The Sun.
London, England, 1810-08-03 00:00:00

sue'

L 4 IV BEPOBT.

CURT or _KING'S BENCH, juty 23.
powsoN v. HARPER.

,
Tins was_ an .a&Aion for goods sold and deli-
vpred

fir. G?%ItROW stated,-that the plaintiff was a.
manufa64 tirer'of Shavls and b !.mbazeens, 'residing at
No. i 5, St. Ann's-lane, London. The 'Oetendant
was a blacksmith at Wolverhampton. The action_
as brought to recover 4.21. 6s. 9d. for goods de
livered to In, wife, Who-kept a milliner's and ha-
berdashefs shop 'before and after her maniage to
•the defendant. '• She had been, during
,a, greA parr
of that time, in the habit of deAing with the
plaintiff, and .had Made her payments regular, with
the knowledge of the defendant„, except in the
present insfauce. He understood that there had
been a quarrel betweit the defer,‘!atit and his wile,
and the defence to be set op was, that the at titles
furnished were not necessaries. He could prove
ttrat she was a.regular deak.r, with the tonsent of
the defendaint, and the good; furnished were articles
necessary in her tmsiness ; wh,n he had probed this,
Cie plaintifrwould eutta! ito a yerdict 'from-the
Jury, orider'llie diretliOn.ot his Lordship.
John Watt, warehouseinan to the plaintiff, proved,
the Oclivery of tie goods to Mrs. EL: per, at a house.
in Aldersgate-street, in• June, 1809.
Thotnas Geope, formerly a partner with the
-T h y bad reheated .dealings with the de-
fendant and 'his wife : he had received.seyeral pay-
Merits from MrS. Harper, at Wolverhampton : the
defendant vas sometimes present.
On his, cross-examinat,,o, he said, he Ceased to
be a'partner
.with the plaintiff in 1806, and the last
payment he received was in the latter end of the
year+ 1805, he was not at \Vol, erhampton since that
time: he did not know the defendant and his.wile
were s,par36-.,d: •

Tbe ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Counsel for the de-
fendant, stated, there'wasno pretence for the ac-
-tion •the goods delivered to the defendants wife
were inillit,ery finery, and not necessaries he would.
prove that the defendant had been separated from
her for. years before the goods were ,delivered, and
that she had ceased to lieeo a trulliner's shop :
in la& she had become a frail one, and had been
running the gauntlet through this metropolis.—
Under these circumstances, the plaintiff must be
nonsuited.

John Robinson, an apprentice -to Gawshann and
Munyard, Long-acre, blacksmiths, deposed, that
toe-defendant worked for . master in October.
1308 : he remembered his wife corning to the work 7
shop-several tidies, 'and kiching up a riot, tA hich
obliged the defendant to shift htS,quarters. She had
had made them too hot for' him..
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—‘.‘, I think, Mr. Garrow,
you must shew some express assent on the ptt of
the defendant, to entitle the plaintiff to recover."
Mr. Gattaow—" I cannot,. my Lord,"
Lord ELLENBOROUGEI Then let the plaintiff
be called sui t ed.

NORTII V. TAMBARDE.

This was an action to recover '421. Iss. ;i4. for
work and labour.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that tlie plain-
tiff was a boat-buildei-, and the defendant' a Spa,;
niard,the Commander of the ship Anna, belci:.g-
ing to the port of. London ; the action• was brought
for the' repairs of two of the ship Anna's boats. The
diret-tions were given by the defendant ; he could
speak very hate English ; brought an inferpreter ;
aod through him gave his orders, and inspected the
workmanship from day to day. The boats, when
repaired, . vzvre delivered to the defendant : on the
bill being presented, he desired the plaintiff 10-go
to his Agent when he went to the Agent, he re•
(erred him to another, who sent him back to the de-
fendant. He would prove the work done, which
would entitle the plaintiff to a veidict.
Charles Crowpler, a journeyman to the plaintiff,
deposed, he knew the defendant; he-was a Spaniard,
and Captain of the ship Anna.; he gave the orders
through an interpreter : they were put in complete
repair,-; he desired that. every bad piece should be
.cr.lt.but, if they took their bottoms out; alt the
work charged in the bill was done, and the pricei
kvere reasonable ; the boats were delivered to the
, interpreter.
On his cross-examination, he said; the first time
the defendant gave his orders for the repairs was in
December, the boats had been in the yards for three
months before.

