Star.
London, England, 1814-02-04 00:00:00

I 4W INI'LI,4IcENCR.

,
r

COURT OF Kll4(et; 13ENUH, FEB. 5.
MRS. MAUI' ANNE CLARKIN.
TheATTOENEV GENE!: AL stated to their Lordship%
that be had to pray for their judgment against a Lady
for a Libel ; but she ha,l suffered judgment to go by
default—and, as•theinatter did' not press, judgment
might be taken :orne ether day.—The libel 15. on Mr.
FITZGLIIALD, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer.

CLERKS.
Mr. PLUME moved for a rule to shew cause why a
writ of mandamus should not be issued to the key.
Mr. Waldron; calling upon him.to shew cause why
Mr. Wilmot, "tire clerk of his parish, whom he had
suspended from the duties of his office, should not
be. restored. Mr. Wilniot, it appeared, had signed
some-resolutions obnoxious to Mr. Waldroni and in
consequence that Gentleman called upon him, and
intimated that he should no longer hold the situation
of parish clerk, and from that time forth the duties
were performed by another person. The Learned
Counsel stated, that in cases of removals of parish-
clerks, writs of mandamus had before been issued, and
therefore he took the liberty of submitting this pre-
sent motion.
Sir SINION LE BLANC Was the situation granted
to Mr.-Wilmot for life ?" •
Mr. PEAKS- ," That fact is not stated, but it has
always been understood that such appointments are
for life."
Sir SIMON LE BLANC—" 1 believe the fact to be
so; take a rule to shew cause."
COUR'F OF CHANCERY, FEBRUARY 1.
YOUNG AND ANOTHER V. SUTTON AND ANOTHER.
Mr. HART, supported by Mr. HEALD, on the part
of the plaintiffs; and Mr. COOKE and Mr. WRAY for
the defendants, moved that an Order issued by the
Lord Chancellor may be made absolute against the
Commissioners, who were appointed to make parti-
tion of an house and piece of land at Islington, con-
taining I'2o acres, among the parties in this cause, as
co-partners ill different shares, preparatory to a final
distribution.
The order called upon the Commissioners to re-
turn their certificate of the due execution of the corn-
mission, but by Mr, Richards they chewed cause
against the order that, in addition to .CllOO, already
• paid to them for expences, &c. of the commission,
they had a lien on the certificate for a further sum of
4960; on which ground they refused to return the
commission, till fully paid, which the Court, in their
•opinion, was bound to see paid to them, as officers
,actinz, under its own order, before any failure of the
pantie , or other accident, should intervene, to frus-
trate their claim.
Mr HART, in his reply, combated did arguments
stated on behalf of the Conimissioners ; by which, if
s inctioned, the old saying of the sharing of the oyster.
would be verified, as the Commissioners would soon
devour the oyster, and leave the shells only. to the,
parties entitled to the land in question. •
His HoNotit minutely recapitulated the. facts and
circumstances, and decreed that the tittle should be
made absolute. •

