The Sun.
London, England, 1810-07-07 00:00:00

POLL CE.

MtorsioN-Houst3.—Yesierday a woman,: named
Jwie Salcftrll, up be;ore 14:e... Lord
Mayor, LI-tined on suipicioit of brilig concerned
with two young men,. wrilool she said Were her bro.
:n the utter,ng at forged checks upon the
,fla!,k of Si: Wiiiiatn Curtis and Co. and defrauding
iieveral I;ersonN thcreb.

Two publicans,-one from Paddingtoi, the other
(roar' Edget,vare-road, attended ; the former of them
-valvd tfigt two young men, with a boy, accompa-
nied by the prisoner, .carte to his house on the I Cith,
ult. in the evening, and asked. to be accomModated
with beds for-tin-twelves, and one tor the prisoner,
wth,in they represented as ti.eir servant. Toe men
and boy w,,re accommodated in the 'tense, and a
bed for the prisoner was procured with a pOor wo-
man in the neighbourhood. In the morning the
i.iisoner paid for their bed will .a check upon the
house of Curtis and Co. fora stn.!!! suns, promising
to eorne back tor the change, out they never re-
to,ned : and the prisoner eta away next morning
from lire Flace where site lo iged, leaving her box in
pledge, and did not 40turn for it until Thursday even-
ing, when she u anted to get it away upon a_. pro-
mise of calling again to pay for the lodging ;-• hut the
0111 A, refused to give it up, and the publicen hav-
ing learnt she•wa4 in the neighbourhood, find hav-
ing discovered another fraud praeliied on the other
political-, tits neighbour, he sent his waiter prbattly
to trace her to her residence, wlych he saw her en-
ter, in the neighbourhood of MoorgAe, Where she
wa:, found yesterday mowing. The other pubii
can, Iron, Edgeware-read, stated, that two young
men, accotnpanied by the prisoner, came to his
house a few days before the above-stated tiansaCtion;
that they were accommodated with beds there two
or three successive nights, and took morning and
evening tea. That oa the morning of the fourth
day he asked them to settle a reckoning of gs. 2d.
they then owed, when the of the men gave hint a
check on the house of Curtis and Co. signed in the
mime of Natharndli.iowne, tor 61. and desired
to have the change. The pUblican, with the advice
of a , first went to liahlters, to ascer-
tain the validity of the check, and there found it
had been forged.

blr Whliart, Curtis attended, and said that Mr.
8r,,,, tie, whose iiao!e the chet.k was drawn, kept
cash at, thq house, . but that Nis check w►as of a
wliich the House. had not used these
sixyeats.

‘...04 stated that tilt parties had succeeded in pass.
ano! her check of 1.11,, same descrption in tt
ituw,c of flohingswol th atY; Co. In. iiedtbid.row,
for fourteen poun.s, acid obtained toot; a quan-
tily of carpctiq, but uu person from that house at.
tvoded. .

l'he Prisoner, in hes.defenct-,, said, both the young
mcn were her brotlit.r.,,aild that she was wholly in-
roccot of ony concern o.r kno...v,edge as to the nil-
lure of :hos cite( ks. She 11,:d been four months in
tow:1, and her brothers, one of whom was a j,,titney•
anJ the other a o...ntletnati's servant,
boqi oui.of i;)aee,• ha.l induettriier to quit her sis-
ter s noose, anti Inotutsed her to b-ar her expences
into the conotty ; hut that they atterwat ds said,
111.-y could nut give her tritav ; and the la>t time
she sao them was a fortnight ago, when they parted
hunt her Saying they were going, un ship-boatd ; she
er4critteci herself the wile of a butcher, at Weldon,
in Northanipton,,hire.

It appe:tred she had been br!ught before the. Lord..
Aia)or a short sir,sce, on a charge of a sirni!ar
oature, ir. couljany w'r h the F4tole-oien. She w;ts
retnath:cd for turther ati) Li 4 I ion.

UNtog tfALL.—On Monday last a Benefit Soci-
ety, c;.lled " The Assoeiated :Brethren,!' to the
amount of near .500, dined t,ogether at the. Cumber-
land Gardens, and the Proptictor, to prevent irn-
plover con: any intruding into toe Gardens, pro-
cured two of the Police officers to attend. Soon
after dinner, however, some discarded metnbers of
the Society attempted to , torc, tier way into the
Gardens, but were successfully opposed by some of
the members assembled. •The excluded persons,
however, renewed their attvmpts.to gait admission,
and the officers perceiving the bustle, hastened to
the spot, and seeing one man strike anotit-r, they
immediately .took the person, whom they ,conceived
, to'be (he aggressor into custody, but upon their at-
tempting to cower hint away, the whole posse fell
upon the two. officers, and beat them in so violent
and cruel a ma. tier, that, but for the interference of
the landlord, and a Gentiernm named Mansfield,
they would robably nut have bren
~now living to
prefer this complaint. A messenger was immedi.
ateiy.dispitched to Union Hail fur assistAnce, when
several of ceis returned, properly armed, to rescua
and protect their brother ntlico-s, whom, on their
arrival, they. tonnd concealed in the landlord's bed-
room, and conveyed them away, without any at-
tempt being made by the Associated Brethren tO
molest the,„. Fite per Noni, members of the Soci-
ety, -namely, Thomas Plzzey, George Whitmore,
John Hai:;,* William Stapfin, and John Bodgei,
were apprehended, brought before the Magistrates
at this Office, and bound over to answer fortheriot.
and assault at the ensuing Surrey Assizes.

