Star.
London, England, 1801-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING's BENCH. JULYS

!'REEDY V. MILLS.
. This was an aetfon to recover 111. being the
balance of accounts due to the Plaintiff from the
Defendant for lodging, taken by a woman who
affefted to be the Defendant's wife, with whom the
Defendant cohabited, and whore name (he had
borne there and elfewbere. She reprefented die
Defendant to be her hulband, to be a Banker's
Clerk, who was fo forward in the honfe, as to be
about to be taken into partnerlhip. The lodging
being let to her, the Defendant frequently camc
there to Seep, paid fume money for the lodging,
and they paffed for hufband and wife, &c. ; and
there was now remaining the ft= of i tl. z9s. due
from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

The defence was, that the woman who paffed
for Mrs. Mills was a woman of the town, and who
lived on the wages of proftitution. That the took
thefe lodgings for the purpofe of carrying on her
prance as a woman of promifcuous intereourfe,
and was vifited by different Gentlemen,and among
the relt the Defendant, who bad no•v had the dif.
cretion to put an end to his intimacy with her ;
and that the Plaintiff knew all thefe things, and
that his houfe, being one of notorious ill.fame, the
whole of which was let out to unfortunate profti.
Lutes, &c. ; therefore he could not recover in this
aaion.

1111 Lord Kenyon faid,that the foundation on which
e had held that an aftion would not lie for rent
of lodging in a houfe of illfame, vas this :—That
Where. an unfortunate girl took lo4ngs in a houfe
for the purpofe of leading a life Of, proflitutiola ;
who had viably no other means of livelihood, and
where her taking fuch lodgings might he an in-
ducement for her to enter into it, and where this
was known to the perfon letting fu ch lodgings, and
whin fueh perfon was paid out of the wages of filch
prollitution—in fuch cafe, he faid, no.aEtion could
be mamtained.• 6, But if (faid his Lordthip) I was
to fay and decide, that if parties live together hra
Rate of 7 dultery, or of proftitution, no action would
lie againil them for their lodgings, I know not
how deeply I fhould cut. To what great houfes,
or even high fquares, I fbould not go, I cannot
tell.—Here the parties lived together, it is faid, as
hulband and wife, and therefore I can hardly fee
any Rate of things in which the Defendant fhould
not pay to the Plaintiff whatever may appear to
be due on the balance of thiir accounts.'
It was proved that the lodgings were taken by
a woman who paired as the Defendant's wife, and
that fhe had paffed by his name, and that by his
confent, for louse time previous to his going to this
book. That at this houfe he had often Rept with
her, &c.
A perfon of the name of Elford, who had thus
paired tea Mrs- Mills, the Defendant's wile, was
called to prove that the was not in, and in !bort to
, prove the Defendant's cafe as it had been infiiled
upon, and of which we have Rated-the fubßance ;
but Lord Kanyos faid, that if this on urfe was per-
filled in, the confequences would be, that his name, ,
circumilances, and connedion would be expofed,
and many inconreniencies would follow, of which'

k woffd be not swill es )ndge a little. Taltiog
the whole cafe together, Ins Lord fhip thought it the
bell thing this Defendant could do, to pay this mo-
ney without any furthef invelliption into thittniCA
nefs.—Verdiel for the Plaintiff—. Damages t il. tsrs.
Mr. GARROM faid,that this direetion of his Lord-
adopted fo preperly by the Jury, and ace
quiefccd in by the Defendant, was the fiabltanee of
the advice be gave him long ago.

IROCRISOP V. HERBOILL
The Plaintiff according to Mr. hts‘ctOs b
;ng, is a Cornfa&or, and the Defendant a Milltre
This :talon was brought againft the Defendant to
recover back 571.45. for which the Plaintiff had
by midake given him credit. This was done in
the hurry of bufinefs at Mark.la,:e. After Mr.
M:MGAN, had made out the Plaintiff's cafe,

Mr. MARMOT, on the part of the Defendant,
obfctved, that his client could neither read nor
wiitc, and that he oecaftonally employed a School•
mailer to write letters for him, for each of which
he gave him ad. He hoped to be able to thew that
his client had adually paid this money, and that
the Plaintiff had given him credit for no MOM
than that to which he was jullly entitled. .

The School•ma(ler was called, but totallyfailed
in making out the defence.

Under the direetione of the Nu ble and Lsarned
Judge, who applied prong language to the con.
dusl of the Defendant, the Jury found a verdia
for Plaintiff for 571. 4s.

