The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-25 00:00:00

WOODBRIDGE AND OTHERS v. SWAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action by the assignees of Messrs. Elk
and Parker, wine•merchants at York, against Messrs.
Swan and Co., bankers, in that city, to recover a sum of
9001. as money had and received by the defendants ti the
plaintiffs' use.
In 1827 a separate commission of bankrupt was sued
out against Ellis. Parker continued to carry on the bu.
siness for two years afterwards, and in 1829 a com:Eission
of bankrupt was taken out against him. Ellis's assignees,
and Parker before his bankruptcy, had kept an account
with the defendants, and had deposited with them tie
money collected for the payment of Ellis and Pat e-
ditors. The defendants had retained part of this money
(amounting to 9001.) on account of the balance due to
them from the partnership, and the assignees Low claimed
it as money belonging to the bankrupts' estate.
The Jury found for the defendants.

The Learned JUDGE gave the plaintiffs leave to move on
the question of law, whether or not the act of Parker was
binding upon the assignees.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 23.

FRENCH V. BENTON.

A verdict for forty shillings WAY taken by consent in
this action, which was for a libel inserted in the courier
newspaper. Two verdicts for the same libel have.
we believe, been already obtained aga'nst metropolitan
j.mrnals.

LIBELS IN THE SATIRIST NEWSPAPER.
DICAS V. GREGORY AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover damages for certain
libels in the Satirist concerning I,lln Dicas, styling
himself an attorney in the three Courts at Westminster,
by which plaintiff said he had sustained injury in his
professional character.
The action was of a comprehensive character, and ap-
peared to be based on an entirely new principle—one
which, if permitted to obtain, might be of a very alarm-
ing character to a respon-ible and most use'ul p,ofession.
I grasped one Thompson, the certificated proprietor of
the Satirist at the Stamp-office—Barnard Gregory, the
bona fide proprietor I_according to the verdict) ; sod it
attempted to grasp Andrew Spottiswoode, the King's
minter, as the supposed proprietor of the machine by
which the lihels were print.d—Salmou and Cunningham,
in whose office and with whose type the papers at the
time were " composed "—Alaric Watts, the proprietor of
the Alfred newspaper, which was printed by the same
opt-rative, and occasionaliy at the same machine—Henry
Hanshall Be'grave, the certificated printer of the Alfred
—and ether individuals, to the number of eight or nine;
on all of whom writs had been served, and by all of
whom, however unconnected with the gross matter which
occasioned the action, the costs of defence were thus
necessaril incurred.

Tbe usual evidence from the Stamp-office having been
gone in.o,

JHmes Mearney, a compositor, was eximined, and
proved that he had been in th.i employ of M. ssrs. Silmon
and Cunningham, at the time the Satirist mit; "set up"
there. Witness stated that he knew Barnard Gregory,
and had seen him at " Thompson's office," in Fleet-
street, and at the Satirist publishing-offic-, in the Strand.
Gregory had given him "copy" for the Satirist paper,
and he was on and off the spot every week.
Mr. Richard Johnson, who supplied the Satirist office
with paper, was c Wed to prove Gregory's connection
with it. To quote the Learned Judge's words, in his
summing up, " he was rather an unwilling witness ; he
would not say he kept anything back, but he volunteered
nothing." Witness deposed to having been with Gregory
when the size of the paper was to be altered; to having
seen him at the Satirist office, and in his own private
house, on the object of orders for paper--demands for
money—and arrangements about bills. Looked upon
him, from his own language, as "general conductor," .but
had never heard him admit himself as general proprietor.
E intaid Little was then called, and his evidence proved
that he was engaged by a deceased gentleman (Mr.
Hanshall, father to one of the defendants) to machine the
Alfred newspaper, and that the Satirist newspaper was
also machine' by him on the same prtinises, aril some-
times on the same machine.

Mr. Fux Cooper proved that he entered into an " ex-
perimental" engagement for a month with Mr. Gregory,
as sub editor and advertisement emvasser for the Satirist.

