The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 18.
NIXON V. GARRATT AND VENAULES.
Mr. PLATT stated that this was an action of trespass for taking
the plaintiff's goods.
Mr. SCARLETT detailed the circumstances under which the
plaintiff sought to recover. The action was brought nominally
against the late Sheriffs of Middlesex, for trespass, committed in
taking a printing press and types of the plaintiff, under an
execution against a person named Scott. Mr. Scott and Mr.
Nixon had entered into partnership in the publication of a
Newspaper called the Military Register, in Pall-mall.court;
but Mr. Nixon ordered and paid for the printing press and types
in question, and they were deposited in Pall-mall-court.—
Afterwards a person named Hathway set up a paper 'called
The Observer of the Times, of which Mr. Scott became the
editor and printer. The Jury were aware that the daily news-
paper called The Times had a very extensive circulation ; and
therefore the proprietors Of several other papers had imitated
its title in the hope of sharing in its success. This was the case
of the paper in question, which Mr. Scott engaged to print and
edit ; and to enable him to perform the printing, he removed the
' types of Mr. Nixon from Pall-mall-court to Catherine-street,
where the Observer of the Times was conducted. This how-
ever, was not all • for he caused an execution against himself
to be levied on these effects ; and then, when they were put up
to sale by auction, offered to become their purchaser. Notice
was given to the Sheriffs not to sell ; but they persevered, and
sold the property, and had thus made themselves liable to the
present action.
To support this case on behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was
given to show that the types and printing-press were ordered
and paid far by Mr. Nixon. Mr. Hathway stated that he en-
gaged Mr. Scott to print and edit the Observer of the Times at
a salary of 161. a week, but never heard the name of Nixon till
afterwards. The officer who took the property in execution ob-
tained admittance, in consequence of a servant of Scott coming
and asking some question, which gave him an opportunity to
enter. The seizure, and the offers of Mr. Scott to purchase
of the auctioneer, were also proved.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, expressed his confidence
that he should be able to show that the property was partner-
ship property, and therefore rightly taken by the Sheriff; and
that, even giving credit for Mr. Nixon's share in it, he was in-
debted to Mr. Stott in upwards of 1991. To establish this case
he called Mr. Scott.
It was objected to the competency of Mr. Scott, that by_ esta-
blishing the validity of the execution he would dischirge
self from the debt due to the original plaintiffs.; but a release
from them was produced, which rendered him a competent wit-
ness. He stated that the property was part of the premium of
515/. to be advanced by Mr. Nixon, and belonged to thepartner-
ship. The original debt was due to the landlord of the premises
where the business was carried on in Pall-mall-court, which he
possessed before the commencement of the partnership, and
continued to possess now. He never sent any one to point out
the goods to the Sheriff; nor was there any collusion between
himself and the plaintiffs in the action. Mr. Nixon was now
indebted to him more than 199/. ; he had a share in the profit
of printing, though not of editing the Observer of the Times.
On cross-examination he denied that he ever said to Mr.
Miller that the press and types were Nixon's separate property.
Henry Reynolds, the articled clerk of the last witness, stated
the types were intermingled with the partnership property.
On cross-examination he admitted that he went, with the
consent of his master, with the Sheriff's officer to Mr. }lath.
way's on the occasion of the levy.
Mr. Miller, the attorney for the plaintiff, was then called
to contradict Mr. Scott, and positively swore that Mr. Scott
had told him the press and types were the property of Mr.
Nixon, and that they were always treated as such at meetings
of the parties.
Mr. GURNEY observed on this evidence, and Mr. SCAR-
LETT replied on the whole case.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury .to say whether
they believed Mr. Scott's statement, or that of the other wit-
nesses, under which direction they found a verdict for the plain—
tifF.—Damages, 2581.
THE KING V. CRI/TCILER AND ANOTHER.
Mr. ANDREWS stated to the Court that these defendants,
who were convicted of a misdemeanour at the last assizes for
Kent, and who were now attending the Court to receive its
judgment, had just been arrested. As they were in attendance
on the Court, he submitted that they were protected from arrest
and entitled to their discharge.'
On inquiry, it appeared that the defendants, not having en-
tered into any recognizances, had been taken into custody on a
copies upon the judgment. The prosecutor had, however,
given them notice to appear, and they were in attendance pur-
suant to that notice when they were arrested.
Mr. BRODERICK,for the prosecution, moved that they should
stand committed, and
Mr. ANDnEWs and Mr. ADOLPHUS contended that they
were improperly taken, and entitled to their discharge.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE agreed, that as they were at.
tending pursuant to notice, they were improperly arrested, and
ordered them to he discharged on entering Into their own recog-
nizances. They were directed to attend on Thursday, when
the report would be in Court, and the case would probably be
heard.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.
