Star.
London, England, 1825-01-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORIn

COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY 13.
There was so little preparation among the Counsel
and Solicitors, that very few motions, and those of a
cursory nature, were made in the course of the sittings,
which terminated at half-past twelve o'clock.
The LORD,CHANCELLOR expressed his displeasure at
being thus treated : having nr.w given three days to
motions, the opportunities for which were not taken
bold of, he would hear no more before the next Seal.
A momentary altercation took place between Mr.
Horn and Mr. Heald. Mr. HORN said, that he had a
motion to make, in which Mr. Heald was engaged, but
he unc.erstood that it was the wish of his Learned
Friend to put it off till next Seal•day. Mr. HEALD
happened just then to come up to the bar, and said,
that he was quite ready s but that it was the wish of
his Learned Friend, and for his convenience only, that
it was to be pot off. Mr. Hoax said, that he would
not deign an answer to so unworthy an imputation. As
the motion was, notwithstanding all this, postponed, it
is difficult to discover which of their very contrary as-
sertions was the mote true, for it would seem, at the
first view, that one could not be so true as the other.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JANUARY 13.
DE BEAUVOIR B. RHODE.

The arguments of Counsel in this cause, which have
occupied the last three days, were concluded at the
hour of the Court's rising.
The Vica-CHANCELLaft asked to have the proceed-
ings and the evidence handed to him, and promised to
give judgment-as soon as he should have been able to
consider the contents of this voluminous body of papers.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, JAN. 15.

DOBELL V. STEVENS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
keeps the Ship Inn, Ivy-lane, Newgate street, to re-
cover a compensation in damages fdr a false and frau-
dulent representation made to him by the defendant, of
the extent of business carried on in it, in consequence
of which he had been induced to enter into a contract
with the defendant to purchase from him his stock in
trade and the lease of the Ship Inn, in which the de-
ftndant then carried on the business of an innkeeper.
Tlie facts of this case, which occupied the Court fur
fur Hours, lay in a very narrow compass. It appeared
that the plaintiff, who. had acquired a small sum of
money as a plumber and glazier, was recommended
to set up a public-house, in the hopes of increasing it.
Having learnt that the Ship Inn was to be disposed of,
fee applied for the terms to Mr. Cotterell, an auctioneer
in the Borough, who was authorized to sell it. Mr.
Cotterell showed him a memorandum, which he bad
taken by the defendant's direction, in which it was
stated " that he :tact a ten years' lease of the premises,
at a rent of 122/. per annum—that he asked for it a
premium of 5501.—that the goods and fixtures would,
came to about 4001. more—that the stock in trade
must be taken at an appraisement—that his tap was
let at a rent of 821. per annum, and two other rooms
in his house at 271. 12s. and that the business which
he was doing amounted altogether to 2401. per month."
Being. satisfied by this information, the plaintiff was
kitrocluced by Mr. Cotterell to the defendant, who re-
peated, in Mr. Cotterell's presence' what Mr. Cotterell
had before told the plaintiff, with this further explana-
tibn—that his trade to porter was seven butts, and his
trade iii spiritl mare than 1601. per month. 'A con-
vict was then wade between the plaintiff and the de.

