The Sun.
London, England, 1803-06-16 00:00:00

TU 4TH.

,The morning occupation was the view OF the
South Dow"; Rams, and the examination of the
Prize Sheep. About 24, Prize Rims of that breed
were produced. After-this shOw the Company ad.
jlurned to the 'view of some fanning experiments.
The day proving beautiful, a larger Company than
-yesterday dined at the Abbey, in the same form as
before. Ater "dinner.: a Priif. Ploughing-match,
bTtween Mr. CoKB of Norfoqz. and , Mr. Wmtit.
FIELD Of 'Burnham, Was adjudged to Mr. CORR.
Sir JoHN St Ni7LAIR tw)k up the competitor in
your- of a Scoich Plough, to he decided next Wo..
burn Meeting, Ailinitrudd to the Fartn for the
Lottery of I.4kt:stet the. Prizes from 8o
guineas to 30. , Mr. WING was the Lucky candi.
date for she SO guinea iton.
The: Meeting was distinguished by the company
of .the first Agricuittrists. Anwng them were,
Prince ESTERIIAZY, front Hungary, Duke of MAN.
CIIESIER, Lord TirANeT, Loyd BAtircißn, Lord
PRE TUNS Lord W. guisEL, Sir JOHN SINCLAIR,
Sir Jot-itt SEBRICHT, Sir 11.TaAlurcw,-niNit, Mr.
Homie, Mr, Mr. livNn,
Mr. A. YouNo, Mr, Mr. GoDFIL EY
THIANToN, and Mr. WEsTritN, wult a very nu.
nitrous class of professional A..gri;iolittrists.

_Last Tocsdiy evening the wife of one Thomas
o:les, a journeyman lace,we4ver, who lives in
Ldogky-ttreet, Long-acre, Rvas detivervi Of 'three
ffiit Chill-en, two gifts and oat boy, wIM,' tosethtt
with the mother, are likely In Ail tv,it -

777,

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF i:ING'sI3ENCII, luta: i 3.
qus tam, cr.). ATTLEE AND HOWELL,

This was a Cause tried the Sittings after Hilary
Term. It was an Milan upon the statute of Eli-
zabeth, for a fraudulent judgment, upon the
lowing circumstance,: A• nian• of the name of
ton held a public.house in Holborn, under. Messrs
rvieux and Co. the Brewers. He was also indebted
to the Defendants, Howell and Attlee, Distillers,
in the sum of 4.51. for spirits. Meux had sent a
distress for rent into the house, and got an agree,
arra from Norton, by which he was to assign his
goods to a man of the name of Dedy, who was to
the same, and pay Meux's their debt for beer.
i:ir ell and 'Attlee hearing at this, got Norton to
confess a judgment to them for goal. in order that
his property might be equally divided amongst his
creditors. Menx's considered this as a fraudulent
judgment defeat them of their remedy, and
brought an AaiOn upon the statute of Elizabeth,
which gives a penalty of double the sum recovered
i all frandulent judgments. ,
The case was argued at great length by Messrs.-
ERsKINE, pARROWi and LAw Es, for the Plaintiffs,
and Messrs..Gmis and Houtoru, for the De.-
fendaim. After which, the Judges were unanimous
in their opinion, that as the judgment •was 'taken
b.9nape fur the creditors, and not for the sole
interest of Howell and Attlee, it was not fraudu.:
lent, and therefore direCted a new trial; but it was
agreed i)etwecii the parties tb.it each side should
their own costs, and no furthefproceedings to
he kid. • . .

Mr. C01,21.' NS moved to Set aside a Writ of In.
quiry.execitted before the Sheriff under the follow_
ing ci'retnnstioces : The aaion was brought against
a Gentleman, who, in 1796, was. an Officer. on
board the kruiraiMf, fur a quantity of wine
which had been furnished to the mess of that
ship. ;He negleaed to plead in abatement that he
was indebted, in conjunaion, with others, and thus
male himself in law responsible for the whole sum.
Judgment having gone by default, the Sheriff;
mistating the law, told the Jury that the Defendant
was liable only for his own proportion, whiCh Jie
had offered to pay ; and they fotind their Verdict ac-
„cordingly. The application, therefore, was, that
the Writ of Inquiry should be executed idles!).
The. Court asked why the anion was not brought
against all the officers at the mess ? It was a very hn_
yroper thing to allow a debt of this kind to hang-so
long over the heads of men who were rather careless
about the future, and who were now scattered over the
four quarters of the Globe. Leave would he given to
set aside the Writ of Inquiry; but only on condition
that the Defendant should be alloWed to plead in
abatement. When one error was to be reaified, it
was proper to cast an eye back upon the whole pro-
ceedings in the case.
Mr. COM 1' NS said, he would consult his client
whether it was worth while to accept this offer.

