Star.
London, England, 1809-02-24 00:00:00

Mr. Fortnum, who was riding with the last:witacss, confirmed
his testimony in every respect.
hie. COMMON SE itJ EA NT, for tl c DefendatitTO the pro-.
vocation which the Prosecutor's denial, that the /efenclint Was
an Officer and a Gentleman,. gave; and that the Defendant had
since offcred to make a compensation to the. Prosecutor, that an
umpire, chosen by the Prosecutor himself, should require.
Lord ELT.F.Nsoßol;cat, on summing up the case to the Jury,
made some very just observations upon the very strange conduct
of the Defendant, who, he said, was right in thinking that he
ought not to be mistaken for a Cockney riding for a Sunday air-
ing. •1'h:: good Citizens of London, upon such occasions, com-
ported themselves with propriety and decorum, and did not vic
late the peace by insulting and beating the rest of his Majesty's
subjects.
The Jury found the Defendant guilty,, and he will be brought
up to receive his sentence next term.
SEALE qui tam o. GZALL.
This was an action brought on the statute sth Eliz. chap. 4.
sect. 31, to try whether a person who carries on the business or
occupation of a sawyer, may employ a man therein as t journey-
man who has not exercised that occupation seven years. It is a
question of very great importance to the Public, as the master of
almost every trade is subject to the penalties of the Act. It ap-
peared from the statement of Counsel, and the evidence given,
that the defendant was a sawyer, and had entered into an agree-
ment with a person of the name of Dean, to learn him the art
and mystery of his business, and to find him employment there-
in for six months, and to pay him (Dean), £1 per week, for so
long time as he should remain its the defendant's service. Dean,
in consideration of being so taught the trade, agreed to pay the
defendant 51. The statute of 5 Elie. chap. 4, sect. 31, expressly
enacts, " That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to
set up, occupy, use, or exercise, any craft, mystery, or occu-
pation, then used or occupied within the realm of England or
Wales, except he shall have been brought up therein seven years
at the least as an apprentice; nor to Jet any person on work in such
mystery, art, or occupation, except he skill have been an apprentice
as aforesaid." It was clearly proved on a reference to the Act by
Lord Ellenborough, that a sawyer was within the meaning of the
statute, it being expressly named in the .30th section, among
other trades.
In was contended, on the part of the defendant, that the agree-
ment entered into between Dean and him was a sufficient appren-
ticeship within the meaning of the Act ' • but it appearing to be
unstamped, could not be received in evidence, and even if it
could, Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that it was not a suffi-
cient apprenticeship to entitle him to work at the business, as the
statute says, it must be a servitude for seven years. This, how-
ever his Lordship left for the Jury to determine, who found a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 40$. for every month Dean
had been employed, which is the penalty inflicted by the Act.
THE KING V. DOGHERTY, ESQ.
This was an indictment for a libel upon Thomas Hunter, Esq.
formerly called Home, the defendant's father-in-law. The libel
set forth a series of family differenc,s, and imputed to the pro-
steator a variety of harsh proceedings and cruelty of conduct, un-
warranted by fact. The defendant offered no justification or de-
fence, and he was found Guilty.
FUItNELL V. HALL. •
Tlis was an action to recover back from the Parish Officers of
the Parish of St. James, Wesminster, the sum of .C4O, paid by
the plaintiff, who is a tallow-chandler in Carnaby-street, as a full
Indemnity to the parish for the care and maintenance of a bastard
child, sworn to him by a female, named Sarah Bass. It so hap-
pened that the infant died soon after the birth, and the parish
had been put to no More than 41. expellee, the action was there-
fore to get back the £4O, deducting the £4, which it had been
recently ruled the parish were not entitled to keep. Lord EL-
LEN BoaoucH concurred in the propriety of the action and in the
law laid down, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict.