Star.
London, England, 1822-10-18 00:00:00

.

Tilt NEW MARRIAGE ACT.

Dear Polly, believe me, i long before. this, .
In Wedidek expected the sea of my bliss:
What a pity two hearts, that by love are fast tied,
A law su unfeeling should strive to divide;
For how can they think that entind such as your's •
Would consent th.: her name should be stuck on church-doors?
Whilst your Tommy, his age, trade, and place must divulge,
That each prying fool his rude jukes might indulge—
Dow long It:: has liv'd, and Coa knows what beside!
What a shalt::: thus !o.sever a man from his bride!
Yet, whilst modesty paints the dear blush on your cheek,.
I of. Wedlock no more shall e'er venture to speak;
The termsswhich they..proffer us Dever will suit,
•
For with ntodesty love is torn up by the toot!
_A

LAW INTgLLIGENCE.

COURT'OF 4INGI BENCH, OCTOBER 17.

•
WEST O. WADE.
Tliis was an action to recover a debt alleged to be
due by the defendant.
The circumstances of the case are as follow :—The
plaintiff is a tailor, and the defendant the widow of
an officer, who, at the time of his death, carried on
the business of manufacturing paint. At that period
he was indebted to the plaintiff for some clothes.
which he got from him,. and this debt was increased
by his having supplied defendant's family with mourn-
ing clothes to the amount of 131. 'The plaintiff had
already taken paint to the value of 91.55. which left
only 31. 15s. due of the last debt. She was subse-
quently arrested both for her husband's debts and the
entire amount of the one contracted by herself. On
her arrest she gave bail, and lodged what she con-
ceived to be the sum due by her, 3/. 15s. in Court.

The shopman 9f the defendant proved that when
she was informed of the plaintiff's having got the
paint she regretted it very much, as she could have
sold it for cash to another. She also said, Well, this
is all on accrunt of the poor .Colonel, and I fear I
shall never receive.a farthing for it."
A witness for the defendant said, that in a conver•
sation between him and the plaintiff, in which he
reproached him ltrreting the defendant, plain-
tiff said that he expected the paint would go in the
old accotrnt.

The CUIEF Jus•rtcc said that the verdict must de-
pend on the construction put upon the conversations.
the Jury were already aware that the wife wasmot
in law -bound to the debts of her husband, unless she
had subsequently agreed to take them on herself.—
With regard to the expression of the defendant, " All
this is on account of the poor Colonel," might mean
that it was in conseqtTence of the mourning procuad
at his death, and in that case she would not " receive
a farthing." however, this was a matter for tkeJury
only to determine.—Verdict for the defendant.

EWINGTON V. PARKINS.

This was an action to recover 1581. 4s.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case. He said this was an
action nomi na II y against the Sheriff, but really against
Hopwood and Laver, Sheriffs' officers. The plaintiff,
who was the indorsee of a bill of exchange for 101.
to a person named White, arrested him for the debt.
White entered bail, but in the bail-bond the name of
Arabella Hazard was inserted as plaintiff by the offi-
cers. This name was era,ed, and that of Wingrave
substituted. This name was also erased, and that of
the present plaintiff iicroduced. The plaintiff pro-
ceeded against White for the recovery of his debt,
but was ttonsuited, because at the time of com-
mencing the action the name or/Wingrave was in
the bait-bond as piaiatiff. In consequence of the
nonsuit plaintiff incurred costs to the amount of
1481.45. besides the original debt, White having since
become insolvent. It was a constant practice with
Sheriffs' officers to make the same bail-bond answer
for several actions by the erasut e of names, by which
system the plaintiff incurred the loss of L5B/. 4s.
which he now sought to recover.
It was proved that Wingrave's name was in the
bail-bond as plaintiff, at the time of commencing the
action, and that plaintiff's name was subsequently in-
troduced by the Shetiffs' officers.
Mr. Hour called no witnesses. He admitted that
the Sheriffs' officers were the real defendants, and
that a substitution of names had taken place, but
without any improper design. It was merely an in-
nocent mistake; which had been taken advantage of
by plaintiff's attorney to furnish himself with a large
bill of costs.

