Star.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

./etvcs, -sl:r7 v.r.vr.r•r, TrX•l4

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ORONO/MO
VICICATAICCRLLOYCS COURT; DECRIIBIII u.
WPARTE SHAW, IN THE MATTER OE HOWARD
AND GIBBS.

Mr. Hoax e, for the Assignees, said, he was now
ready to pay the money into Court in' pursuance to
the order, relative to the messenger Bowen.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked if some deductions
were not claimed from the gross amount?
Mr. HORNE replied in the affirmative. . .
Mr. MONTAGUE expressed his desire to settle the
matter by a legal proceeding. He had no objection
that the money should be paid into Court, subject to
deductions under the present Commission.
The VICE-CMANCELLOR directed that the money
should be paid into Court. There would be no ob-
jection to an amount being taken as to the second
Commission.
Mr: Nonni; was desirous of referring the whole
matter to Mr. Cooke, to save legal expenses.
Mr. MoNmoon would not consent. He had many
reasons against it.
PRACTICE OP THE COURT.
The first of the bankrupt petitions having been
called on, " Ex parte Bird in the matter of Stanton,"
Mr. HORNE, the leading Counsel in the case, was novi
in Court. On a former day an application had been]
Wade to the Court to allow this petition to Stand,
first on the list. The Solicitor, on whose behalf the
application was made, was now called upon for his
affidavit, to shew that previous notice had been given
to the other side. It appeared, however, that no
such notice was given, until subsequent to the mo-
tion being made.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR wished every Solicitor to
understand, that he would entertain no motion to
advance any petition or cause, unless previous notice
of the intention to make that application were given
to the other side. If such notice were not served,
the application would be ex-parte, and directly con-
trary to the practice of the Court. In future he
should listen to no application to advance a. cause,
unless an affidavit were produced, shewing that such
previous notice had'been given.
COURT OF KINIYA BENCH, DECEMBER 23.
TUE RING.V. BAKER.
This was an indictment on the prosecution of Mr.
Alexander, a Gentleman of the Jewish persuasion,
well known as a frequent suitor in. Courts cif Justice,
for a nuisance. The ground of complaint was, that.
Mr. Baker had dug holes in a road called, or in-
tended to be called, Union-street, and adjoining to a
garden and premises of Mr. Alexander, at. Mile-End.
It appeared that the road in question was marked
out for a street, but not yet paved, nor were more
than two or three houses erected at its sides. A deed
was produced, be which the owner of the soil dedi-
cated the toad to the Public as a common highway,
and proof was given that there was an inception of the
exercise of the right hy the passage of carts and of
hearses to the burying-ground of the Jews.
Mr. CO.NIION SERJEANT submitted• that, on this
evidence, there was no 'ground for considering the
way as a public, road. The owner cif the. land had
declared an intention to dedicate it to the Public as
a street, hut until it became a street, and .was 2C.t
cepted by the Public, the dedication was conditional,
not absolute; but •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that he must hold
this way to be dedicated to the Public, who had al-.
ready begun to use it. If in the interval between the
declared intention to dedicate and its completion; any
one migl•t dig tip the soil, thea the road could .never.
become ht for the purposes for which it was intended:
The cause must therefore proceed.
The witnesses for the proseCutien represented the
defendant as having dug large boles, and greatly .de-
tertorated the road; but the sons and labourers of
the defendant,
.and one of the neighbours, described
the operations is consistinenaerely.in 'taking away
wet earth, and placing dry rubbish. in its r00m...
On this evidence, the case .simesoWt to the Jury,
who immediittely found the defienelont—Not
ruNwicu V. MONlTaille; . ' ' •

