Star.
London, England, 1812-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'a BENCH, DEC. 4.
JONES O. VDNY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a pub-
lican, to recover back the sum of ,elO5 from the de-
fendant, an auctioneer, which had been paid to him
as a deposit for the purchase of the lease of the Aber-
crombie public house, Charles street, Hatton-garden.
It appeared that the defendant had been empl,,yed to
sell the lease of the house in queition, and previ,:ns to
the ;ale commencing, thelease (from El'or
was read, in which there was a provisiot,, thaz, if the
tenant should take beer of any other persoit except
Messrs. Elliot, he should be liable to an advance of
rent of /21.50 per annum. On heating this clause read,
the plaintiff declared that be would hot bid fur the
lease under such circumstances ; in answer to which
observation the defendant assured the plaintiff, that
the effect of that clause nas entirely done away by a
recent decision of Lord Ellenbc.rough ; and. upon this
assurance being several times repeated, the plaintiff
Was induced to bid, and became the purchaser of the
lease for 400 guineas, and immediately Ater paid to
the defendant 100 guineas as a deposit. Upon after-
wards applying to Messrs. Elliot, however,- for a
transfer of the lease, and stating that he would change
his brewer ; Mr. Elliot immediately declared that he
should enforce his claim for the advance of rent ;
upon which the plaintiff determined to decline taking
the house at all, and applied to the defendant to have
his deposit returned ; this, however, the defendant
declined doing, on the plea of having sold under an
execution, and that he had paid the money over to
the Sheriff, and therefore was not liable. The Jury,
however, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Mos.

WILSON V. BAKER.
This was an action for an assault. The Plaintiff
was a poor woman, residing in the neighbourhood of
Tottenhamcourt-road, and the defendant a butcher,
also residing in that neighbourhood. On the day
mentioned the plaintiff went into the defendant's shop,
and desired to have a pound of beef steaks. The de-
fendant cut her a pound and three quarters, which she
declined taking, tendering him tl.e money for a pound,
this he refused to take, and assaulted her, and beat
her about the shop. The assault was fully proved',
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Dama-
ges r€s.
FOOT V. RYLAND.

This wai an action to recover the amount of an
apothecary's bill. The defendant's wile, who was a
nervous patient, had undergone the whole ceremony
of bleeding, blistering, and taking draughts, lot the
space of several months, and never got better, as the
witness said, until the Doctor left her, after which she
recovered. For these services the plaintiff presented
a bill of £37, but the defendant insisted that 022
which he had p:iid, was ample tecompeose for all the
Doctor's medicine and trouble. The Jury being of
the same opinion, found a verdict fur the defendant.

BLI.I. V. BUIAST.
The Solicitor-General, on the part of the Plaintiff,
stated, that his client was a poor and industrious matt,
who obtained a scanty living by keeping a paltry
green-grocer's shop, at K.rutish-town; and, to add a
trifle to the miserable pittance which he thus obtain-
ed, he was in the habit of attending country fairs, and
selling beer and pony, and other refreshment*. To
enable him to do this, he kept a.horse and cart; and
last Barnet Fair having held out a temptation to hills,
he had taken a load of beer there,had fixed on his stand-
ing,and had dispatched his brother for another load.
His brother accordingly returned, and his load being
rather he ivy, he had borrowed another horse of a
neighbour, and was proceeding up Highgate Hill, on
his way to Barnet, when lie.was met by a return post-
chaise belonging to the Defendant, wl:o resides in ch.!
Hayinalket, the driver of ‘thick was sitting within
side the chaise, and he was driving at a furious not,
and ran against the Plaintiff's hprses, threw the cart
over, broke the bottles containing the liquor, and itt-
Eicted to severe a wound on one of the horses, as to
occasion the death of the animal in 20 minutes after.
The post-boy; after having done the mischief, jumpA
out, and, perceiving that the plaintiff's brother was
endeavouring to ascertain to whom the chaise be-
longed, he struck him with his whip, and, mounting
the bar of the chaise, drove off most furiously. Ball,
however, followed, and traced him along tae m. 4
till he arrived at the defendant's yard, it, the Hay.
market. It was about nine o'clock to tile evening of ,
the 9th of September when the accident happene4.
It was not, however, very dark ; and the plaintiff's
brother, who saw the chaise caning, celled out seve-
ral times to caution the driver to avoid hhn. It was
light enough to distinguish that there was a black
Boise painted on the chaise door. The plaintiff's
driver was on the proper side of the'road-; and it
would appear from the evidence, that; bad the post-
boy only used common precaution, the accident
cculd not have happened.
These circumstances were proved in evidence, an.
the Jury found for the Plaintiff--.llamages ae2(2.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 4.

lIIUTLOW V. KILMLIt.%
This was an action to recover damages for the death
of a dog. The plaintiff and defendant, it appeared,
are near neighbours in Russel-court, Drury-lane.—
The former is a Jew, and the latter a shoemaker. It
so happened that in the month of August last, plain.
tiff having been made a present of a terrier dog for the
preservation of his premises, he placed him in a back-
yard, where he evinced his diligence by a continual
barking and•yelping. Defendant, who is an old man,
and was at Oat time in a very infirm state of health,
was so annoyed by these discordant sounds, that be
frequently sent to plaintiff, to beg he would take the
animal in doors, in order that he might have the bless.
ings a few hours sleep. Plaintiff was, however, as
deaf to the entreaties of defendant as lie was to the
noise of his dog, and refused to comply with the re•
quest. Shortly after the dog was shot from one of the
back windows of defendant's house, and defendant
himself was seen on the stairs with a gun in his hand.
• SitJ. MANSFIELD, in summing up the evidence,.
sai4, it certainly must have been of great sumuyance
to be continually teased by tke yelpings of this cur;
Tile defendant had, 'however, been guilty rf au act
which could not, is law, be justified, however it might
in season. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, his
shillings. The costs will be about &M.

)1/ S OCKS - Nib DAY Al UNE U'l.:L.ucK.
Reduced 57:1 58-4 per Cent. 731-5 per Ct. shut
Cons. for ac. L9i i—Oton. 4i pr.—Bonds Ss. 6s. dis.
Dank Lg. Ann‘. J 4 1 /1-1611:1 jr—Ex. 131111;(3;td.) Qs. pr.