Mr. James Chatileigh, the tenant of the premises in the
Strand, in a portion of which the Alfred was at the time
composed, p int• d, and published, and toe Satirist printed
(the Satirist being published close by), deposed that he
seized the machines for rent, in the name of Andrew
Spottiswoode, in the beginning of October, 1832, and got
his money through it, 291. 2s.
In cross-examination by Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS, who ap-
peared tor Spottiswoode and Watts, this witness stated
that no ie4al tender had been made; that he refused to
take the rent when ofLred, except in the name of Spottis-
woode, at all events except "for proprietors of the Alfred"
of which number Spottiswoode was one.
This was evidently the gist of the whole affair—to
fasten Spottiswoode as the proposed proprietor of the ma-
chine; Watts as under-tenant of the premises, and pro-
prietor of the Alfred, which he was not at that time;
Salmon and Cuuningh no as the " letter press" delin-
quents ; and the others as connected with the two publi-
cations in such a manner as to justify the action.

At this stage of the proceedings Sergeant Boxras s..id
he thought the matter could not be brought home to Spot-
tiswoode, Wets, or H nshall.
Lord LYNDIIURST-There certainly has been no evi-
dence to implicate them.
The case then proceeded against Gregory and Thomp-
son. The libels wre put in and rea..l, and the Jury
brought in a verdict that Gregory and Thompson were
partners, giving 3001. damages, and 40s. costs.
Mr. Clowes, Alr. Mills, and several other most respect-
able gentlemen i7onneeted with the press, were in Court,
ready to prove the disuetude of a liability on the part
of proprietors of machines, for what they might print.
The case lasted several hours, and excited a good deal ef
interest.

PARTRIDGE V• EVANS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the father of
Miss Frances Partridg-, against the defendant, a professor
of music, for damages occa:toned by the breach of the de-
fercilne, covtnant, in neglecting to teach singing to the
plaintiff's daughter, who was apprenticed to him, accord-
ing to the terms of the articles of apprenticeship.
. .

Mr. MANSELL opened the pleadings, anti -
Mr. HUTCHINSON stated the case. The plaintiff had
articled his daughter to the defendant for 51 years. The
premiuni was 701., of which 50/. had been paid, and a
bill given for 201. The defendant had covenanted to
teach the young lady, or cause her to be taught, by the
best means in his power, in the art of singing; this he had
failed to do, and therefore the present action was brought.
Miss Frances Partridge was articled to the defendant
in October, 1829. She lived with her parents, attended
the defendant to. receive instructions in singing. He
played to her. She had since received instructions from
several masters. From her present knowledge she could
state he was not c ipable of instructing her. She attended
him a year and four months. He brought her out at the
Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel-road. She could never
have acquired any knowledge of music from the mode he
pursued.
Cross-examined--She went to him every day before she
went to the Pavilion. On her return to him, after leav-
ing the Favidon, he would have struck her if her mother
had not got before her. She never went to him after that.
higher
Miss Isabella Emery, daughter of the comedian—Was a
pupil of the defendant for four years, ending last Septem-
ber twe!vemonth. He gave lessons to Miss Par, ridge.
His was
theorys not
of music,
the usual
andmode
of
wast n
e ac
ht skilled in
taughtinHe
the
branches. onone
of the
Mr. Balls, a music-seller, who had taught music, de-
cidePy thought the defendant incompetent to teach sing-
ing ; he taught his pupils to make a noise, and nothing else.
John Baker, professor of music—From the manner Miss
Partridgeplays and sings she has not been well taught,
but has
sbeen taught by a person of reasonable skill.
Verdict fur the defendant.

Several tradesmen, during the late elections,
have positively voted for Reformers merely because it in
duced their Conservative customers to order them to
on the pirt of many of
n
as it is gratifying.
:,,seerricluriithaeipe
uncommonr(b)cielles,,:ngwahsichis,
Many shopkeepers say, that " the only way to get an
account settled by a Conservative is to vote against him."
—Figaro.