Star.
London, England, 1822-05-22 00:00:00

-.94,1•W -

0

LAW INTELLierket•
COURT OF. KING'S BENPII, MAY 21:-
SMITH V. BIONKL.
This was an action of assault.-Arhe:plaintiff was a
seaman on board the East India Company**, ship the
Marchioness of Ely, of which the defend' fourth
cse
Mate. In the month of August,. 1820, I was
working up the river Wampoa, in Chicle...! hen, as
was alleged, the defendant, without any apparent
provocation' repeatedly struck the plaintiff with a
rope's. dad, knocked him. down, &c. The principal
witness was a Master at Arms on board the vessel,
who had been dismissed his situation for imputed bad
conduct. .Two other seamen proved the defendant
struck the plaintiff, but under what circumstances,
or for‘what provocation, they could not state.
Mr. GURNEY went tube Jury upon the credit due
to the principal witnessio support the plaintiff's case,
and urged the importance of upholding the authority
of Officers on board mercantile ships, in order to pre-
serve discipline.
The CHIRP 3USTICZ said, the Jury must find their
verdict for the plaintiff, as there was no justification
pleaded. The amount of damages was peculiarly
for their consideration. .
The Jury found for the plaintiff—. Damages £l5.
eOURT OF COMMON PIAUI, MAY 21.
HAYDON V. LORD NRWRY.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an ac-
tion brougbt.by the plaintiff, an innkeeper, at Hamp-
ton Wick, to recover from the defendant a sum of
money for the keep of one of his horses. It appeared,
that on the day preceding Epsom Races last year, the
defendant had sent his boy with the horse to the plain-
tiff's house, intending himself to ride the horse from
thence on the following day to Epsom. Accordingly
the next day, accompanied by a friend, he called for
the horse, but had a dispute with the ostler about the
charge. The defendant paid three shillings, asking
if there was any other demand? The ostler replied
in the negative, but added, .6 you have not given me
anything." The defendant called him a cheating
rascal, and said he would not give him a farthing.—
The ostler then said, he should not take any care of
the horse on which the defendant had ridden to the
inn, nor should it have either food or stabling room.
The horse was afterwards put into the stable by the
defendant's boy, and fed with corn belonging to
another person. In the evening the defendant re-
turned, and the landlady made an apology for what
had occurred in the morning, and requested the de-
fendant to take away his horse, which the latter re-
fused to do, adding, that he had been ill-treated, and
would make Mr. Haydon suffer for ir.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, contended,
that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. There had not
been the slightest pretence for saying that the de-
fendant had expressly promised to pay for the keep
of the horse, and he submitted that nothing on the
evidence adduced by the plaintiff afforded sufficient
ground on which to raise an implied assumpsit.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN contended, that the inn-
keeper was bound to receive the horse of a traveller,
and in the present case could have been punished for
refusing to do so. The law would therefore raise an
implied assumpsit.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, in reply, observed, that it was
certainly an odd way of punishing an individual, to
incur a debt with him for the article which consti-
tuted his trade. The defendant had done nothing
which could render him liable to this demand ; and
AS to the obligation of receiving the horse, lie con-
tended that in the present case the plaintiff would
have been justified in law if he had turned the horse
into the street.
The CHIEF JUSTICE acceded to the objection, and
nonsuited the plaintiff, but gave leave to move to set
it aside, and have a new trial, if the Court should
think the plaintiff, under all. the circumstances, en-
titled to maintain his action.

CONSISTORY COURT, MAY 21.

GREEN, A MINOR, FA LSELY CALLED DA LTON (BY GREEN,
HER GUARDIAN) AGAINST DALTON.
_ _ _

In this case, it appeared that the baptismal name
of the minor was Sophia Green, and that she was
married by the names of Sophia Augusta. In the me-
morandum-book of the Clei k of St. Mary's, Islington,
the husband had entered the names of his intended
wife as Sophia Augusta Green, and she herself, after
the ceremony, had so subscribed her name in the mar-
riage registry of that parish—circumstances which
fixed a fraud on both parties.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON decided that the mar-
riage was null and void.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

Yesterday Thomas Dibdin , late Proprietor of the
Surrey Theatre, came up on. his Petition to be dis-
charged from debts amounting to £37,000. A num-
ber of oppositions to his discharge had been entered
in the office of the Court, but when the case was
called on no person appeared to oppose.
Mr. HEATH, who was Counsel for the insolvent,
said, he must pray the Court for permission to amend
the insulvenes schedule, by inserting a wardrobe, his
property, which he had let with the Surrey Theatre;
and although its value at the expiration of the term
for which it was let might not be very cousiderable,
still it was necessary it should be stated as property
that would come to his creditors.
It appeared, that the affidavits of the service of
notices on several of the insolvent's creditors had not
been filed in the office of the Court, although they
had been regularly sworn, and the Court were about
to adjourn the case for a short time, when—
Mr. HEATH prayed that they might be allowed to
be filed there, as the insolvent had entered into an
engagement with the proprietors of the Haymarket
Theatre, which made it highly important to him that
his discharge. should not be delayed.
Mr. HEATH'S application was complied with by
the Court; and, after the other cases of the day were
gone through, the insolvent was discharged.
James William Brandon, late of Covent-Garden
Theatre, was opposed by Mr. POLLOCK, for Messrs.
Brooks and Dixon, bankers,
the General Post Office. and for Mr. Isaaci, of
It appeared, by the examination, that the insolvent
had been security for a person of the name of Morton,
for whom he had paid a large sum Of money ; and
also for a person named Ruddock, for whom, be had
given a bond to the Postmasters-General, part of
which he had paid, and for the remainder on extent
in aid had issued.
Mr. POLLOCK'S opposition entirely COILSISUKI of an,