Star.
London, England, 1809-06-24 00:00:00

'-•' a N..,;,' •.- .-Z 1,4 ..4 - • •4
- - • .•
d 4 he 114 clislol AMU butAiit‘ffaterhottse would
—"I the P *or ta go. next night, without paying
ITT thing rhor4 than he had already done ; &it this
Mr. WaterhotiailioUld-not agree to, which viailthe'
a -..-.
cause of the present action.-
Tie next witness was one Decock, the Clerk to
Mr. Waterhouse, who said that he was present when
Admiral Graves engaged four inside places, and one
outside, in the Exeter coach ; that the coach was to
pull up at Charing-cross, but that no number was
Mentioned ; that his master stated it as unusual, but
as the Admiral's lodgings lay in the way, he would-
make the coachman pull up at Charing-cross, when
the witness understood the Admiral was to have some
bne looking out for the coach. He proved the pay-
ment of the coach-fare, and admitted that he had
kept the book open, but denied having ever said that
the neglect was owing to Mr. Waterhouse going out
of town.
The coachman was then called, who swore that he
received his written direction from young Mr. Water-
house to pull, up at Charing-cross, which he of course
understood to mean. the Golden-cross, Charing-cross;
that hemade a great noise to know if there were any
passengers there, but the waiter told him there were
pone. He shewed the waiterhis direction, but finding
nobody of the name of Graves there, he drove away
..to the Gloucester Coffee-house, after waiting at least
ten minutes at the Golden-cross. At the Gloucester
Coffee-house he again enquired for his expected pas,
sengers,' but being there equally unsuccessful, he
!drove off empty, except one.outside passenger, which
he wasentitted to. : -
Lord Ematusottonan summed up the evidence, and
particularly dwelt on the testimony of Mr. Child,
whom he represented as more likely to remember the
minPtc.circßinatances and wards that passed between
the plinititf and the defendant, thanAlcock the clerk,
seeinghe had gene with the express view of hearing
what the defendant had to say ;,that, if Mr. Water.
houie did resist the Admiral's going for the money
'he bad already paid, or refused to return the fare, an
action might be immediately brought against the des'
feridant. . - ~..,•
The Jury then tatiid. a verdict for the Plaintiff for
the sum of £2l 10s. 6d.
INCEENSON V. PARIS.
. .
This was an action to recover R 6 for the expences
incurred by the Plaintiff in going to Chatham and
Sheerness, in order to effectuate the release of the
son of the Defendant, who had been impressed; and
was on beard a ship. The. Defendant's son being
.impressed, the Plaintiff -had procured two persons to
be received at the. Admiralty in his stead, and a dis-
charge to be granted by the Board of AdMiralty in
his behalf, for which he was paid 16 gnineas a head,
and it appeared that he had been a crimp and regu-
lar dealer in that way.
For the Defendant it was shewn, that upon such
an occasion all that was actually necessary to *be
done, was, to procure a letter from the Admiralty to
the Port Admiral, and that then the seaman would
be immediately discharged. This the Plaintiff mast
have known. . .
Lord ELLnNBOROUGH summed up the evidence,
and inclined to think that the spirit of the contract
between this defendant, who was the father of the
young man, and the plaintiff's father, who under-
took to obtain this discharge, was, that he should do
every thing that was necessary to accomplish that
discharge ; and that, upon obtaining that dis-
' charge from the Admiralty, nothing more was ne-
cessary to be done to get the object of it his liber-
ty, than to have it transmitted to the Port Admiral
where the ship lay, in which that person was, in or-
der to procure his liberation, and for the doing of
which, the expence of sd. in transmitting a letter by
post, would be sufficient.—" I must presume," said
his Lordship, " for the honour of the service, that
these things are transmitted regularly, and that they
are regularly acted upon ; and that when a discharge
is made out and issued from the Admiralty, no bar-
gain is afterwards made, with any body, about car-
rying it into effect. I hope and I confidentially
trust, that when any person on board his Majesty's
fleet renders, as the price of his own discharge, two
*able-bodied men, and they are accepted as the price
of that discharge, and the exemption of that. person
from further service is ordered by the Admiralty on
that account, he need not make any bargains with
any persons afterwards, for the purpose of having
carried into .effect that for which the honiahr of his
Majesty's service is pledged. His Lordship 'doubted
therefore, whether any of the service was necessary
for which this Plaintiff sued, because the whole of 'it
might have been accomplished by a letter, and so the
elder iciteason and his-wife might have told this
Defeadant;. for, it , was ;highly probable that they
'knew the case.to be so., Or if the journey had beets
at all necessary,
ithree days would have been abun-
dantly suffict9totstead of which seven were charged,
and the discharie itteanot,proved to have been has.
tened.;: huts there was .tooin fOr suspecting that it
might have been delayed by the presence of this
Plaintiff at Sliminess... The Admiral and his clerk
were bound
,to obey the order of the Admiralty.
The presumption was that they did so ? and he could
"not, without proof, conclude that they did not. Both
, the father end. the mother of the Plaintiff must be
taken tbitnow theeecthings, and then this charge
,4pld be au linpositioa. altogether on the Defendant ;
aid ge" would be entitled to a verdict. But if the.
Jug should.be of opinion that the Plaintiff's journey
tp Sheitnent was.necessary, then, he would be entitled
.tofa catfple &days, but not seven days expeace..., If
they &night" ifttnnecesiarY altogether, then the ver-
dict should be forthe,Pefendint. - •• . -., .-. • .
The JurY,,after sc•Me consultatouviOund* Verdict
:for the Defendant. - • . • .. - . , •

At. t

comer,- bitoidiorr- rbgA,F.
3A443, Bugogi4l, AI*c f4W FTT oa :TR*
• ssz.oou or TEViItIiSSAMY ArtiraCiLMlLL• "
This' eras an action hy,:thetillii cue: Corpora.
"don. of Tew)rxisbury, ag-aiinj9ll4 deferidaint...Dricknell,
for the "tgll' of a quantitY.Or .10014-; him is
'Tewkesbury Market to Joseph Buckle,. a note-freo.
but the owner of at-Purgagediouse w44instlut:
Itcir
cause was.tried ce crtouster Spring. 4s si 44:
110 k when a case; was reserved for the opinion of the
Jukes of the CourttafetitiiyiWii Pleas, on t.wo points :
IsttwhetherthbCd>~ptiratiop 17'eatitled to toll, .fomen
sold iiiiiteniatik* ,a,non.neaik to a,
otki"-freeman, brought and
pitched there and sold in bulk? and 2tily, w.htkber the