The plaintiff sought by this action .to recover of
Mr. Mortrarn, who was employed by Sir• William
Congreve to conduct the fire-worksin Hyde?ark, on
the evening of the Coronation, the sum of •4'.50, • for
the assistance which he rendered_ to him ott that oc-
casion... • The defendant paid .1.31. 10s. into. Court.•
It appeared that Mr. Fenwick was at work on the
spot from Monday morning till'Thursday, at an early
hour in the morning till late periods in the evening.
The materials for the fireworks were supplied .from
the Ordnance, and Mr. Mortram received.i.:6so-from
Government for arranging thetn. A witness named
John Cousins, who had formerly worked with the
defendant, was called to prose a• specific agreement
that the plaintiff should have £5O for. his labour. Ile
swore that Mr. Mortram, jun. entreated Mr. Fenwick
to assist, as " It was a good job, as all. Government.
jobs were," and finally consented to give 4:50 fir. his
services. Other witnessei described the plaintiff as
" an artist in fireworks," and gave their opinion that,
as he had to quit his business, £5O was a moderate
recompense. One of his witnesses, however, thought
two guineas a day would be an ample reward.
For the defendant, Mr. Mortram., jun. was called,
Who positively denied that there was the least four.!
dation for the contract alleged; and swore • that he
employed the plaintiff as a. common labourer. Mr.
Southby, the director of the fireworks at Vauxhall,
and Mr. Winterborn, swore that two guineas a day
was pay which they themselves would have been
happy to teceive.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to decide,
first, whether a contract was made for the payment
of 4:50 ? and if they disbelieved this, then whether
the sum paid into Court was not a sufficient compen-
sation for the plaintiff's exertions ?—TheJury im-
mediately found a verdict for the defendant.
FROLICH V. CRAWFORD.

This action was brought by a tailor, carrying on
business at ;sic). 50, Leicester-square, against Mr. Wi-
lliam Anderson Crawford, now a Lieutenant in India,
to recover a bill of £.38.105.6d. for clothes furnished
.to his order. The defendant pleaded a general issue,
and also that he was an infant at the time when the
debt was contracted. To this last the plaintiff re-
plied, that the goods were necessaries suited to the
defendant's estate, condition, and degree.
It appeared that the defendant, at the time when
he began to deal with the plaintiff, was a student at
Haileybury College, preparattgy 1,0 his removal to