COURT OF COMMON PLEA';, FE3RUARY i. -
. • HOCLDITCH AND ANOTHER GREAVES.
The plaintiffs in this ease.tveie coach-makers, and
the defendant, a Mr. Greaves, a Gentleman of .for-
-tune, the son of Admiral Greaves.
• The plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of £5OO,
the amount of a bill of exchange, and indorsed by the
defendant ; and efurther sum of £231, the amount
of the hire of a barouche, and of the repairs of the
game vehicle during nearly two years.
The facts of the case, as proved by the witnesses
for the plaintiffi, were, that the barouche had been
hired by the defendant, in the year 1811, at the rate
of 81 00 a-year, for three years certain, and that the
defendant at the time had paid .8100 for the first
year„ The sum of £231-was proved to have been
due from the defendant, by Mr. Garner, a clerk of
the plaintiffs, for the hire of the barouche for nearly
two years, according to this contract, and for repairs
done to the same carriage, by the defendant's order,
during the same time. The indorsement of the bill
of exchange was also proved to be the defendant's.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, stated, that
he could adduce evidence which would immediately
put an end to the claim under the bill of exchange.
The bill in question was drawn on account of a gam-
bling transaction, on a Mr. Nevill, by a Gentleman
of the name of Wallis, and accepted by the former.
It was tendered in payment by Mr. Wallis to Mr.
Houlditch, who understood, at the time, that it was
&awn in consequence of a gambling transaction, and
refused to accept it, unless Mr. Greaves would in-
dorse it ; and it was then also understood, that Mr.
G. was merely nominal security, and that if it were
not paid when due, the term should be enlarged to
18 months, and that in no case should Mr. Greaves
be answerable. As to the barouche, the defendant
cotesidered it as sold to him, and was willing to pay
the porchase-money, but not the rent of it.
Mr. Nevill was then called, and proved that the
bill was given by him in consequence of someloss at
gaming, on the express condition that it should not
be sent to his banker's at Pomfret before it was due ;
-whereas it was sent to them 10 days after it was
drawn. It was in part payment of a larger sum
-which he had lost to Mr. Wallis, at Mr. W. 's house,
one or two sittings,
Mr. Garner proved, that a bill, which was pro-
duced in Court, in which £358 was charqed for the
landau, Was sent to the defendant from the
but explained that it w/s customary in cases where
carriages were hired, at the end of one year the per-
:,ons. who hired them should have the option of buying
o,em, if they liked them : and in the present case this
fill for 4.3.3 a was sent in as a method of informing
the defendiint the sum which he would have to pay if
he chose to.buy the barouche in question. He, how.
ever, had not consented to buy it.
Mr. Justice DALLAS informed the Jury, that the
bill of exchahge was void, on account of the purposes
for which it had been drawn.
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plain-
tiffs, to the amount only of the coachmakcr's bill elBl.
PATT AND ANOIVER b. PiCKFORD AND 00.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN said, this was an action
• against the defendants; common carriers, to recover
'the Value of several packages of goods which they
had refused to deliver.' The plaintiffs were merchants
1211 it Liverpool, where thej carried on business as the

firm of tingliani and Co. They went to reside at
Birminghani, and about the 17th of August last their ,
servants delivered 26 packages to be carried, front
Birmingham to Paddington, by the canal. The goods
were to remain in the hands cif the defendants, at
their wharf on the Paddington Canal, till the plaintiff
sent for them. The goods arrived, and when they
were demanded thete was a refusal to deliver them.
The plaintiff found that the defendants had been pre-
vailed on by a Mr. Sheriff to take an indemnity, and
resist the delivery. The Learned Serjeant observed,
that the defendants, as common carriers, had a plain
obvious duty to perform, namely, to deliver goods
according to the direction. Messrs. Pickford had been
instructed by respectable Attornies, but on this occa-
sion the plaintiffs would only have to prove the goods
were delivered to the defendants, as common car-
riers, and that they refused to deliver them.
Mr. Corbett, the defendant's clerk, remembered
that be had received at Paddington, in August last,
26 packages, directed to Messrs. Lingham and Co.
Snow-hill ; consisting of tubs and casks, closely
packed. The plaintiff called with Mr. Lingham, and
requested to have them delivered, but the witness
refused, as they had received a letter from a Mr.
Sherriff, of Birmingham, to stop all goods direct-
ed to Lingham and Co. The plaintiff called twice
again, but did not obt'sin the packages. The goods
were afterwards, at the request of Mr. Sheriff, sent
to the defendant's warehouse, in Wood-street, Cheap-
side, where they wove attached.
Mary Burn, a servant to Mr. Papps, was present
at the packing up of the goods which these 26 packa-
ges contained. They consisted of plate, linen, earth-
enware, glass, and other moveable household furni-
ture. They were sent from Liverpool, where Mr.
Papps lived, in the end of June last, to Birmingham,
in thd way to London.
Mr. Serjeant Roucti, for the defendant, stated that
the goods in question were purchased from Mr. She-
riff, by a bill of exchange, the payment of which had
been refused when it became due ; but on the sug-
gestion of the Learned Judge that this fact, if proved,
would make no alteration in the question against the
common carrier, who should have delivered the goods
at Snow-hill, the place to which they were directed,
he suffered a verdict to be entered for the.plaintiff,
for the amount of the value of the goods stated in the
Declaration, on the condition that if the goods were
delivered safe, payment should not be demanded.