- Mr. PULLER, Counsel for the defendant, stated,
that the amount of the, bill was not disputed ; the
only question was, who ought to be accountable.
A .Mr.Whittal was the owner of the ship when the
boats were sent to the dockyard; he afterwards
parted with her to O'Reilly and Co.: they .would
not purchase without WI itial engaged to have the
boats repaired. The defendant was the Captain ap-
pointed by the house of O'Reilly and Co. and. it was
natural that,he should inspect the repairing of the
boats; but it was understood by all parties that
Whin?t was to have paid the Plaintiff.

. .
"Loki ELLENBOROIJOH—" They did not begin.
the repairs until the defendant gave his orders ; it
amounted to .the same thing as if he had•sent the

boats."

Mr. ATTOIINET-GENERAIV—" It is a mere dis-,
pute between the vendor and vendee; the plain-
Litt
e.m only take the, person who gave the direc-
tions."

Lord EI,LENBOROUGH summed up the evidence,.
and observed, that a Captain of a ship was liable to
pay for any repairs of either ship or boats, w4n be
gave orders for them. " •
The :fury gave a Verdi& for, the plaintiff-421.
15s. 7d.

pla;ntitf had ohly eiarged 451. for the defendant's
pas!,age, 201. for,that of her servant ; the other
itern.was for Custom-house fees pail on The landing
of her Ladyships baggage. He would prove by
'several respe&able witnesses, that the usual.oharge
for a person. in the sphere of life of the'defendant,
was 50 guineas; and half that suin for her servant ;
when he proved this, his clitwit would be enlitled
to a verdia. Thesdefendant had paid sotte.nloney
into Court.

Captain :Richard Tlint deposel, that :the usual
charge was fifty. guineas, and for a servant thlity
guineas
On his,Fross-ekatnination, he said. he had never
received thirty guineas for the passage of a servant,
but he 11,4 d 2i5 for General Hlrcourt's (the'Gover:
nor of 'Si. Croix's) servant, born that Ziland to the
'port of London.
Capt. Felan deposed, that he was in the ship that
took the defendant out ; he understood she paid
601. for her passage; he eorroborateki the other wit-
ne-s. as to•the general rate ; but he never saw such
tilllllS, paid.
. .

Captain ,Hutchinson, •an officer in the-customs,
proyed, that the plaintiff paid WI. 12s. 6d. duties
on the del n rant's baggage. ••
Herr the Counsel for the defendant, stated,
t hat, his client Mrs. Cianstown, feel much
obliged to his Learned Friend Mr. GuToW for hav-
ing dgn fled her Sne was nut a Lady, -although
the mother of Lord Cranstown: The Jury would no
dOu:it, be Surprt,ed. to find, at-er they had
heard, that t• ere way actual contract with the
plaintiff to pay hi f. 401. for the-dcleirdant's and -her
servant's passage. It was Lord
,Cran,aown. who
"trade the.agreemetii. He held in his • hand a &po-
siti th taken. in thersiiind.;• that ihiee
weeksbeforc the ,-essei he met thr plaintiff
on toe._whatf, and told him hu .a passage to
his mother ,LOodon, a d a.krd what he would
charge ? Tiie- mutt- answered; 401. His Lord-
ship said -there wa, a s, an, tp .accompoy
The plaintiff ioqUir,--d w:iai age he was ? and he be-
tug informed that he W'as a stnad hoy; he said, " we
will put hint in ; we will not ;:ry'a Word about hitti"
The N .ble.Loro then closed with the plaintiff's 'pro-
position, ind consKered .t a valet one. The &fen-
dant had paid 50 goes whiCh covered
the passage-anoney 401. and ch.irge of 101. 12s.
6d. for duties, which would entitie the dt;enclant.to
a verdict. •

The answers AO the irterroptions put to the
Rigor Flon. Lord CraustoWn were then read by Mr.
Lowten.