'fendant, whereby the former agreed to purchase the'
lease of the Ship Inn of- the latter, for 4601. and paid
down 501. as a deposit upon it. On the sth of February.
1824, the contract was completed by the plaintiff's
paying to the defendant 1,1321.55. scl. which included
the remaining 4101. for the lease, and also the price
of the stock in trade and the fixtures. Tire plain-
tiff was then put into possession of the premises,
and shortly afterwards discovered that the business
of the house, notwithstanding all his diligence, fell
short of the account which had been given of it to him.
He was, in consequence, induced to make some inqui-
ries as to the extent of the trade which the defendant
had carried on in it;* and from those inquiries made of
the brewers and the excise officers, he discovered that
the defendant's trade iil porter was not more than five
butts and a half, and his trade in spirits less than 901.
per month. He likewise discovered, that the tap was
let for 67/.125. and not for 821. a-year, and the tuo
rooms for 25/. and not for 271.125. a-year. He also dis-
covered that the business had been decreasing for some
time before he took the house ; and in consequence de-
termined to apply to the defendant for compensation for
the injury he had sustained by these misrepresentations.
These facts were fully substantiated in the course of the
trial ; but it was extracted from the witnesses on the
part of the plaintiff, that on the safe of public-houses,
when an account was given of the extent of the trade_
carried on in them, it was usual, and at any rate com-
petent for the buyer to demand a sight of the pass-
books given by the brewers and distilleri to the publi-
can, to ascertain its correctness. A witness, who was
clerk to Mr. Cotterell at the time the contract was com-
pleted, but who is at present broker to the defendant,
had " a strong idea, but a faint recollection," that the
brewers' pass-book had hien absolutely shewn to the
plaintiff; but refused to swear positively to the fact. It
was likewise sworn, by the same witness, that in April,
the plaintiff had told him, that by going into Newgxte-
market, and treating the people well, he had no doubt
but that he should make the business answer well, and
that it was not till the month of October, or a short time
previously, that he heard from the plaintiff any com-
plaint of the bargain into which he had entered. At that
time the plaintiff's wife said to him, in the w i ness's
presence, 44 Dobell, you had better hold your toolish
tongue—your business would do very well, if you
would but attend to it." An attempt was made by the
defendant's Counsel to strew that the business of the Ship
Inn had fallen off since the plaintiff had taken it, in
consequence of his having changed the brewer, wine-
merchant, and distiller, of his bad management, and of
his not having kept his house so quiet as it had been
kept by his predecessor.
Mr. SC:A 'then. contended, that the misrepresentations
of the defendant to the plaintiff had been so false and
fraudulent as to entitle him to recover, if not the whole
price which he had paid to him for the premises, at
'least a very considerable portion of it. It was not
merely the difference between the real and pretended
receipts of the defendant, whilst in possession of the
Ship Inn, that the plaintiff had a right to recover; but
the whole amount of injury which he had sustained by
taking a house, which he had found to be a losing, when
it was represented to him as a winning concern.
Mr. Justice LI rnaciALE, en the i;:isrepresentation of
the rent of the tap and two rooms being pi owed, observed
to Mr. Scarlett that he thought this action could not lie
for a false affirmation with regard to rent, because it
was competent for the party to make inquiry of the
tenant as to its correctness; and if he did not make
such inquiry, it was his own fault by which he suffered.
He believed that this was even admitted to be law in
" Palsley v. Freeman"—a case of which he doubted the
general correctness, though it had now been so long esta-
blished, that it perhaps could not at present-be disputed.
Mr. SCA RLETT was of a different opinion from his
Lordship,4xcause, though the purchaser might apply
to the tenant for the information, the tenant was not
bound to afford it.

Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended that his
client, even supposing that his representations were false,
which he denied, was not liable, since the plaintiff had
been deficient in proper caution. There were in the
possession of every publican documents which showed
to a fraction the extent of his trade ; and a broker
selling a public-house, and a publican coming in,
might ascertain, by referring to them, whether the re-
presentations made about the trade of it were correct
or not. The plaintiff might have made these references ;
and if he bad not, it was by his own. fault alone that he
had suffered. He contended, however, that no false re-
presentation had been made. Indeed, no complaint had
been made of any, till some months after the contract
had been made, and then not until the plaintiff's cus-
tomers had discovered the change which had been
made in the brewer, the distiller, and the wine-nier-
cheat, who had formerly supplied the house. The sale
of the spirits, too, had been calculated on the price by
\the gallon, whereas they were sold to the market people
in much smaller quantities, which gave to the seller a
much greater profit. There was, therefore, no proof
that his trade in spirits had not produced the sum which
he had stated—a circumstance which, he trusted, they

