Star.
London, England, 1805-12-05 00:00:00

s,.

r cionfig prnfit. The Witnefs was deceived by this
Ile. s, and till the delution was made manifell, ado-
a ly thought that the Marquis was engaged in a ITh.ll
1,40 4' :` Ina cis. He w. old not now heti:, ve him
on lis oath. On his crots examination, the Witnefs
admitted there was ar aftion for ufury, fintilar to the
pretest, brought against him, be having, as he de-
fcribed ir, been alto one of the Marqui.'s dupes.
Several other Witneffes were alto examined to a
fmilar effeft.
Mr. SOLICITOR Gar+ RRAL in reply, contended that
one of two things mutt be admitted in this cafe.—
Either :he money advanced was advanced for co.
partnery ufes, in which event it mull be fubjeft to
every rifk, and could only be a debt again!! the Mar
quis Chamhnnas to far as the fpeculations had been
fuccefsful, which it was agreed on all hands they had
not been ; or, it was a loan in which a Itipulation for
more than 5 per cent. intereff conitituted ufury.—
That it was the latter he had the oath of the Defen.
dant hind-elf, who had fwt,rn a debt againit the
Marquis for the whole fums advanced to him, by
which he gave up all ideas of a copartnery, as no co-
partner,. could exifi without there being a rifle on
both fides, and whoever Iliptilated for a profit arifing
from trade, to a greater extent than 5 per cent. for
the money advanced by him, while be at the fame
time run no rifle, was guilty of Witty.
Lord ELLE*: acneouca informed the Jury, that the
principal queltion here was, whether the money ad-
vanced in this cafe was In advanced in the way of
loan, or for a participation in the profits of the trade
carried on by the Marquis Chambonas. That it was
not advanced with a view to the latter objeft he
thought was fufficiently apparent, from the cnnduft
of the Defendant himfelf, in arrefting the Marquis
for a debt. In doing fo, he hirnfelf had given to the
tranfaflion its proper complexion. lin partner could
proceed againft a partner, but in the Court of Chan-
cery. If the fums of money here advanced were
meant as loans, there could be no queltion that they
were nfon trantaraions, and that they were fo ad.
vanced he thought there was little doubt. If the
perfon making the advance could not claim profits,
it mull be a loan. If there was a partnerfhip, it mutt
be thewn in wh it proportion the profits were to be
divided. Here there was no given proportion fpeci.
net!. The law was jealous of allowing to ufurious
bargains any fubterfuge of this kind. The Statute
therefore extended to any engagements made under
colour or pretence of partnerfhips.
As to the words contradiflory to, or inconfdtent
with his evidence of to-day, formerly Rated to have
fallen f:nm the Marquis, they did not 'eeni to mend
the cafe, but (till treated the money advanced as
being a loan. Though thofe who had made the
loans to him, therefore, might have done fo in conic-
quence -of talk pretences held out to them, or from
being deceived by the belief that the Marquis was
carrying on a profitable 04 in which they wifhed
to (hare, Rill, in flipulating for a higher conlideration
than the legal intereft, they fobjefted them felves to
ifte charge of ufury. The only counts in the dtclar-
aunts, however, which came within the Aft of Par-
liament, as having taken place within twelve months
of the commencement of the aflion, were the feventh,
eighth, and ninth counts, relating to the 2cool. and
the feventeenth and eighteenth comas, which con-
cerned the r and.
The Jury retired for a few minutes, when they re-
turned with a verdiet for the Plaintiff on thefe five
counts.—Damages 2.5•2001.
gum V. M•ITLAND.
This was an aftion to recover damages for making
an illegal difirefs. It appeared that the Defendant
had let the Plaintiff, Mrs. Guyer, a ready furnifhed
houfe, in Palace Yard, at the rent of 1601. a year, to
be paid quarterly, but that conlidering, upon enquiry,
he had reafon to WWI her refponfibiiity, he dittrain-
el +Ton her at the end of a month. It w.rs Rated
that the Plaintiff was the vender of a quack medi-
cine in Red Lior.-fquate ; that the !rearm to whom
The had referred fora charafter was himfelf not alto..
gether immaculate with regard to his pecuniary
tranfaftions; and that, in point of fail, the articles dit.
trained confined only of a brats door plate, with the
name of a celebrated phyfician infcribed, a Rill, and
about twenty bottles, with their contents.
The Jury, after contidering all the circomflances
e of the cafe, gave the Plaintiff a vetdift, with 131.
damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC 2.
HILL V. SI4IW AND Slit WILLIAM LI IC:WrOti.
This was an aai,sn brought againft the Defendants
as la'e Sheriffs of Middlefer, to recover damages
from them, for the eleapt of Mary Manners, who
had been arretted at the (*nit of the Plaintiff, for a
fum of 171. 135. 7d. The declaration contained two
counts, the &II Hated, that Mrs. Manners had been
arreffed, and was allowed to ticape—and the 2d,
that fhe hart not been arreffed, though fhe might
have been, if due diligence h:td been ufed,
The vial occupied a confiderable portion of. the
day ; upwards of twenty witnefres were called to
prove the cafe on the part of the plaintiff. The fire
evidence gone into went to prove, that Mrs. Manners
had been indebted to the plaintiff, and had patted her
1 promiffory note for 171. 13s. 7d. which note not
1 being paid, a writ was Mired out againil Mrs. M.
The Del:laq Sheriff was then called, who proved,
that his under Officer had returned Mrs. Manners in
cuflody.
A long argument was entered into between Ser-
jeant 13s sr, for the Defendams, and Seri. SHEPHERD,
: for the Plaintiff—in the court:. of which, the former
nrgedl that the Under Sheriff 'horrid not be examin-
s ed, as he was hi.nfelf a party in the caufe, and his
, evidence might go to his own pit !ice. This cb.
jeaion, however, was done way, as Mrs. Manners's
attorney bad given the Sheriff an undertaking to
put in bail to all the :Idiom that might be pending
1 , againft her.
0 [i
The former evidence, rebating principally to the la
count in the declaration, a body was now produced
4 !1: in rapport of the fecond, to prose, that it' Mr,. Men.
• n:rs had not been arrelled, it was neglect on the part
of the Sheriffs, as Ike did not endeavour to conceal
'1 berfelf; but could be met with at tiny time. it air-
, rated, however, from the trots examination of moll
of the latter witnefes, that that lady was not as cur-
rent, or as eafy to .be fecu, as they, on their siirea .......n, would have had the Court believe.
The Plaintiff's attorney having then proved that
a ; ; she colt of cadeavuutiag to have Mrs. Manners ar•

