Star.
London, England, 1807-06-13 00:00:00

TAPP. V. FULDING.

In this cafe, which excited fome ridicule, the
Plaintiff, a farmer, filed his bill againft his neigh.
bour, Mr. Fielding, a barrifler at law, rending at
Scorton, in the county of York, for an account of
the value of divers articles and goods, furniffred by
the Plaintiff to the Defendant, fuck as beef, mutton,
falmon, potatoes, pals, firaw, a poney, &c. between
the year 1795, and 1800 ; he alfo charged the De-
fendant with obtaining from him 341. for drawing
or preparing the will of the Plaintiff's father ; but,
on the other fide, it was contended, that a deed of
conveyance, to raife 30001. was prepared by the De
fendant, which required a journey of 25 miles, and
five or fix days fpace of the Defendant's time, with
other expences. This kind of conveyancing was
ludicroufly called by a ha:rifler in the caafe, Dra
Kooning. A promiffory note having been obtained by
the bartifier, for 361. without the bill being taxed,
was infifled on as a ground for opening the accounts;
but Sir SAMUEL RUMILLY contended, on behalf of
the barriffer, that if the payment were in cafh, it
would be quite fair an.l legal, and that the prorniffory
note made no difference ; for that a barriller and
conveyancer might take fecurity for their fees ; but
here the barrifler, after having advanced money to,
and procured bail for the Plaintiff, during his em-
barrafTments, had obtained a fecurity of 1401. in-
cluding the 361. from him, and on the ground of that
fecurity, did proceed at law, and obtained a verdift
for 711. only, which was paid.
-On the Ilia' at law, the Plaintiff ufed, by way of a
let off againil the affirm, all the items now comprized
in his objeaions arid fclirdule, and had all the benefit
of them ; and he flated, that this was one of thole
cafes, in which people of a certain defcription, car
failing in all other ways, hoped or thought that ra-
ther than hear a dirty Rory related in the Court of
Chancery, a patty might be inclined to give fome
money. - He added, that Mr. Fielding was not at
that time a bartitler, and that the note for the 361.
made no part whatever of this cafe, in which there
was a point of law which he would infilt on. Mr.
HART being abfent, and having requelled to be waited
for on behalf of the Plaintiff, the CHANCILLOR Paid
he muff hear him in it.

. .
C01.71%.T OF KING'S SEkOH,IUWE
• ;
'Tit: r'roamEr GIINERAL moved for leave toile
a criminal information againa the Reverend Charles
Prefcot, Clerk, a Magiftrate for the county of Chelter,
upon an affidavit Rating among a variety of particu-
lars, that a complaint was made to him by certain
manufdelltrers, who alledged that they were not paid
by their Wier ; upon which Mr. Prefcot granted a
fummins to bring the matter to a hearing before him
at the office of a Mr. Lloyd who was his Clerk, and
where Mr. Prefcot tranfafted all his buliners as a
Magifirate : for this the workmen paid the Magic-
trate two fbillings. At the time appointed for the
hearing of this ;ate, the men attended, but not the
Mailer. The .Magif ir ate came not to the office of
Mr. Lloyd, but was waited upon at his own houfe
by thefe men, and Mr. Dycas an Attorney, whom
they had employed to conduit this bufinefs for them.
The mailer againfi whom the complaint was exhibited
not attending, the Magillrate was &fired to ifrue an
Order for his attendance to.hear the matter ; but
Mr. Prefcot was pleated to declare that he would
not proceed at all, that he would take no meafure in
the butinets while Dycas the Attorney was prefent ;
that he was applied to thrice, and he made the fame
anfwer to each application, that he would do nothing
in the tinfitiefs while the faid John Dycas was before
him. Thus a Magiftrate might ruin any Attorney
agaitat whom he took an antipathy, by refuting to
do any thing in bufirrefs wherein fuch an Attorney
came before him ; and it wds to be remembered, that
Mr. Prefcot had a clerk who afted as an Attorney.
Thofe
.ignorant manufafturers knew not how to
condo& their cafe themfelves, and therefore employed
Mr. Dycas, and the Magiftrate ought not to have
objected to the pretence of Mr. Dycas ; for which
reafon he hoped the Court would grant a rule to thew
caufe why a criminal information fhould not be filed
againft him.
The Court obferved, that as this cafe was not a
cafe of defence of there men, and they had only
to Rate their claim upon their mailer, the probability
was, that they would be able to flat, their cafe fuf-
6ciently well without the pretence of an attorney ;
that as their mailer did not attend, the men could
have been under no difficulty then ; that no ill motive
in this Magifirate was fuggeiled in the affidavit; that
applications of this kind againit Magifirates were not
to be encouraged upon light furmifes, although the
Court would treat them feverely when well founded;
but under all the circumftances of the cafe, the Court
refuted this motion.

THR RING D. AMBROSE CH•RI.II.
The ATTORNRY Glossier. Paid, that the Court
would recollett that this was an application for an
information at the fuit of Lord M3ira againft the
Defendant for a libel. That Nobleman was now
perfally fatisfied with the fithmiffions the Defendant
had made, and withed the matter to be no farther
preffed.
The Court ordered, that Mr. Charles lhould enter
into his own licurity to the amount of &01. to appear
to receive judgment when called upon, an cafe of any
future offence.
THI KING V. DRAPER.

Mr. MARILYATT moved fora rule to thew caufe
why this trial (hould not be potlponed until next
term, on account of the abfence of Dr. Lynch, who
is a material witnefs for the Defendant, and who is
not yet arrived from the Wand of Trinidad.
The Court übferved that this application had been
repeatedly made, but could not grant it any longer.
It might be moved at AY Prim:, if there was any
foundation for it.

THE KING O. ELIZABETH powsta..
Mr. KNAPP moved that the Defendant might be
tharged with an indiament, which was read to her
as follows :.•41 Elizabeth Powell, you hand charged
with an indictment, found by the Grand Jury of the
County of Middlefex, for publifhing an obfcene and
impious Libel, containing divers matters in terms
and expreffions that are unfit to be named or expref-
fed in any language in any Court of Jutlice :" How
fay you, are you guilty of this mifdemeanour or not
guilty ?—Guilty.
Mr. KsAlrg4 My Lords, this is a profecution
inflituted at the inftance of the Society for the Sup.
prefficn of Vice. The Defendant has !hewn very
Ilconfiderable contrition fence, and the has come in the
firtt inhance to 111 CW it, by pleading guilty to the in.
diament. lam inarneted by the Gentlemen of the
Society to fay, that if the Court fee no impropriety,
they will confent that the !hall be liberated on enter.
ing into furety to appear in Court for Judgment when
called upon, and in the mean time, that the sill be of
good behaviour."
CHIEF Josrtcs There mutt be furety for both
pm-poles : for her appearance when called nn, and
nod behaviour in the mean time."—Which the De-
-1 fendant immediately entered into, heti& in tool.
and two fur'ties in Sol.
CHIEF Jurricr—" Before the Defendant retires, I
would °Verve, that this libel is of fo foul a nature,
as it has been hinted to me, that if the Defendant
(hall be found again offending, the Court will ani•
madvert on the prefent offence very feverely ; for I
II underhand the libel to be highly injurious to the
morals, and, indeed, foundation of focitty."