L4tV REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, luLl 6.

HABEAS CORPUS.

A child was introduced by wi it of Habeas Cor-
pus, to be delivered to the father, under peculi,ir
circumstances respecting the mother. The mother
making no recistance to the writ, the child was or-
dered into the care of the father; but it 'was under-
stood that he should give an indetun.ty for its pro-
tettion and safety.
• The C6tll t, fiat to hear cases at law; but they were
wholly unimportant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. ]IILY 6.
THE PRINCE OF WALES V. SIR JOHN ST. AUIIIN AND

OTHERS.

Sir &vont. ROthLLY was heard against the de-
murrer in this case,. -which we have described in a
former Report. The reply was reserved .for Tues-
day next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. fury 5.

YOUNGER V. REVETT.

This was an adorn of trespass, to recover dama-
ges from tl.e defendant for an injury sustained by
the plaintiff, in consequence of his hating been
ousted of his !cult before the expiration of the
demise.
Mr Serjeant BEST, for the Plaintiff, stated, that
the Defendant in this case was• the son of the lessor,
who had made a lease of the tenement in question to
the plaintiff, for the term of ten years, on the p'o-
vision expressed in a' clause of the covenant, that.
if, upon the expiration of the demise, the lesv•or,
te-
fused to enlarge the term, he shouLl -pay to the
plaintiff one halt of the money expended by him in
the erection of buildings, or 01: er itn,:roemt'nts,
doting the continuance of the said term, or in lieu
thereof the sum of 2001. That, after six years of
the tetra had expirej, the plaint 4 let the-remaind r
of his term—less than.that remainder by z-en
..to one Wally, of whom t tie defetk'ant *held it. He

would bring evidence to pro, e, that since the
ration of the D.iendant's train, and b:tofe the ex-
piration of the plaintiff, during the ten days plain-
tiff had made an entry, and had, after entry made,
been oi,sted
.by the defendant. • ohj,„ltt of the.
defendant would appear to be as it had said,
" I'll keep paisession for the ten days,after my term
hms expired, because by that ihne ynur's will hate
expired also, and then you can claim damages only
for toe ten
.days;" but the defendant would find
himself ousiaken, as his client would be entitled to
be recompensed, not merely for !he injury, but for
the immediate consequence of kthat injury ; and for
such a-oeipme compensation tlittl he HOW bring the
pre.itht ad ion.

- Sir JAMES MANSFIELD did not see how the pre-
sent action Collid br'maintained.

Ilr. Serjeant SHEYHJIRD said, that the pla&iff
must sotfer a non-suit. The plaintiff was not in
possession at the time when, the trespass was alleged
to have been committed, but to maintain an action of
trewas:, actual pOs»ession by entry on the part of the
pla•rit itf was nrce%sary.
Mr. S;-ljeatit BEST submitted, that here would be
wrong without a r.tnedy, it his client could not
maintain, an action ot trespass, fot' in this case'he
could bling no oilier action against the det ndant.'
Sir J. MANSFIELD.—Why not brink' his atl/4.tion on
the breach ot the covenant lima was one of the
covenanters.

-Mr. Serjeant BEvr.—Revett, the father of the de-
fTdant was, but not the defendant himself. He
was iota party to he covena:.t.

"S:r JAMES NlAbit.F).P.LD.—That does not aftet thy`
breach of the-coviibunl, or the covenant itself. Your
client ha 4 nevertheless his remedy on the covenant,
but he cannot strew in this case the defendant to be
a trespasser.

Mr. RICHARDSON, on
.the same side, submitted,
that the 'elm of holding over after the expiration
of the demise was a trespasser. He cited in sup-
port of thk, the case of Lewin, from Burrow.
Seijeant SHEPH ERD said, that if the opposite
party wanted originally restitution of the term, as
well as damages for the wrong, his remedy in that
case lay by tjedment and not trespass, whereby no-
thing but the mere damages could be recovered in
,this ease there was no trespass.
Mr. Serjeant BE.T.—And if no trespass, how
could an action of ejectment lie, which always sup-
poses trespass ?

Sir J. MANSVIELD.—The eje&ment supposes the
possession to be il,egal, and it maintained, determines
At to be so.

