Star.
London, England, 1830-06-10 00:00:00

LA3 REPORTS.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—JuNE 9.
W DINO V. BOLIDE N.• The VIC E.CIIANC ELLOR deliVered
judgment in this matter, and rteapituEted all the facts of the case
with much particularity. The hearing of the argument of Counsel
weeopied seven days. The object of the petition was to obtain the
re-payment of a sum of 17.909!. which was said to have been taken
collusion and fraud. It appeared that a person of the name of.
Lawrence had some time since died in America, and certain persons
residing near Redditch, Worcestershire, had set up a claim to the
property. There hail been an advertisement in Aria's Birmingham,
Gametic for the next rf kin of Lawrence, by whom a claim had been
,nade to the property in question ; and among others the petitioner,
John Baker, had raised a claim on behalf of his wife. After much
litigation among the different claimants, it was ultimately deter.
mired that the mone" to which the patties laid claim should be
divided in seventeen different shares. The solicitor employed on
tliis occasion was Mr. Creerell, of Redditch, and it appeared to have
owl agreed that he should have a seventeenth part of the fund, in
addition to his bill of costs, for his trouble of getting in the pro-
perty. In consequence of this arrangement, the money was taken
out of Court, and divided amongst the different claimants. Mr.
Baker, however, had since the division made further inquiries,
and had been advised that he, ir. right of his wife. was sole next of
kin. and was entitled to the whole of the fund. The present pe-
tition was presented on behalf of this claimant in opposition to the
oilier parties interested in the fund, and Mr. J. Parkes was the so-
licitor employed on this occasion. A great body of affidavits had
Wien tiled on both sides, and these had given rise to many contradic.

tory statements.
After going through most of the material affidavits, his Howoun
expressed an opinion that the facts now before him did not enable
him to decide that the claimant, Mrs. Baker, was the person entitled
to the property • nor could the Court say that it was clear that the
other parties had a sufficient claim. He thought that was a sub-
ject which might be fit for investigation elsewhere. It might also
be a question whether the Crown was not also entitled ? Upon the
whole of the case, his Honour was of opinion that the allegations of
traud contained in the petition were not supported, and he therefore
felt it his duty to dismiss the petition, and, under all the circum-
stances, with costs.
His Honour continued the Seal until the rising of the Cow.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jt', 9.
(London Sittings, before Lord TENTERDEN and Common Juries.)
BILL! OF EXCRANGE...-SCOTT V. Ktxo.—This was an
action on a bill of exchange for 1001. dated the 14th of August last,
..t four months, drawn by the defendant, accepted by a person of the
name of Hobday, and indorsed by him to one who indorsed it to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was a coach proprietor at Weymouth, and
when the bill was dishonoured by the acceptor, he gave due notice
to the defendant, the drawer. There was some dispute about the
notice, but that was satisfactorily proved. The substantial defence
was, that the defendant had drawn the bill for the accommodation of
the acceptor, and that after he had drawn it the date was altered
from the 4th of August to the 14th.
A bill-broker was called to make out this defence, and he stated
that the bill was put into his hands by Hobday to raise money on it,
and he, at the desire of Hobday, put the figure 1 before the 4, Hob-
day stating that he had the defendant's authority for this.
Lord TENTERDEN observed, that notwithstanding his experi-
ence in these matters, he was sometimes surprised. The broker had
altered the date of the bill without having taken the proper means to
ascertain whether the defendant had really consented to it. This he
ought to have done before he made the alteration, or he would have
done still better if he had refused to have anything at all to do with
the alteration. The question, however, for the Jury was, whether
they believed, on this representation of Hobday, for whose accommo-
dation the bill appeared to have been drawn, that the defendant had
given authority to alter the date. If he had authorised the alteration,
be was still liable Of he had not. he was not liable.
_ _