( Sittings in Banco.)
ST. JOHN v. SILL T. CHADIPNEYS.
The arguments of Counsel on both sides in this Case were
concluded on Friday.—Judgment deferred.

COVENTRY V.-SIR T. CHAMENEYS.
In this case, which was nearly the same in the points at issue
as the preceding, the rule was enlarged until next term, with
the understanding, that in the interim an arrangement would be
made between the parties.
GORTON' v. SIR T. CRAMPNEYS.
This was also an application on the part of the defendant, to
set aside an annuity deed. The grounds were two: the first,
informality, the same as in the case of " St. John v. Champ-
neys," (and is to abide the decision in that case}—the second,
the illegal retention of part of the consideration.
Messrs. Sergeants VAuGuArr and PELL were this day both
heard for the plaintiff, and against the rule.
The hearing of Counsel in support of the rule was deferred.—
The Court rose at half-past two o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT.
Yesterday Armand Francis Prault de Bligny came up to be
heard on his petition to be discharged from debts amounting to
17,0001. and was opposed by Mr. Cook and Mr. Norton, on be-
half of the executors of Mr. Puffin and Madame Collier.
The insolvent, who is a Frenchman, stated that he had been
thirty years resident in England as a picture dealer, and was for
several years in the habit of purchasing, cleaning, and repairing
pictures for the late Mr. Tuffin, who was a banker at Bristol, and
had a town house in Park-lane. In the year 1813, Mr. Tuffin
placed a considerable number of pictures in the insolvent's hands
to be disposed of by private sale, at fixed prices, amounting to
4,9001. for the whole. The insolvent, in the beginning of the
year 1815, went to Paris, taking with him a considerable part of
Mr. Tuffin's pictures, and more of his own. Previous to his
leaving this country, he gave a bond for 2,000/. to Mr. Joseph
Turner, a pawnproker, in Covent-garden, to whom he was in-
debted 1,000/. for money borrowed at different times, and who
undertook to make farther advances, which he did. At Paris
the insolvent sold some part of his pictures to the Duke de
Berri, for which he was paid ; but he placed the greater
part in the hands of a person named Dumenson, who re-
presented himself as agent to the Russian Prince Dimidoff,
who was then at Paris. Soon after he had given Dumenson
the pictures, Bonaparte returned from Elba, and he could never
afterwards find him, although he had applied to Fouche to
have him apprehended. In the month of April the same year,
he returned to England, and found that Mr. Turner, on hearing
of his loss in Paris, had taken possession of all the pictures he
had left in his house in London, and which he valued at5;0001,
Amongst them were the two most valuable of Mr. Tuffin's
pictures : the Marriage of St. Catharine, by Vandyke, valued
at 900/. ; and the Virgin and Child, by Carlo Dolce, valued at
1,200/. The insolvent immediately informed Mr. Puffin of every
thing that had happened; and Mr. Tuffin sent him to Mr.
Turner to make terms for the restoration of the property.—
Turner offered to give up all the property on being paid
2,000/., and to give the insolvent time for the payment of 900/.
more, to which his advances had then amounted. The insol-
vent reported these terms to Mr. Tuffin, who refused to comply
with them; upon which the insolvent told him, " as he had
made a cat's paw of him, he should never see his face again."
The insolvent admitted he had kept his word, and avoided Mr.
Tuffin ever afterwards. Mr. Turner had since sold all the
property, but never accounted for it to the insolvent.
The case urged against the insolvent on behalf of Madame
Collier, arose from his having taken a picture from her to sell,
which she valued at 300 guineas, on which he advanced 22/.
but not being able to dispose of it for any thing like the price
put .on it, lie pressed for the return of the money advanced,
which being often promised and never paid, at the end of 12
months, he said, he considered the picture forfeited, and sold
it on his own account, as he had several times done with pic-
tures in similar circumstances before. -
Mr. NORTON and Mr. COOKE addressed the Court against
the insolvent's discharge.
Mr. PoLLocx, who was Counsel for the insolvent, replied.
The COURT said, with respect to the opposition on the part
of Mr. Puffin's executors, no case had been made out against
the insolvent ; there was no evidence that he had contracted the
debt fraudulently ; but it was impossible the insolvent should
be discharged till Mr. Turner was examined respecting the
property, of which he had taken possession and disposed; to
give time for which, the case must be adjourned.