The Sun.
London, England, 1803-02-19 00:00:00

TD4IIREL gv, mAnuocic.

Mr.. GAUPw. said, that the Defendant, wits an
Attorney, and a very active-man, he was moreover
Clerk to another, Attorney, who was likewise a very
aCtive man, Mr. Willy, of Basinghall-street. The
Defendant and his wife had lodged in the Plaintiff's
houSe for aboUt thirty-six weeks, and had been
served with coals and some other things that were
wan►ed in their lodgings ; and abnut two guineas
and a half were lent by the Plaintiff to the Defend-
ant, and all amounted to about 144 for which this
Aftion was brought. He understood that the De-
fendant was to set up as a defence, that the Lady
he lived with, and for whOm, is well as himself,
these lodgings were prbvided, was not his wife.
He really believed there was no. foundation for
this assertion, but that the Defendant, and this
'Lady who lived with him, we're really wedded, and
that the Defendant had the bad tasie of slandering
both himself and his wife, for the mere &rice of set-
ting up this bad defence ; be that as it might, he
had suffered this Lady to• pass by his name for be.
Iween ten and twelve years, as his wife, and there-
fore the law of the !aortas well as cofiimon sense,
made him answerable for whatever was furnished to
her ; it was infinitely too silly to dispute thii law,
The Plaintiff's daughter proved that the Der
fendant and Mrs. Maddock lodged in her father's
house about thirty-six weeks ; that the lodgings
were charged at first ss. per week, then 6q. which
were reduced afterwards to 45. per week, ,but she
did not know the dates of these alterations, and
therefore the price was taken at an :►verage'of ss.
pet week. She proved also that her father lent the
Defendant two guineas 'and a half.
It appeared a!so that .there were. about 41.
worth of ,coals supplied to the ,Dclendant.oy, the
Plaintiff.

Mr. ERSKINE said, he was not such a fool as to
maintain any such defence as, his Learned Friend,
Mr. GARROTV had supposed. No doubt but the
Defendant was answerable far his wife,
,Or for any
body who past as such. The only question there-
fore was upon the quantum.
Mr. GrAandw said, that he understood some
niuney had been, paid by the Defendant, and there-
fore he would only take a verdid for t zl. 11 luJ
.was given accordingly.

THE !asp Tl. PHILIPS AND ANOTHER.

Mr. ERSKINE, said, that this was an Indictment
on the prosecution of Mr. Simon Paterson, a.re.
speaable tradesman, who sold brandy and other
spirituous liquors, in St. Martin's Lane. The De.
fendants came from Onford-streeceand theyltad been
" Running a Muck," as they called it. They had
been fea.ciog‘vith one another : whether they were
doing so in jest or in earnest, was matter to be
ket6ed between themselves. When „they came op.:
po,ite to the it our of the Prosecutor, they broke
his window. The prosecutor came .up to theta, and
said, "Gentlemen, you have broken my window ;"
on which one of: the 'Defendants said, " What
then ?”--" What then said the Prosecutor, ."
•expea that you will pay for ii. -Upon which the.
DefendantA jUMped at the Prosecutor ; one of them
collared and almost throttled him, and the other
heat him, in his own house, which ought to have
been his asylum, and indeed his CastlO At last
the neighbours, hearing and Seeing this sliainefui
outrage, came to the Prosecutor'S aid, and the De."
Pendants were secured, and condueted toßow-street,
where they were charged ; they stated- their names
to be Philips, which was afterwards' found to be
false : they 'were held to bail upon the charge, and
they 'gave iq false names for bail also.
Mr. ERSKINE then observed, that 'the prudent
course for these Defendants, would have been, either
to have pleaded guilty, .or to have- suffered,jtidg„...
merit to pass by Default, and then to go before the
Master of the Crown Office, to abide by his. order ;
before whom, most likely, the Court' iVoUld order
them to go, when they came up for judgm'eL 'in
the' mean tithe,'uniess Running a Muck in this man.
ner, was part of the antient laiv'of this realm, the
Defendants must be foUnti.guilty.'
This' case was proved in eviderice, as it was
opened, and therefore the Defendants were found
guilty.
The Prosecutor said, that the Defendants had
offered a submission to him--he was ready 'to ac.
cept their apology, provided 'Ley paid a eel grin
sum for the use of the Pobr of tie 'parish ; but he
was determined to make an example of them.
IVIr.CURWOOD Said, that upon this evidence,
he could not attempt to justify tbe conduct of his
Clients, hut there were solneeirectinstancefof miti-
gation which he should have the hohOur of sub-
mitting to the Court when they came op for judg.'
Incur.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH SJUI, that if the De.
fendantsfwere wise, they would endeavour to make
their peace with the Prosecutor, so as not to be
brought up at all for judgment.
Several Indiaments, which stood in the Paper,
were called on, but the Prosecutors not appearing
the,Defendants were found not guilty.