,India, under the patroneeef the Company. He was
introduced by another @Makin. at the erlealPiEll, and
ordered goods which .weesesenwtAhiM in packages
at different periods. He after went into Devon-
shire, . where he pursued his-studies under the direc-
tion of a private tutor, arid had subsequently sailed
for India. In the interval between May and Sep-
tember. 1820, he was supplied with the articles which
formed the subject of the present claim, among which
were font coats, white breeches for hunting, and two
cloaks, one of which was directed to be sent to" Miss
Crawford, No.. Y, London-street," which is not the
residence of his father. He explained that this cloak
was for his sister, and that the place to which it was
sent was the house-of her nurse ; but it was.admitted
that, even if credit were given. to this statement, the
'item could not be recovered.of the brother.
Mr. ADAM; for. the defendant, commented on the
improprietg of suffering the plaintiff to run up a bill
of this kind, without making any inquiry into his
means, or into the manner in which he was supplied
with neces‘aries by his friends. He called Mr. Craw-
ford, the father, who stated that his son was only of
the age of sixteen years and a half, when he began
to contract this debt ; that before he went to Hert-
ford, he was supplied with clothes to the value of
£26 18s. 6d. while there, a. tailor's bill,. certified by
the tutor,. of £lB ss. 10d. was paid ; a further bill of
£l5 18s. M. swas paid to a tailor in London, and
ss. during the, residence of the young; man in De-
vonshire. Mr. Crawford- had no saspicion.that hia
son was incurring this debt, for which there was not
the slightest occa'sion.
The COMMOW SERJEANT, in reply, ttrged that a
defence of
.this nature was not very generous, when
the defeadanthad received the benefit-of the articles,
and had taken them with him to a lucrative situation
.n. the East : and that it would be very hard on
tradesmen,..who had no means of ascertaining that
suitable neceasaries were provided for customer,
apparently or the.sise of.manhood, if facts of which
they were entireit ignorant could be admitted to de-
feat their claims.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE reminded the Jury, that
the affirmative of the issue, that these goods were ne-
cessaries suitable to the estate, condition,- and degree.
of the defendant, lay on the plaintiff, to whose de.
mand infancy was a prima facie answer. It was• of
the highest importance that the protections with
which the law surrounded- minors against themselves
should'be preserved inviolate ; numerous and lament-
able were the instances in all ranks, except perhaps
the very highest and the very lowest, where the fatal
facility of credit tempted youth into extravagancies,
and engendered habits which caused their utter ruin.
The father, and the father only, was the fit judge of
Iwhat were necessaries for his son ; if the Jury, ad-
verting to the- supply aff,rrded. by Mi'. Crawford,
could say that any of these goods were necessary, they
would find for the plaintiff to the extent of their value;
if, as conscientious men, they were convinced that'
all of them were superfluous, they would then find
for the defendant..
The. Jury almost immediately found a verdict for
the defendant.
The LORD Cuter JIATICE said the verdict did.
them great credit, especially as some of them. Were;
no doubt in trade ; and he was glad that, notwith-r
standing that cil curnstapce, they. felt with him than
such a demand ought not to be supported.
CLA RIDGE i 4 CRAWFORD.
This was au actiow by a bootmaker in Bond-street;
against the same defendant. The CommoN -Stet-1
,LEANT Withdrew the !record. -
Here the Middlesex Sittings ended, the Court haire
ing:disposed of all the common and .Special.Jurj
causes in the paper. The.Loap ;cm*" JtrayscicoinJ,
pint-tented the 4,ux.y, in high terstir.i• on therrittud
ality ei , their attendance, ,aaci.anitithe ittftition ;end
intelligence they had ihewn- in•dare-diScharge oftheir
important duties. . . .
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEYIBP.R 21:
WILSON AND OTHERS V; FORBES. _ _ _

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages-fur an injury done to the plaintiff's brig the
Fame, by the defendant's smack the Superior, in
having ran foul of her while lying off the Nore, in
November, 1821.
Mr. Serjeant LENS stated the ease to the Jury. It
would appear, he observed, that the Tame,, a brig
of about 280 tons burden, on her way from.Shieldi
with a cargo of coals, came to anchor off the Nore„
in a part called the Swim. She was in about ten
fathoms water. At nine o'clock the Captain saw the
Supe, for (which- was a vessel much smaller than- the
Fame) pass him to' windward. He took no farther
-notice at that Lime.. In the course of the night he
was called on deck,• and_then saw the Superior drift- .
ing towards him with wind and tide, and without
the appearance of having any person on board.- This
was about one o'clock in the morning. The weather
' was clear at the time. When he first saw the smack
I she was about a mile distant. As she neared him,
he and his crew repeatedly called out to her to " look
out," but they received no answer. There was no
person on deck during the. time. The • Superior at
length-struck the Fitmeiby which the latter sustained
considerable injury: For that injury the present actiox
was. brought.- If,. as he was instructed, it shnuld be
proved that -the accident • was owing to the negli-
gence of those onboard the smack, then undoubtedly
her owners were liable for the amount of the da-
mage done.
Captain Stratford, the -master of the Fame, was
called and proved- these • facts. He had no doubt
that the accident might have been avoided, had the
crew of the smack attended to their duty as thiy.
ought. On his cross-examination he said, a ship,
might drift at sea, but it could not without the fact
being noticed by a careful witch. The weather was
-rather darkish, but not: cloudy. It did not blow
strong, though it was a little fresh. The Superior
hoisted her foresail, but not until'she was close on
board the Fame.
The evidence of the Captain was thus far corn?•
borated by that of some of his sailors. One of tkfm
added, that whertthe Superior struck,• one or two of
her crew ran up from the fore-hatchway, and cried
out " For GOD'S sake cut Tour cable." At the seine
moment some one cried out " Oh, what rascal thisi
the watch ?"—This was the plaintiff's caini • •
For the defendant, Mr. Serjeant Put, said be firits.
instructed to state that the real facts of the catehom
a very different -completion fret that ariieh ad
becu given to it by the witnesses for the plaintiff. fin

