGE STREET GANG.—THE KING V. RIDGWAY.
Mr. Brougham on a former day obtained a rule to shew cause
why Sir John Sewall, Joint Atkins, Esq. and James Murray,
solicitor, should not pay the costs to which they had put the
defeudmit by reason of not proceeding to trial at the late Lan-
caster assizes, where they indicted him for perjury. and at an
advanced period of the assizes sned out a writ of Certiorari to
remove the proceedings. The rule also called nu the aforesaid
parties to anew cause why the Certiorw i should not he quashed,
and they made pay all the expences.
Mr. Sergeaut Hullock this day sbewed cause against the
rule, hut
The court, feeling that the defendant had been placedlunder
circuumtiumes of hardship, made the rule absolute.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION. _ .

Mr.Eresswell moved fur leave to Me a criminal information
against two magistrates of the burough of New Radnor, in
South Wales, for refusing to grant a licence to John Griffiths,
a publican.
The affidavit of Griffiths, on which the application was made,
stated, that during ld years, previous to October, 1821, when
his license expired, he had kept ■ public house in the borough
of New Radnor. and having applied to the two gentlemen, who
acted u magistrates, they refused to renew his license, stating
that they would not in future allow more than via licences in
the borough. The affidavit went on to state the borough to be
very extensive. The application was refused.
The Common Sergeant said be was instructed to move for
leave to life a criminal information against three magistrates in
the West of England, for corruptly refusing to grant publicans'
licences, but he understood notice had not been given of the
motion as required by law. ludo that omission he mentioned
the matter, with intention to move next term.
THURSDAY, Nov. 28.
THE KING v. THE UNIVERsITY OF CAMBRIDGE..
Application was made fur a Mawdamas calling upon the Vice
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge to admit Mr. Jepson,
. .

as lecturer of mineralogy.
The motion was opposed by Sergeant Lens, first on the
grouud that the lecturer in mineralogy had no right or interest
io that office which could entitle bini to call upon the court for
a Mandaiins.—ht Was also contended, that as the King was
visitor of the University, all complaints relating to the internal
affairs of the Colleges ought to be made to his Majesty in coun-
cil. The court did not see that Dr. Jepson intended to dis-
charge the duties of the office, and they dire:led an alladavit to
be made on that point, before they proceeded further in the
matter.

The Solicitor General this day produeed the affidavit of Mr.
Jepson, in which that gentleman declared his intention to act
in the professorship of mineralogy, which he considered an
office of honour and profit. The Solicitor General said it would
be necessary to apply to the arguments which had been urged
against the application by his learned brother, Sergeant Lens.
—On the first point, namely, that it was not au office of profit
giving the applicant any specific right which the court could re-
cognize ; he win prepared to prove it was both an office of
honour and profit, givitv the professor a right of appeal to •
court of law, lie adverted to the election of professors of che-
mistry, mathematics, mineralogy, music, botany, and anatomy.
Those distinctions were always conferred by a majority of votes
in the Seuate•house of the University. The professors took
precedence o proctors, and on that account ir was an office of
dignity. The professor of mineralogy swore at his election to
give lectures, and all who attended his lectures were bound to
pay him. In addition to the emolument thus obtained, he re-
ceived 1001. from the royal bounty. The gift was provided fur
by vote of Parliament ; and it had been urged that on some
oc-
canons Parliament might refuse to continue the supply with
rektect to these professorships; but if that event should ever
happen, it was not probable that the King would withhold his
royal bounty.—Upon the other point, namely, that the King was
•isitor, and that all appeals lay to the King in council, it could
not be denied that in two instances appeals had been made to his
Majesty in council, but the application in those cases was made
by consent of the parties. it the court felt there was any weight
in that part of hit learned frit.ud•s argument the doubt atilt

cr •
Mair
- ,
•

reaped to the power which the ling and Council bad to di.
el" the question might be tried by as issue. It was admitted
that the ft... as visitor, bad power to investigate complaints
proceeding am.. the University ; but the royal decision must
proceed from his Jacb.e,
The Lord Chief Justice eeeee d, that this being the last day
of term, the court could not then a.rote any longer time to the
argument, but would be prepared next 1... c to meet the question,
and give judgment thereon. The decision o.s consequently
postponed.
The court sat to a late hour, bearing and deciding questions
relating to points of practice.
MA. HENRY HIINT.

As the Judges were rising to quit the court, at a quarter past
seven o'clock, Mr. Henry Hunt rose on the floor, and began to
address them.
Mr. Justice Bayley.—What is it you move, Mr. Hunt ?
Mr. Hunt.—l wish to move against one of the office's—no,
not one of the officers, but a gentleman of your Lordship's
Court, Mr. Charles Frederick Williams. I wish to ask your
Lordships that he niay be criminally prosecuted for insulting
me, and trying to provoke me to fight aduel, which would have
forfeited my recognizaueea.
The Lord Chief Justice.—That is a motion for a criminal in.
formation, and Ma be made by Counsel.
Mr. hope your Lordship will not drive me to Coun-
sel in this case. I have heard of " set a thief to catch a thief ;"
but I am afraid it will not do to set a barrister to catch a bar.
rioter.
Mr. Justice Bayley.—The same attempt has been formerly
made, and the Court decided against it. The eistiuction is this
—every man has a right to he heard in his own cause ; but in
a criminal information the Crown is the prosecutor, and there-
fore only counsel can move for it.
Mr. Hunt—But in this particular case—
The Lord Chief Justice.—There can be no failure of jus-
tice. We do not conclude you ; you may prefer a bill of in-
dictment before the grand jury.
Mr. Justice Best.—Or bring your action.
Mr. Hunt.-1 have another case to bring before your Lord-
' ships ; but at this late hour, when yon have been fatigued with
,rio long a sitting, I can scarcely press it.
Mr. Justice Beat.—We will hear you move any thing in a
elvil cause.
Mr. Hunt.—l scarcely know whether your Lordship will
think this a civil cause. It is • complaint against one of your
officers, Mr. Lushington, the Master of the Crown office, for
extortion. Your Lordship may remember, that when 1 was a
prisoner in Ilchester gaol, I applied by my counsel, Mr. Chitty,
for the redress of certain grievances which I was mitering.
The High Sheriff of the County redressed these grievances,
and consequently I requested leave to withdraw my application
on payment of costs. The costs were taxed by the ma ter, who
made an error calf. in casting them up, against me. I %vas de-
tained in Ilchester gaol for these costs—at least 1 was obliged
to pay them before I left it, as a detainer was lodged against
me.
The Lord Chief Justice.—lf you complain of • mere error,
you can only apply that the Master may review bia taxation.
Mr. Hunt.—No, n.y Lord ; for these errors base happened
singularly often—o ce in the case of the High Bailili of West-
minster ; once in a case before Mr. Justice Best, when a pound
too much was charged me. Three times there have been errors,
and all against poor me. (A laugh.)
The Lord Chief Justice.—We are sorry for it : but what
can we do?
Mr. Hunt.—l have long affidavits on the subject; but I will
not trouble your Lordships with them now.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Then you will not move now
Mr. Hunt.—Not in this case ; but on the other question I
wished to address your Lordship.
The Lord Chief Justice.—That has 'tern decided already.
Mr. Hunt.— But only in my case, my Lord.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Yes ; often before.
Mr: hunt.-1 could show your Lordshiv many cues to the
contrary.

