Star.
London, England, 1809-12-07 00:00:00

BOLDER° v. JACKSON.

This was a case reserved for the opinion of the
Court of King's Bench, tried at the Sittings after Tri-
nity Term, before Lord ELLENBOROCGH and a Special
Jury, and this day, on hearing the arguments of Mr.
DAMPIER for the plaintiff, the Court was unanimously
of opinion, that the verdict should be taken for the
lesser sum of £26,991. 2s. 6d. instead of £58,241.
2s. 6d. the sum claimed.

DECEMBER 5.-HA RAISON V. KING.

The Plaintiff in this case is a respectable Attorney,
and the Defendant is a person well known to the
public, in consequence of his extensive pecuniary
transactions. It was an action to recover damages
for various instances of malice towards the Plaintiff,
exhibited in the shape of different criminal prosecu-
tions, libellous aspersion, and false imprisonment.—
Fo•ar charges against the Defendant were specified in
the record. First, that he had maliciously, and with-
out any reasonable, or probable cause, apprehended
the Plaintiff, and charged him, before the Magistrates
of Bow-street, with having forged an acceptance to a
Bill of Exchange, for the sum of £l5, purporting to
be the acceptance of Messrs. Home and Co., No. 4,
Copthall-court, no such persons (as was alledged)
being in existence. Secondly, that, on the 11th of
December, 1808, he published a libel on the charac-
ter of the Defendant, in the Sunday Newspaper, call-
ed The British Guardian, in a statement of facts, pur-
p"rting to be a report of the proceedings before the
'Magistrates, on the said charge of forgery. Thirdly,
that he had maliciously entered judgment in execution
against the Plaintiff, on a warrant of attorney, for
the sum of £250, whilst, at the time, he was not in-,
&bred to him a single farthing ; but, on the contrary,
that the defendant owed him (the plaintiff) £45, the
balance of an account. Fourthly, and lastly, that
the defendant, on the 9th of January, in the present
year, went before the Grand Jury of the county of
Middlesex, and preferred an indictment against the
plaintiff, for obtaining money under false pretences,
by means of the said bill of exchange, he, the defen-
dant, had before charged him with having uttered,
knowing it to be false and forged.
This bill of indictment was however thrown out by
the Grand Jury. The libel complained of was con.
tamed in the British Guardian, in the form of a report
of the Bow-street proceedings upon the above case.
To prove the defendant's connection with this Pa-
per, Beamont, the late publisher (now confined in
Newgate for a libel) was brought into Court. He
stated that he was at the time the sole proprietor; but
on cross-examination he admitted that King furnished
money for the support of the Paper, and that he daily
revised the matter which was inserted in the l'aper.
When he went to Newgate, he said he parted with
the property of the Paper to a Gentleman of the name
of Lettis, but upon further examination it turned out
that this Gentleman was Mr. King's butler.
A Mr. Smith, an attorney, who had been concerned
for King, stated that he had been employed in the
transaction between him and King, but he had de-
clined to enter upon the judgment, and take out an
execution against Harrison for £6OO and upwards,
because in his conception of the accounts nothing was
due. This execution was afterwards sued out by Mr..
King, and Harrison taken on a Ca. Sa. In the end,'
however, by the award of Mr. Montague, to whom
the accounts between the parties were referred,nothing
appeared to be due.
I This case being made out by a great deal of docu-
mentary and oral evidence,
Mr. CLIFFORD addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and contended that there was sufficient suspicion in
the conduct of the plaintiff to repel the presumption
that Mr. King acted from malignant motives, though
he might have been mistaken in the conduct which
he had pursued, and that if he had acted only mis-
takenly, and not malignantly, the Jury ought not to
find 'a verdict against him. He called some witnesses
to these points, after which Lord ELLENBOROUGH sum-
med up the whole evidence with great minuteness,
and left it to the Jury to consider what were the da-
mages adequate to the injury. Verdict for the plain-
tiff.—Damages 41500.
DEC. 6.—owEN v. PARRY AND WARDLE, ESQ.
Mr. PARKE stated this to be an action brought by
the Plaintiff, an auctioneer in the country, to reco-
ver from the Defendants, Thomas Parry, Jones
Parry, Esq. and Gwillim Lloyd Wardle, Esq. in-
demnity for a loss he had sustained in consequence
of having been employed to sell an estate in the coun-
ty of Anglesea which belonged to the Defendants,
as Devisees of another Gentleman of the name' of
Parry, deceased. It would appear that, at the time
appointed for the sale, a sealed paper was laid on the'

,table, spetifyTrig a particular sum, to Which, if the)
biddings should not amount, the estate was riot to be I
esteemed as sold. The Plaintiff, who was a young I
Man, was startled at this proceeding, because, as the
Auction Duty fell on the Auctioneer, and he did not
know whether duty was or was not payable in such
a case as this, in the event of the sum in the sealed
packet exceeding the price offered, he was afraid that
the duty might be exacted from hlm, without his
having any claim upon the defendants to relieve him.
Mr. Ellis, who acted at the sale as Agent for both
the Defendants, Mr. Parry being also present, assur-
ed the Plaintiff, that in such a case no duty was pay-
able, a dumb bidder being perfectly allowable. The
Plaintiff, however, not being satisfied with this assu-
rance, Mr. Ellis undertook for the Defendants that
they should keep the Plaintiff harmless. Proceedings
were afterwards had against the Plaintiff in Exche-
quer for the penalties, and his bond had been put in
suit. Ii was to recover the indemnity thus promised
to the Plaintiff that the present action was brought.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said an engagement to in-
demaify from penalties was void in itself.
Mr. GARTIOW (who held the Attorney General's
brief for the defendants) said, they had still another
defence. There was here no joint undertaking.
Mr. PARKS said, Ellis was the agent of both the
defendants.

Lord ELLENBOROUGIf'..." This would not watTant
an engagement of the kind, it being in itself illegal."
Mr. BARNES, who was also Counsel for the plain-
tiff, stated that there was a count in the declaration
in which nothing illegal appeared, but it was charged
that the undertaking was to relieve the plaintiff of the
duties.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that, surely, was a legAl
undertaking, and he should hear what the plaintiff's
witnesses could say.
Mr. GARROW observed, that the penalties seemed
to have been sued for in Hilary Term, 1802, (when
his Lordship was Attorney General) though he pre-
sumed his Lordship had forgot it.
Mr. Grindley, Clerk of the Peace for the County
of Anglesea, was about to prove an undertaking by
Mr. Ellis, as agent for Mr. Wardle, but Mr. Wardle
not being present at the time, and Mr. Ellis being
dead, so that Mr. Wardle's authority to Ellis to enter
into the undertaking could not be proved, the evi-
dence was deemed inadmissible.

The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
WATSON V. PEARS.

This was an action for pirating a patent, and was
directed to be brought by the Court of Chancery, who
had granted the plaintiff an injunction till it should
be decided, restraining the defendant from making
and selling a sort of transparent Persian soap, for the
exclusive manufacture and sale of which the plaintiff
had obtained a patent. It was proved, however, that
the soap was first discovered by D'-. Senate, who sold
the recipe to one person, of whom it had since been
bought by a third ; and that Dr. Senate, thinking
that when a workman of this third perscn had left his
service, the secret must have been divulged, coznrr.u-
nicated it to the plainsiff for the sum of 50 guineas,
and thereupon the plaintiff obtained a patent for it.
—The verdict was of course fer the defendant.

RI(I!ARDSON V. WATTS.

This was an action brought by a woman of the
town against her landlord, in Catherine-street, near
the Tower, foe the recovery of clothes of hers in his
possession. The defendant had lent the plaintiff'
!3 10s. and had redeemed articles of hers from I
pledge to the amount of Li 3s. more, making R 6 1.55.
This sum the plaintiff told the defendant she could
not pay him ; but that she had a friend at sea who
would pay the money for her on his a-rival in Eng-
land ; and that in the mean time the defendant should
have her clothes as a security. On the day when
these clothes were deposited as such security, the
plaintiff left the defendant's house in consequence of
a quarrel with him—she wishing to have porte-,
which he did not sell, and he preferring to let her
have brandy, which he did.
Lord ELLENISOROUGII—" A pledge given to be re-
deemed by prostitution can give no lien."
Verdict for the Plaintiff.