Star.
London, England, 1812-02-19 00:00:00

TOVEY v PALMER.

This was an information, on the statute of the sth
of Elizabeth, to recover the penalties of the Act from
the defendant, he having employed a person, named
Delahay, to work as a plasterer, he not having served
a regular apprenticeship. The plaintiff having closed
his case,
Mr. GAZELEY took an objection in point of law,
namely, that the plaintiff had left his case imperfect,
lie not having proved Delahay had worked a single
hour in the county of Middlcs.:X, in which county the
record stated the offence to have been committed.—

He was confident, that the plaintiff having closed
bii case, his Lordship would not permit him au ac-
tion, brought under this particular statute, to mend
bis case alter having once closed it.
Mr. CAnnow—,, Will not your Lordship ask De-

lahay where he did work ?"
Lord ELLENBonouott—s, Indeed I will not ; under
this statute, I will take a case as it is presented to
me ; but I will do nothing to mend it. Plaintiff must
be called."—Plaintiff nonsuited.
. In the case moved by Mr. GARROW against an At-
torney of the Court, of the name of Iles, for arrest-
ing a foreign seaman as soon as he came into this
country, and refusing to give up the name of the
plaintiff, when applied to, the Rule was made abso-
lute for him to return the money extorted from the
• seaman, and to answer the matters of the affidavit.
In the matter of the Mandamus moved by Mr.
RICHARDSON, to be directed to the Mayor at Stock-
ton-upon-Tees, to swear in a Mr. Dickson, who was
slledged to be duly, chosen Mayor. After hearing
the affidavits produced in auswer, the Rule was dit-
gLarged.

raptey, and had improperly disposed of her goods,
be, both in point of law and justice, became answer-
able to the creditors.
Miss Hicks was then examined, and deposed to the
effect above stated.

Mr. Serjeant SREPII2IID, for the defendant, argued,
that the goods had not in truth come into his posses-
sion. Ho had merely acted as the agent of the
bankrupt, had derived no advantage, and had, at all
times, expressed his readiness to pay over such money
as he had in his possession for the benefit of the cre-
ditors. He further stated, that the goods had only,
sold 'for ie97.—igll.of which was paid for rent.—
, The remaining sum was received -by defendant, £44
of which he gave the bankrupt, to answer her tem-
porary occasions, and the balance he was ready to
pay into Court.
Several witnesses were called in support of this
defence ; after which Serjeant Lens replied.
Sir J. MANSFIELD then addressed the Jury, who
retired, and, after an absence of 15 minutes, return-
ed with a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages £233.

LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, FEB. 17.
ASSAULT I THE ROYAL EXcIIANGE.--TIIE KING v•

GUTHRY.

This was an indictment for an assault committed
by the defendant, a respectable merchant, against
the prosecutor, also a respectable merchant, a Mr.
Campbell.
The assault was committed in the Royal Exchange,
about the hour of two o'clock, where the parties met, I
and the provocation causing the assault was renewed i
by Mr. Campbell ; upon which the defendant struck
him on the face, and said he should strike him again,
if he repeated the offensive expressions, which were
repeated, and the prosecutor was again struck pub-
licly by the defendant. The words of provocation
were—that the defendant had given false evidence, !
on a certain trial in the Court of King's Bench, in a
cause in which' the prosecutor was a party, and the
defendant a witness, by which false evidence thee pro. I
secutor had lost a sum of three hundred and two
pounds, part of the matter of the suit.. In the very i
Court, after the trial, the prosecutor charged the de-
fendant with perjury, and propagated the charge, till
the parties met at the Royal Exchange, where, for
repeating it, the assault was committed.
. Mr. BOLAND, for the prosecution, contended, that
no provocation could justify this assault ; and
Mr. KNAPP, for the defendant, contended, that *the
provocation was a complete justification in this case.
The RECORDER charged the Jury impartially, laying
• down the law as clearly for the prosecutor ; but re-
Iprobated the gross and insufferable defamatioa
uttered by the prosecutor, which was
~ above the power
iof human nature to endure. He cited an instance of
an eminent person sent for two months to prison, for
a smilar offence, by striking in the Royal Ex-
change ; so much deference was paid to the plice ;
' but although he was forced to state the law to the
! Jury strictly, yet, after their verdict, the Bench would
act with the feelings of men in the admeasurement of
! punishment.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, barely of an
assault ; and the RECORDER, expressing his abhor-
rence of the prosecutor's conduct, sentenced the de-
fendant to pay a fine of Is. and to be discharged.
Four young vagabonds, suspected thieves and pick-
pockets, were sentenced to six months imprisonment.