Verdict for the plaintiff for 1021.
Iluyou v. GRalr.—This was an action on three bills of ex-
change, amounting together to Mt. which were drawn by the plain-
tiff; and accepted by the defendant.
The defendant had accepted the bills, and advanced 1251. on the
security of a lot of pictures deposited with him by the plaintiff. One
of the pictures was a Madonna, by Vandyke, and another, The Be-
nediction, by Ruben., both of which the plaintiff represented to
the defendant to be originals. In an answer, however, to a bill in
Chancery, the plaintiff had admitted that the pictures were not ori-
ginals, and evidence was given that the whole lot was not worth
above fifty pounds.
Lord TE•DERDEN was of opinion that, under these circum-
stances, the plaintiff had no right to recover on the bills.
Mr. Prmicocx, the plaintiff's counsel, on the intimation of this
opinion by his lordship, elected to be called. Plaintiff nonsuited.
IMOOREY V. ELPHICK.—This was an action brought to recover
compensation in damages for injury done to the plaintiff's chaise.
cart and horse, by its being run against by a chaise-cart of the de-
Itndant. The plaintiff's case was, that on the 12th April, last year,
i is chaise-cart was standing at the door of the tiger's head, in the
vtliage of Lea, on the way to Eltham, and that the defendant came
up in another chaise-cart, which he drove against the plaintiff's
cart, which was seriously damaged ; the horse was thrown down,
and had his ribs broken. The horse was worth 261. but, in conse-
quence of the accident, he became useless to the plaintiff, who sold
him for a trifle.

Mr. GVIINEY, the plaintiff's Counsel, observed, that he could
net conceive what defence could be made. The accident happened
on a broad road, and in the middle of the day, and no defence could
be made, except on the ground said by a celebrated traveller to have
been taken by a Turkish Captain of a frigate : The Captain ran
his frigate against a Greek Island, and then insisted that the island.
era should make gnod the loss. The Greeks: pleaded that it was
by no fault of theirs that the vessel was wrecked; to which the
eaptain replied, that it was their fault, for if their island had not
been there. his frigate would not have been wrecked. So the de-
tendant, he supposed, meant to say that if the plaintiff's cart had
not been there, the accident would not have happened.
Evidence having been given in support of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. DENKsw called two witnesses for the defendant, who stated
that the plaintiff's horse was left at the door of the Tiger's Head,
without any one to take care of him, and when the defendant's cart
drove up, the plaintiff's horse took fright and started off, and that
this was the cause of the accident, without any collision at all.
Lord TENTERDEN said, that people often very foolishly left
their horses at doors, without any one to take care of them;
but still the defendant had no right to drive against the plain.
tiff's cart, when there was plenty of room to pass. If, there-
fore, the Jury could be of opinion that the defendant did drive
against the plaintiff's cart, the plaintiff would be entitled to their
verdict.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Ten Pounds.
JAGAR, GENT. V. DIILLAR.—AIIr. BRODERICK Iwith whom
was Mr. PLATT) stated that this was an action brought to recover
compensation in damages for a false and malignant imputation on
the plaintiff's character by the defendant. The plaintiff wu an at-
torney, and had married a sister of a Mr. Bullcock, a tradesman,
who had carried on business at Whitechapel. From the year 1824,
till June in the last year, the plaintiff and Mr. BuUcock were on the
best and most friendly terms together. On the 29th of June the
plaintiff and Mr. Bullcock, and two others, went down to Black-
well, and dined together at the West India Dock Tavern, where
they remained till ten o'clock at night. The bill was they called
for, and while the plaintiff and the two others were settling it, Mr.
B. stepped into a balcony which stretched out from the house, and
overhung the river. Unfortunately the balcony had only a very low
railing, and Mr. Bullcock fell into the Thames. The plaintiff'
and the others on hearing the plunge, ran out, and drags were
immediately procured, and every exertion made to save
Mr. Bullcock. After the lapse of about a quarter of an hour
the body was found, and every possible means were used
for four hours together ; to restore what was hoped to be
only suspended animation, but without success. This accident
made a deep impression on the minds of the whole party, and es-
pecially
on the mind of the
.plaintiff. In the September following
the plaintiff was in conversation with a Mr. Bruton, a surgeon, and
a friend happened to mention the fate of Mr. B. and expressed his
sorrow at the accident, and he Wki then, for the first time, informed
that the defendant, who was a surgeon, had cast the imputation on
him for which this action was brought. While the defendant was
at dinner in Mr. Bruton's house, in August last, the conversation
turned on the fate of Mr. B. and the defendant said, " Ah, there is
a report in circulation that Mr. Jager gave him a gentle tip over
the balcony." Mr. Bruton was quite shocked at this, and his wife
having come into the room soon after, he mentioned to her what the
defendant had said, and then the defendant repeated the words—
" there is a report that Mr. Jager gave him a gentle tip over the
balcony ;" and added, " lawyers know how to do things nicely,"
evidently meaning to intimate that the plaintiff had been guilty of
the highest crime. The plaintiff, on hearing this, thought it abso-
lutely necessary, for the vindication of his character, to bring the
matter into a Court of Justice. He had, therefore, brought this
action, and the Learned Counsel did not know what defence Mr.
Brougham would set up, unless he turned this very serious charge
Into a joke, or meant to rely on the circumstances that the plaintiff
was an attorney.
Mr. Bruton stated that the words were spoken by the defendant
as mentioned by the plaintiff's Counsel.
Cross-examined by Mr. Baouonut—He could not say whether
the words were spoken maliciously or not?
Mrs. Bruton gave evidence to the same effect.
Lord TEN TEIIDEN—Repeat what she says. I cannot hear,
owing to that bonnet of hers.
The witness, on cross-examination, said that she never considered
- whether the words were spoke maliciously or not.
Baouogax, for the defe ndent, said that the defence was
simply that his client had never uttered the words. Most certainly
he had never uttered them maliciously. He had offered to the plain.
tiff toldeclare, in the presencepf as many friends as hetileased, that