I!O

'S~.#
~Y~,,

relied amounted to 61. los. the cafe was here clofed
on the part of his client.
Serjeant Iles?, on the part of the Defendant, ad-
rlrelfed the Jury in a very eloquent fpeech ; in the
coutfe of which he argued, that if a verdid WCIC
found for the Plaintiff, it thould only be with nomi-
nal damages, as they were to confider what proba-
bility there was of the Plaintiff's receiving his debt,
if, in reality, Mrs. Manners, who was now in the
rules of the Bench, had been arreited. In fupport
of this the learned Serjeant cited the cafe of Johnfon,
the (muggier, who had efcaped out of the Fleet.—
Several adions were, he Paid, brought againit the
Warden of the Fleet for the debts due by Mr. John-
ion, but in none of them was there more than nomi-
nal damages given, as it was confidered by the Jury
that the debtor was infolvent, and never could have
paid his creditors. After fome further obfervations
with refpe(t to the contradidion in the counts of the
declaration, the learned Serjeant concluded by fay -
ing, that if he had not a verdid, at all events, the
damages ought nut to be more than a (billing.
Sir ALAN CHAMBRE read over the evidence, and
oblerved, that in both the counts the verdid could
not be for the Plaintiff, as there was a manileft con-
traditlion in them ; but left it entirely to the Jury to
confider on which they would find for the Plaintiff.
His Lordlhip concluded by laying, that if Mrs.
Manners had been taken in execution, there was no
doubt but the Shetiffs would be liable ; but as fhe
had only been al relied on wine procefs, in lettlingthe
damages, the circumnances.of that lady (hould be
confidered—as, if the had been, in fad, thrown into
prifon, the Plaintiff never might from her infolvency,
have received one Chilling of his demand.
The Jury, after a few minutes confideraticn, found
a verdid for the Plaintiff, damages twenty (billings,
Gil the firft count, and a verdict for the Defendant oil
the fecond.

DECEMBER 4.
WARDSWORTH O. WILLAN AND OTHERS.

This was an anion brought by the Plaintiff, who
is a refpettable Attorney, to recover a compenfation
in damages from the Defendants, who arc Proprie-
tors of the Old Northampton Stage Coach, for injury
fuftained by him, in contequence of the negligence of
their coach-driver, on Sunday, the 22d Apt a lilt.
The cafe for the Plaintiff, as Rated by Mr. Ser-
jeant COCKLE, was, that the Plaintiff was travelling
on horfeback, upon the day above Rated, along the
road from London toward Finchley, about two
o'clock in the day; and meeting his wile walking
along the footpath on the road fide, he rode along
dole to the footpath, converting .vith her; when,
at the foot of the hill, near the White Lion public.
lynge, between Highgate and Finchley, the Old
No. thampton Stage Coach, coming towards London,
va; pang at the moment, and at a very rapid rate,
but, owing to the careleffnefs of the driver, came at
the wrongfide of the road according to the eftablifhed
rules of travelling in this country, and fo dole to
where the Plaintiff was proceeding gently along, as
to frighten his horfe, and leave him no room to
efcape from the carriage ; the confequence of which
was, that the horfe was thrown down by one of the
wheels of the carriage, the poor animal's thigh
broken, and, of courfe, became ufelefs to the
owner, who was hiinfelf flung by the fall in fuch a
manner, as that the bcaft rolled over him, and
caufed his Lady to faint, and fall down upon the
path way, with terror and alarm.
The fans let out by Mr. Cock ne were fubffantiated
by two witnefles. Mr. John Hedges, who was at
the White Lion public-houfe, and law the tranfaaion
from the window at about feventy yards dittance,
proved that the diflance between the coach and the
edge of the road, where the Plaintiff rode, was about
three yards—the road being twelve yards wide_; that
the coachman drove, at that place. on the fide of
the road opplfite to that which was cuftomary, or
the eflablilhed ufage, on the public roads; and a
young Gentleman, who was crofling a the near the
Ipot at the moment, proved the fame circumftances,
hiving meafured the breadth of he road at the [put,
by the particular defire of Mr. Wardfworth.
Mr. Serjeant Bssr, for the Defendant, argued,
that the 'accident had occurred, not in any degree
through any careleffnefs or inattention eon the part
of the coachman, but through the bad korfemanfhip
of the Plaintiff, and the reltivenefs of his boric, by
which means he was hacked againft the coach, and
into the way of the wheel,, fo luddenty, that it was
impotlible tor the coachman, with all his (kill, to
prevent the accictFot. In fupport of this ftatement,
he called the coachman, J. Cliarleton, who acknow•
'edged, that his coach was about a font on the wr sng
fide of the centre line of the road; that he faw, at
fifty yards diftance, the Plaintiff on horfeback, but
was not aware that his bode was fkittith, until he
had pafli:d by the tails of his leaders, when it was
impoffible for him to drive out of the way ; that he
did not know of the accident until he had paid the
Plaintiff, and that it occurred entirely through the
Plaintiff's bad horlemanfhip, in checking his horfe,
and backing him againft the body of the coach, be-
tween the fore and hind wheels. He laid, there was
roam enough on the road for a broad-wheeled wag
gon to pats him on the part where the Plaintiff was
riding ; and he raw not the flightell occafion to change
his courfe, even if there had been three holies abrealt
riding that way.
Three other witneffes, who were outfide paffengers,
fuftained this tetlimony, after which Mr. Serjeant
COCKLE addreired the Jury to evidence.
Mr. Jullice Roosts, who tried the caufe, in turn
ming up fur the Jury, laid, the cafe for the confider.
ation of the Jury, was not, whether the coachman
was driving within the diflance of a font on one fide
or the other of the precife centre of the road (for
there was no pofitive law binding in all cafes upon this
point), but, whether or not the Plaintiff was allowed
reafonable room to pats along, or fo circumftanced,
that the milchief occurred, not through mere acci-
dent, but through the negligence or defign of the
coachman. If the Jury thought the matter was the
relult of mere accident, it would be their duty to and
for the Defendant, hut if by defign or careleffheff,
the:: for the Plaintiff.—Verdil for the Plaintiff, 301.
damages (being the value of the boric), and 4os.
colts.