TUESDAY, JUNE 14.

TtIOMSOX V. ItOWCROFf.

This is a case that arose our of the Russian Em.
bargo, berWeen two sets of Underw.riters, the
Underwriters on the Ship Theseus, and the Under..
writers'on Freight. The Defendant having in,ured
Ship and Freight, in consequence of the detention
of the .Theseus in the Port of Riga, he abandoned
first to the Underwriters on the Ship, and then to
the Underwriters on the Freight. The Ship being
wt last liberated, completed her voyage, and earned
her Freight ; Rd the question way, which set of
UMICtWiiiCtO were entitled to that Freight ?
Mr. Ettsx tile was Counsel for tire Plaintiffs, the
Ut,k:Nrwriters on the Freight, and Mr. Gsa as for
the 'Underwriters on the :hip, and delivered two
ofAike finest arguments that ever were heard in a
(:Oust of justice.
• In. the 'course
~of. this argument, the Defendant
was-cOnsidered.on both sides as a mere stakeholder,
Who had received the Freight, and only wanted the
decision of the Court to infetm him who was
-en.
titled to it—whether the Underwriterion the Ship,
or the Underwriters on, the Freight.
however, considered Mr. itowcroft
not as the nominal, but as the real Defendant ; and
'held that he, the assured, having entered into this
i;(nar:,4t.with these patties, was obliged to perfortn
Ole contrad with all its consequences.
circt ELLENDOROUGH C)bservetl,.that this by
nn„means decided the question between the Under-
writzts on the one side and the other, claiming out
of a common fund.
Although the Defenda4 by the judgment of the
C‘,;:tt i obliged to. return this money which has
,„ rtiii him without consideration, yet as he was
totally unconnetled with the Ship, and every thing
longing to it, subsequent to the abandonment, he
ollo.‘ved the expenees of the navigation home.
't charges incurred in earning the Freight ought
to be paid out of that fund ; and the quantum was
„wt.:La to be referred to at bitratione

•

JOHNSON SFUPt)DEN•

Mr.GlLES_moved for the. Judgment of the Court
en the part of the Defendant.,
Nir.o,Kitow s;lid they must give the other side

?lot ice.,

Nr. PARK observed, he was nn the same side
with Mr. airrow ; alitt as the dourt of,Common
VicuS concorred with the: Court of King's Bench, he
had advised hi, Client not to trouble the Court any
lurther with
It %VIII be recollected the question in -this case
was, how an average less ought 'to be calculated on a
Policy, of Insurance.,-- judgment for Defendant.'

the sum of 51; to give his vote -for. Mr. Wharton,
at the last eleaion for the City of Durllion.
The Learned counsel moved' this upon two
grounds':' first, on the grount-ithat 'it was a' verdict
contrary to evidence ; and secontby, on the admix.
tion of a witness who, he contended, ought not to
'have been examine 1.
Them were other Causes that stood nearly in the
.same situation, and the Cuurt ',granted Rules Nisi in
them all.

JUNE 15.
THE KING v. THE MAYOR OF WEYMOUTH.

This Case was aiguNi with great abili►ies, by
Mr. DAMP IER E for the Prosecution, and by Mr:
TEMPI, EMAN fur the Defend int.

The qikstion was, whether the Mayor was flea.
eti, agreeably to ,the Charter? The) Court, on the
authority of the Kira Bellringer, and of the
King Miller, gave Judgment for the Crown,
• and thereby found the eledion void.

THE KING V. HILL DARLEY.

The Dqlendant, Mr. Darley, was indiaed and
found guilty of assaulting and beating a person on
ac6utit of money Won at play, which subjtois the
Defendant to two years impris,runent in the Ctiunty
jail where the thing takes place.; and he also forfeits
all his personal estate, by the 9 Anne, C. 14. seta. 8.
'Mr. ERSKINE, on the part of the Defendant, had
obtained a Rule to shew why there should- not be a
.new Trial, on the ground of surprise, and that motion
failing, why the Judgment should not be arrested.
To.day Mr. ,judgment
said he abandnr.ed that
,Rule, and on the motion of Mr.G.sk wow, Counsel for
tin Prosecution, the Rule was dischwged with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ItINTY. 2.
SITTINGs BEFORE LORD ALVANLEY.

