Star.
London, England, 1808-12-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 6.
DAVIS V. COLLINS.
This was a demurrer to a bill of discovery. It
appeared that the Sheriffs of Middlesex were the real
Plaintiffs. They had seized, under an execution
Against the Duke of Sussex, at the suit of Davis, a
quantity of looking-glasses, in the shop of the Defen-
dant, packed up in boxes, with his Royal Highness's
name and arms on them. They had been in his
apartments, but were sent to the Defendant's shop to
be taken care of. The Sheriffs sold them under the
execution, and the Defendant brought an action of
trover, to recover the goods, on which the present
Plaintiffs filed their bill for an injunction to stay the
proceeding in the Court of Law: which injunction
was granted.
Mr. HART, Counsel for the Defendant, contended,
that the Court could not in any instance oblige a
Plaintiff in an action at law to disclose to the Defen-
dant what his case was. If this was allowed, it-would
be the means of introducing a system that would make
it dangerous to every Plaintiff to attempt to go into
a Court of Law for justice. If the Defendant, in this
case, did not prove, in a Court of Law, that the goods
in question were his property, he would have a verdict
against him. He could not conceive how that Court
could give them redress by allowing a bill of disco-
very ; and, under every circumstance of the case, he
was convinced the Court would allow the demurrer.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, Counsel'for the Defendant,
contended, that the demurrer should not be allowed,
and that the Defendant should be obliged to answer
the bill of discovery. The Defendant had acknow-
ledged that part of the goods seized under the execu-
tion were the property of his Royal Highness the
Duke of Sussex, and the bill asked him what part
was his Royal Highness's property? Surely he could
answer that without committing himself. He was of
opinion that the whole of the property was his ; for
although it might have been originally bought from
the Defendant, yet if there was no regular transfer
of it back, it belonged to the original purchaser.
Under these circumstances, he had not a doubt but

his Lordship would dismiss the demurrer.
Lord EtnoN observed, he was of-opinion that the
demurrer should not be granted, for it could not in-
jure the Defendant, as Plaintiff at law, if he answered
what part of the property did belong to his Royal
Highness the Duke of Sussex, and it was but justice
to the Plaintiff that he should, when he had no other
mode of ascertaining it.
The demurrer was accordingly not allowed, and
the Defendant will be obliged to answer the bill of
discovery.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMSER 6.
CHAMBERS V. JONES, ESQ.

Mr. SCARLWIT stated, that this was an action
brought against the Marshal of the King's Bench
prison, for the escape of Capt. Caulfield, who was in
his custody for 21201. the damages due to the plaintiff
in a crim. con. action ; and the question was, whe-
ther, after his voluntary return from his first absence
from the Marshal's custody, he had been since kept,
and had died in such custody The fact was, that
he had not, but had lived with Mrs. Climbers both
in Bryanstone-street and in Hampton-court, in which
latter place he died, and was brought to his lodgings
1 within the wits of the prison to be buried, as if he
I had died in the custody of the Marshal. The plain-

tiff had, therefore, to look to the Marshal for indem-I
nification for the escape ; and the Learned Counsel
trusted that the Marshal again had good security to
lobk to for his indemnification, in suffering the priso-
ner to live out cif the prison doors.
Mr. Purkis, the Plaintiff's attorney, proved the
Marshal's failure to produce his prisoner on his first
application for that purpose, in March, 1806 ; but
saw him on the 4th of July following in Melina-place,
where he had lodgings within the rules of the prison;
and on the 18th of July, the prisoner was produced
in the Marshal's Office.

Elizabeth Collins, a servant in the same house, in
which the prisoner had lodgings, did not know Capt.
Caulfield ; nor was he, to her knowledge, ever in the
house.

Dr. Blackburn knew Captain Caulfield, and saw
him dead at Melina-place. The witness' saw him
when he was alive, about the Bth of September last,
and about the 22d of the preceding October.
John Rawlings, plumber, stated, that he had sol-
dered up a coffin in a house in Hampton-court, axd
helped to put it in a caravan, which conveyed it from
thence to Melina-place, where he afterwards saw it.
Benjamin Smith, undertaker, was employed to
bury the body of Captain Caulfield. • He took the
shell and the leaden coffin to Hampton-court about
the beginning of last September, but, was only per-
mitted to place them in the room where the body lay,
being ordered out of the room without seeing the
body. He afterwards helped to put the coffin into a
caravan, and saw the body in Melina-place on a Sun-
day. The body was buried on the Saturday following.
Jane Marshall lived next door to Captain Caulfield's
lodgings in Melina-place, and saw a coffin brought
there on a Sunday evening, in September last, about
a quarter before eleven : she did not know that any
one had died in the house at the time.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, fbr the Defendant, said,
he would not attempt to deny the fact in issue, viz.
that the Plaintiff did not die in custody, but said that
it was upon the Marshal that this deception had been
passed. Against him, it was a case of extreme ri-
gour. The Marshal had granted the prisoner no fur-
ther liberty than the law allowed him to do. He
thought it a case of peculiar hardship, that though
the Plaintiff would never have gotten a sixpence from
the prisoner, the mere circumstance of his dying out
of custody, unknown to the Marshal, should entitle
the Plaintiff to recover from him.