1'
The Lord Chief Justice.—Not now, on the last day of term
—another lime we will hear you.
Mr. Hunt.-1 wish to ask your Lordship a question about
au indictment which I preferred for a libel against a newspaper
editor named Dr. Stoddart : the bill was found, but 1 do not
know how the case stands.
The Lord Chief Justice.—lt LIS been long out of the paper
—do you wish to re-enter it
Mr. Ilunt.—As I said, I really do not know what has be-
come of it. The ca e stood for trial, and was called on, but
when I iufurmed your Lordship that I wished to open the case
to the jury, you refused to permit them to be sworn.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Yes ; on the unie ground that you
Cannot move for a criminal information in person. Every cri-
minal proceeding is at the suit of the Kiug, and the prosecutor
cannot interfere.
Mr. can show your Lordship cases—
The Lord Chief Justice.—At prevent that is the rule of the
Court. If you can by ancient eases show that rule to be wrong,
conic prepared next term and we will hear you. At present we
can say no more.
Mr. Hunt.—l am happy to see your Lordship so well after
so long an absence.
The Judges then left the Court. As it was the last day of
lend, they remained until all the motions were disposed of,
which, with the application of Mr. Hont, prolonged their sit •
ling until Lalt-past seven o'clock.
FRIDAY, NOV- 29.
Sittings after Term, before the Lord Chief Justice.
WA VTE V. LADY CARR.
The plaintiff, furrier to his Majesty, brought this action
against Lady Carr, for baying by the negligence of her coach-
man, driven her carriage against the plaintiff's chaise, in con-
sequence of which the plaintiff ofd his wife were thrown out
and mud. injured. The question was whether the accident hap-
pened by reason of any improper conduct on the part of Lady
Carr'► sere ants.
It appeared, by the evidence, that the defendant's carriage
had re.urned to town from Ealing on the 27th of May last.—
The defendant's daughters and Mr. Perceval, her son, were in-
side. They were driving along Piccadilly with the intention to
go to the carpet warehouse in Leicester-fields. The coachman
drove on the left of l'ireadilly. IA hen they reached the Re-
gent's Circus, ■ hackney-coach was drawing across the street
to fall into the coach .stand. The coach came on the right side
of Lady Carr's carriage, and at the same moment the plaintiff
attempted to drive his attire across the horses beads The
coachman pulled up his horses, and the pole passing over the
wheel of the chaise, overturned it. The plaintiff find his wife
were thrown out, and the chaise broken to pieces. Mr. W.
got op with a severe bruise on his eye. His wife received a
contusion on the head. She was taken up by one oflibe persons
who saw the accident, and was conveyed home. Mr. Vs syte
asked whose carriage it was, and said, do not go away. I in-
slat on knowing whose carriage it is. The coachman ;one bins
no answer. Ile applied to the footman, but could out obtain

the name of the owner of the carriage. Mr. Wayte then de-
clared if be could not get the mune of the owner from the ger.
•ants, he sheold apply to the ladies. The plaintir finally laid
bold of the carriage door, on which Mr. Pereeval exclaimed,
Sir, Sir! The plaintiff appeared •ery much agitated, but
after Mr. Perceval gave hit name he went *way. The repair
• . of the chaise cost 221. aid the apothecary's bill was SI. 18s.
After the above fasts had been proved, Mr. Searlett address-
ed die Jury for the defeadant, and contended that the accident
was anavoidable—no blame could attach to the defeudant's
servants. The Learued Counsel called the coachman, the foot-
man ,and Mr. Perceval, who described the gig as c 1111 l jug upon
the carriage enperceived, and that the very act of pulling np
the horses in the carriage, to avoid the accident, occasioned
the pole to strike the chaise, and overturn it.
The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the Jury, said, if
they were of opinion that the accident happened without i'ault
on either side, the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover.
The Jury retired, and on their return to Court, pronounced
a verdict for the defendant. Their Foreman at the same time
stated, that the Jury were of opinion the injury was occasioned
by mere accident, without fault on either side.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
MONDAY, NOV. 25.

CRAMP v. sIMONS.
Sergeant Lens moved for a rule to thew rause why an arbi-
tration made by Doctor Lushington should not be set &aide, on
the ground of its being against the law. The learned Sergeant
stated, that the matter referred to Dr. Lushington was, whether
the plaintiff, who wa► rector of a parish, was entitled to recover
back from the defendant, who was ♦icar of the same parish,
certain fees that had been paid for the burial of a person in the
chancel of the church. The parties were entirely agreed as to
the facts of the case, that the burial had taken place that fees
had been paid to the vicar, &c.—and that they mutually agreed
to refer the whole miter to Doctor Lushington, who had de-
cided that the vicar had a right to the fees, and that the rector
had no cause of action. With this decision the rector was dis-
satisfied ; and he wished to have a line drawn by s decision of
the court that would prevent any future differences on the
subject.

The C .ief Justice said, the parties had mutually agreed to
the cause out of court, and to refer it to another decision ; and
when that decision is made by a perfectly competent arbitrator
of their own appointment, •ne of them being diasatis6ed, calls
upon the court to set it aside ; and it was • case in which the
court could nut interfere, unless it was manifest, on the face of
the award, that it was contrary to law, which was by no means
the case here. On the contrary, the court must suppose, from
the competence of the arbitrator, that it was conformable to law.
Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Burrongh's concurred in
this opinion.—Rule refused.