Mr. Seijeant SHEPHERD.—The defendant, in an
aLiion cf trespaAs may try the title as if he set up in
his defence that there was no trespass, because the
right of entry was in him (the.detenclant), but it by
no. tneans followed that the plaintiff could, by such
.an action, try his right of entry ; and as to the ejeci-
went, the very fiction of entry sheaved that that fad
was necessary to such an action.
Mr. Serjeant BEST admitted the faa of entry on
the part of the Lepee, to be essential in either
action, and he would now call evidence to prove
th:it fact.

Benjamin Stroud proved, that he and the plaintiff
had repaired to the workshop of the defendant, part
of the premises during the ten days, twice, and that
'the first time they were desired by the defendant to
go and sit Upon the stairs if they pleased, for the re-
mainder of• the ten days, and amuse themselves ; -
and,. that they thereupon retired-.—and on their second
doming, the defendant refused them further ad-
mittance, and threatened to kick them out if they
atteapted to enforce it ; another witness proved the
covenant and agreement.
Sir 3. MANSFIELD.—The matter set forth in the
declaration is not to be found in this covenant; here
it appears that the covenanters bind themselves in the
penalty of 2001. if they cause or compel the plain-
tiff to quit before the expiration of the term. It don't
appear that they have caused or compelled him so to

Mr. Serjeant BEST. " We were not in a con-
dition to hai/ebeen s 9 compelled, b 5. reason of the
defendant's holding over : hut had we been in that
condition, by having been in possession, the Cove-
nanters must have caused or compelled us to quit
before the expiration of the_terat, and we would
have had our remedy upon the breach of: cove-
nant."

Sir JAMES MAt,.lt►ftLlD ",,,You- have still VOW'
remedy; if you can prove the 'breach of covenant.
Let a verdiel be taken tor the plaintiff, subiot /o
the judgment of 'the Court, Whether the :idiot) can
be maintained." -

Verditt for the plaintiff subjekt to the decision of
the Court.

HERBERT V. COLLET.

This was au a4tion to 'recover '3ll. 10s. for the
nulin enauce 01 the defendant's child, teom the 14th
of August, 180,5, till May, tBO9, at the rate of
ss. per week.

Seijeant SITEPHPRD slated,' that in this case
the infant child of the detendant was, not born in
wedlock—such accidents did happeti, but it would
have no avail in barring-the just claim of his client.
He then called the plaintitf's Solicitor, who proved
that the defendant had ag'eed to pay the debt so
contracted, by instalments of 51. every six weeks,
but that the first payment, on the 2d September,
was but 31. and the next, in about six months af-
ter, but 61. when 201. vas due.

Mr. Serjeant BEST, in cross-exatnination—" Pray,
Sir, has not the defendant charged you with being
the father of this child ?" This question, from the
grave and elderly appearance of the witness, excited
considerable laughter.
Witness—l never heard that he did,"and I believe
he never did make such a charge.
There being no defence, the nine pounds paid
were deducted from the demand.

• Vcrditl for the plaintiff-281. I us.

BRIDGES.V. BERRY.

Mr. Serjeunt VAUGHAN stated-this to be an ac-
tii,n on a bill of exchange for i i9l. accepted by
the delendane, n d dawn on him by a. person
nainrd Box. He •would prove the- hand-writing
of the d: tendant, and trusted he should be entitled
to a verdiot.

. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, for the defendant, con-
tended, that there were no just grounds whatever
for Ihis action ; and, in suppot t of his assertion,
slated that the bill for which- the aCtion was
biought, had long since I)teti paid. He admitted
that the defendant had passed such a bill to the
plaintiff, which beLame due, and was not honoured.
In order to pay that, however, the defendant took
to the plaintiff 'another' bill, drawn by him, and ac-
cepted by a man maned Ivory, which was received
by the ;.laintiti in liquidation of the former
The amount of the latter bill was 1171. i ts: 2d. and
the d4erence between that sum and 1191. was paid-
in cash. The defendant heard no more of Ivory's.
bill until the 29th of,January, a. month after it be-
ca:l:e doe, when -he was arrested for the amount,
and of tOtiftie refused to pay it, from the plaintiff
having i►egieCted to give him that legal notice of its
non-paylnent, by which he might have taken steps
to recover the sum. The plaintiff then finding that
lie had forfeited his claim to the latter bill by his
own m..gleCt, most, unjustifiably and unwarrantably
brought his aition on the original bill of the defen-
dant, which he .had improperly detained in his pos-
session.

- In answer. to this statement, it was contend-
ed.for the plaintiff, that the original bill was de7
tained as a collateral security, and the wisdom of
su.:ll a measure was pfoved train the *circum-
stance of Ivory shortly afterwards becoming a bank-
rupt.

The Learned Judge was of opinion that the ori-
ginal LAI should have been given up to the de-
fendant, and that the plaintiff should be liable
to. any foss WiliCil Was attributable to his own ne-
gjeci, in not giving the necessary information to
the defendant of the non-payment of the
He reserved the point, however, for further delk
beration ; and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
subject to a non-suit on the opinion of the Judge
being known. ,