Lord ELLEwsonouon observed that there could be
no doubt of the fact in this case, however hard it
might be upon the Marshal. Subject to the points
of law which were for the Court's consideration, the
Jury must, therefore, find for the Plaintiff.—Verdict
for the Plaintiff, damages 21201.
DE CHEMINANT V. THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY.

The plaintif brought his action against the de-
fendant for neglecting warehousing a quantity of
brandies, by which means a considerable quantity
had leaked out of the casks. The plaintiff proved
the warehousing, and that the charge for warehouse
room amounted to nearly 4001. upon the quantities
in their care, and when they were examined, some
casks were found to have lost two, some three, and
some as many as seven gallons each:
On behalf of the Defendants, several of their offi-
cers were called to prove that the casks in which the
liquors were contained were of a very bad quality.—
The staves were Hamborough timber sawed through,
which was very soft and porous. It contained also
several veins through which the liquor °cued out, and
in some instances flowed out copiously. On cross-
examination, however, it appeared that it was usual
to cooper such vessels as appeared to stand in need of
repair as soon as they were received into the Dock,
and then to give the owners notice, that they might
give further orders. This was the constant practice
at all ordinary wharfs, but in this case no notice was
giVen to the Plaintiffs.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH animadverted severely upon
the inattention to the interest of the owner in thus ne-
glecting to give notice, as other wharfmgers would
have done, and.the Jury found a verdict for the Plain-
tiff—damages As the full amount of the loss.
TENNANT o. BAYNES, BART.
_

This was an action of a similar nature, and it wash,
agreed to take a verdict upan the same principle. 1

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 6.
FELL V. TIMMS.

This was an action of trespass, for breaking and en-
tering a house ansl taking away a key. The house is
situated at Sloane-street, Chelsea, and it was occupied
by a Mrs. Jackson, who gave up the possession to the
plaintiff. The defendant rented the ground floor,
and wishing to get possession of the house instead of
the plaintiff, he sent for the key, on pretence of re-
moving some of Mrs. Jackson's goods which remained
on the premises. The plaintiff, in compliance with
the request, gave up the key, and the defendant
afterwards refused to return it, and kept the plaintiff
out of possession.
Mr. Serjeant LaNs, for the defendant, contended,
that detaining the key, after it had been sent by the
plaintiff, was not a trespass: he also objected to the
form of the declaration, which did not describe the
parish where the trespass was committed, but merely,
stated the parish of Chelsea, when it ought to have
been St. Luke, Chelsea..
Alir JAMES MANSFIELD considered the informality of
the. pleadings contrary to the general practice, and
I the plaintiff was nonsuited.

DOE V. JACKSON.
This was an action to remove the defendant from
a cellar, which he holds in Covent-garden market.
The real plaintiffs, Messrs. Hughes and Prince, hold
Covent-garden Market by lease from the Duke of
Bedford. The tenants under them are all weekly
tenants, but it is covenanted in the lease of the plain-
tiffs that they shall not turn out the under-tenants
within the bounds of the market, without the consent
of the Duke of Bedford. This, and an irregularity in
the notice to quit, was pleaded in defence. But it
appeared that the covenant only protected the tenants
or their executors and administrators, but not their
assigns. The defendant had get this cellar, which he
uses as a public-house, by assignment from a Mrs.
Little, for a valuable consideration, and therefore
was not protected. Upon the defendant agreeing to
pay the plaintiffs 150/. and 4)1. towards the costs of
the action ; the matter was settled, a verdict being
taken, however, for the Plaintiffs, to secure the per-
formance of this engagement. The plaintiffs them-
selves are bound to quit upon six months notice.
Sir JANiA himarnum expressed his satisfaction

with this excellent management of the market by the
Noble Duke, by which the poor tenants were care-
fully protected, and yet the means retained of imme-
diately removing improper persons.