C,oODIN v. V MCENT.

This was an afflon to recover damages for a tres-
pass committed on the-Plaintiff's premises.
Mr. Serjeant BEST, in his opening, stated, that
the 'Plaintiff was a gentleman tesiding...at Kingsland,
in the parish of Islington ; at that place the Dc.
fendant also kept a public-house, knOwn by the sign
of the Coach and Horses. A field adjoining to that
house was the subjeet of the present adion, and
when the circumstances attending the same came to
be fairly laid before the Jury, .he entertained 'no
doubt but they would consider his client' entitled to
their verdia. The field was in the possession of Mr.
Goddin, who so far complied with the solicitations
of the Defendant, as to give him a licence to make
use of the same for the purpose of affording a place
of entertainment for his customers to play at trap.
ball and bowls upon particular occasions ; such -as
tradesmen's beanfeasts, and other parties, which
might be formed for the benefit of his house. This
licence had, however, been grossly abused by the
Defendant, who, on the T sth of September last, h'ad
broken the lock' which secured the gate, and had
introduced into the field a Mountebank DuCtor, who
erected his stage, exhibited a huge bear, monkeys,'
' dancing dogs, and jack puddings, with the whole
of the absurdities generally attached to Person's of
that description. He bad also made a ring round
the field, by the means of ropes, within which
a number of hack ,horses were running, stumb-
ling, and tearing the ground up. The novelty
of such proceedings, drew a multitude of people,
of all descriptions, to the spot, arid the conse.
pence was, that the fences were broken, and
much injury done to all parts of the premises. In
the midst of theie entertainments, Mr. Goddin, the
Plaintiff, went into the field, addressed the moon.
tebank, and desired to know what right he bad to
be there exerzising his buffoonery, so much to the
injury of his premises ? The Do&or,said, he bad
been authorized-to mount the stage in that place by
the Defendant, who had given him full liberty.
On a Lich he was told to go away immedi'kely; or
constables should be sent fur to force him. The
Defendant came up at the moment, and told the'
mohntebank to pay no attention to the Plaintiff, for
that he would stand to the consequence of what bad
happened. These facts, the Learned Counsel ob.
served, would be proved by evidence, and the jury
would have no difficulty in deciding for his client.
The Witnesses called for the Plaintiff Foved the
assertions already stated. '
Mr. Serjeaitt ONSLO W ill ‘ his reply, contended,
that We- Plaintiff's case had not been made out, as
his Learned Brother ought' to have stated in hit's
Declaration, the full extent of the licence given by
the Plaintiff to the Defendant, relative to his use
of the field.

Lord ALVANLTtY said, the only way to decide
that question was, to produce the agreement which
had been entered into by the parties. It, howei•er,
appeared, that the Defendant was not in possession
of any document to that end. Evidence Was called
to prove that an agreement hail been entered into,
but it was only verbal, or during the will of the
Plaintiff, for the purpose already mentioned.
Mr. Serjeant ONsLow observed, that the Jury
would take into consideration, that no material in.
jury hid been made out, and if they were inclined
to give their verdia'lor the Plaintiff, damages to
the amount of a shilling would be sufficient, as the
costs would fall on the Defendant.

Mr. Serjeant BEST again referred to the agree.
ment which had been entered into, and stated, that
he had never heard of horses playing at trap-ball ;
and if the Jury thought the field was intended for
the use of the Defendant to admit horses instead of
men, they would nonsuit the Aloft; if they did
not think so, they would give a verdia fur the
Plaintif. With respect to the damages, it had alp.
peareti that the fences had been broke down and the
grass destroyed ; he did not want greater damages
than what the Plaintiff had suffered, and he hoped
the Jury would give adequate compensation, with.
out considering that the costs would fall on the De.
fendant, as the latter had committed a trespass, con.
sequently was answerable to the Law.
Lord ALVANLEY summed up the evidence, and
was of opinion that the trespass had been committed,
'hut direded the Jury to give triflingliamages, as the
deterioration did not appear to exceed the value of 51.
The jury gave a verdiet for the Plaint iff,darnages3L