Star.
London, England, 1808-11-30 00:00:00

BLOBS v. WETKIVSOV.

This was an action brought by Mr. Blore, a bud-
der, against Mr. Watkinson, a shoe-maker, for pay-
ment of 1641. 14s. ld. as the expence of repairs done
to two old houses, in Green-street, Leicester-square.
The claim was resisted, on-account of the demand
being deemed exorbitant ; it having been ascertain-
al by surveyors employed by the Defendant, that
1181. WAS an ample compensation.
Various journeymen carpenters and builders were
eiamined, as to the time occupied, and the work ac-:1
zly cline ; and the nature of their evidence went
saiscove that 644 days had been occupied, and some- •
`limes one, two, or three-workmen employed. It
eared, however, that the mode of estimating the
eartees was vague and indefinite ; and much more
ofibe..old materials had been used than what ap-
peared to have been deducted in thevomputation.
The Jury. found a verdict for the Defendant, li-
miting the amount to the sum already paid into Court.
JAW'S REEVES AND UIS WIFE V. HENRY .TENIUNs.
'l'he is a journeyman weaver, and the De-
fendant a hackneyman or stable-keeper, both residing
as neighbours to each other, in Bryanstost-street.
The action was for an assault of an aggravated
and gross nature, committed by the Defendant upo*

he wife of the Plaintiff: The language used upon
that occasion was declared to be so beastly, offensive,
and obscene, that neither the Counsel nor the witnesses
could, with propriety, repeat it in Court.
It appeared, that jcalousiesjtairing existed be-
tween the parties, as to which of their families was
the most beautiful and perfect in point of form, the
Defendant one day seeing the Plaintiff's wife looking
out of her window, Lunched out into the most gross
and unprovoked abuse ' • and afterwards, upon her•
coming out, compared her to his mare, kicked the
dirt over her ; then he went into the stables, and
brought out a pitchfi rk, lifted up her petticoats with
the prongs, wounded her with the other end, in
presence of a crowd, assembled by means of the noise,
• offi red to fight lie:. husband for five guinea% and
that his wife should fight her (Mrs. Reeves) for as
much more. Add to this, he called himself Bona-
parte, and said he would ride over them all !—This
scene began about three o'clock and lasted till five in
the evening.
Mrs. Penelope Reoves and Mrs. Henrietta JenLins
had been long competitors in point of beauty, which
had considerably increased the animosity subsisting
between the two parties. Mrs. Penelope being so
provoked upon this occasion, had, in return for such
abuse, only ventured to tell Jenkins to look at home,
and he would find a track on the bad, alluding to a
deibrmed child of the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
mages £5O. and Ws. costs.
straw 4. THE kaIt!CUTORSI OF SIR WM. STAINES.
The ATTORNEA.GENERAL stated, that although
the declaration in this case was long, yet the princi-
ple of the action was short, and was most fit to be
determined by his Lordship. The only question
was, whether a covenant of a particular description
ought to have been introduced into a conveyance of
a leasehold property ? The Plaintiff purchased cer-
tain leasehold premises at an auction from the Exe.
cutors of Sir William Staines, of which 4(2 years
were yet unexpired. The lease had been formerly
granted by a Mr. Holden to a Mr. Clarke, and as-
signed by Mr. Clarke to Sir William Staines, upon
whose death it devolved upon his Executors ; there
were certain covenants as to relieving the Assignee
from incumbrances, but these were done away with
by the introduction of an unusual and irregular clause
in the lease, granted to the Plaintiff; and it was inl
order to relieve him from such a responsibility that;
this action was brought.
Lord ELIA'NROROUGII thought, that as it involved'
a point of law, it would be better to allow the parties
an opportunity to argue it in a special case, the Plain-
tiff, in the mean time, having a verdict for the ex-
pence thereby incurred.—Verdict for Plaintiff-1441.

BOOSMAN V. BIRKETT.
Mr. PARK stated that this action was brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the owner of the
ship Anna, to rec( wr eight guineas for procuring
three sailers.

