The Sun.
London, England, 1824-09-16 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTF,LLIGENCE

'LANCASTER, SEPT. 13.
HEWETT v. 1,114L0W AND °TREAS.
It will be recollected that we gave a report of this case 'fear
days since, resreeting an- execution entered up against the
plaintiff's horses, who had taken. the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors' Act, when the Learned Judge left a question of law
open in case he should have taken an erroneous view of the
case. •
.
Mr. Serjeant Cuoss applied this morning for and obtained
the, rule Nisi.
SLANDER.—TDOMPSON V. MIDDLEHERST.
Mr. WILLIAMS opened the pleadings, and
Mr.' SCAILLETT stated the facts, to support which he called
the following witness
Ann Clare—Her husband is the landlord of the Eagle and
Child inn, at Wigharn ; Thomson was at her house, in com-
pany with a person of the natue,of Lloyd, on lOth May ; he
it was at seven in the evening. She remembers the Liverpool
is Collector of Assize; there Were other persons in company ;
coach•arriving ; the defendant alighted from it, and stepped
into the bar, when he began to addresshimsetoJohn Thomp-
son, the plaintiff', whom, he said., was a damlrned thief, a rogue,
a villain, and a rascal, and that he had robbed him of our
or five.pounds ; the plaintiff never replied to tliits language;
he continued to utter this abuse; she desired him to come out
of the bar, as he was conducting, himself in a very ill manner;
ho said he would not, and said Mr. TllolllpsOV's father was an
honest man, but that. " his son was a damned rogue, a thief, a
villain, and a rascal ;" he stopped two hours abusing. On the
next morning he called, and expressed his sorrow for what he
had said, and regretted that lie did not come out of the bar
when she had advised him, and that it would be a serious eon-
se9uenee, as the plaintiff' bad before forgiven bins for a similar
offence. The other gentleman desired him to hold his tongue.
He appeared sober at the time, although he had several glasses'
of liquor.
Mr. SCAR LEvr—This is our case.
Mr. BUOUGHAM—ReaIIy it' we are to have such Case* as
this day after day, we shall never get done. The Assizes have
already been a fortnight, and they might be a fortnight longer
adjusting such drunken foolish squabbles, if they were not
marked by nominal damages. The plaintiff' rested his action
on the word " thief," well knowing that the other words were
mere froth.
The Learned JUDGE said there was no question but that the
words spoken were actionable. No man said you are a thief
• and have robbed me of money, without imputing to the person
the crime of felony; and this being- proved, the question was,
what damages the plaintiff' was entitled to ? It had been proved
i that this had not been the defendant's first offence.
The Jury gave—Damages M.—Costs 40s.

DRURY V. BRIGG.
This was an action to recover a penalty of the defendant for
selling various articles as an auctioneer without a licence. It
was proved by a person of the name of Abraham Muss, that he
had put up to auction a pair of candlesticks, &c. at a room kept
by a person of the name of Stokes at Liverpool.
The Jury under his Lordship's directions found for the plain-
tiff on the first count—Penalty Dol.—Costs 40S.
WHITEHEAD V. FORSTER AND OTHER:.
Mr. Po t. Loc K on behalf of the plaintiff stated that this was an
action brought to recover a compensation in damages for a wan-
ton trespass committed by the defendants, by turning the plain-
tiff' and his three sisters out of possession of their cottage. It
appeared that the father had been in unfortunate circumstances
and taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor's Act. At the sale
of his father's (insulvent's) effects the son attended, and bid
1 for a great part of the property, and was declared the purchaser
i of several lots, with which he furnished the cottage and stocked
the farm, under which roof he sheltered the family. The goods
so bought by the son were taken in eit,:cution for rent due by
the father, and sold by auction for nearly 2001.
Mr. Strlcatit CROSS for the defendants contended the goods
so taken were the father's, and that a fraudulent transfer had
been made. After several witnesses had been examined, the
Jury found for the plaintiff' fur the trespass, and for the defend,
ants on the other pleas. .