would keep in mind, as also the singular fact, that
nobody had been called by the plaintiff to shew that
the house was not worth the sum he had given for it.
He, therefore, contended that the verdict ought to be
for his client.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, in summing up the evi-
dence to the Jury, told them that there were three
ptunts for their consideration—first, was there any such
representation as the plaintiff charged? and secondly,
if there was, was it true or false? If it was true, there
was an end to the case; if it was false, then came the
third point—was tht defendant liable for it? and if he
was, what was the amount of damages to which the
plaintiff was entitled ? There could be little doubt
that tlie representation' had been made; and that, as
far as the rent was concerned, it was untrue. So, too,

that the trade in porter was not seven butts; but only
five two-fifth butts per month. With regard to the
spirits, witnesses had said that it was less than 901. per
month,when it had been represented at 1601. per month.
They would, however, recollect that this was estimated
at the distiller's, and not the publican's prices.
The Jury retired at half-past one, and returned theist
verdict at half-past ten at night, for the plaintiff—
Damages, 1701. costs, 40s. The damages were thus
apportioned.—As to trade, 1501. as tc tent, 201.

Yesterday evening, a fire broke out at a cotton wad-
ding manufactory, in Charles-street, Blackfriars-road,
which might have been. attended with serious conse-
quences, but for the activity of the workmen employed
on the remises. Fortunately it was got under without
any farther mischief than the destruction of a quantity
of the materials employed in the manufactory.

OLD BAILEY, JAN.I3.
OLD COURT.
Wm. Pearce and George &ace were put to the bar,
on an indictment charging them capitally with burgla-
riously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of
William Wilberforce, jun. Esq. on the 16th of Novem-
ber, at the parish of St. Mary Abbot, Kensington, and
stealing therefrom plate to the value of upwards of 501.
and various other property to a great amount.
The prosecutor is the son of the Member of Parlia-
ment, and stated, that on the day in question he was
called down stairs, about seven o'clock in the morning,
by a servant maid, who informed him that his house
had been broken open during the night, and robbed as
stated. He searched the house, and found the thieves
got access to the premises through the garden, and that
a window which looked into it had been broken•open, a
cupboard in that loom forced, in addition to several
other doers, until they gfrt access to where tke plate,
was kept. On searching the garden, he observed foot-
marks, which were measured by a piece of stick which
would be produced. In addition to the plate stolen,
there were two coats, and a number of pairs of silk
stockings, taken away.
Elizabeth Pearce stated, that she lived as servant
with Mr. Wilberforce at the time of the robbery. On
the night of the 16th, witness fastened the windows and
locked the door on going to bed. _She had the care of
her master's linen, and bad seen some silk stockings in
the care of the officers, which she knew to belong to
her master, and to have been stolen at the time of the
robbery. Some of the stockings were marked " Wil-
berforce," but the mark had been partly, obliterated
since ,the robbery.
Ann Gadwick, also a servant to Mr. Wilberforce,
corroborated the testimony of the last witness as to the
rubbery, and the subsequent proceedings.
Wm. Burrell, an officer, had searched the lodgings of
the prisoners, and found in their possession a complete
set if implements for house-breaking, and several pairs
of silk stockings, which were sworn to by Elizabeth
Pearce, as the property of Mr. Wilberforce. The wit-
ness bad measured the shoes o f the prisoners with the
piece of stick, and found them to tally.
t From the length of three that had elapsed before the prisoners
were ansehended, and it not being proved that they were near the
premises, a doubt existed as to their guilt. The defence set up
was, that the stockings had been left in 'a small bundle at the
house, by a person who came to inquire fora lodging, but who he
was they protestid they had no knowledge.]
Mr. Justice GAZILFE summed up the evidence, and the Jury
found the prisoners Art
The same prisoners were again indicted for burgh-
riously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of
Wm. Fair, at Shepherd's Bush, on the 27th of August
last, and stealing piopetty to the amount of upwards
of 201. his pt opetty.—Not Guilty.
The same prisoners were again put to the bar, on an
indictment charging them with stealing, on the 10th of
November, in tl:e parish of Ealing, a quantity of car-
penter's tools, the property of Thomas Eyles. The
Jury found the prisoners Guilty.
The Court did not go into the fourth indictment, it being nearly
five o'clock.

