Star.
London, England, 1830-11-10 00:00:00

CLAIM V. FEICIVAL.

Mr. Baortsxm moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict for
the plaintiff in this case, which was tried before Mr. Justice Bayley at
the last assizes for Lancaster, should not beset aside, and a nonsuit en-
tered, on the following grounds : it was an action on a promissory note,
made by Thomas and Mary Perceval, for the sum of 1,2001. in favour
of Mr. George Clark, the plaintiff, who is the father of Mary Perceval,
and the father-in.law of her husband, Thomas Peseeval. The note was
couched in the following terms :—" On demand, we promise to pay
Mr. George Clark, or his order, the sum of 1,2001. valuereceived, in
stock of ale and brewing utensils ; this being to stand against me the
undersigned Mary Percival, as a set-off against that sum left me in my
father's will above my sister Anne's share." The learned counsel con-
tended that it was clear, from the words of the note. that the father had
made a will, in which he had left 1,2001. more to his daughter Mary,
than to her sister Anne. He subsequently wished to place them upon
an equal footing, and took this method in order to save the expense of
making a second will.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said the note admitted that it was given for a
_valuable consideration.'

iir.,l3Rouortax said that it did so, but then the father being still
alive, and .ihe will, of course, ambulatory, it followed that if the pay-
ment of the note were to be enforced, the plaintiff might subsequently
alter his will, in which event the defendants would have received no con.
sideration for the bill.

Air. Justice BAY Lz v— es, they would hare the stock of ale and
beer barrels, &c.
. . . . . . .

Mr. BROUGHAM said that the note admitted of the eonstruction that'
payment was not to be required during the lifetime of Mr. Clark.
Mr. Justice J. PARKE said, it certainly did admit of that construe-'
tion, and that, in fact, the note was intended as a part of the share of
the other sister, in order to equalise the disposition of the father's pro.
perty.
Lord TENTERDEN suggested the propriety of making a special case
of the whole transaction.

Mr. Baovoaasr thought that that course would be the most ad.
vissble ; but, in the absence of any learned gentleman on the other side,
he would, with the permission of the Court, take arule Nisi,witb the un.
derstanding that it should, if possible, be turned Into a special case.
The Court, on this understanding, granted a rule Nisi.
A person on the floor of the Court addressed their lordships, and said
that be bad been taken into custody on a Judge's warrant upon an
indictment against him for libel. As the indictment contained 121
counts, it was requisite that he should be properly advised upon it;'
and be therefore desired to plead.
It was here stated to the Court that the indictment against the de.
feadant was for an obscene libel.

Lord TENTZIDEN asked what time be required /—The prisoner;
Until the first dayof next term.
Lord TESTIMDEI said it was quite oat of the question upon a cri-
minal indictment to Clinch a time. The prisoner had four days from
the present time so p
The prisoner said that the expense would be great in getting from the
Crown office a copy of such a long indictment.
Lord TENTERDIN said that the expense would be the same weeks
hence asat the present time.
The prisoner said that he wanted to find the means to defray the
expenss.
Urd TENTEILDZX said that the only Cairn be could take was 111
plead the general issue, or to put in no plea; and he might take a
week to consider of it, on the condition that he should take a short no-
tiee of trod. If he chose, however, he might plead within the four
days, which might be his cheapest and best course.
The prisoner said he would adopt the latter course.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

TREGOIT AatD °TIM= V. Arraultuair.
In this emue, which was tried at Guildhall a few daysag the plan.
tiffs were the assignees of SoppeU and Joiner, formerly habainhsss
at the West End of the town, and the defendant a pawnbroker; and
the action was brought to MOM the value of a eonsideroble mom of
goods, upon which the defendant had advanced money to the bankrupt*,

on the ground that usurious interest bad been token on the loan. The
defends was, that the property (consisting of articles of haberdashery)
had been divided into small portions of tan pounds in value, and so
pledged, in order to entitle the defendant to the pawnbroker's rate of in.
tercet ; and it was contended by the Pawnbrokers' Act he was entitled
to do so. The answer ei the plaintiffs to this was, that the pawning
was not legal, inammush as the defendant bad neglected to deliver dup.
licates of the several pawns u Act required; and a verdict was re.
turned for the plaintilik.
Mr. Sergeant ANDILIWS, OD behalf of the defendant, now moved for
la new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not according to law,
the defendant having acted, u the learned counsel contended, only in
accordance with the provisions of the pawnbrokers' act.
The court declined granting a rule.
LEVI V. DAILIT AND °Tants, DIALCTOIII OP THE PALLADIUM

leas INSIIIIIANCE COMPANY.
Mr. Sergeant Tunny moved for a new trial of this cause, an the
ground that the jury had missed the question. The plaintiff had sought
to recover the sum of 8001. the amount of a policy of insurancefor a loss
by Si., which the defendants refused to pay, believing that the plaintiff
had made an exaggerated and fraudulent estimate of the amount of pro-
perty destroyed. On the question of whether fraud had ot had not been
committed, the case went to the jury, but they missed the question, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 400 L—Aids granted.

1.111101 V.
This wean action for false imprisonment, tried during the sodas at
Northampton, whereby the plaintiff obtained 1001. damages. A rule for
a new trial was now applied for, on the ground that the damages were
exeesaire.

It 'mewed that the plaintiff had some claim upon an elderly lady
named Wigram, who resided in the house of the defendant ; and, having
gone there, accompanied by three of his children, and with much impor-
tunity, endeavoured to obtain an interview with her, a servant of the de.
fendant, entirely without his knowledge, as it was alleged, sent for a con-
stable, who, on the plaintiff's refusal to quit the premises, placed hand-
cuffs on him, but only for a short time; and, subsequently, on plaintiff's
renewing his importunities, the defendant ordered him two guineas, in
order to get rid of him. He accepted it, snd asked for and obtained
an additional halterown, to defray his travelling expences. Not sada.
tied with this be went into the defendant's kitchen, and represented that
the defendant had sent him there to have his dinner. The cook, ac-
cordingly gave him a good dinner, and he went away, but was not satis-
fied, for after all this be brought an action and got 1001. damages.
The Learned Council who made the application, said the Learned
Judge who had tried the cause, had declared the damages to be just
991. 19s. more than the plaintiff was entitled to. Rule granted.