7 Mr. GARROW replied; and said, that lie had every
respect for the Nobly Lord,- but he must say, that he
toil mistaken a mere conver%atioii tor an agree-
ment. It would be an insult to his L,,rdsitip that
his mother, (wit() he now understood from his
learned friend was not a lady) ,hould pay Less tor her
pas,age that., a tradestnan's,wife.
Lord ELLENBOR.UGIi observed, that the regular
price of passage had not'been proved, and if the Juiy
believed the deFOsitions Lord Cranstown, they
must give, a ventici ior the 'defendant.
The Jury were consulting for a short time, wheri
Lord LLLENROROUGH said, " Gentlemen, you
do not 13.-lieve Lord Cratistown has been guilty
of perjury, the defendant is entitled to your ver-
dict:"

rine Jury returned a verdid for the defendant.

THE KING V. COLLIER.

This, was an indictment for au asfiault, under cir-
cumstances of very' great aggravation. 'There were
two coipts in the indictment : une was for an nuauli,
-in consequence of which the prosecutrix, who was
ii the- la,t month of her i;regnaney,
of a dead child ; and the other tor a eotninOn
assault.

The prosecutrix, Mrs. Thomas, stated, that she
and Collier tesided in .the same house ; that as she
was sweeping the passage on the 20th Of August,
the ratter came down stairs, and. forcibly seizing her
by both arms, drew hei along' the passage, and at-
te-mipted to put
.her into the street. This, however,
Elie prevented by laying hold of the street-doth',
which was half-open. Collier then gave her a
lent pu,h on the breast, and threw tier down in die
passage. She betame extremeiy itl in cons,,quence
of this violence, and continued so until the 16th of
September, when.she was delivered of a dead burn
.infant. The fad of the assault was also confirmed
by a female witness, who saw the transatti.n from
a second-floor window at the opposite side of the
street. •

Nfr. Williams, a medical gentleman, said, that
he was callQd in, to Mrs. Thomas that he tound
her arms much discoloured from the violent pres-
sure. of Collier's fingers, the marks of which were.
very evident. He attended her during her labour,
when she was delivered of a dead child Lull grown:
He could not determine how , it had been
dead ; nor would.he undertake to s.sy that the death
was the consequence of the assault. .
_ _ _

It turned out on the cross:examination. of Mrs.
Thomas, that, in consequence of some embarrass-
ment into which her husband .had fallen, the land-
lord of the house in which they resided ,save him
noticeto quit, and gfatited a new lease to Collier.—
Mrs; Thomas, not choosing to . comply with this
mandate, continued ' ins possession, and it was
found necessary to call in the assistance of the
Sl.eriff, Who, on the 17th of August, three days
before the assault, ejected Thomas and his wife
in the Usual form, and delivered possession to Col-
lier. Mrs. Thomas. howevo, re-occupied her
old position, when Collier made an ineffectual ef-
fort to pull- he out of his premises on the. 20th.—
She was eventually di,lodged on .the last day of ,
August, but not without great resistance on her
part.

Lord ELLENBONOUGIii in charging the Jury, said,
that they. were to consider whether the premature
labour of the prosecutrix was occasioned by the
assault.. It they should be of that opinion, it cer-
tainly- would be a greet aggravation of the defen-
dant's offence, and call fora severe punishment. It
did not appear, however, from the evidence that
such was.the fa6t. The woman had •gone'with child
twenty4even. days:after the assault. As to the other
count in the indictment, no defence had been made
to it, the Counsel for the defendant not being able
to prove the service of the legal, notices to quit pos-
gession.—Guilty on the count charging 'a common
assault.