The Sun.
London, England, 1818-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

, .
COUPT OF cr.. ANCERY, lAN' 1.
No 'case of any particular interest took place
to-d.-ty in this C-urt.
PriArrici, OF COURT.-111 the course of the (NV.
several calls !ravine heen made of suits, the ne-
eessatv Crrtur,-el in whirl) were absent •in' the ad •
joiniog Court, 'lie Loan CHANCELLOR expres!ed:
grey displeasure at 'the circumstance: It was not,
he sAi,f; to, be endured, that one branch' of that
Court should interrupt or strip the proceedings of.
the other. " Could it," he asked,'" be supposed'
that six or seven 1,1 the Counsel were then
ink all` at once in the adjoining CoUrt iiehad
intimated before, and he should then rcpcia- it:
price -tor that in future he should adopt the
ril;e %eryi properly set down in the• adjoining
Court, of wit waiting for any Counsel'; but ,that
in case-the Advocates in the came Presented should
'riot he ready, he should immediately proceed to
the next case on the payer.

VIOE-CHA CELLOK%-i COURT, JVLY, 1.
OPE RA- HoOS a.,--TA4I:OIr,V. WATERS.

This Was a rtftteWed aptillention'by Sji'SAMS.YEL
ROMILLy, inbchaff'Of 11r..-11a$71161', fur an Or'c(er
that Mr. WA let s f)ly
of .34,16-11 , being the full anibtoft t2=crtie'of the ()pet ti.ttotke ptr6llklso:iv‘oney..
Tile order which the. (,oars bad iirevirrnstlyrwitre;
was, saidrii'VLiiToiieil connsel; trofultilled by 11.1 r
\Vatcrs, •`oti •tbe -plea' 6f ;Certain alleged iiicntn-,

• brancys, td' which, li:o,v'ev:tr, no 58.iitaciory
bent tiiit:beet;:establi.sbeX, and which;-if aamit-
ted, 'wOittill'ph'iCe .11r. liratets in a hitiiiition of
partiel atly.anf:'ige above all the other claimants on
the Opera Ilbose profit. ity.
The Vice CHANCELLOR observed, that the ex-
ceptions had been allowed by the Nlaster, un ac-
'count of their not
_being cinisideted
•

b,atices.

Sir ;...tNtltt,t, Homat-Y contenrk4 titer the Court
to -call on Waters to pay the whole balance
dne.•rtliardless of his 'being anenbitmbrancer.
The•Vt6E-CHAt,ici.t.oit':said, that with that
of -the-case, it":.would' he better to irring:•it
hefetre'the LordChotneello'r,:Who 'was already ap-
prhed'of most of 'tire eirtirrnStances. He could
only. make an order for' the ant-omit which had
been distinctly Made out -to the Court, and to
which Taylor' was 'indi.4putahly entitled. 'With
tespeer to Hiirris's annuity; and other annuities,
the real tpleAlOu':As,a-s, whether the Opera House
ever receiyed'a 'preirts consideration for the;n.
As the rasp stood at present, lie thonght it would
be bet,te'r for Sir Samuelltomilly• to take the order
fur rite. admitted Sum.
Sire: agreed to the Vice-Chancellor's
prop-o Sal.; but • '•'
tiAß:T'obVeted, anti insisted that,- accord-
ing tip'theprielciple-aoMirtett WM' reefi•goizeti by
the
.Cioint, the amoMit (If die ineuntbiantes ought.
to be ennsidered in favimroF.Mr: Waters.
The.ViCi?-CUANG:it_f.o'a tliett ordered that the

case should stand over till ti3,mOrtow. ,
Sir S. Ro,infi:Oi. then moved, that Mr. Waters.
'be ordered insure, in the name of Mr: Tayl6r,,
• to the' amount !'clie`ortierit'adlieen:
.granted b'efore, nrion inquiry at 'the. Insurance.
(Mice, it was found 20,0001. only of the
24,0001. had been i'fisttred, though formerly, when
Taylor'hait • been called on 'by. Waters to insure,
the sum was no less than 40,0001. ' •
This application, like We previous was or-
-. dered by the VICE-CIiANCELLOR to stand over till.
to-morrow..

