Star.
London, England, 1805-07-18 00:00:00

LAW II477IL'.IGENCE.

SHERIFF'S COURT, JULY x 7.
• same v. TROTTSIL.
This was an inquiry before the Secondary Judg•
ment on the aelion having been faltered to go by de-
fault in the Common Pleas) at the !hit of Mr. Sharpe,
an eminent }herald painter, againft Alexander Trot-
ter, Efq. for the recovery of twenty guineas, for a
fplendid painting on vellum of the armorial bear-
ings of the defendant. It appeared in evidence that
in or about the beginning of 041ober latt, the De•
fendant bad applied to the plaintiff for a painting of
his arms, creft, mantling. &c. ; and had given the
moil particular and critical int] ritzlions relative to tl e
Ilyle of the execution, which he wised to be in the
true antique tafte. Many communications had taken
place on this important fubjett, and fo ertuvt did the
defendant's attention appear to be •direfted to the
creft, in particular, which is a 7 toting iforA that
the Plaintiff, in the doubt of being able to &tidy his
precife notions of excellence, had been induced to
propole to him to obtain fpecimens of the Trott*
liorfi from Come art.& who had made the anatomy of
the bode his particular Rudy, and menti,neti the dit•
tinguifhed names of Gilpin and &mar. To this the
Defendant objedted ; alledging, that what either of
thofe ;mitts Mould produce he. would not approve I
The tafte of the Plaintiff, therefore, under the De-
fendant's particular cognizance, was deemed fulficient
to produce the required effc.A. In confequence, Cc-
veral drawings of the Trolling Horfe were, at different
times, fubmitted to the Defendant, who chofe from
them one which fhould the Plaintiff's example in
the work. After a troublefome correfpondence, the
work had been executed to the apparent approbation
of the Defendant ; but he refuted to remunerate the
artift to the extent of his moderate demand.
Several Gentlemen from the Herald's College, and
tome ingenious artifts, appeared to heir teftimony to
the value of the work, as well as to the Plaintiff's
ability in his particular art, and general honourable
chataaer.—Verdid for Plaintiff to the full amount.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 17.
JOSEPH SIMPSON V. RICHARD DAVIS.
This was an aaion on a Bill of Exchange, dated
27th of September, 1804, at two months, for 1671.
Bs. A former caufe between the fame parties, and
on the fame bill, had been tried, when the Plain.
tiff was non-foited. On the motion of Mr. ERSK int,
in Term, the non fuit was fet afide, and a new trial
was granted, which came on now to be heard.
Mr. EIIIKIN a, for the Plaintiff, laid, that in the pre.
ceding caufe, a perfon of the name of Robert Wal.
lace had been called, whole teftimony alone difap.
pointed the juff pretenfions of his client. He fur
poled that perfan was now prefent ; and therefore,
left be should fquare his teltimony in the purpofes of
the defence, he thould only prove the bill, and re.
ferve his comments fora future Rage, if they fhould
be necefftry.
R. Blythe proved the hand writing of the Defea•
dant, who was the acceptor.
Mr. acceptor. Paw, for the Defendant, raid, that his client
had no more to do with the refpanfiloility in this
tranfaiffion than any individual on the Jury. His fire
objett would be to Phew, that the Defendant was us
acceptor withont confideration; and, next, that the
Plaintiff was Co far implicated in the affair, either u
partner with Wallace, or as cognizant of what Wel.
lace did, that he could eftablifh no claim on the De.
fendant. Wallace would prove, that, for the bill i*
queftion, the Defendant had no fuch confideratien ;
and, further, that the Plaintiff was made acquainted
with the condition on which the acceptance was ob-
tained ; viz. that Wallace, the drawer, should pro.
vide for it at the time of its maturity.
Robert Wallace depofed, that he was a partner
with the Plaintiff in Come of his concerns ; that he
procured this acceptance, under a promife to the
Defendant of hipplyirg him with funds for the dif-
charge of the bill. He added, that he met the Plain-
tiff at Carl& in December, 1804, and acquainted
him with the terms on which the name of the drawee
was obtained for the bill.

Lord Etismsottouou raid, the Plaintiff reteived
this bill from Wallace, as part payment on the gene-
ral tranfaftions between the Plaintiff and Wallace, •
as his agent. In point of law he was entitled to the
money, although k was to be regretted that the De.
fendant had rendered himfelf liable by hia indifcreet
confidence.—Verdid for the Plaintiff, principal and
Mural, 1751.

AIM in •Atol BRAT.

This aEtion was brought for the (urn of 271. the
value Rated for a coach-horfe fold to the Defendant.
Mr. &SKINS, for the former, laid, tha: thi; horfe
was fold under a warrantry; and that fourteen or
fifteen days after the file, the bode was returned with
the following letter—
.. Str—The hay coach gelding I bought of you Lft week, proves
to be glandered, therefore I have roamed Mm; and as I am told
leo knew of the diftemper, I am furprtkd you fold me a horfe
Lifoch a State. (Signed) " AARON BRAY."
The Learned Countel laid, the bell anfwer to loch
an allegation was, that the horfe was at the door of
Guildhall, in perk& health, for the glanders was an
incurable complaint, and was attended with almolt
immediate death. It wa, true, that the horfe had a
fort of cold, which was fometin2es called the ftran.
ries, but at the time of the warrantry, the Defen-
dant was ditlinftly made acquainted with the diforder.
After Several witne&s bad been called,
Mr. Richard Marfden Grid the horfe bad been fob-
jet to a confiderable difcharge of maim from tld
firangles—he never knew a glandered horfe recover.
Mr. Coleman laid, that the Ilrangles was the in.
&minion of a gland in the Centre of the throat, which
commonly terminates in fuppuration, and with tome
difcharge from the noßril,. The glanders was an
infettions difeafe, but not always brought on by
contagion. It was more frequently occafioned by a
foul atmorphere in the (fable, than by contagion.—
There were two fpecies 'f the glanders ; the one was
an acute diteafe, which affeßed the conllitution of the
animal generally, and was not abfolutely incurable;
he had known tome few inflances of recovery. The
chronic glanders did not direelly ace the nollrils,
although they were the channels of the difcharge, yet
the teat of corruption was in the cavities of the head.
This (pecks of the diforder was both contagious and -
incurable. He had accidente4 teen the iiorfc
time of tale ; he then hid an ulcer on the r
tome of the abforbents were confiderabl)
added to that, the glands were fchirrous.
The Plaintiff was nontuitcd.

coronet, and
17 enlarged;

_.

SPORTING INTELLIGEAI.E.

CARDIFF, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3.

fie MaiAen Plate of 501. for three-year old; and upward*. Two

. .
mile beam
Mr. R. Jone,:e ch e. 'tuft+, by Buzzard, dam by Pragos,
Mt of Falitha.3.yrs old, 7 ft. - - I a
Mr. Hurft', b. c.by Furtunio, 3,-yrs old, 7ft. - 2 a

I,