Star.
London, England, 1823-05-14 00:00:00

of his servant, and the injudicious us? of a violent
medicine, which had reduced thOplaintiff almost to
death's door. . -
The LOAD Critter JUSTICE summed up the case for
the Jury, and left it to them to consider, first, whe-
ther the plaintiff had been subjected to undue seve-
rity on the part of the defendant's servant, for which,
if satisfactorily made out, the defendant was respon-
sible and, secondly, whethir, notwithstanding the
high testimonials as to the defendant's skill and judg-
ment, there was any want of care on his part in the
administration of medicines for the purpose of curing
the disease? _ .

The Jury consulted a considerable time, and found
their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501. The
trial lasted the whole day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY is.
CAPPER V. WRIGHT.

Mr. Serjeant Prt.r. stated that this was an action
of trespass, brought against the defendant for unlaw-
fully seizing and taking the plaintiff's goods. The;
plaintiff was a gentleman in the service of Govern-
ment, and the defendant a bookseller. From circum-
stances, which it was needless to mention, the plain-
tiff had been separated from his wife, who, it ap-
peared, had contracted a debt with the defendant,
for the payment of which she, in conjunction with
another lady, had given a warrant of attorney. She
had, however, discharged the debt (which at first
amounted only to 801.) by two payments, the first of
201. and the second of 101. These payments were
I made by a person named Wilkinson, who was now
unfortunately dead, and who had omitted to -take a
receipt on the payment of the second sum of 101.
After Wilkinson's death, the defendant had chosen to
enter up judgment on the warrant of attorney for the
whole sum, which he subsequently levied under an
execution, and to recover back which the present ac-
tion was brought.
George Green proved the seizure under a warrant
directed to him to levy the sum of 841. together with
Sheriff's poundage. The house was at No. 10, Duke-
street, Westminster:
Cross-examined--Did not know whether the plain-
tiff had any property in the house, or whether the
whole belonged to Mrs. Capper.
Mr. Gude was then put into the box. He first
stated that he was the attorney of the plaintiff on the
record. He was then asked by Mr. Serjeant Vaughan
whether this was not in reality his own action, or
lwhether Mr. Capper would be liable to the costs ?
IMr. Gude having admitted that he had indemnified
Mr. Capper, his Lordship refused to let him proceed
further in his evidence.

Mr. Edmonds, a Clerk of the Exchequer, was
called, for the purpose of producing the writ, the
warrant of attorney, and other papers ; but he stated,
that being filed of record, they were no longer in
his possession.
Mr, Cocking, linen-draper, was then pot into the
i box. He knew Mrs. Capper and the other lady, who
had joined with her in granting this warrant of attor-
ney ; her name was Abbeville. These ladies applied
'to witness for a loan of SOL to discharge an execu-
tion levied on their property. Witness said he could
' not lend them the money, but he recommended his
'friend (the defendant) to them for that purpose. De.
fendant advanced the money on their giving a war-
, rant of attorney ; witness had received 201. in part
'payment of that debt, from a person named Wilkin-
son ; that money was paid to witness on account of
the debt due to the defendant, if the defendant would
receive it, but if not, witness was to place it to the
credit of the ladies in their account With him, they
being indebted to him in a much larger sum ; knew
from Wright that he had taken steps to recover his
WI. never heard what he had done with the property
he had seized ; witness went to spew the Sheriff%
officer the house, when the eXecntibn was to be put'in;
thought the goods in the house were Mrs. Abbeville's.
Green was recalled, and he staled that-the affair
was settled, he believed, by the payment of a check ;
but he could not identify the check: Thellherfirs
poundage amounted to IL 14st.
Mrs. Money, the sister of Mis. Camper, provetlehat
the goods did not belong to Mrs. Abbeville,' but to
Mrs. Capper; the former was **As lodger in. the
house. Mrs. Capper had been separated from her
husband nearly twenty years ; she was allowed a se-
parate maintenance, out of which she had purchased
these goods.
Mr. Edmonds was recalled—He was defendant's
attorney, and' had received the amount of the execu-
tion from Mr. Gude, .by. a check for the debt and
expenses.—This closed the pliintira case.
Mr. Serjeant YAM:MAST, for the defendant, asked
his Lordship' whether the plaintiff bad made out his
case in such a manner as to call on the defendant to
answer it? His Lordship havinganswered in the af-
firmative, the Learned Se*ant addressed the Jury,
and contended that the plaintiff's case was totally
without foundation in justice. The wife of an indi-
vidual had contracted a debt,.far which she' had
given her warrant of attorney, and, by virtue ofthat
instrument, her goods had been taken-in execution.
This execution had. been discharged by: her very
friendly attorney, and • she -new turned mend upon
the party with a dedaratiowthat she-was a married
woman, and her very gallant attonley, after indem-
nifying the husband; prewailed on hins.to permit his
name to be used; in order to defeat the just claim of
an honest creditor.. The nature'of the case was 'per-
fectly clear,and he trustedthe Jury would not enable
the parties to succeed in their object.
Mr. Justice Duaaatsme charmed the Jury.—The
action was clearly maintainable in law, as the goods
were undoubtedly the property of the husband: On
the last Spring. Circuit a man was triedfor burglary
—the first count of the indictment charged him with
breaking into the dwellior hewsivekhe husband, and
the second with breaking Wolk* of the wife. 'lt
• red on the evidearti that‘the house 'in question
as inhabited by It married WOCCialti: who -bud 1...
' ived separate from• her- husband, artd-who-had fur.
nished the house and supped:ad herself by her rpm.
rate maintenance. On this- evidence his Lordship
doubted whether' the: helm conklhe properly de-
' scribed as the house of the husbandrand he batlin:
served-the point for the consideration of the-metre
Judges, who were unanimously of opinion that tht
counts were properly framed: On this' case therefore.
Übe Nile was maintainable in law, but it was for
the Jstry to say to what damages under all the eir-
turnetautee of the case they.thought die plaintiff en-
tide4,--Tbe .Jury rote rned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages One Farthing.