Star.
London, England, 1808-05-09 00:00:00

L. 411 DifEiL ttit 'CR.

COURT OF WO'S BENCH, MAY 6.
mORRIII V: BURDETT;
Mr. CLIFFORD, art behalf of the defendant, Sir F.
Burdett, moved for a Rule to spew cause to set aside
the verdict obtained in this case, *hick was tried on
the 22d of February last, when the Jury found dm-
bulges to the amount of 1171. Bs. 2d. for the defen-
dant's proportion of the expellee of the Hustings
erected at Covent-Garden, durang the last Westmm.
ster Election. The learned Counsel stated, that it
was an important question, inasmuch as the Honour-
able Baronet came forward on public grounds to te:l
list a demand which he conceived he was not entitled,
by law, to pay, but by that the whole expence ought
to fall on the High Bailiff, who had purchased is
place. In support of his argument he cited the sta-
tute of Westminster, c. 26.. Lord Coke, Shirty v.
Packer, Ist Rolls R. 7 and 8 of William 111.-18th
Geo. 11. c. 18.-21st Geo. 111. relative to Coventry,
and from these authorities, he contended that the de-
fendant could not be liable to pay any proportion of
the expence incurred in building the hustings, as the
ACts of Parliament now cited, provide that the Re-
turning Officers were obliged to do their duty in pro-
viding booths, &c.
Lord ELLENDOROUGns Chief Justice, upon referring
to his note, and to a note furnished by Mr. Clifford,
taken by a shert-hand writer, held, that as at the
trial it appeared to have been left to the Jury to con-
eider whether Mr. Percy, the agent of the committee
of Sir Francis Burdett's voters, had claimed the use
of the booths for. his check clerks, and whether be
was not the agent of Sir Francis Burdett? The jury
had decided that he was the agent of Sir Francis,
I that gentleman having adopted the acts of his cam-
mittee, by taking his seat in parliament. That
I having adopted the use of tile booths, the candidate
could not refuse to pay for them. Mr. Percy, as I
I agent, had at first refused to pay any thing but what
i he was liable to pay by law ; but afterwards he ac-
cepted the use of the booths, and for this the High
Bailiff was entitled to recover. As to all matters of
state and luxury which the Bailiff charged for,those
were not allowed him.
The Court therefore, considering that the jury had
pronounced Mr. Percy to be the agent of Sir Francis,
and to have adopted the use of the booths, he ren-
dered himself liable to pay, refused the rule to show
I cause.

TAIT V. lIUMPIIRIC.
This case was tried at Hereford, last Assizes, be-
fore Baron GIiAIIANI, for words spoken by the defen-
dant, in prejudice to the plaintiff's character, i.
" that Tait deserved to be indicted fur perjury ; and if
he had, ha was sure to be found guilty ;" and, atter
hearing the evidence of a Mr. Thomson, the Jury
found a verdict of 5001. damages.
Mr. JeltVIS this day moved le Court for a rule to
spew cause why the verdict should not be set aside,
ande new trial granted, on the score of heavy da
' mares; and that the defendant was not allowed to
i •
avail himselfi of the evidence of the indictment, which
he preferred against the plaintiffs in the county of
Monmouth ; but the Learned Baron rejected it, as an
aggravation of his former expressions. The Court
was also of the same opinion, and refused the rule.

SCOTT V. LIFFORD.
This cause was tried at Guildhall, in
.the last Sit.
tings, before Lord ELLENBOR.OUGII and a Special Jury.
It was for a Bill of Exchange, amoueting to 15001.
drawn by the defendants on, and accepted by, Moses
Agar, which became due on the 4th of June, 1806,
and was dishonoured.
Mr. WIOLF:It moved fur a rule to skew cause why
the verdict should not be-set aside, and a new trial
granted, on the grounds that due notice had not been
given by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the bill
being so dishonoured, and not until the 6th, two days
after, had they the least intimation of the fact. The
Learned Counsel contended that there w,as something
remiss in the conduct of the plaintiffs, or their Agents
(Messrs. Down and Co.) in not giving the necessary
notice next day, as the defendants only lived in Shad-
well, and rested his principal a ent on the cases
of Tindall v. Brown, and Derbyrriel v. Parker.
Lord ELLENBOROTSOII observed, he very well re-
membered the cause, and left it to a jury of intelli-
gent merchants, to decide what ought to be a reason-
able notice, as it could not he expected that the Plain-
tiff would set aside every other business, and go to
Shadwell the moment he received the bill back from
his banker's, or perhaps he might not be at home in
his counting-house at the time.—Rule refused.

GOLIDON c. ELI'IiINNTOND AND OTHERS.

This was an act:on brought tnt the Defen-
dams, as executors of James Farquharson, late Owner
of the Duke of Montrose East Indiaman, for iron-
work furnished by the Plaintiff in the years 1803
and 1801, which was tried at the last Sittings be-
fore Lord Ellenborough and a Special Jury, when
the plaintiff was nonsutted, on the ground that Moses
Agar was at the time the real owner, though the
name of J. Farquharson stood through negligence on
the register in the Custom-house.
Mr. Pueut moved for a Rule to shcw cause, Why
the Nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new
gLanted. In support of his motion he cited the case
1 Westerden v. Dale as one in point, and that the
plaintiff was induced to give the credit, from the idea
I that the executors of Mr. Farquharson were the real
owners.—Rule granted.

PUBLIC OFFICE, SHADWELL.—John Carrells and Ro-
bert Williams underwent examination, charged with
stopping a lady and gentleman on a narrow foot path
in Bromley Fields, near Poplar, one of them• made a
blow with a bludgeon at the gentleman, and deman-
ded his money, who instantly knocked down the as-
sailant. The latter recovering himself, renewed his
attack, and was knocked down a second time ;_
other man, seeing the determined resolution of re
gentleman, ran away. They are supposed to be the
men who have committed numerous robberies in the
Commercial Road, Poplar, and Blackwall, and were
committed for re-examination.
OURN-EXCITANGE, MARK-LANE, MAY 9.—The
fresh arrivals of Wheat to-day are rather considerable,
and the sales dull, at a reduction in price of about
2s. and ;is. per quarter—Barley and Malt nearly at
last price.--White Peas likewise--Beans, ci both so: t
are 2s. per quarter dearer—there are again very
short supplies of Oats, which arc at a further ad-
vance of Ys. quarter.—Fivur on the terms of
last
week.