Mary Wardle and Mary Moll, alias Marianne Warns,
were indicted for stealing two sovereigns, and Ils. 6d
from the person of Edward Howell. The prosecutor
who is a navy pensioner, living in Vinestrect, West-
minster, had been, on the 4th of January, to receive his
pension. On his return, be met the pr isoner Mott, and
after some conversation they went to a house in Duck-
lane. He had not been there many 'minutes, when the
prisoner left him. She soon after returned, in company
with the other p; isoner, and two other women. They
pushed him down on a bed, held him there, and Mott
cut his pocket off, and thus deprived him of the money
mentioned in the indictment. They ran out of the
room, and the next morning, about lour o'clock, the two
prisoners were found sleeping in the same house. They
were taken into custody, and both denied any know-
ledge of the transaction.—The Jury, after some mi•
nines consideration, acquitted b-ah prisoners.
Richard Shee was charged with embezzling 7s. 6d.
the property of Thomas Butler. It appeared that the
prosecutor was a baker, living in Whitcomb-street,
Charing-cross, and the prisoner a man in his service.—
Part of the employment of the latter was to carry out
the bread, and receive the motley due from the different
customers. Among others was a Gentleman named
Watkins. A sum of two pounds and upwards had
bees due loin Ur. Watkins, but a payment had been
made, which reduced it to 7s. 6d. This the prisoner
received on the 2d of October, but gave no account of
it to his master. On the 12th of the same month the
prisoner left his master's employment, and soon after,
when inquiries were made_at the house of Mr. Watkins,
the fraud of the prisoner was discovered. The prisoner
was taken into custody, but did not deny the commis-
sion of the offence.—Guilty.
Lewis Abrahams was indicted fur stealing a watch,
seals, and several other valuable atticles, amounting in
value to above one hundred pounds, the property of
Mrs. Bryant. The prosecutor, who is a coal-merchant,
found it necessary to move from his residence, in Can-
non-street-road, to his present house, on Holloway-
terrace," Mile-end. On the day appointed for the re-
moval of his furniture, a box, containing the above ar-
ticles, was placed in the waggon. The box was soon
missed, a pursuit was commenced, and the prisoner fol-
lowed into Albion-street; he went into No. 29 ; he was
followed there, but not found ; on the fire, however, was
seen a trunk broken up and beginning to burn ; it was
immediately snatched from the flames ond spewed to
the prosecutor, who recognised it as her own. The
prisoner was found in the house nest door. In the
house where the box was found, all the articles which
had been lost were discovered. The prisoner also had
been seen coming along the street with a trunk under
his arm, which, as far as the witnesses could judge, was
the same as that whose fragments were found burning.
Mrs. Bryant now applied the key, which she retained
in her possession, to the lock on the fragments, and it
fitted exactly.
Several witnesses were called to the good character
of the pa isoner.—The Jury immediately returned a ver-
dict of Guilty.
The RISCORDER then, after severely animadverting on
the crime of the prisoner, said, that from the daring
manner in which it had been committed, it was evident
he was an experienced thief. He should, therefore, no
longer expect to remain in this country.—Sentenced to
seven years' transportation.

BANK or InELAnn.—The Bank have reduced their
discount from 5 to 4 per cent. on English bills, and
will give bills on London, payable at the Bank ("Eng-
land, at 21 days' date, instead of 30. Great advantages
must result from this arrangement, both in regard to
mercantile convenience and the Me of exchange.