REAZtEY O. WILLIAMS.
This action was brought by Mr. Beazley, who is
a surveyor, against Mr. Williams, who is of the same
profession, for defamation. The circumstances of
this case, as stated by Serjeant SHEPHERD, were
shortly these : These two Gentlemen, with twoothers,
had been employed, the one by Mr. Hawkes, and
the other by Messrs. Dermers, to survey some party.
walls at No. 22, Piccadilly. A certificate was sign-
ed by the Surveyors on the part of Mr. Hawkes,
against which the Messrs. Dermers appealed • that
appeal came on o be heard before WILLIAM littrx-
wannio, Esq. at the Guildhall, Westminster, when
both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were examined;
and, in the investigation of that appeal it became a
material question whether Mr. Beazley had on a cer,
tain day (10th February) communicated his opinion
and judgment to Mr. Williams and the other Survey-
ors, concerning the state of these party-walls ? Mr.
Beazley deposed at the Guildhall that he had made
known his opinion respecting these party-walls to
Mr. Williams and the other Surveyors: Mr. Wil-
liams deposed that he had not ; and Mr. Williams,
(at a subsequent period, (2d July last) when Mr.
Beazley, Mr. Stoddart, and other Gentlemen', were
met at the same premises in Piccadilly, to survey the
party-walls,) said to Mr. Stoddart, after Mr. Beazley
had quitted one of the rooms, ‘, I am astonished you
should be seen in company with such a rascal, who
perjured himself in a Court of Justice—he is a per- •
jared rascal or fellow—he swore to a direct lie."
For the-speaking of these words, this action was -
brought, to which the defendant pleaded a plea of
justification.
After Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD had proved the
speaking of these words by Mr. Williams,
Mr. DAUNCEY next addressed the Juty on the part
of the Defendant. After he had finished his opening,
and called his first witness to substantiate his plea of
justification, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and
said, ,4 Gentlemen' it would be too long for me to
write down what I think on this subject."
In consequence of this intimation from the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE, the Learned Counsel on both sides
conferred privately together.
The LORD CHIEF .Tosnce said, 4, 1 should have
no difficulty in telling you what I think should be
done ; and one thins I will say now—Mr. Drawbar
has conceived that if the Defendant were to acquit
the Plaintiff of what he has charged him with, it
would seem as if he admitted that he himself had
been guilty of perjury. In- my view of the thing, no
such consequence would follow. I think it is very
possible that each of these Gentlemen might swear
what he is supposed to have done, the bne that he
had made known his opinion, and the other that he
had not made what he calls a communication of hit
opinion, without being guilty of any thing like wilful
and corrupt perjury."
Mr. DAUNCEY observed to his Lordship, he had
stated that, and if he would just permit him for a mo-
ment—

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—.g Your charge is that of
wilful and corrupt perjury, as stated in the declara.
tion. Did nobody ask Mr. Williams, at the Sessions,
when the question arose, whether he was not awarc
what Mr. Beazley's opinion was ?"
Mr Serjeant SHEPHERD, and also Mr. DAUNCEY,
replied, that no such question had been put to Mr.
Williams, at the Sessions.
Loan CHIEF J usTica---,g Every body else knew it."
Mr. DAuNcEY.-" The question was not what Mr.
Williams knew, but what Mr. Beazley had commu-
nicated to him."

After some further consultatiOn among the Coun-
sel, Mr. DAUNCEY said, at I believe, on the part of
my friend the Learned Serjeant, I can now state that
to which he will accede on his part, and that which
will be sufficient on mine. Mr. Williams is ready to .-
dechre, he made this charge against Mr. Beazley,
the supposition that Mr. Beazley had intended to im-
pute to hint the same crime which he has now im.
puted to Mr. Beazley. He says he made the charge
on that supposition ; but as Mr. Beazley does not
mean to impute that to Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams,
by me, states, that if that had been at first so under-
stood by him, he would not have made it; and does
not now make it ; and, explained as it is now, he is
sorry be has made it."
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—" It is very proper to end
this cause in this way. I should have had some dif-
ficulty perhaps in telling you what my impression of
the matter was, if it had come to a conclusion. The
Jury would hardly have found that Mr. Beazley, in
what he had said, had committed wilful and corrupt
perjury, which, on the part of the Defendant, must
have been proved, and which, on the part of Bear-
ley, is positively denied. I think it is most probable,
that Mr. Beazley did not in words communicate it,
but it is clear from the evidence, it was as well known
then what me Beazley's opinion was, as it is now ;
and that Mr. Beazley should wilfully have commit-
ted perjury when he knew there were four or five per.
sons in Court ready to contradict him, is what one
can hardly believe ; and there was no interest which
could possibly induce him to take such an oath.—:
On the other hand, Williams, I suppose, was
very strongly impressed with what Mr.' Beazley
had sworn not being literally true, and therefore he
concludes he was guilty of perjury. Supposing the
fact to be that Mr. Beazley had not literally commu-
nicated kis opinion to Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams
might very naturally be under that impression. I
blame M'r. Williams for his intemperate behaviour '
when he met Mr. Beazley subsequently on another •
business. At the same time, Williams did not charge
him with this in any company except among. those
persons, all of whom knew what passed at the =w—
all of whom were present, except Hill, who was now a
4urveyor, and who, I dare say, knew it as well as the
rest ; and therefore he did not make this imputation
in public company, or in the company of strangers,
where it might be misunderstood. I do not think
that either of them have been guilty of any thing
that the law calls perjury, or that any thing that has
passed ought at all to aTect.their chara:ters."
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD.—" Mr. Beazley's object
is obtained by what your Lordship has now said."
LORD Collit JUSTICE.—" I suppose the Jury is. of
the same opinion."
The Jury declared they were perfectly of the same
opiaiots.