The Sun.
London, England, 1809-06-06 00:00:00

COURT OP KINP's BENCH, Mar

CLEGQ V. WILLIAMS.

This was an eaton to recover 601. for music and
dinners; and otherentertatoments, provided for the
Ilse of the .Defenditrit:;at his :Eledion in the ) ear
1802, at Windsor.
. Mr. PARR, for the Plaintiff, said, he did not sup-
posethat the nausit criuld Co* within the Treating
,Act,. Thewords.el the Act included enteraitiment
given to voters after the writ issued; ba't' it must be
actual entertainment, and it ,was not a necessary
consequence that music must be entertainment ;
whatever objection, therefore, might arise to the
Plaintiff's 'recovering for the' meat, he expeacd to
recover for the music.
Several witnesses were called, who .proved that
the musicians played, and that Mr. Williams heard
them, but there being no proof of. their being re.
taiued by the Defendant, and it being pro% ect_that
as to the dinneN, the Datenct:tni, who was a publi-
can, bargained to give his vote if a dinner-should 1)
tiven at his house, , •
Lord Et.t.siviottoodn said, tliat on,, such a we-
rapt agreement, the Plaintiff could not recover for
the meat, and,,as for the music, the only proof was,
that the Defendant endured it. •
The Plaintitrwas therefore nonsuited.

BRANT U. BARIIIE3.

This was an aetion to recover 201. upon the De-
fendant's promissory note, to which the Defendant
objeded;that it was partly given on a gaming trans-
aation it appeared by the -evidence that the Plaintiff
kept a public house in Whiteehanel, and bad won
the "RIM
,of 2i. 6i.,Eit skittles and all fours. The note
was therefore void. But the. Plaintiff recovered
`l7l. 14s. the balance, which was for liquors, &c. on
Aloe other counts of the declaration.—Verdict for
the Plaintiff for 171. 14.5.

-JUNE 1.

MASON if: IllDI)EVO2iD•

An glion to recover a compensation in damages
for the non-performance of a contract. The Plain-
tiff had purchased a quantity of cloths of the De-
fendants who are teolors in Basinghall-street, on the
17th December. They recommended to his notice
some superfine broad cloths, a sample of which they
delivered to him, informing him, that they expeCted
they 'Would shortly arrive from the manutaElurers in
the country. .The, blues were to be delivered to the
Plaintiff at 24. per yard. He made several applica-
tions for them, the last of which was made on, the
Ist of February. In the interim broad cloths had
experienCed a considerable rise in price, and in' the
month of February were worth from 28s. to 325.
per yard.
The Defendants inforMed the Plaintiff, in answer
.to his last requestfor the delivery of the goods, that
they had not arrived from the maaufatt•turers. It
turned, out,, however, that' they did arrive on the
lgth, December, two daysefter the agreement, and
was sold either on the 20th or 2lst to a Nr. Gais-
ford at,22s. 6d.

Lord ELLENAOROUGH told the Jury, that if telley
believed the witnesses for the Plaintiff, they must
find a verdiet for him. The Jury accordingly found
a verdi& for 1261. estimating the.darnages at 75,, per
yard, each piece containing 36 yards,:

Jv t: e 2.
~ .
This being the first day` of Trinity Term, the
Lord Chincellor antlthe Juttges went to Westminster
Hall in procession, and proceeded to their respect.
tive Courts.

'COURT Or KiNC's BENCH.
The-RepOrt.of the State of the ConviEts on board
the Hulks at .Woolwich %Vas ;,read. It stated, that
they were healthy and orderly.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENRRAL moved for leave to file
a Criminal, infortnation,avaiust a person iu the city of
the name of Cowell anAis,wife,,for writing teurril-
„,
(Ms ;anonymous- letters to -a Mr.,rerring, brother to
the Lnrd Mayor'.of that naive. 'Mr. Perring in hiS
affidavit stated, that 'he believed the letters in ques-
tion to he of the hand-writing of Mr. 'and r,s.
Covvell;although they, rere.written in feigned bawls.
Lord ELLENAOROUGH said, the abuse was too low
to merit the ,din.ttity of being chastized by 'criminal
information'; the party complaining had better apply
to a Grand Jury.—Rule refused.

IkiOWIIRAY V. FLEMING.
This was a,, motion for a new trial in tin-aalon.
tried at the last Surrey Assizes, wherein. the Plain-
Siff was non-Suited. The Plaintiff' is an -attorney
and solicitor, and the question, was—whether a •
charge in an attorney's bill for attendance's respeCi-
lug. an action commenced, rendered the bill a tub-
jet t of . taxation ? It ,was contended by Serjeant
Besg in the, affirmative; but Lord 'ELLE.NIioIiOUGII
said it did pot appear that .any.proceedingtt had ac-
tually been ',hid in Court, and as it appeared that.
the .Plaintiff 'had advanced Money to the Defendant
to pay for his son's stage-hire, end which was ob-
served by the. Court could not bea.taxablearticle,
anew trial was accordingly-granted. . •

COURT ASF TnURSDAY,
An application was Made On the part of thp
Gnardians-of a young Boy, who,• it was stated, had
during the vacation of the Chat ter Hattie- School,
been seduced by, his Mother, - .Who-'had roarrieda
second husband, from the:house of fits Guardian, to
hare the Boy frestored to, thocustody-of the. Peti-
tioner, to receive; his eddeatipOin the same manner
hile at school.
Air. 41-EXANDER, for The Mother, stated; that
she had called to see the boy, and that natural affec-
tion had induced` him to-prefer residing with-her dur-
ing the few days of vacation which •the school al-
lowed. • She had not the Most distant,wish to tdo
her son from under the care Of his. Guardian..

On, beinginformed that the period' of the vacation'
was not above eight or t()11 days, the LORD CLIAST...
cgt.t.olt said, (bathe did not think himself entitled
to-interfere .for the purpose of preventing the mo-
ther tram having for that short period the company
of her child. Her subsequent coverture• did .not so
far deprive her of her maternal rights. As to. the
idea of the box's heing'deprived of the benefits ofhis
usual course of education, vacations were intended
fur the relaxation4)f the youthful mind, taut fur the
exaaion of the umuti daily task.