NOVIMBER 30,--.STABBING D. HADDON.
In this cafe the Plaintiff, &ebbing, had entered
into an agreement with the Defendant to build a
houfe at the flipulated price of 2751. and one claufe
in the agreement accordingly declared that the Plain-
tiff 'bunld compleat the boufe for the reception of

the Difendont" fin' that %tit; when the houfe mitt
finifhed, hnwever, the Plaintiff called in a Surveyor,
who give in his eflimate at 4i61. This *aim was
therefore brought to recover the difference between
this fum And 2671. the fum alithdly paid by the De-
fendant.

It was proved in the comic of the trial, that the
exti a charges attempted to be made by the ?WAIF
were for articles which were abfolutely neceffaiy to
render the houfe fit to be occupied, fuch as win.b.sts,
doors, &c. but which were not enumerated in the
agreement, although the Plaintiff had covenanted to
complete a houfe for the reception of the Defendant ;
it was alfo proved that the roof of the premiles bad
fallen in., that the walls were confequeney bulged,
and that it would require an expLnce ( f t Sol. to re-
build them, fo as to prevent them from becoming a
nuifance to the neighbourhood.
Sir ALLEN CHAMBiE, who tried the caufe, was
of opinion, that there was no departure from the
agreement proved, fufficient to warrant there extra
charges and the Jury accoreinaly gave a yea did fur
the Defendant.

ASSAULT AND EtATTFLY.
TILL 71. CAMERON AND STIJPART.

Serjeant BPST, for the Plaintiff, Rated, that the
parties in this aaion were Otlice! s on board the Sir
William Pulteney Indiaman, and tl,..at this was an ac-
tion for an affault on the plaintiff by the defendants
during their voyage from Bengal to Lottd.m. The
learned Serjeant then called the folltiwing witntffes
on the part of the Plaintiff.
James Newman laid he was fervant to a paffenger
on hoard the Sir William Pulteney during the voy•
age from Bengal to London in fuinmer, 184. That
on the evening of Sunday the azd of July, the wit-
nefs being then near the door of the mai room, he
overheard a quarrel between the plaintiff and an of-
ficer of the name of Robinfl,n, which ended in blows,
and he far: Robinfon hiking the plaintiff ; that ttp•
on his endeavouring to feparate the parties, he was
ordered out of the cabin by the defendant Stupart in
a rude manner. Tha a few minutes afterwards the
witnefs heard the plaintiff call out for alliitance, and
upon returning to the mefs-room he faw the defendant
Cameron flawing on the plaintiff's brealt with his
feet : that the wand's dragged Cameron off the
plaintiff, whereupon Camerou (truck the witnefs fe.
veral times.

Wm. Hall, fleward on board the Sir William Pul-
teary, was next called; Paid he was lying on his cot,
unable to rife from ficknals, at the time the affault
took place ; that he faw Cameron throw Till down
between two chefs, and afterwards Ramp upon his
breaa ; that alter the former witnefs, Newman, had
taken the defendant Cameron from off the plaintiff,
and while the plaintiff was fill lying on the deck, he
faw the other defendant, Stupart, trite the plaintiff,
and aim a blow at him, which however he warded off.

Capt. Marlhall, or the Sir William Pulteney, re-1
membered the plaintiff, Till, was a fortnight on the
lick lilt after the alfault in qttellion.
Seijeant SHEPPARD made an able defence for the
defendants, in which he regretted his inability to
call witneffes in their behalf, in coi4fegnence of filch
witnelfes being abfent from this country as feafaring
people. The learned Snjemt !kit alluded to the
pecuniary circumtlances of :he defendants, which he
bid would not admit of their paying heavy da-
mages.
Mr. Juflic: Roo fummed up the evidence in an
impartial manner, and the fury after a few minutes
invefligation gave a Verdi& for Plaintiff—Damages
501. coils 40E.