TUESDAY, NOY. 20.
IN RE ISAACSON, CLARKE, AND BROOKES.

This was an application to strike the two first named persons
ofr the rolls of the court, and to call upon the third to answer for
certain matters alleged in the affidavit. Sergeant Pell was
beard to-day against the rale. Sergeant Vaughan was in part
beArd in support of its being made absolute. The farther bear-
ing of the cum was postponed till to-morrow. We forbear
noticing the case further, until the arguments tin both sides are
concluded, and the judgment given.

EDMESDAY, NOV. 27.

IN THE MATTER OF - ISAACSON, THOMAS CLARK, AND J.

B. BROOKS.

In the course of the last term, Mr. Sergeant Vaughan oh.
Seined a rule to sliew cause why Isaacson and Clarke, attornies
of this court, should not be struck off the rolls, for improper
conduct in having permitted • person named John Benjamin
Brooks to act as an attorney in their names ; and why the said
Brooks should not be committed to the Fleet prison for having
as acted ; and further, why the said parties should not answer
certain other matters contained iu the affidavits on which the ap-
plication was made ; and also why they should not pay the
costs of this application. The motion arose out of the followin4
circumstances :--In the course of the month of Juue last, a per-
son named William Clarke instituted an action against Brooks,
for the recovery of a aunt of money, which it was alleged lie
( Brooks) had received on Clarke's account, from • person named
Seeger. The plaintiff in that case proved that be called on
Brooks, at his oilier, in Broad-ccurt, Drury-lane, and employed
him as his attorney, to proceed in au action against Seeger,
from whom lie (Brooks) subsequently received the money. Time
defence set up by Brooks was, that he received the money as
the clerk of Isaacson, in whose name the cause had proceeded,
and to whom he paid it over. The Jury by which the
cause was tried were of opinion, that there was evidence of
Brooks having in his own person acted ■s the attorney of
Clarke, and had, without any just pretensions, assumed that
character. They therefore found a verdict for the plaintiff, and
they added the words, " with all costs." It haying appeared
on that trial that Brooks bad practised as an attorney without
being duly qualified, the present motion was made, and affidavits
filed from several persons to show that be had acted for them as
an attorney, on sericite occasions, having at one time used the
name of Clarke, and at another that of Isaacson.
Out Monday last, Mr. Sergeant Peel showed cause against
the rule, and produced affidavits from Isaacson and Clarke, in
which they positively swore that they had employed Brooks as
their clerk, at are ,ular salary. The affidavits added, that they
never, on any occasion; gave him permission to use their names,
or either of them on his own behalf, or ever divided the profits
of their business with him. An affidavit was then produced

from Brooks, corroborating the statement made by Isaacson and
Clarke, as to his having on all occasions acted as their clerk,
and in no other capacity whatsoever.
Sergeant Vaughan was proceeding to argue in support of the
rule, when the court rose.
This day the learned Sergeant resumed his arguments, and
commented on the manner in which the affidavits of the parties
were drawn up. He contended that they by no means gave an
answer to the matters charged.
Sergeant Onvlow followed on the same side.
Lord Chief Justice Dallas, after consulting with the other
Judges for a short time observed, in the case now hefore the '
court, I will nut say that the statement made by those parties
is incredible ; but it is not going too far to say that it is Morro-
liable. I ant anxious, therefore, that the court should have
farther information upon the subject, for it is quite clear that
Brooks acted as an astorney, and he should show to the satisfac-
tion of the cowl, that lie had so acted merely for the henelit of
Clarke and Isaacson, and not for his own advantage. The
court in the present case will older an attachment to issue
against the parties, and that they give hail to answer certain
interrogatories which shall be forthwith hled ; and an early
day appointed in the next term for receiving the answers to
them, upon which answers the Prothonotary of the court shall
report.
The other Judges concurred with his Lordship, and on at
lachment was ordered to be isen,d, on which the parties were

