The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-08 00:00:00

Hertford ending as they did in the ludicrous
postponement to the beginning of January,
hardly affording the good people of that
place time to refresh themselves with the
happy abridgement which the affidavit contains
of all the damnatory statements diffused through
long files of Newspapers, in the short interval, did
not display the usual sagacity of the profession.
A Judge less strong in the faith than Mr. Justice
Park, and a little longer headed, would have
disputed the capability of the people to bear
such a dose as was poured out to them on this oc-
casion, and stopped short in good time. After in.
veighing a little on the heinousness of the offence
which had been committed, and lamenting
that the Liberty of the Press should be
so much endangered by those who abused it
so far as to poison the very fountains of justice,

he would have reigned in the Counsel when he
saw them going a dangerous length, and hurried
on to the ttial, that the people might not have
time to reflect too much on so ticklish a subject.

If the thing had been thus dexterously ma•
caged, all would have gone on smoothly,
and the Grand Jury and Hertfordshire
Yeomen would have retired to their homes
full of the virtues of the Bench, and of in-
dignation at the sins of the sordid lucre-love
in Press, without at all, however, meaning to
read one exparie statement the less for the
future. But fortunately for the public, as the
event will spew, there was more sail than ballast
on the Bench.

[MORNING um:Aim.]
No leading article in this laper to-day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KIN.6;4•BENCH, Dwu. 6.
LONG v. 011kYILLE.

Mr. GURNEY stated the case for the plaintiff. The plain.
tiff, he said, was a well known hotel and tavern-keeper, who
was obliged to bring his action against the defendant for his
bill for dinners at the plaintiff's house, the amount of which
he disputed.
Joseph Long stated that he managed the plaintiff's business
the last si,tteen years. The defendant dined at the Hotel in
company with other Gentlemen, in the years 1813 and 1814.
The practice was, to send up a bill charging for the whole
natcr, end the Gentlemen divided it amongst themselves;
all the rest of the Gentlemen paid their shares. The defend-
ant's debt unpaid was 131. 13s. Cid. ; he ltd since been in the
Cast Indies.
David Miles stated, that in the month of April last year, he
took the defendant's bill to him, and he objected to some part
of it, saying he had-been invite() to some of the dinners, and
desired witness to bring him a bill stating the particulars ; wit.
tress did so, and the defendant then objected to pay any part
of it.

The CitIEF JUSTICE said, the statute of limitation must
bar the plaintiff's claim. _

Mr. dirnsrEr'called the witness, Joseph Long, again, who
stated, that the defendant, Captain (Ireville, had the bill fur-
nished to him before lie went to the East Indies, and promised
to pay it and alSo that all the dinner bills were delivered in to
the company in Captain Ureville's presence, on each occasion,
and divided equally amongst them
Mr. On RIMY said, the defendant had also paid into Court
the sum of 2/. 13s. which he admittted he owed for wine charg-
ed in:the bill. His Lordship allowed the case to proceed.
Mr. DElistmr addressed the Jury for the defendant. Ho
said ft was evident his client wished to pay all he owed, and
had accordingly paid into Vnurt the amount charged in the bill
for which lie had value ; and only refused to pay for dinners to
which fie was invited.

The Jury, after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff:

ISTI nwr.

Mr. GURNEY stated the plaintiff' case. The action, he said,
was brought for the amount of a bill of exchange for 150./. and
a tavern.bill for 3161. The defendant, who butt a considerable
fortune, came to the plaintifra house in March, 1819, and con-
tinued to reside there till the month of September in the same
year, in which time be ineutra4,this debt.
Joseph Long, brother of the plaintiff, stated, that in the year
1919, the defendant came to reside at his !Author's house. and
had all the articles in the bill prodneed. The defendant lived
in the style Of a Gentleman of rank and fortune. Witness
proved the defendant's acceptance to a Bill of gxchttnee for
1801., which he, witness disconnted for the drawer, and in-
dorsed to the plaintiff'. The defendant left the hotel in Sep-
tember; his bill was furnished to him, and be expressed great
satisfaction at the attention be received, and said the plaintiff
woule be the first person he would pay. In May, 1020, Wit-
ness called on defendant for payment, when lie repeated his
promise to Pay, and promised to pay the bill of exchange. In
the year 1821, defendant came to plaintiff's house with Mr.
Robins, 1191 attorney, and proposed to pay 10s. in the pound,
and asked time for the remainder.
Mr. ScautAreT observed, that he would prove that the de-
fendant was an attorney's clerk at the tinie he lived atoLong's.
Wrilliam Bell, a waiter at Long's Rotel, was examined for
the plaintiff. He stated that he heard the defendant say, while
at the hotel, that be had 7,6001. a year. .
Mr. SCARVETT, for the defendant, made a most able and
laughable defence. Ile stated that his client was the son of a
respectable man in moderate circumstances, and had been ar-
ticled to an attorney. The young man, however, knowing that
he was to come into possession of 1401. a year on the death of
an old lady, and having probably read the popular novel of Six
Weeks at Long's, he thought more of educating hirnielf for
high life when he should come into possession of his property than
for the legal profession, left this office and took up his abode at
the hotel, with two of his friends, and the consettnence was, as
might be expected, that the course of a few months they all
three found themselves in the King's Bench prison, and the
young man, when he came to his property, was involved and
tnubarrassed beyond redemption. The Learned Counsel went
on to state, that at the time the debt was contracted, the Dee
fendant was a minor, and had a comfortable home at the house
of his parents, and could not therefore, require necessaries at
Long's. The Learned Counsel adverted to a partnership that
sublimed with the proprietor and waiter at a well-known liaise
at Cambridge, where the inordinate gluttonyof the Waiter be-
came the theme of general. conversation, and many students
went to see him drink six bottles of Champagne at a sitting.—
The students paid for the wine—it was drank, and the young
Gentlemen were struck with amazement how cleverly the waiter
swallowed the dose, and still remained sober—at last one of
them with a little more sagacity than the rest, insisted on har-
ing one glass with time waiter, when he found that the wine was
merely coloured water. A carriage had been set up, a smok-
ing pipe or hookah, which cost 75 guineas, and a simit.hox,
for which 80 guineas had been given, anti these had been left
with the plaintiff to dispose of, so that he had been more than
overpaid any charge that he could reasonably have against the
defendant, even if he te:le liable. •
The defendant's father, and the Solicitor to whom he was
articled (Mr. Robins) proved the first, that his son was horn in
April, 1799, and had been sent to 111 r. RObins ; in 1016, he had
quitted them without ,his parent'a knowledge, and the father
ilmearitig that he frequented Long's Hotel, went there, and left
word that his son was a minor, and an articled clerk and ought
not to be herboured there.

Mr, °Unlit Y, in reply, contended that it was fraudulent for
the defendant to partake of the luxuries of loong's Hotel, and
then turn plead his minority for the non-payment of his debt.
After an hour's consultation, the Jury found a verdict for the
defendant.