Star.
London, England, 1822-10-31 00:00:00

ALEXANDER V. M'OOWAN.

This was an action of dettnue, to recover a quan-
tity of Hebrew printing types, plates, and manuscripts.
The plaintiff, a Hebrew printer, had had a fire
some time since is his house, from which were saved
the property in question; and being desirous of re-
moving it to a place where he could carry on a work
then in progress, namely, a Hebrew and English
stereotype edition of the Old Testament, he entered
into an agreement for that purpose with the defend-
ant, a printer in Windmill-street, to whose house the
materials were removed, and he proceeded with the
work. After it had gone on some time, the plaintiff
sent a demand in writing requiring the defendant to
deliver up the property, there being then some mom,'
due to the latter for the work he done. It was
alleged that the defendant had refused to deliver the
work until his account was paid; and hence the pre-
sent action, in which, besides the materials them-
selves, the plaintiff sought a compensation in damages
for the injury he had sustained in consequence of his
being unable to c ompletethework h e had contemplated.
In defence, it was urged, first, that the defendant's
demand did not include the plates mentioned in the
declaration; second, that the plaintiff had abandoned
the idea of publishing a Hebrew and English stereo-
typed edition of the Old Testament, long before the
demand in question; and third, that in point of face
the defendant had not refused to deliver the Hebrew
types (which was now the main point of contest); but
had offered to give them up if the plaintiff would
send and separate them from some types of his own,
with which they had been intermixed in the progress
of working, the defendant himself not being able to
distinguish the plaintiff's from his own, but the plain-
tiff had refused to do this.—Witnesses were called to
sustain the latter grounds of defence.
The case went to the Jury, under the directions of
the Learned Judge, and they found their verdict for
the defendant.

MEILEN V. SMITH.
This was an action by one Mark-lane corn dealer
against another, :o recover 981. 12s. 3d. being, the
amount of a parcel of corn alleged to have been sold
by the plaintiff to the defendant.
There was contradictory evidence on the one side
and on the other. The witnesses for the plaintiff
proved that.the cern was sold to the defendant, and
that the sale as well as the davery notes were made
out in his name, whilst those for the defendant swore
that he was only guarantee for a person named Ward,
who had keen -a bankrupt, and that the corn was, in
fact, sold.ticthe latter,'Oough his name was not used
in the transaction.
The case went to the Jury upon the issue to whom
the corn was sold, and they found their verdict for
the plaintiff for the whole sum sought to be recovered.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCTOBER zo.

ROBINSON, ASSIGNEE OF HAWLEY, A BANKRUPT

V. GRAY.

Mr. Serjeant PELL stated the case to the Jury.—
This was an action to recover the sum of 400/. ;s:,ich
the defendant had received from the bankrupt to the
prejudice of his estate, there being no account of the
money in his books. The defence relied on was, that
the whole was a bona fide transaction, that the money
had been lent to the bankrupt about fifteen months
before his bankruptcy, and that at the time of the
loan the bankrupt engaged to repay it at the end of
the year. The repayment had been made without
any memorandum of the year having been entered
in the bankrupt's books, and this naturally exciting
the suspicion of the creditors, they had caused the
defendant to be examined before the Commissioners,
when she so grossly prevaricated that they made out
a warrant for her commitment to Newgate. Finally,'
however, she gave such an account that the creditors
felt very little doubt that the money had been frau-
dulently received by the defendant under the name
of repayment of a loan, in order to secure it for the
defendant after he had obtained his certificate. The
only papers in which this loan was mentioned, was
in the schedule given in by Hawley when about to
take the benefit of the Insolvent Act ; and in a little
memorandum-book which be had not given up to his
creditors under the Comthission, but which had been
produced to support this case for the defendant when
it was previously tried in this Court.
The examination of the defendant under Hawley's
commission was read, in which she made a variety of
statements in order to account for the possession of
such a sum of money without it being mentioned in
her father's will. _

Mr. Mouchett, a broker, proved that he had sold
out property for Mrs. Gray, but never for her daugh-
ter, and that he was not aware Gray, her father, pos-
sessed any more stock than that mentioned in the
will, and which the witness had been employed to sell
out for Mrs. Gray.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, said he
had never felt more anxiety than he did on this ex-
traordinary case. He begged the Jury to remember
that first principle of English law, that when a party
came into Court to claim a sum of money,, he should
produce such satisfactory evidence that be should
hardly leave a loop hole on which to hang a doubt.
It bad been said that the young woman, the defend•
ant, had given such an account before the Commis-
sioners, that not the slightest credit could be given to
it. If this were true, then he mast say, the plaintiff
had no case, and *as completely out of Court ; for
if everything she said was false, there was no proof
whatever that the money had passed between her and

