Star.
London, England, 1831-06-18 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JOIE 17.
TIMEX V. DEAN AND ANOTNIft.

The plaintiff, a lithographic Printc;,l;rouiht this action
to recover 501. the penalty attached to a breach of agreement
which he had entered into with Dean and Monday, print-
sellers and Publishers, in Threadneedle-street.
The Attorney.Oeneral and Mr. Campbell were Cononll
for the Scarlet; with Mr. J. Williams, were
for the defendants.

It appeared that the plaintiff had agreed to work for the
defendants u a lithographic printer, at the rete of 11. 12s.
per week, for three years. Three shillings per week in ad.
dition were to be paid after the first year. 11 breach of the
agreement made either party subject to a penalty 601. The
plaintiff, after working some time, was discharged, and in
this instance he sought to recover the above penalty.
The defence to the action was—that the plaintiff bad re-
peatedly absented himself from his work, to the injury of
the defendants, and disappointment of their customers. He
was told that such absence would render him liable to the
penalty for breach of agreement, but the notice produced no
good effect, and therefore they discharged him.
After several witnesses had been examined, the jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Datusges, 601.
Juies 16.

PIGEON SHOUTING.
THE KING V. MOORE.

This was an indictment for a public nuisance.
Mr. GOMM! stated, that the defendant was a well.
known gun.maker in Bond-street. He had a factory and
two fields near Notting.hill, on the North side of the Hz-
bridge-road. One of the fields was used for shooting pi.
geons.
Mr. Prague, the owner of several houses in the vicinity
of the defendant's premises, deposed that the defendant came
there about three years ago. The houses in the neighbour.
hood were vey respectable, and nearly all occupied before
the defendant came to reside there. The defendant put op
aboard, on which was written, " Pigeon-shooting Grounds
guns, birds, and rifles, always ready." Had seen
pigeon-shooting from six o'clock in the morning tilldark.
There was alto rifle-shooting.
Cross-examined.—lt was the wish of the whole neigh.
bourhood that this prosecution should take place.
Several other witnesses proved the use toe the proseendon.
Mr. JOY then contended that pigeon-shooting was not per
ae a nuisance, although persons over whom the defendant
had no controul might occasion a nuisance.
Lord Tzwrxanxw intimated that he should tell the
Jury that although a man might carry on a business. not
in itself a nuisance, yet if it had the tff. et of drawing round
Ms premises persons who bemuse a nuisance to his neigh-
bours, he was the occasion of such nuisance. _

A consultation then took place between the Counsel on
both sides. Mr. Joy declined, calling witnesses, and it was
arranged that the defendant should submit to a verdict of
guilty upon four counts of the indictment, subject to the
opinion of the Court, whether the shooting, which had taken
place upon his own ground, was in law a nuisance.
The Jury, under the direction of Lord Tentenien, accord-
ingly found the defendant guilty.
His Lordship then said—Will you undertake to have no
pigeon shooting before next term ?
-Mr. Joy said tbty would endeavour to stop It.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Joxz 17.
HIM V. LAMM.
_

This case having been specially appointed for this morn-
ing, the Court was crow/4W at an catly hour by persons
anxious to hear it. It was an action brought by the Hon.
Member for Preston againm the Times Newspaper for libel.
Before the sitting of the Court, however, the record was
withdrawn, and the crowds in attendance were therefore
destined to experience a disappointment in the non-hearing
of the case.