THE NATIONAL ItE6L

required to give bail in the amount of 1001. and two sureties for
501. for eaoh respectively.
The court then ordered that they should stand committed,
finless the parties making the applicatiou would consent to their
undertaking to appear to give bail.
Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said be would not press their being
committed, but he should expect doe notice of bail.
EXPARTI BROOKS, IN RE HILL, AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. Strgeant Pell said he had a motion to submit to the
Court in behalf of Brooks, (nue of the parties to the case
which bad been just before under their Lordships considera-
tion). It was for a rule to chew cause why Mr. Hill, who was
au attorney of that Court, should not be ordered to pay to
Brooks, or to the officer of the Court, to be by him paid, the
sum of 1401. money of Brooks's, which had got into his (Hill's)
possession ander the following circumstances :—ln the Old
Bailey Sessions before the last, Brooks stood indicted for a
felony in having forged the name of a Mr. Clarke to a cheek,
some time before his trial, Clarke called upon bin) iu Cold-
bath-fields prison, and in the course of conversation said that
be h-d no wish to appear against him on the trial, but that his
attorney (Hill) would proceed with the indictment, unless he
(Cla.ke) would pay him his costs, which he was unable to do.
It was then proposed that Brooks should advance the money to
cover the costs, amd that the trial should not be proceeded with.
Mr. Hanson, Brooks's attorney. wile present at • part of this
transaction, and be strongly advised him not to consent to any
such compromise; that it was highly improper, and that he
(Hanson) would have nothing whatever to do with it; and on
saying this, Mr. Hanson went away, and would hear no more
on the subject. Brooks. however, gave 1501-501. of which
found its way into Hill's hands before the trial, and 001. af-
terwards. Brooks in his affidavit now stated, that lie gave the
money under an impression that his life was in danger from his
knowledge of the parties opposed to him, though be positively
swote ithat be was innocent of the crime of which he then stood
accused, and of wh ch be was since acquitted—be therefore
moved that Hill he compelled to return the 1101. which be had
unjustly received.
Lord Chief Justice Dallas said, it is almost unnecessary to
say, that to attempt to compound a felony is a misdemeanour,
and a very high one ; and subjects the party an acting to •
heavy punishment. The party here has confessed that he has
done that, and now seeks to recover the money by means of
which he attempted to commit the offence. This is the first
time I ever heard of such an application made in Court; amid if
the Court were to interfere in the manner required, they would
be sanctioning a very high crime. I see no claim whatsoever
which this party bas to our interference ; and therefore I am of
opinion that this rule must be refused.
Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Jnstice Burroogh expressed their
concurrence in the opinion of his Lordship.—Rele refused.
The of of Brooks was ordered to be filed.
The following notice appeared yesterday in this Court :

TO SOLICITORS, PRACTISING IN THE COURT OP COMMON
PLEAS, ♦ND TO ♦LL OTHERS.
_ .

" Take Notice—That after the present Michaelmas Term.
the evening attendance of a Judge in Chambers in Term time
will be discontinued ; and that, in all future terms, the attend-
ance will be every day, from ball an hour after three till lire
o'clock."

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
On Thersday the Lord Mayer, attended by the Recorder and
the City Solicitor, went before the Harems of the Exchequer,
to tender en account of his Mayoralty.
The Recorder, in presenting the issues of the Mayoralty,
addressed the court upon the subject of the merits of the late
Lord Mayor. That meritorious individual had, he said, exerted
himself upon every occasion to preserve the tranquillity of the
Metropolis and to render the utmost facilities in the transaction
of public business. It had fallen to him to meet with the dis-
tinguished honour of attending upon his Majesty as Conservator
of the River Thames to the limits of the City jurisdiction, when
the King went to visit his Northern dominions, alid also to re-
ceive his Majesty on his return. Upon those occasions the
directions issued by the late Lord Mayor, for providing fa-
cilities at the royal embarkation, were deserving of the highest
approbation, and had met with it already from his fellow
citizens.
The accounts were then given in, and the Barons having
bowed to the late Lord Mayor, his Lordship left the court.
This was the second instance within a century of • Lord
Mayor having rendered op his Recounts on any other day than
that preceding the 9th of November.
LLOYD E. NEEDHAM.