DORAN V. IRANI AND CO. •
The Plaintiff who is owner of the fhip Margaret,
in the bah trade, brought his anion to recover dca
murrage for a certain number of days, at Five
Guineas per day. The Defendants had contra&
ed to freight the fhip within fourteen days, from
the toth of January ; the loading was not com-
pleted till the 6th of March. The Defendant en.
deavoured to prove, that the neglett was folely
owing to the Plaintiff's conduit, in not receiving
certain fugars ; this the Plaintiff accounted for,
by Rating, that there was no room to Row the
fugars. The Defendants then infilied, that a fraud
was endeavoured to be pratßifed, by making an
crafure in the regifter certificate of the fhip. by
(hiking out the word 4, Foreign," and in its Read
fubßituting Britifh built." The negligence,
however' 'was clearly proved to have originated
with the Defendants, and the Jury found a verdia
for the Plaintiff, for 1571. los. being an allowance
for thirty days, at Fi%e Guineas per day.

COOK V.
This was an a.Hon brought on a Bill of Et-
change, which was fiat dated the 9th of Decetn- '
ber, and afterwards that date was altered, and it
was dated the 13th of the fame month. It ap-
pcared in evidence that the drawers Creed and
Mofs, wanted to raife money upon it. and for that
purpofe procured faveral indorfements to be pt .t
upon it before the date was altered from the 9th
to the 13th of December.
Mr. EtSIIME, on the part of the Defendant,
laid his defence was, that when the date of this
Bill was altered, it ought to have had a new
(lamp, and as it bad at t, it was a fraud upon Ll*
Revenue.

Mr. Guess contended on the other fide, that the
Bill was not a perk& Bill, and bad not gone into
the world before the date WAS changed ; and that
they had no interell in altering the date.
Lord KF it yam was of a different opinion. T.
confider it in no higher point of view than the Ray
venue Laws, the Bill was bad. as it had not a new
Ramp. If two or three people were hanged for .
this offence it would be ofgreat fervice to the pub..
lie. We eat and drank, and lived fo much in this
country upon paper credit, that it would be very
well if the law were put in force, as it would be
the means of promulgating it on the fubje& ft
was meddling with edged tools, and it would be
very well if they were cautioned in this event by
the gallows.—Plaintiff nonfuited.
cuarrsas V. BILL and OTHIIII.

This was an &Sion on a Foreign Bill of Er-
hange for 1911. brought by the Plaintiff as In-
dorfee, against the Defendants as Indorfers.
Mr. Eames opened this cafe on the part of the
Plaintiff. It apiieated this Bill was drawn in Ire-
land, and accepted by a Mr. Halliday, payable at
'the houfe of Mr. Cartenin Croiby-fquare. When
the bill became due, it was prefented for payment
by Mr. William Newton, a Notary Public, when
the anfwer given him was—Ne #Bs. He noted
the Bill, and returned it to the Houfe of -Martin.
Stone an 4 Foot, from whom he had it. When it
was prefented to the 'Defendants they refufed to
pay, becaufe there was no protelt. But Mr. New-
ton, the Public Notary, laid, if the Defendants
had paid the Bill, he would have drawn up a pro-
telt to hare enabled thern.to recover from the next
indorfers. •

Mr. ATTORXIT GINIRAL, on the part of the
Defendant, contended, that in a foreign MU of
Exchange a protefi was the only legal demand,
and humbly fubmitted that the only notice in the
cafe of a foreign Bill of Exchange was a ptotj.
That was the only thing to which the patty on
whom the demand was made had any occafion to
advert.

Mr. Glass, on the fame fide, obferved, that the
declaration always Rated, and mull Rate, that the
Bill was prefented for payment; that payment was
refufedi and that it was protefted ; of all which
the Defendant had notice. This was necsfary to
be Rated, previous to Rating that he undertooh
so pay.

Lord Kosvon." I will you would make a
cafe of it. The Aa of Parliament which rtes to
Inland Bills of Exchange. in confequence of which
when the party proteas, he is entitled to receive
interett, and the. coils of the proteft, always kd me
to -think that in a foreign DILI of Exchange the
protea wag a liar qtr lINNU
L(nder his Lotdatip's direftion, the Jury found
a trerdiet for Plaintif for sot including interett.
tbjedt; to the Court of King's Bench on this poieAt
of law.

I

3