DOWAUD v. MATTHEWS.
Mr. SCARI.ETT stated that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover of the defendant the sum of 1,5(101., being so
much money bid for a public-house, known by the sign of the
Old Swan.in Liverpool, which the plaintiff (tad caused to be
put up by auction at the side. A person of the name of James
Parker, as his agent, had been instructed, at the instance ef the
defendant to bid-for, and it was knocked down to him for this
sum. A contract to pay the same was entered into, and a de-
posit of ten per cent. was to have been paid.
It was set up on the pea of the defendant, by Mr. Serjeant
eitOSs, that his wife had authorised the bidding, and that it did
not bind the husband.
The Junior was of a contrary opinion, and that an action
might be sustained for the deposit of ten per cent. which had
not been paid ; and the only question for the consideration of
the Jury was, what damages the plaintiff had sustained. It was
his Lordship's opinion that some damages were due, but not the
whole as laid in the declaration.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 1001., costs *Rh.
CEARNS THE YOUNGER AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES OF
BOARDMAN A BANKBUPT) v. TIMMINS.
Mr. SCAwI.ETT stated that the plaintiff's were the assignees
of a person of the name of Boardman, late of Liverpool, a bank-
rupt, who in the year 1821 had become embarrassed, and hail
made an assignment of all his effects to the defendant, for the
benefit of his bona fide creditors, to whom the defendant acted
in the capacity of trustee, although there had been no deed.
Since his bankruptcy the defendant had come into the possession
of considerable effects, to the amount of 17001. to recover which
the present action had been brought. The property in question
arose from the freight and net proceeds of the bug Shamrock,
and the schooner the Morning Star. The act of bankuptcy,
had taken place so far back as October, 1821, and which he
should have no difficulty of proving.
The act of bankruptcy was proved by
.a person of the name
of George Scott, an apprentice formerly in the employ of the
bankrupt, by three distinct denials of his massetr. I
am not ()n one par-
ticular occasion, he said, "if Rose
home." •
Henry Hilton, a Sheriff's officer, proved by a warrant which
he produced, that he had arrested the bankrupt at the suit of a
creditor of the name of Rose, on a bill of exchange for 1201.,
dated December 19, 1820, which had been noted. James
Watson the solicitor under the commission, put in the com-
mission,' dated 10th June 1822, and the name of the defendant,
Timmins, WI the petitioning creditor. The bankrupt passed
his examination on the 9th of July 1822, and signed the tle.
position.
Mr.
Se rjeant Caoss replied, and said his client was at the
mercy of a single witness (Scott),and no less a sun) than 13001.
depended on the credit the Jury gave to his testimony.
The Learned JUDGE charged the Jury, and said this was
enaction brought by the Assignees of Boardman, to recover
possession of a large sum of money. His Lordship then stated
the Acts, of Bankruptcy, which he thought had been proved by
George Scott, who had been ordered to deny his master ; and,
if they believed him, and he saw no reason why the Jury
should not, then their verdict would be for the plaintiffs.
The Jury, under his Lordship's directions, found an Act of
Bankruptcy had been committed on the 28'th October, and that
the defendant knew of it at the time--sübject to a rule of refe-
rence of the Court as to the bankrupt's account.—Verdict for
the plaintiffs accordingly--Damages 4,oool.—Costs 40s.

M. Ouvio.ao, the great contractor, has idst
his suit with M. ScQuiN, according to a late de-
cision of the Courts at Paris. This will subject
him to the payment of three millions of francs—
about one hundred and twenty thousand pounds
sterling.

it may not he generally known, that bye an
Act of Parliament (6 Anne,cap. 31), the churh-
wardens of every parish in London and West-
minster are directed to fix pluga,or fire-cocks,in
the streets ; and, in default thereof, are liable
by to
a penalty of 101. Had the moms possessed
the parish been used ut the fire in Gravel-lane.,
lloundstlitch, we are credibly informed that an
immediate supply of water might have been ob-
tained.—( Times.)