• .
e. e •.',
shoal tie able it; stew. igai the inSAct
every exertion to .avoitl bitiy,4,24=ei acci•
dent eirentually wai. Whit
_tti men offer
which her crew had * frcittl,--natiday, that the
tide had set strongly► in in that direction, thati it Vas
blowing hard, and that the night was so dark, that
it was impossible to see any-object' a mile, or even a
quarter of a mile a-head. If he should prove these
facts, he was satisfied that his client Would be eati•
tied to the verdict of the Jury.• -
Mr. Duncan, the miter of the Superior, said that
on the night in qw.stion, he was called up by the
watch on deck. When he came on deck, .the smack
was just on board the brig. He saw the foresail'
partly hoisted. - He would not have hOisted it had
he been on deck, as it would only increase the force
of the shock. lie asked What stupid rascal has
done this?" He was .ans;vered, that it was done- at
the desire of the persons in the brig. The accident
could not have been avoided ,by any exertion on the
part of the smack's crew. The night was dark, and
it was blowing very fresh. If the Fame had cut or
slacked her cable, the smack would have clearedher
without injury,
Several of Captain Duncan's crew were called,
who corroborated the main facts of his testimony.
They were all positive as to the watch being on the
deck of the smack, of the darkness of the night, and
of blowing fresh. In answer to a question from n
Juror, one of the witnesses said that if the brig. had
sheered her helm as she ought to have done as the
smack was drifting ton-ards her, the shock might
have been avoided. She did not sheer her helm.

This was *the defenda'nt's cam.
Mr. Serjeant' ens, fot theplaintiff, now propbsed
calling another witness, to contradict the fact sworn
to, respecting the sheering of the helm.
Mr. Serjeant Pect. objected. The plaintiff had'
closed his case, and he submitted that the plan pro-
posed would besopening a new one.
Mr. Serjeant Less contended, that he had a clear
right to call a witness, to explain' what had been
given under circumstances where, properly, go cross-
examination could be urged (examination by a Juror).
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS fields that the witness
might be called, and the'question put.
r. Serjeant VatlettAN said, perhaps it would be
as well to have the witness recalled, and 'the Jury
allowed to gain explanation by an examination of
their own. •
Serjeant Pem., with some warmth, objected to
this mode of proceeding ; to which, in an emphatic
manner, he applied the word " insidious."
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN (with warmth).—" I deny
that my conduct is insidious, and I will hot allow any
man here or elsewhere to tell me so."
Mr. Seijeant PELL seethed about to reply to this,
When—