John Marchant said he was one of the men procured
by the Plaintiff; he lodged in the Defendant's house,
and by his directions went along with two others on
board. The Plaintiff went along with them and saw
them on board. He afterwards saw him on hoard the.
vessel, near Gravesend ; he and the other sailers re-
mained on board till the vessel returned from St. Do-
mingo.
John Doyle procured seven of the crew, for which
he had been paid by the Defendant, on board the ship.
at Gravesend : his charge is three guineas for seamen,
two for ordinary seamen, and one for landsmen. •
On cross-examination, he said he did not know what
a crimp was, though he had been three years in the
profession ; he never heard of the term, but applied to
" Crimp Cod," ,or " Crimp Serjeant." He said he
lived in Fenchurch-street, at the sign of the Coopers'
Arms, and had been a plaintiff in a similar action
lately at Guild:L.:l. He had been three years a crimp,
and charged Captains for procuring men like butcher's
mug.

Mr. GAnnow, in addressing the Jury, said, that
the ground on which his client resisted this action was,
because the trade in general became so much injured
by the interference of crimps, that it waS found neces-
sary to make a stand against them.
Captain Birkett stated, that the Plaintiff called on
him on board the Anna, in the West-India Docks,
and asked him if he wanted sailors ? he told him he
did, and to send them down, and he would take
them. Not seeing slr hearing of him, he called in
about a week, when the ship was going to sail. Three'
sailors he found on board, but he did not know who'
sent them. It is usual iar the crimp to come on board
with them, to see that they are approved of. The
Plaintiff attended on board at Gravesend, but he did
not know of his procuring these men. It is also usual
to give more wages to volunteers than to crimped
men ; but these men did not get that allowance.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
mages-10. 7s. with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLLAS, NOVEMBER CO.
JonssoN Z 7. c(x)KE.

This was an action to recover damages for an as-
sault committed under the fellowing circumstances :
The Plaintiff is a soldier, the Defendant also formerly
belonged to the army. On the ‘23d of October List
the parties met at a public-house, the Black Horse
and Windmill, Whitechapel. TI. y were seated in
the parlour among several inhabitants of the neigh-
bourhood, and the conversation turned upon the con-
vention in Portugal. Johnson expressed himself like
many other great men, very much displeased with
the conduct of the British Generals ; and having
some knowledge of the arts, drew two figures on the
table with chalk : one he described to be Sir Hew
Dalrymple, and the other Bonaparte throwing gui-
neas into Sir Hew's mouth. This caricature caused
the Plaintiff's,loyalty to be questioned, chiefly by
Cooke, who discharged a copioits shower of porter in
the face of Johnson, and rising from his seat at the
same time knocked him down. The Plaintiff was
described to be a little than compared with Cooke ;
and after he had xelovered from the blow, he com-
plained that he had been degraded as a ,soldier, and
requested Cooke to procure a couple,:of swords, or
sticks at least, that his wounded honour might be de-
fended upon equal terms. It did not appear that the
combatants afterwards met in the bloody field of
battle, and the Plaintiff brought the present action to
heal the breach which the Defendant's fist had made
in his valiant face. After witnesses had proved kese
facts,
Mr. Serjeant COCKEL said, he was sorry this idtien

had bee broteif htorodt t latfse it was a pot.
house quarrel. If the Plaintiff had. been contented
with the blow he had received, he would have been
'Netter off than he could be With the law at his back.
The Plaintiff 'considered himself as much emitted to
make a speech upon the Convention of Ci*tra as the
learned Members of the Common Council of the City
of London—(o laugh)—.and he intruded upon the
company by boasting that he had mounted the deadly
breach (though he had seen no more than Major
Sturgeon), and by abuse compelled the Defendant to •
knock him. down. The Learned Serjeant recollected
that the present Lord Chancellor once tried an assault
cause in the Common Pleas, in which the
by provoking language, had received a blow from
the defendant which knocked out mie of his teeth.
The Jury gave sixpence damages. Lord Eldon
called the plaintiff before he left the Court, and ob-
served to him, I recommend you, if you value your
teeth, to keep* a good tongue in your head ; for if
von do not, you will not have a stump left. The
Plaintiff in the present case stood in the same situa-
tion ; he had provoked the Defendant by abuse, and
the Jury ought not to think of giving damages.
Sir JAMES MANSHELO prevented the Learned Ser- '
jeant from calling witnesses in support of the De-
fendant's case. He told the Jury that they were
the best judges of the case, which ought not to have
been brought into a Court of Justice. Au assault
had, however, been proved, and by law the Plaintiff
was entitled to a verdict, which was all he could
ex pect.
The Jury instantly found a verdict for the Plain-
tiff, damages One Shilling.