- .
Verdict for the plaintiff; 1581. 4s. subject to reduc-
tion by tile Master's taxation of the bill of costs in the
former action.

GORDON V. CAMPBELL.

This,was an action to recover from the defendant,
as the surviving partner of the firm of Stewart and
Campbell, the sum of 121.50. The facts of the case
are as follows :—The plaintiff, late a Captain in the
Portuguese service, wrote in 1816 to Mr. Stewart,
then in the service of Greenwood and Cox, army
agents, inclosing a bill on them for £l5O, with which
he was to buy in the Three per Cents. Some time
after, Mr. Stewart formed a partnership with the
defendant as army agents, and during this partner-
ship several written communications passed as to the
1.:150, which was never applied to purchasing in the •
Three per Cents. In all these communications "r and
not " We" was used, which shewed that it was a
.transaction on the part of Mr. Stewart, and not .of
the firm. Captain Gordon, it appeared afterwards,
did business with Stewart and Campbell, and in set-
tling his accotint. die never ieceived credit for the.
which•ho wcztildisave done if wii considered
the debt of the firm. Mr. Stewart has since died in-
solvent; god the q'nestion now was, whether the hill'
sent &Stewart was sent to him merely as a personali
friend, or on tile account of the firm, upon which the
evidence was circumstantial?
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the Jury would form
'their verdict aecording to the impression which the
evidence had made upon their • minds. If they •be-
-Loved that the money' Was 'emitted to the firm, they
• *ould.then find for the plaintiff ; but if, on xhi con-
trary, they were of opinion that it was remitted to
Siew,art °Liras the friend of Captain Gordon
'which he confeoed was the impression upon his
then they would find for the_ilefendant; how-
'tis wits eritilely.for their coakideration.—Orer-
the defend-tat.
VW V. PRACOCIG
was an action to recover claques from the
defendant, for having held the plaintiff to bait on an

,A~ -. _
~ -

k '

Verdict—Damages £ls—Costs 40s.
WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.

,i •
arrest, for a bill oreicishlc,e+lE. Mtbe having ben
iveviouslp satisfied. .1
Mr..MAßltyArr -stated t"ho.—.
raik '
said the,plaintiff was meehanist hi4.lVl4extiff 46,
siding in JermYn-street,. and .the "defenatint. st'as an
attorney. residing in Cambridge; The plaintiff; to
accommodate a 'friend of his (Mr. lisse*Who also
resided in Cambridge, accepted a bill- exchange
fOr July, 1820, payable in four -nintahs. Mr.
:Tones baVing an extensive. dealing witlithe defen-
dant, and Sews indebted to turn in a large sum, gave
him this bill.as a iatisfaction for part antis demand:
In three. Weeks after the bill became due, Me, Jones
'paid it, together with a further sum of SOL in cash,-,
but did not then take up the bill, the defendant
having said it Was at his office in Barnwell, about a
milefrom Cambridge; however, he gave the plain-
tiCa memorandum, acknowledging the payment of
the bill, and the receipt of the SOL Notwithstanding.
this, in the course of the following year the defendant
made an affidavit that 501. was due to him on the bill
by the plaintiff, and, without any previous commu-
nication, 4rrested him; to which the defendant was
obliged to give bail. The defendant then commenced
an action againit Mr. Brandt, which he droPt on dis-
covering that the bill had been satisfied, and accord-
ingly took out a rule of discontinuance. Upon the
termination of that suit the present action was insti-
tuted; the Learned Counsel said that he would prove
these circumstances in evidence, and had no doubt
that the Jury would award a liberal compensation
for the injury sustained by the plaintiff.
The bill and arrest were proved.
Mr. Jones proved the payment of the bill, with
SO/. besides, and the receiving a memorandum to
that effect from the defendant.

Hopwood, the keeper of a lock-up-house, proved
that he had Mr. Brandt in custody for three or four
hours, and his having been held to bail; the costs in-
curred during the time were two or three pounds.
An Attorney employed in the former action proved
that 61. costs had been incurred.

Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, maintained that
to support the action it was necessary to prove that
the arrest was founded in malice, and cited the case
of Gibson v. Katers, 2d Bolton and Puller, p. 129.
Mr. MARRYATT contended that an action was
maintainable, and cited a similar case from 4th Taun-
ton, p. 7, in which it was held that an action was
maintainable.

Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury. He said, to li
give the plaintiff any compensation in damages,
they should be satisfied that the defendant had ar-
rested the plaintiff maliciously and with an intent to
injure him; to support which, a particle of evidence
had not been offered. Was it probable that any man,
much less a man experienced in business, would arrest
another, knowing that the payment of the debt could
at once be proved by the production of his own me-
morandum, and thus subject himself to all the con-
sequences of an action ? It was admitted that Jones
was considerably indebted to the defendant, and it
was not improbable that the defendant might have
supposed the payment of £BO to have been made with-
out reference to•the bill at all. The Learned Counsel
-said he was persuaded that the Gentlemen of the
Jury could not for a moment believe that the de-
fendant was influenced by any malicious motive, and
therefore he entertained no doubt of their verdict.

The Cum, JusTios said, that he did not agree
'with the Learned Counsel for the defendant, that an
action was not maintainable in this case. His Lord-
ship was of opinion that, at all events, the plaintiff
was entitled to recover the expenses incurred ; but if
the Jury were satisfied that the arrest was founded in
malice, and with an intent to injure and ruin the
plaintiff in his business, then the plaintiff was cer-
tainly entitled to compensation, but in what degree it
would be for them•to consider.

Yesterday the Sessions commenced before FRANCIS
CoNsv, Esq. Chairman, and a Bench of Magistrates.
A Jew, named Alexander, was tried on an indict-
ment, charging him with an assault upon Loyd,
a watchman belonging to the parish of St. Paul, Co-
vent-garden. The prosecutor stated, that between
four and five o'clock in the morning, about two months
ago, he saw the defendant in Phoenix-alley, pulling
the bell, and knocking at the door of a house fre-
quented by women of the town ; that he went up
and desired him to go away) which the defendant at
first refused to do ; but that after being taken into
custody, the defendant acknowledged himself in
fault, and was allowed to depart, but that he after-
wards followed the witness into Hart-street, where,
after somCabusive language, he struck the witness.
This testimony was in part corroborated by that of
other watchmen, who had come up at the time.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury on behalf of
the defendant, and called the following witnesses to
contradict the statements of the watchmen.

James Livermore said he had been in company
with Alexander the greater part of the night in ques-
tion. Between four and five o'clock in the morning
Alexander went to the door* of a house in Plicenix-
alley, and there saw a young woman with whom he
was conVerstrtgin the •passuge, the door being about
half open. %uiche' was there, the prosecutor, Loyd,
.came otit of a house on the opposite side of the way,
crossed over, and desired Alexander to go away about
his businessf The latter said he would not go, on
which the watchman pushed him from the door, and
threatefed to'take him to the watch-house. The de-
•findant, indignant •at this treatment, put his hand
into his pocket, pulled out slime sovereigns, and said
he would fight the prosecutor for £5 if he was offhis
beat. The !WO accepted the challenge by saying
thee it.w.ented only 2Q minutes to five o clock, when
44iihould be off duty, and that he would then fight
hiM: When the hour of five- o'clock arrived, the
.parties were in Hart-street, and witness recommended
tb the defendant, who had then got into a public-'
house, to give the watchman something to drink and
put art end to the dispute ; batpshe defendant said he
*mild give him nothing. unless itmas poison. The
watchman; in the mean time; followed the defendant,
and called him by a shocking name not fit to be men-
tioned. The defendant said, if he ealled him by that
name again he would' knock him down. Upon this,
the watchman struck defendant on the head.-with a
stick and cut • his hat; a scufilesensued, and other
watchmen corning tip, the defendant was taken to
the watch-house. He was afterwards brought to
Haw-street,nad committed for the assault.
The neat witness was William Richards, who said

il ! 1 laved
• I‘.”-.4/.....
the
*ould.the
',HI .
v,
ttayy, du
'Mr. Se„
)' ; . i t
(which fl,
.tainti), thi
I e'er, this
i, dict For tt
I ;
This vt
defeadaui
I. 1