Star.
London, England, 1805-07-11 00:00:00

1

LAW MTEL t IGE,VdE

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, JULY 9.
THE KING V. SURE.

THI RING O. MOTT.

Till KING V. ♦LDIRTOS.

This was an indiament for an all:nth and falfe im-
pritimment. The Defendant is a vintner, at No. 14,
GI :Is l ottellreet, St. James's.
Mr. GARROW, for the profecution, faid, Mr. Ro•
bert Anthony Lawrie was a Purveyor, who had not
been profponus in lite. He fent to the Defendant
fir a fmall quantity of Geneva for a medicinal
pole, and finding the meature was deficient, he went
ininfelf with a proper Ramped vefrel, and having
orde• d a pint, and paid for it, he compared the
'mature, and found it again wanting in the fame
proportion. On this di'covery, he was proceeding.
to expoßulate with the limp-keeper, when the latter
pratented before him a constable's flafT, 'frock him,
forced him through feveral Meets to the watch•
11.,uff, att.mpting in the way to excite the incligna-
ti.,:t of the p puttee, by proclaiming that he was a
c moron intormer. This violence was committed on a
4tturday evening. To the guard of the night he was
given in charge, all bail was refuted, and this un•
:ortunate gentleman was obliged to continue in this
lituation until Monday morning, when Jte was ac•
quitted by the Magitirate. To bring this Defemiant
before the bar of his country, to antwer for this fe•
sings offence, was the objet of the profecution.
Robert Anthony Lawrie faid, he was by profeffion
an Archited, and depofed to the facts Rated by the
Learned C twilit in the ripening. He was endea-
vouring to quit the chop, when the Defendant frized
him violently, and dragged him back. It was in
vain that he tried to escape, and receiving a fevere
blow on the kg, he called nut murder. The outcry
occalioned a man to enter the houfe, who appeared
to be a conftable. The Defendant and this perfon
then hurried him to the watch-11mile.

Croft examined 17 Mr. Easeirrs.
Q_Swearing by the card will not ferve you in the
day of trouble. Who and what, in Gov's name, are
you ?—The witnefs gave his name, his addrefs, and
O Robert Anthony Lawrie, of Moulton Rreet,
Efq. Architect by profellion, of what celebrated Pal-
ladio did you acquire the knowledge of your art ?
A. My father inns uled Inc in the rudiments of ar-
chitedure.

Q.t. Admitting your thenry to be excellent, where
do you praetice ?—A. My capital does not enable me
to embuk to the extent I

Qz., lint, Sir, in what fplendid edifices may you
have been concerned ?—A. My eye-fight prevents fife
from fpeculating praftizally.
It is fingular that your eye.fight (hoed pre-
vent you from fp:ed.:tins, fince that organ, with the
yea of mankind, was alone intended for 'peculation.
Mut I thought jail now it was your capital. it may
perhaps be act/pita/clef-eta in your eye ; and as nature
has placed the feat of vifion in the head, any detect%
there mua he capita..
As the Learned Counfel was proceeding„ the wit-
nefs changed colour, was feized with a paroxyfm,
and by order of the Judge, was carried out of Court.
During his abfence, one of the Jury very bortranely
interpofed, and Paid be was perfally acquainted with
the witnef, who, from a lituation of affluence, had
been !educed to poverty, and, to procure fuhfillence,
bad condi fcended to the bumble labours of a journey-
maa paper-hanger. When he teturned,
Lord attsisozoocu (addrel3ing Mr. Easattis)
Paid, 4. I do not think, if you prefs this further, it will
be of any advantage to your client. The man brings
a thumped mealui e, thews the dtficiency in the liquor,
and erpofes the proceeding to the oblirvation of the
bye-ganders, and fur this offence to the keeper of a
gin 'hap, heis•taken to the watch-houfe and impri-
fcned."

Mr. FR.xiNe. I mean to pr.)ce, my Lord, that
the Pr.decutor. committed an allault upon the Defen-
dant."

Lord Ecximaortoucti.—" If an attempt of this
kind be made, the Court will vifit it very feverely.—
It is evident the charge of an Wank is an after.
thought. It is both my with and my duty as much
as poffible to prevent crime ; and if there be perjury
employed in fupport of this feeble cafe, it will be fuc.
Seeded by much dolga and mirchief to the parties.
But [to Mr. Erikine] proceed."
Mr. Et thine continued his crnfs examination. "
I think you are wrongly charged with being a corn.
anon informer, for you are a very uncommon one.—
If you were a common informer, you would give us
little information. How do you live ? Haw do
you find your way into Court ?"
The witnefs teemed quite unmanned by this flyle
of intevrogatiao, and the paroxyfin was again return.
in g,, when the Councel for the profecution Interpol-ed.
Mr. GA‘gow—Vou may as well call him a corn.
mon bawd, as a common informer.
Mr. ERSKINE—He is a non•defcript.
Lord ELLSNIOCOUG li—He need not be afhamed
of his misfortunes ; adverfity is the lot of the wired
and the belt men. .

Q. How do yoti live ?—A. I live by my Walley.
Q The Chevalier d'lnduarie is a eharader well
known ; I want to learn where you exhibit ?
It was in vain to prefs the winters ; and the Learn-
ed Connfel declined any further etamination.
The Keeper of the watch-houfe, and one of the at-
tendants at bdarlborough:fireet confu tiled the
particulars tiated.
The charge entered on the bock of the Coollable
of the night, was in thefe terms I charge a man,
who safes to acknowledge his name, with a charge
of (sue endure, and making a riot in the houfe
(ixemati) bat he called out murder, when feveral
perfons were prelim, 'when no pcffible injury could
occur to him."
Ahet this extraordinary fpecimen of parochial en-
tries was produced, a few obfervatious from Mr. &t-
-setse, and a fingle remark from the Learperl Judge,
,neluded the trial.
The Defendait was found Guilty.

