Star.
London, England, 1830-10-23 00:00:00

DAWSON V. IIOWDEX.

'fins ration was brought to recover an account for shoeing the horses
of the defendant, a coach and omnibus proprietor.
A set off was pleaded, and money paid into Court. After the cause
nail occupied several hours, the plaintiff obtained a verdict, with Is.
damages.
At the rising of the Court, a person among the auditory addressed the
.1.1,1ge, expressing a desire to know why he was denied justice?
Lord TENTERDEN, no doubt, suspecting the applicant to he pion
tocti.ot:, said, " I do not sit here to answer questions."
person then complained of injustice on the part of the Duke of
Northumberland, relating to some estate in the cuuoty of Surrey, but
•eased his appeal on observing his Lordship leaving the Court.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OcT. 22.

vI.ARIK AND TAYLOR V. LIPSCOMB, COZENS, AND 'WIDEN.
Mr. Sergeant rattily appeared as Counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
orge:int Wild !or Messrs. Lipscomb and Cozens, and Mr. Sergeant
.tuner for Mrs. Fintlen. _ . _

This was a 3 action brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of the
won et 2011. from the defendant.,. being the value of a freight of coals
shipped on board the Finden, by them, from North Shields. It ape 1
prated by the evidence produced, that a person of the name of Busher,
who had induced the defendants and others to become copartners with
him in the ship Findcn, that he was appointed acting partner, and in
that capacity speculated in ci•als, and ultimately became a bank-
rupt. The Counsel the the plaintiff endeavoured to thew that
the defendants were liable for the freight of coals in question.
But as it could not be proved in evidence that the defendants had any
cognizance whatever of the speculations of Busher ; and as it appeare
in all probability, that the plaintiffs had entrusted him on his former
credit, as a merchant, and that they (the plaintiffs) had no knowledge
of the defembints as copartners in the transactions, it was laid down by
his Lordship that, although the defendants had received their several
shares of the profits of the vessels in question, they were not liable
to the creditors of Busher, who had speculated without their know.
ledge or authority.
The Jury concurred with his Lordship, and found a verdict for the
defendants.

MAYOR'S COURT.

rMt FMEN ♦NP VOM-FIIFE3IEN.-..711E CIIAMBiIiLAIS OF LOX

DON V. RICKIRS.

This action was set down to be tried on a former day, and when it
was called on, Mr. Bu LTA:tett, on the part of the defendant, objected to
tt•it jury as incompetent to try the issue, as a portion of the penalty
sought to be recovered was for the benefit of the corporation of the city,
aria the jury were freemen of London. and consequently Interested in
the decision. He cited a case, " Hesketh r. Braddock," :Id Burrows,
tvl7. as an authority to show that the view he took of the subject
was correct. Under these circumstances, the trial was postponed, and
the list sitting the Recorder directed that the point should be argued.
The same objection that has been stated above was takes in the year
fin. A case, " Richardson v. the Chamberlain of London," came on
to be tried Mitre Sir J. W. Rose, the then Recorder, wherein Sir John
Silvester, the then Common Serjeant, was counsel for the plaintiff; and
Mr. 3larryat was counsel for the defendant ; and on that occasion Mr.
Marryat objected to the serjeant at mace as the summoning officer, and
also to the jury, but the Recorder orer.ruled both objections; the jury
jrcceedetl, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict, which was never at-
te.tiptcd to be disturbed.
Mr. Br LLOCK pursued a similar course on the present occasion. He
challenged the array upon the ground that the jury had been summoned
by 4n officer who was a freeman, and he objected to the poll because
racy were all freemen. He represented that the question of the eligi-
bility of freemen as jurors in a case in which their own interests were,
however slightly, Ms olved, was becoming daily matter of greater interest,
and ttfat the proof that individuals under other circumstances had the
most remote interest in a question was an effectual bar to their
testimony.
Mr. MIREHOUST rose to argue in favour of the principle that free.
teen were eligible as jurors, and that the participation in the produce of
p.r alty, of which their share could not ?cub half a farthing a-piece,
coal.: be no bar ; but
The RECORDER said that if the objection raised could be deemed
valid, it was not likely that those actions would have continued to be
sustained under every successive recorder from the reign of James I. to
the present retied ; and if it should now be held out that this action
could not be tried, it must have the effect of preventing any other action
from being brought upon this act of Common Council, as the Court
had no power to award a jury of non-freemen. His Lordship then pro-
nounced the Jury of freemen to be a competent jury.