The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

BURY ST. EDMUNDS, MONDAY, AUGUST 9.
CIVIL 81DE.—Beforc Mr. Justice °MELEE.
PRUSHUII V. SYMONDS.

This was an action brought liya---braei and carpenter of
Newmarket, against the defendant, a barber of the same place,
to recover a difference (in account) of 11. 19s. The case was
" Newmarket" all over ! The stake was " feather weight ;"
the witnesses all " sharp an my spurs ;" and the very Attorney's
clerk in the cause sported a white hat, and a crimson neckcloth,
and cleared the gate-post by ''the eighth of an inch," as he
drove his master's rumble tumble into town.
Mr. U. Coors:lt (for the plaintiff) suggested that Mr.
Symonds took rank as a perripier—for " barber," and even
" hair-dresser," were now terms grown obsolete, or out of
fashion. 11e (defendant) lived ut Newmarket—a town of
jockies, as Duke's.place in London was a town of Jews—and
had stayed long in the second grade of his calling, operating
humbly upon the heads and chins of grooms and post-boys,
until success had made him ambitious to practice upon those
of their masters. An ally-residence being unsuited to am-
! bitinus views like these, the defendant had moved from his
back-street into the face of day • and dashing out at once to the
' utmost reaching of his soul—which was, the being a top tonsor
in " the High-street," and letting edgings to Al. P.'s in the
race time—he had employed the plaintiff to furnish and fit up
a house for him suited to such purposes. Now, for fitting up
the apartments, which were to contain the M.P.'s, and (more-
over) a snug little shaving shop on the ground.fioor (for the de-
fendant could not all at once afford to give up his old friends,
the ready money customers), the plaintiff had charged only 331.
which was in fact giving away his goods,—and his work
afterwards, to have them taken. But although 201. had been
originally paid without objection, the pertinacious powderer of
caxons now scrupled the odd 131. lita. ; and refused to pay
more than 121.—a sum ..which the plaintiff's honour forbad him
to accept.
The particulars of the plaintiff's demand were then put in
and proved ; involving " bed-side carpets," " painted wash-
hand stands," " double japanned candlesticks," and a great va-
riety of other articles', destined for the benefit of the Al. P's.—
The chief dispute arose, however, upon a charge for " parti-
tioning off' a little shaving-room," which was to separate the
defendant's gentlemen customers from the more profane popula-
tion of the training stables." Several witnesses (in trade)
were examirigil upon .this paper, whose dress, appearance, and
demeanour, Uiffbred altogether from those of the more sane, and
less sporting, divisions of society. All the people, of whatever
calling, looked like ostlers or stable-boys. The carpenters wore
eight handkerchief's apiece about their necks. Hair-dressers
mounted " frock-coats, under-waistcoats," and blue or yellow
" stocks." Not a person would take his oath on any thing short
of a pair of top-boots ; and one rogue handled the swearing-
book as though it had been the Racing Calendar.
Mr. STORK'S, Or the defendant, threw the blame of the ac-
tion upon the plaintiff, whose joiners' work, he said, was as
objectionable as his bed-side carpets and mahogany tables. The
plaintiff, in short, was a man not fit to put up a partition for
any body. •
IVitnessea were then called for Mr. Symonds, wlio swore that
the plaintiff's work and wares were the worst they had ever
seen. Others were called for Air. Presher, who swore that his
work and wares were the beat that they had ever seen.
Mr. COOPER, in reply, urgml the late period at which the de-
fendant took his objection. The plaintiffwas concerned in the
matter, not on account of his money, hut on account of his cha-
racter ; for were lie to accept the defendant's tender, all. the
world lama, with one voice, cry out—" See that fellow ! he
charged 151. Ills. for putting up a partition; and now be is forced
to tette 21. leas than his demand l" •
Verdict for the plaintitr—Datuages, 1/. 4s.
I'ISHEIL V. I'ZYNINOTON.
This was an action far money lent and advanced. The sum
claimed was 1001., and a note of hand bad been given; but
from some defect (it was said fop the amount of the stamp), that
document could not be madervidence. • The curiosity of the
case lay in the management of the defence. The plaintiff's at-
torney had written four letters to the defendant front Ipswich
to London, demanding his client's money ; to which the de-
fendant had taken the precaution of returning no answer what-
ever, and the plaintiff was now obliged to call, as ilia only wit-
ness to prove the loan, an old lady whom he knew to be in the
interest against him. The shrewdness and self-possession with
which this witness conducted herself during an examination of
near an hour was very extraordinary. Iler unwillingness to
give evidence was so obvious, (notwithstanding the respecta-
bility of her appearance and demeanour), that the Judge al.
lowed her examination in chief to assume the shape of a cross-
examination ; but no effort could shake her. The inference
was against all she said ; but still
it (as far as probability went.)
wan
hgeru,it ore initroslsviebiheereiinthetlr.ietsoli:leittesarnioillitintatdeireiatiloand. tsfitoerri
labouring hard for almost an hour,:Alr. H. Cooeww(thevoun-
sel for the plaintiff) was compelled to give up the contest ; and
with many threats of after prosecution, his client was nOnsuited.