he had not uttered the words, and that there was not the least foun-
dation for the charge.
[Lord TENTEnDEN—There could be no doubt whatever but the
dead! of Mr. B. was accidental].
Certainly, there could he no doubt of that, and that was what the
defendant had always offered to declare, but the plaintiff was deter.
mined to have his action. The question was, whether the wit.
ncsses believed that there was any foundation for the charge against
the defendant ? It was clear they did not, and the plaintiff; there-
fore, had sustained no injury.
Lord TENTERDEN, after stating the case, observed, that the
words were proved by the first witness, and also by Lis wife, except
as to the words," Lawyers know how to do things nicely." Whether
she spoke to those words or not he could not well tell, for she wore
one of those hats or bonnets, or whatever they were called, that were
at present in fashion, and which were very inconvenient when the
wearer ca:ne to give evidence in a Court of Justice. The question
for the consideration of the Jury was no, exactly that which had
been put to them by the defendant's Counsel, who had said that the
question was whether the witnesses who heard the words believed that
there was any truth in the imputation ? The real question was,
whether the defendant meant to convey to the minds of the wit.
nesses the impression that the imputation was well founded ? and
with respect to that, it was a material circumstance that the witness
Bruton had asked the defendant afterwards to dine with him, which
was rather singular, if he believed that he seriously meant to impute
such a crime to his friend, the plaintiff.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages One Shilling.
VOT•NG (GENT.) r. PIT asaN.—.This was an action to recover
351. due to the plaintiff, as he said, on a balance of account.
The plaintiff had been employed on behalf of Mrs. Pitman, to
edit a work published by her in Warwick-square, called " The
Sporting Magazine." He had edited it for 7 months in 1827.8, with
a salary at the rate of 2801. per annum. All:had been settled ex.
cept this 351. The defence was, thatlthe money had been paid to
the plaintiff, or accounted for. The plaintiff's proof was defective,
and he was nonsuited.
A cross-action, Pitman"v. Young, was referred.
ADMIRALTY COURT, JENE 9.
THE BRITAWNIA.—This was a suit by the crews of four fishing
smacks against the owners of the brig Britannia, to recover compen-
sation for the salvage of that vessel. It appeared that the Britannia
was returning from St. Petersburgh in Dec. last, and met with very
severe weather off the coast of Norfolk. She put out signals of dis.
tress. Her crew were too much exhaused to pump, and she had
nine feet water in the hold. The crew had been without water
for several days, and were just despairing of saving the yes-
isel, when two of the smacks claiming, the Leander and the
Elizabeth, soon came to their assistance. Having ascertained
their situation, one of the smacks went off again, and procured the
assistance of the other two fishing vessels, the Lady of the Lake
and the Adventurer. The crew of the ritannia abandoned her on
the day after she had been discovered in this situation, and went on
board a North Shields collier. The vessel shortly afterwards upset,
and lay with her masts in the water, the sea beating over with great
violence. The salvors, however, lashed themselves to their boats,
and at a very great risk succeeded in cutting the rigging of the Bri-
tannia, when she righted, and they got the assistance of a steam.
boat, and finally towed her into the Humber. The cargo was valued
at 10,0001. and the vessel at 3001. having been much damaged. The
salvors claimed a moiety of the value of ship and cargo, as having
saved her when derelict or abandoned. The owners of the cargo
agreed to give half the value, but the shipowners resisted the suit.
The shipowners admitted that the salvors had saved the ship and
cargo, and that they were entitled to liberal compensation, but ac-
cused them of inducing the Captain and crew to abandon the vessel
by threats that they would sail away, and leave the Britannia to its
fate, if the Captain did not go with them.
Sir C. RoutwsoN said he should award the salvors a liberal corn.
pensation as soon as he could ascertain the extent of damage their
vessels had sustained, and the loss of time they bad suffered.
ADAH.—In this case there was a disputed claim for piloting the
Adah from Dungeness to the West India Docks. All the charges were
admitted but one, which was a claim of 15s. for conveying the res.
sel into Dock on a Monday, she having arrived at the entrance of
the Dock on the previous day, and could not then be admitted.
The vessel was a small one, and the pilot had received 121. for three
days' labour.