An affault upon a woman by ftriking her under
die left breaft, in confequence of which Inc fpit blood
for a fortnight. —Guilty.

...-
Mr. Gsaitovr, fir the profecution, Rated that this
was au indictment profecuted by feveral refpetable
inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Marlborough.
tireet, againtt the Defendant, who carried on a very
cztcane pcvsicir maaufatkory in that llrects wZlicb

wee worked v:11.11 a !team engine : this indillment
was not preferred through any motives uhatever cf a
I malignant nature, but merely with a view ro remedy
an evil by fume etfy ; in the oft of this en-
gine a large quantity of ittokc was emitted In as to
darken the atinollibere; and a quantity of greafe he.
ing tiled in the procrfs, which carried with it fuel,
an abominable ft.:ltch, that he might well fay, as he
remembered his learned Friend I Mr. Erfkine), once
fpeaking of a view, which,Vi in tills cafe, come of the
Gentlemen of the Jury had had of the prernif,'s, that
it was rather a (mall than a view. This, he obferved,
might eafily be remedied, and he adverted to the cafe
of Mr. Thompfon, of Altiermanbtry, who hltd beeti
a nuifance to his neighbours, but very ingenioully
contrived to confume the fmoke by Ere, and thereby
prevented evert thing which could beat all offenf;ve.
If fornething of the kind could be done in the prePatt
cale, the profecutor did not leek for more.
Lnrd Ez.t.ratonoucri intimated to the Cro2nfel on
both fides, that this matter might very wed be fet-
tled out of Court.

Mr. ER.SKINI, for the Defendant, faid, ht was
very willing to do fie ; the premifes had cult his client
upwards of 70001. he carried on an exter.five, inge-
nious, and uieful branch of trade, and it would be ra-
thev hard if he flrould be obliged to r_linquifh it.
It was then agreed that the matter thotild be left
to the four gentlemen t. ho had viewed the pre;tiles
and were convert-Ant with the hiiiiocfs, to fay, uhe
titer the nuilance esified ; and if it did, whether it
could be remedied, and if fo, in wli.it manner ? the
Defendant to mu:let-take to make tech alterations a.
mould be dirc&ed, and a verdift entered accordingly.

MAYELL •STELL.

An adion for hander, in which the Defendant 1)4,1
faid at the Anyl Inn at Highgate, fit it to the Plain-
Off, and afterwards in fubßance of him, behind his
back, 46 While you were in my employment, you
robbed Mr. Cox of timber and other things, and car-
tied them off Mr. Cox's piemiles, and took them the
back way."—Thefe worth wc►e proved to have been
uttered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff', who had
'been the journeyman of the Defendant, labile he had
work to do for Mr. Cox, of Highgate, and the fob-
(lance of them was repeated the next day in the Plain-
tiff's abfence.

At the opebirg of the care Mr. ERSKINE profeffed
that the Plaintiff wanted no more than that the De.
fendant (hond diravow the words,.and pay the colh
of this adion ; which Mr. Gartow was inttruded to
refute on the part of the Dete.odant.
Lird EceENsoanucH obrerved, that for a fnolifh
var ur at the alchoure he thonld have held theft
cords to be too light for an adion, but repeating
them the next day deliberately altered the cafe;
the Plaintiff's reputation thould be protected to far
at lean as that the Defendant thould pay colts:—
Veld-let for the Plaintii—Damages 40$.

PARKER AND RICH V. Haitcotrer.

This was an anion for the balance of an account of
btifinefs done by tie Plaintiffs, who are refpenable
Attornies, for the Defendant John Harcourt, FA). a
gentleman of eonfiderable fortune in Mary la-bonne.
While the Plaintiffs were proceeding to prove the
different items of their account, Mr. Elise sae and
Mr. GA R fo.w, fuf the Defendant, agreed to Pave them
that trouble by acknowledging that all the bulinels
charged in tLe account had been executed. They
'produced, at the fame time, an agreement holograph
of Mr. Parker, by which, in confideration of being
appointed Solicitor to Mr. Harcourt, and having the
executing of all his 'cafes and other titles conflated
with his extenfive property, he agreed to manage the
Defendant'sLawconcerns for the mere outlay,fiamps,
engroilng, &c They alfo produced a copy of the ac-
count, with the articles charged on the margin, in
the Plaintiff's own band writing, conformably to that
agreement, by which, intlead of 6931. as now charge,:
by thrPlaintiffs, it amounted only to 4941. which they
adduced evidence to Ibew was more than fatl.fied.

Mr. Patrick, for the Plaintiffs, troth the teitimony
of the Defendant's Stewart], (hewed, that, during the
period of the account, Mr.llarcotut had occationally
employed other Attornies betides the Plaintiff*, and
from this i.e contended that, as the condition of the
agreement was the Plaintiffs being exclufively em•
ployed as the Defendant's Solicitor, and alone draw-
ing his hares, &c. any departure from this under-
(landing on his part, was a breach of their mutual
contra6t, and voided the agreement on the part of
the Plaintiffs.
It appearing, however, that the Plaintiffs had never
fignified to the Detendant any diffati,fitetion on this
head, hir, cn the corm ary, had written a letter to
the Defendant finoe the account in quetlion was given
in, Rating, that, it not immediately fettled, they
would begin to charge the Defendant as they would
any other Client, the Plaintiffs were Non-fuited.