Star.
London, England, 1822-11-19 00:00:00

ef • - - 09•,•r o," •
.•. . •
had determined to take the old new trials to-morrow
and Wednesday, instead of. the special 'papa,` and
Crown paper.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that there Was a case o the
King v.-Williams, for a libel; which he was anxious
to bring before the Court, as it would be.very Intern-
venient to the defendant, who i.esided in Durham,
and was now in town; if the case s. ould stand over
till another Term. His Learned Friend Mr. Brougham
and himself had arranged that it should be brought
on on Wednesday.
The LORD Croft JUSTICE replied, that he could
not say what the other Judges would think on an,
application to take the case on that day. What, at
preset*, they had decided was, that the Crown, paper
should not be taken, but that the argumeuts on the
old new trials shOuld be heard.
etxoe t'. OA !MATT AND YEATILIS.
Mr. PLATT stated that this was an action of tres-
pass for taking the plaintiff's goods.
Mr. SCARLETT derailed the circumstances under
which the plaintiff sought to recover. The action
was brought nominally against the late Sheriff of
Middlesex, for trespass committed in taking a print-
ing press and types of the plaintiff, under an execu-
tion against a person named Scott. Mr. Scott and
Mr. 'Nixon had entered into partnership in the publi-
cation of a Newspaper called the Military Register,
in Pall.mall-court ; but Mr. Nixon ordered and pad
for the printing press and types in question, and they
were deposited in Pall mall-court. Afterwards a
person named Hathway set up a Paper called The
Observer of the Times, of which Mr. Scott became
the Editor and Punter.. The Jury were aware that,
the da;ly newspaper called The Times had a very
extensive circulation ; and therefore the proprietors
of several other papers had imitated its title in the
hope of sharing in its success. This was the case of
the paper in question, which Mr. Scott engaged to
print and edit, and to enable him to perform the,
printing, he removed the types of Mr. Nixon from
Pall-malkourt to Catherine-street, where the Ob-
server of tke Times was conducted. This, however,,
was not all; for he caused an execution against him-
self to belevied on theseeffects ; and then, when they
were put up to sale by auction, offered to become
their purchaser. Notice was given to the Sheaf,
not to sell ; but theyr persevered, and sold the pro-
perty ; and had thus made themselves liable to the
present attion.
To support this case on behalf of the plaintiff, evi-
dence was given to shew that the types and printing
press were. ordered and paid for by Mr. Nixon. Mr.
Hathway stated that he engaged Mr. Scott to print
and edit the Observer of the Times at a salary of 161.
a week, but never heard the name of Nixon till after-
wards. The Officer who took the property in execu-
tion obtained admittance in consequence of a servant
of Scott coming and asking some question, which
gave him the opportunity to enter. The seizure,
and the oers of Mr. Scott to purchase of the auc-
tioneer, were also proved.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, expressed his con-
fidence that he sh,e-ld be able to strew that the pro-
perty was partnership property, and therefore rightly
taken by the Sheriff; and that, even giving credit
for Mt. Nixon's share in it, he was indebted to Mr.
Scott in upwards of 1991. To establish this he
called 311.. Scott.
It was objected to the competency of Mr. Scott,
that by establishing the validity of the execution he
would discharge himself from the debt due to the
original plaintiffs; but a release from them was pro-
duced, which rendered him a competent witness. He
stated that the property was part of the premium of
.5151. to be advanced by Mr. Nixon, and belonged to
the partnership. The original debt was due to the
4andlord of the premises where the business was ear-'
tied on in Pall-mall-court, which he possessed before
the commencement of the partnership, and continues
to possess now. He never sent any one to point out
the goods to the Sheriff, nor was there any collusion
between 'himself and the plaintiff in the action. Mr.
Nixon was now indebted to hith more than 1991. he'
had a share in the profit of printing, though not of
editing the Observer of the Times.
On cross-examination, he denied that he ever said
to Mr. Miller that the press and types were Nixon's
separate property.
Henry Reynolds, the articled Clerk of the last
witness, stated the types were intermingled with the
partnership property.
On cross-eeamination, he admitted that he went,
with the consent of his master, with the Shetiff's
Officer to Mr. Hathway's, on the occasion of the levy.
Mr. Miller, the Attorney for the plaintiff, was then
called to contradict Mr. Scott, and positively swore
that Mr. Scott had told him the press and types were
the property of Mr. Nixon, and that they were always
treated as such at meetings of the parties.
Mr. GURNEY observed on this evidence, and Mr.
SCARLETT replied on the whole case.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to say whe-
ther they believed Mr. Scott's statement, or that of
the other witnesses, under which direction they found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2501.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER is.
ST. JOHN V. SIR T. CI!AMPNEYS.

The arguments of Counsel on both sides were con-
cluded on Friday.—Judgment deferred.
• CRVENTRY V. SIR T. CIIAMPNETS.

In this case, which was nearly the same in the
points at issue as in the preceding, the Rule was en-
larged until next Term, with the understanding, that
in the interim an arrangement would be made be-
tween the parties.