Sir
C. ROBINSON decided that the duty of the pilot was not
ended till he had brought the vessel into dock. He was bound to
take her to the end of the voyage, and that could not fairly be con.
sidered arrived at till the vessel was in dock. If the tide did not
serve on the day she was brought up, the pilot was bound to bring
her in without extra charge on the first day that it did serve.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COVRT, JUNE 9.
Daniel Blair, late of Finsbury-place, Pimlico, baker, was op.
posed by Mr. WOODRUFFE, on behalf of Mr. Wm. Denley, a
bricklayer.
I tappearedfrom the cviderce,that the insolvent married the daup.
ter of a Mrs. Priddle, who resided in a house belonging to herself, in
Ebury-place, Pimlico; and he took a part of the house of her, and con-
vetted it into a baker's shop. He then employed his opposing cre-
ditor to build an oven for 301. payable as soon as the work was com-
pleted, excepting 51. which Mr. Denley consented to take out in
bread. After he had got bread to the amount of 51. the Insolvent
refused to let him have any snore, and said he would not pay him
the 451. and his mother-in-law said he should go to prison six weeks,
and pay his debts that way. The Insolvent was thence arrested,
and his mother-in-law had possession of all the property on the
premises.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said the Court would adjourn the
case, and if the Insolvent should come up again, he should then re-
ceive such a judgment as the case required; unless in the interim
he and his family could be brought to a sense of justice, and restore
something to the opposing creditor.
Michael Joha Davis, a member of the Jewish persuasion, was
opposed by Mr. Cooke, on behalf of Philip Benjamin W. Wilson,
I hair-dresser, Strand, and other creditors.
It appeared that the insolvmt was a bankrupt in 1825 ; he took
lodgings from 3lr. Wilson for a lady, whose name he begged to de-
cline stating to the Court, assigning as a reason that she is the
wife of an officer in the artillery service; she continued to lodge
there for a period of three weeks, in the name of Davis ; the lodg-
lags were kept for five weeks, and the rent not paid ; he slept at
IMr. Wilson's house two nights, but never more, and then he stated
he passed the night on the sofa in the drawing-room. Mr. W.
had a reference to a Mr. Eagle's, in the Strand, and heard insolvent
was a married man, and had a country house at Blackheath ; he
took the lady there as Mrs. Davis, and slept there occasionally, on
land off.