Mr. Jervais stated—tin; ;me. The plaintiff, he said was a
widow, who brought the present action to recover compensation
for the serious injury she had sustained by the defendant's neg-
ligence in driving his gig, the effects of which she would carry
with her to the grave. The plaintiff's husband was formerly
an extensive silk mercer in Crimbourn-court, hut being reduced
in his circumstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to as-
sist in their mutual support, by her own personal exertion,. On
the evening of the 12th of August, the plaintiff and her husband
went out to takes walk in the Regent's Park, and as they were
crossing the rood in front of the park gate, the defendant in his
gig drove furiously over them both, by which they were so
grievously injured that the plaintiff's Itushiind died within
the hour ; and the plaintiff herself. although she escapel with
life, had suffered long and painfully, before ehe could leave her
bed, having lost the use of her right arm. A coroner's inquest
had been held on the body of the plaiutiff's husband ; a verdict
of manslaughter had been given against the defendant ; on
which charge lie had since been tried and acquitted at the Old
Bailey. Bit the acquittal ou that trial was no answer to the
prevent action, which was brought for compensation for the
injury sustained by the plaintiff from the defendant's negligence.
—They could not take into their consideration the loss of her
husband , but they would consider the pain she bad suffered,
and was likely still to suffer, the expense she was at, and the
great and lasting injury she sustained in the loss of her arm,
and consequen inability to procure her future support.
itnesses proved the case as stated by the counsel for the
plaintiff, and
Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant at
great length. Ile had at once offered to pay all the expences
arising from him ; but he was not the opulent man he was re
presented, mod bad • family of ten children to support, which
put it out of his power to offer more.
The Chief Baron charged the Jury, that whether the. defen-
dant was drunk or sober, made no difference in the case, if they
believed the accident had been caused by his improper driving.
It could be so justification of the defendant to pull up his horse
just before the accident happened, if by his own improper con
duct be had made it impossible then to stop him : and it was
agreed by all the witnesses that just before he bad been driving
turiously.
The Jury,aller a short consultation, returned a vedict fer the
plaintiff—Damages 2351. illey mentioned it was their wish
to leave the defendant MI. after payment of the surgeon's
bills, which were stated at 351.

1111://iT, NOT. 29.
THE ATTORNEY-OENENAL N. LITT. ..

This was a proceeding instigated for the condemnation of
tree bales of silk, charged to have been smuggled.
The Attorney General stated the case, which was afterwards
more fully detailed in evidence.
Mr. Beckwith, of the firm of Beckwith, Bamford, and Var-
nish, silk-mercers, is Matden•lane, near Clitimaide, deposed to
the effect, that io the latter cud of August, lice defendant,
Little, called at their warehouse, and asked for Mr. Bamford.
The latter was not in the way, and the defend wit iutrodaced
himself by saying that his name was Little, and that he had
known Mr. Bamford betore. He desired that the foreman,
Avery, and the shopho3. who were present, might retire.—
Thee did so, rad he then told the witness in the presence of
his partner, Mr. Varnis'i, who remained, that he could sell
them any quantity °rank they might want at a price the amount
of the duty below the price in the market. tt Then the duty
could not have been paid," the witness observed.—" The
a shilling duty do I ever pay," replied the defendant, and the
witness having, from the declaration, been made aware of the
business of the defendant, asked him a variety of questions 114
to his mode of dealing, and with whom he dealt. The defen-
dant said he supplied persons in the trade with silk to the
amoout of 20,0001. par annum, and that he supplied one-third of
the cambrick to the amount of about 90,0001. per annum. He
mentioned the names of houses at Turin, Leghorn, and Valen-
ciennes, from which he bought his silk. He offered the witness
three bales of silk at 42a • pound, at the usual credit. The silk
of the description which the defendant offered was at that time
worth 4145. It was eubsequeutly agreed open by the witness
and his partner to take the silk which the defendant offered at
40s. cash, as they did not choose to take credit in each s trans-
action. The defendant wished to send it next morning. The
witness in the mean time went to the committee of the silk-
trade, and informed them who had bees with him, and what
bad beendone. As it was arranged, he gate information at the
custom-house, and Lawrence Ross, the officer, was appointed
to he in waiting in the morning when the goods were sent.
Mr. Varnish and Mr. Avery corroborated the testimony of
Mr. Beckwith, and Lawrence Ross the custom-house officer,
proved that be seized the three bales of silk, and that be went
to the house of the defendant, where be found only I/ pieces of
cambric, which were afterwards returned, as it was proved that
the duty had been paid ; they tried a cellar door in the house,
but could not open it.
Evidence on the part of the Crown was called, to show that
the price at that time was 4145.
The Jury said they would not trouble the Attorney General
to go any further iuto the case, and they immediately returned
a verdict for the Crown.