COURT. OF KING'S nF,Nui, JULY 1.

FALSE IMPRISONNIENT, &c.

• UOGERs versus For , GE,NT. .
this was •an action against the eelendant, 'an
Attorney of this Coort, for assaulting and falsely
imprisoning the defendant.
Air. Gums;Ey, with whom was Mr. CottlyN;.
stated the case.
,The plaintiff was a respectable'
silversmith and jeweller, residing in Pall-mall, and
the defendant was an attorney, re-siding in
.11ean,
street, Suhu. Far several years the parties had
been on the must friendly terms, the defendant
acting as the plaintiff's attorney ori
,many occa-
sions. In the month of March, 1817, the plaintiff
had given the defendant a warrant of attorney to
eonfessi;Agment 15-11. Its. 3d.,being composed
of a sum of 1001. supposed to have been lent by the
latter to the former, and the remainder for law ex-
pences. This security, however, had been satisfied
before the end of the year ; but notwithstanding
- this circumstance:the defendant took out execn;
lion against the plaintiff on the 243t1i of February
last, and on the l3th of March. following he was
- arrested on aCa sa for this, very debt, which had
been previously satisfied, and carried to a lock-up
house. It was (lieu vacation time, and the plain
tiff being taken in execution of _course could.not
give bail, but he sent a message to the defendant,
requesting; that-he would give his,consent to his
being :-discharged on paying the !minor levied into
the hands of the Sheriff, to abide the event of
an application .to the Court to set aside the
warrant of attorney and execution. This was
refused by the .defendant, upon which a sum-
rnon3 was . taken out to attend beffore Lord
Ellenborongh (the only Judge then in town),
,to sliew cause why, the plaintiff should not
he discharged out of custody upon lodging the
money in the Sheriff's hands ; but this summons
was not attended to,— A-accent-I summons for the
•like purpose was also unattended to ; but upon a
'third summons the defendant did attend, and, af.

ter resiiting the application as much as possible,
" the Noble and Learned Judge ordered the ilaintiff
• to be discharged upon the money being deposited.
. with the Sheriff. Itt Easter Terns, an application,
being made to the Court by the plaintiff to set
aside the-warrant of attorney and execution, the
utatter was refer'red•to the arbitation of Mr .11eader,
the Barrister, who,after hearing all the parties,de.;
• cided that there was no debt due from the plain-
- tiff to the • defendant, and consequently • ordered
that the warrant of attorney and execution•should
be set aside;-and that. the money deposited with
the Sheriff should be restored to the plaintiff, with
costs, which was accordingly done. Under these
cit cinnstanceg the present action was brought, and
the Learned Counsel commented with consider-
able warmth upon the conduct of the defendant,