.• . •
Hawley. The question to be tried, was not by what
sews she acquired this money bet whether she
really had possessed it, and had lent it to the bank-.
irupt ? It had been attempted to be shewn, that the
defendant's father had not the money. It was clear,
however, that if this transaction hadbeen a fraud, the
defendant would not have readily consented to place
the money in the hands of a third person, in order to
abide the event of a suit. The Learned Serjeant con-
cluded/by observing, that the defendant would,entitle
herself to a verdict by producing persons whose tes-
timony could not be impeached, and who- would
prove that Mr. Gray had possessed considerable pro-
perty, and that he always expressed his intention of
leaving his property to his daughter.
Jane Hawley, the wife of the bankrupt, proved that
she had known the defendants father many years,
and the defendant since she was a child. In 1819
witness's husband was pressed for money, in conse- ,
quence of having been obliged to pay A large sum of
money to a bankrupt's estate. Witness asked the de-
fendant to lend her 4001. and defendant said she would
consider of it. In a few days she called at witness's
house, and said she would lend Hawley the money if
nothing was said about it. She lent the money, and
in June, 1820, the money was repaid, together with
51. as an acknowledgment for the defendant's kind-
cness. Witness counted the money when it was lent,
and is sure the sum was 4001. No memorandum
passed between the parties when the money waslent;
witness repaid it in her husband's presence.
Cross-examined—Her husband was an uncertificated
bankrupt. Witness had never represented herself to
plaintiff's attorney as Mrs. Gray. Witness asked for
a receipt upon repaying the money, and the defend-
ant gave it.
Re-examined—She never represented herself as
Mrs. Gray, but had a receipt in her pocket given by
the plaintiff's attorney for some business he had trans-
acted for her husband. Witness produced the receipt,
which was in the name of Mrs. Hawley.
George Hawley, the bankrupt, was then examined,
and supported by his evidence the testimony of his
wife. On his cross-examination he said, he had not
given up the private memorandum-book in which
this payment was entered, because his Attorney told
him it was needless : he did not keep an account at
a banker's.
John Hams, brother to the defendant's father, said,
Gray told him, about seven weeks before his death,
that he should leave his wife and daughter nearly
four hundred pounds.
Other evidence was given as to Gray's property.
Witnesses were also called to prove that Gray had
said he would give his daughter a few hundreds un-
known to her relatives.
'The case for the defendant having closed,
Templar, the plaintiff's Attorney, was called
to contradict Mrs. Hawley, as to her having repre-
sented herself as Mrs. Gray. The witness stated that
the receipt had been altered, for he had originally
written Gray, believing Mrs. Hawley4o be Mrs. Gray,
Mrs. Hawley having represented herself as that lady.
Mr. SerjeautVAuGHAN replied to this evidence, and
Mr. Serjeant PELL to the whole of the case.
After which, Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed
up the evidence.
The Jury retired about half an hour, and then re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £4OO.
The case occupied the Court from ten in the morn-
ing until half-past five.
01.1) BAILEY, OCTOBER 30.
Thomas Fearby, John Curry, William Leicester, Wil-
liam Whitton, and Samuel Raven, all genteelly-dressed
men, were capitally indicted for stealing in the dwel-
ling-house of James Curtis, the White Bear at Houn-
slow, 16 sovereigns, four 5/. notes, and other property.
Mr. Curtis deposed, that on the 18th of September
Fearby and Whitton came to his house about half-
past eight in the evening : while there they conversed
with him about Egham Races. The other prisoners
at the bar came in afterwards. There was also a
sixth person, whom they called White. Their gig-
horses were all in harness outside the door. The
party were in a parlour together. The family were
in the bar. There is a passage leading from the par-
lour to the bar. One of the party desired the door
to be left ajar. The staircase comes into the passage
leading to the parlour, and that passage leads also to
the garden. One of the party went into the garden.
ahe party stopped an hour, and went away together.
Fearby and Whitton were the last in the house. In
ten minutes after, it was discovered that the bed-
room door and the bureau had been forced open, and
the papers it contained strewed about the bed, in
which one of the witness's children was asleep. Four
or five boxes were broken open, and some silver
spoons, two snuff-boxes, three watches, seven rings,
nine brooches, a pair of ear-rings, one gold pin, 16
sovereigns, four li. notes, half a guinea, and other.
articles, in all to the amount of 1001. were taken
away. Witness sent his wife for an officer, who ac-
companied himself and his hostler„and two other
men, in pursuit of :he robbers. When they reached
Kensington, they found three of the prisoners at the
Marquis of Granby public-house, and the other two
at the Palace-gate. Leicester, Fearby, Whitton, and
White, were in the public-house, and the other two
were taken in a gig. There was no other person on
the same side of the house. Witness has regained
three of the a notes through the Bank of England.
I Cross-examined—There were several persons in the
tap-room who could get in the parlour by the passage
at. the foot of the stalls. There is no other staircase
leading to the bed-room than that coming into the
passage leading into the parlour; the door leading to
the street is opposite to the staircase, distant R. few
yards. Any person might see it from the street. •• .
Mary Curtis, wife of the preceding witness, con-
firmed the above testimony, and added that, about'
five minutes before they came in she had been to lies
bedroom to see her child. She went to the box con-
taining her ptoperty, found it all safe, locked the box
and put the key in her pocket.
James Hampton, ostler to the prosecutor, confirmed
the greater part of the above testimony.
Mary Simpson Is a servant to Mr. Curtis. Remem-
bers the party coming into the house on the night in
question. After the robbery she went to the wag-
goners' room, some of whom bad lodged there 15
. _