Insolvent said, that in 1826, after his bankruptcy, he was a slop.
seller; afterwards he was a general dealer in Anne-street, Waterloo.
road ; after that he was a general dealer in 3lason-street, and sub.
sequently became a clerk to an attorney in Trinity-place, Charing.
cross, on the duties of which he entered on the first Monday in the
present year ; he left Mason-street in December, and removed to
Trinity-place; all the furniture, with the exception of a bed, bed-
stead, and a chest of drawers in the house in Mason-street, was his
property : he had not a lease of the house ; he sold the fixtures for
91. 103. to Mr. Sherwood, an acquaintance. In September, last
year, he (insolvent) went to Holland, where he purchased goods to
the amount of about 2001. some of which he sold at Rotterdam,
some at the Hague, and some at Amsterdam. On his return to
England, he brought more than 1501. worth of goods with him, and
five or six pounds in money. He sold the good, before the end of
September, as he could obtain purchasers; since then he shipped
goods to Holland to the extent of about 201. the returns for which
he received ; he was not aware of any outstanding bills against him
by a person of the name of Wase.
A long tissue of family affairs followed, which, as they were
not quite relevant to the inquiry before the Court, may be far bet.
ter omitted in our report.
Mr. Wm. Stafford, of Buckingham-street, Strand, solicitor to
the landlord of the house in Trinity-place, said he received 51. in
part of rent from the insolvent, but never gave a receipt; knowing
the insolvent's character, he would not acknowledge him as a te-
nant of his client's ; he never knew any thing good of insolvent—
(laughter), who once, he added, justified for bail under very sin-
gular circumstances.
Mr. Cooxx observed, that a great deal of the time of the Court
had been lost in endeavouring to prove that the insolvent was the
responsible tenant of the house in Trinity-place. The insolvent
might, if he chose, run the risk of swearing to his schedule; but
he(Mr. Cooke) would prove that it was untrue.
Mr. George Leigh, an attorney's clerk, stepped forward to prove
a debt of 291. due to him by insolvent, which insolvent mentioned
in his schedule he had discharged. Mr. Leigh stated, that he let
the house in Anne-street, Waterloo-road, to insolvent; he was to
pay 101. for fixtures, five of which he paid on account, and gave a
promissory note: for the remainder, but never paid it, although he
had taken credit in his general ;balance-sheet for the whole. He
threatened to arrest the insolvent if he would not give up the key,
and subsequently did arrest him; insolvent put in bail and pleaded
to the action.—Mr. Leigh put in a letter which he received from
the insolvent. It ran as follows :—" Foolish George Leigh—
You . . . . . . and bring as many actions as you like ; if
you don't desist in time, and accept the key of your house, I shall
be under the necessity of converting it into a stable by bringing In a
Donkey. You had better not send me any mote of your letters.
" Your's, &c.
Mrcuan. JOHN Davis."
Insolvent did not perform his threats about the donkey, observed
Mr. Leigh, but he brought in a number of chimney-sweepers, who
tore the house to pieces and cut the limper on the walls. He re-
cently made an attack on the witness in Chancery.lane, who was
obliged to take shelter from his fury in Dlr. Justice Parke's
chambers.

The Chief Commissioner here informed the insolvent, if be
wished to make any alterations in his schedule, which really ap-
peartd to be necessary, the case would be postponed for judgment.

The question was---whethes the insolvent would swear to the state.
ments contained in it ?

31r. Commissioner BOWEN—We have heard both sides; it re-
mains for the insolvent to swear to the schedule in its present state,
or to amend it if he thinks proper.
The insolvent accepted the offer of indulgence held out to him,
and said he would make some alterations in the schedule.