•
te-1,0, be cotaciakti, acted 'this occasion from
the most malignant and improper motives. o
prove the plaintiff's case the fallowing witnesses
were called ,•, • .
Mr. Alexander Kettle, a jeweller residing at No. 6, Pall
Mall, stated that he had known the plaintiff, who was his
'next door neighbour, for tunny years;. The defendant was
an attorney, residing in Dean-street, Soho. bad never
seen hills but once in Isis life, and that was on the I Ith or
12tIrof March last, when be went to his office to pay two
bills of exchange, for -6;111. of which he, witness, was ac-
ceptor, the plaintiff-the drawer, •and a person named Mor-
land .the payee.. Witness.told therlefeissiatipte had expected-
that the plaintiff, would have paid one of the bills, to which•
the defendant replied, that be had not, and supposed woolti
not. Witness said •to -Mr. NOM, " are you on: friendly:
'terms. with Mr. 'Rogers ?'Fhe defendant replied. ."
nu
-the reverse.. To convince von of that, see what I am •
_going to do." He. pulled out, from among his papers, a
pieee of parchnietit, which was, a writ, and said to witness,,
perhaps you dun't understand. what this •it—it is an sac-
-cution;./intl,metniott.this in confidence. I don't expect you;
to statue it a'4aisi." The defendant then'said; that Mr,
gers had used Mr. Morlaml very ill, for lie had served
wills a copy of a writ lor.ol.—that Mr. Morland had heest a
great friend to :lit. Rogers; and that, therefore, he thought
such very nnhansisoine conduct. Upon the-sohject of the.
hills,' he said to Witness, •" I would recommend you to pay
them both, for if youth), not do so, there will be tour actions
brought upon them, and in the event of Mr. Rogers tailing
(a circumstance which probably will be soon), the whole ex-
=pence will fall upoti you as acceptor." ,
by Mr. Toernsc.—He. did not -consider
himselfs.as,tenant .to Mr. Rogers. Ile liad, purchased the
Irnsel of his lonise fromAtini, but paid the rent to the land
rent, about 251. per atiiitnn, he Ohl to
Nr:'Rdgeirs; hat' the principal rent, about. 2001. he paid.to
,:the'owner, of the: house: .He had at first coneeiged Mr. Pop...
Jiji) t 4) be the holder:Of the bills, which'he had called to pay ;
but fitafterwalals'un'tietstMol that they had hems discounted
Pi tMa. Morytnd for Mr. Rngers, and that they had been pot
lists:olr, Pepkio's hands to be sued upon. Witness had ob-
:tallied no time, as acceptor, to pay the hills,-beyond the time
at Which they were dine, except one dav, as.tu line of them.
George Duke,-from the Sheriff's Office,. i‘rodisced the serif
in Grvan upon which the plaintiff had hero arrested. It was
toed out on the 21;111 of February, but was nut executed until
the" 15th of March.
George Wilson, the Sheriff's Officer, proved that he ar-
rested the plaintiff in his.own house on the I tith of March,
at the suit of the defendant, aild inr remained locked up at
witness's" brother's hoost, No. 1, Warwick-court, Holborn,
until-the 20th of March. •
Mr. Henry Hilditch, Clerk to plaintiff's Attorney, proved
the fact of three sutnmonse's having beeni taken ton hi-fore
'Lard Ellenborongl6 two of whom were• unattended tc by
the defendant, although' a polite: message had heen sent to
-him, requesting Isis consent to the pkintirs.heing discharg-
ed, on lodging the mooeyits the Sheriff's hands:
Mr, Searle, plaintiff's attorney, proved the subsequent pro- j '
ceedings in the .King's Bench, and the reference uf the case
to Mr. Reader. Witness's own costs, paid hint by the plaiss-
tiff. amounted to 441;
Me, Edgard 'Roc, Clerk to Mr. Reader, proved .1 he execu-
timi-of the award' of the latter, by which he directed the war-
4ant .of -.attorneynull execution to be laid aside, and the stun
of 1711.44. Cd. the money &posited, and Sheriff's poundage,
to be restored to, the plaintiff,
This was the cii,e as proved for the plaintiff-.
TorPi NG and Mr. •ESPINA'SSE Statltillted,
that this, 'which- was an action of trespass, would
not lie, lila-sonic!' as the act complained of was
done in•ritirsuance of the Sheriff's .warrant.
• Mr. justice ABBOTT overruled-:the objection,
saying that the writ should have betty speCially
pAeaticil for the de-fendapt could not avail himself
of. It- under the general -issue, in justification.
Tieipais'svo'uld lie trailer • the cireutostances of the
case titticsS the justification.was pleaded.
,
'Am NG then went to the Jury with such •
nbservationS as the case could -afford iu
favour of
she -derendant; conjuring them to watch the
evi-
dence ‘i,itir.lealottsy, anti above all not to suffer
any' citiili6titie feeling to enter their minds in '!
considering the, tviei.twn .01 carriages.
1170, JuSticelAtißoTT: summed up the case with '
'Suitable oliserv-atimis, -and cautioned the Jury
•
against 'giting an inteinperate•verdict: ,
The Jury found-for-the ptaintiff—Damages 8441.