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS interposed. " I lament
(observed his Lordship), I grievously lament those
interruptions to the business of the Court by ebulli-
tions of temper, which to me are extremely painful,
because they are little calculated to rake the charac-
ter of the profession in the eyes of the Public. Speak-
ing for myself personally, I must deplore the occur:
rence of such scenes, because my long acquaintance
and connexion with the Bar, and the necessary esteem,
and I may say affection, which I bear towards 'my
brethren in the profession, have always restrained me
from interposing the authority of the Court. It has
indeed been said to me on some occasions,' Why not
interpose that authority ?' My answer is, that it is
not in my nature to do so. I am restrained by those
feelings to which I have just alluded. My anxious
and earnest desire is uniformly rather to still those
angry waves, than to oppose myself to their force.—
My great wish is at all times to secure hatniony be-
tween the members of the profession, and to promote
it by every means in my power."
The witness was now recalled, and was examined
as to the sheering of the brig's helm, when the smack
was coming down on her, but -nothing of any import •
anee was elicited from him.
Serjeant PELL now asserted his right to reply
to this new evidence, which he said he had availed
himself of with the greater pleasure, as it afforded
him an opportunity of saying a few words upon a
matter personal to himself. He would challenge any
man to assert whether a case could have been con-
ducted with better temper than he had conducted
this case, until an Attempt was made to take what
he considered to bean unfair advantage of his client?
To the decision of the Court, in allowing the ques-
tion to be put, he had bowed, as lie always should,
with great deference; but he did expect that when
the question was put, it would have been fairly, and
in the usual way; instead of which, it was suggested.
that the examination should come from.the Jury.—
.He felt such a proposition to,be, insidious, and had so
termed it, because it went to place him, 'in any cross-
eramination of that evidence, upon uneven terms
with the Jury ; that object being denied, he felt
bound, as a Gentleman, to alter his first impression,
which he. now candidly did. He hoped it was not
his practice to conduct his case with any warmth un-
becoming the zeal which an advocate naturally had
for the interest of his client. The Learned Serjcant
then contended, that the, new evidence, if, such it
could be called, let in by the re-eiaminatitm, did
not in the slightest degree diminish the defenclant'S
right to a verdict.
Mr. Serjeant Leas replied to the whole case. In
reference to what had just occurred, he would say no
more (riot being personally concerned) than to ex-
press his deep regret at the occurrence of any matter
whicb called for personal explanation.
The Lon; ChtISS JUSTICE summed up, and left it
. to the Jury to weigh the merits .of the very conflict-
, ing evidence which they had heard on both sides.
With respect to what had fallen from him a few
minutes before, on the subject of the introduction of
personal feelings into a cause, he should sincerely
regret if any one word whiCh en escaped him, was
calculated to wound, however slightly, the feelhigs
of. any gentleman at the bar. 412 e were conscious
of having used any such words, he would frankly,
and without hesitation, avow, it. It might happen
,to a Counsel at the bar, to err, and knowingly con-
tinue in that error, from an adherence to the false
notions of the world which might be supposed to'
~warrant his not making a full, and imniecliate expla-
nation. With I Judge, .boweyer. the case was very
:.diiferents situated as be wets, .nothing ought to pea-
sant him from giritsg Fullest explanation when
that waS.Salled • epcson Of his *mats.
Having skid this, be w id that hi did.iiefeet,

hianetr algoirspdtte otipleranythhorehich be had
before said, further than to remark, that his oh%er.
nations werrnot meant to apply to one gentleman at
the bar more then another.
Thd Jury retired, and after an absence from Court
-df neaily an hour, returneJ with a, verdict for the
defehdant.

Saturday After:km an Inquisiiion was held at the
General Penitentiaty, Millbank, on the bodrof Mary
Btenton, a convict confined there: she was received
Orr the 20th May, 1821 • she was then stated to be
24 years of age; and in good health: Mr. John Pratt,
Surgeon to the establishment, deposed; that the de-
ceased *As removed, in consequence of her being
unwell, to the Infirmary, on the Eth instant ; she
then complained of pain and spasms in her stomach,:
for which he administered medicine. Friday morning'
she expired. Verdict—Died by the viiitation of Gr 4.
Yesterday an Inquest was held at St. Thomas's,
Hospital, •on the body of T. Ca'tnons, a porter, whc,
on Saturday night, while carrying a'chest of orange,;
of 3 cwt. into a"cellar, on Fish-street-hill, fell, wilen
his head came with great violence on the edge of a
stair, and his burden fell on his stomach. He was
carried on a shutter to the Hospital, where he diel
Verdict—Ai:ride/dal Death.

Stint!ly evening, when the undertaker was making
preparations for the funeral of an Irishman, in Carter-
street, Tooley-street, the fiboring gave way, and the
corpse, together with an immense number of people
who were assembled as usual on such occasions, were
tumbled, heels over head into the cellar. Providen-
tially, however, a few broken heads and scatitied
shins were the IVOrst result.