The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG ENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 4.
COOPER V. GARRATT, ESQ..
This was an action brought by the plaintiff; who was a coach-
maker, residing in Oxford-street, against the late Sheriffs of
London and Middlesex. • The, Sheriffs were merely nominal
defendants—the real defendant being one of their Officers.
The case was conducted on the part of the plaintiff' by Mr.
GURNEY and Mr. GODSON', and by Mr. MArin.Y.Avr for the
defendant.

It 'appeared, that in the month of May, 1820, a person named
Ashby, a livery-stable-keeper, had hired a barouche from the
plaintiff. An execution having issued against Ashby's effects,
the carriage was taken along with his goods, and sold by auction,
although the plaintiff had sent notice to the auctioneer that the
vehicle was his property.
Witnesses were called to prOve that Mr. Ashby had hired the
barouche, and made several payments on account. As the de-
fendants were unable to make any substantial defence, his Lord-
ship directed the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff:
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 311. 10s.,

YOUNG, ADMINISTRATRIX, r. ILIRLI\ G.
This was'an action brought by the widoKand adminis-tratrix
of the late James Youngoo-recover the sum of 501. from the
defendant. The money was alleged to have belonged, to the
deceased, and remaining in the hands of the defendant at the
time of the death of the intestate. '

Mr. DIARRYATT conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. GURNEY for the defendant.

It appeared that the deceased lived with his father, who kept
a public-house at Bromley, but had no ostensible means of
livelihood, and was in a very bad state of health at the time of
his marriage. His constitution appeared to have been so com-
pletely exhausted, that in less than 24 hours after he made the
plaintiff a wife she became a widow.
On the part of the plaintiff, the father-in-law of the deceased
proved that the defendant had admitted that he owed a sum of
money fo the deceased; though not quite 60/.
For the defence, the father of the deceased was called., who
proved' that his son could never have possessed such a sum.
The Lord,Chief Justice ABDOT remarked in summing up,
that the question for the Jury to decide was whether the de-
ceased had realy lent this money and that their determina-
tion must be founded on the opinion they should form firom the
conflicting testimony of, the father and father-in-law of the de-
ceased.

The Jury, after a short consideration, found a verdict for the
plaintiff for 451.

WILLS v. irunsT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who kept a lodg.
ing-house in 3lortimer-street, Cavendish-square, for the sum of
74/. due to him by the defendant for board and lodging.
Mr. SCARLETT conducted the case for the plaintiff; and
Mr. WILDE that for the defendant.

It appeared that the defendant was a young gentleman with
considerable expectations from his relations. He had contracted
'several debts before his twenty-first year. These he discharged
us far as his means would admit, and, when these were exhaust-
ed, one of his creditors, who still remained unpaid, put him
into the King's Bench Prison. Among the demands which he
was unable to satisfy, was the above-mentioned debt, and to re-
cover that the present action was brought.
A female witness was called by Mr. SCAIILETT, who swore
that the defendant, after he came of age, had promised to pay
the debt.

Mr. WILDE, on the .part of the defendant, contended that
this demand could not be considered as due, for necessaries, as
he had an opportunity of living at his father's house if he had
chosen. That the Jury must observe under what disadvan-
tages the defendant laboured, as he had not an opportunity of
producing any evidence whiCh could contradict the witness
called on the part of the plaintiff, as she was the only person
present besides the parties concerned. They should, however,
carefully consider her testimony, as she had beerminwrrect in
several points of her statement.
The father, of the defendant was now called, who.stat6d that
his son might always have resided at his house, and in fact that
it had always been his desire that he should.
The CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up the evidence, ob-
served to the Jury, that they were to consider whether this was
really a debt due for necessaries, or merely contracted through
the extravagance of the defendant. If the former was their
opinionolt was their duty to. find their verdict for the plaintiff;
but if the latter, for the defendant.
The Jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for 74/.