Star.
London, England, 1816-12-20 00:00:00

LAP 1371ILLICRAVIL

room. Olt OttANCERIN DEISEMEER
CHEMICAL SECRETS.
ATLANO
IS !horning the LORD CHANCELLOR delivered his
opinion on this case, which, he observed, was oiled
the most extraordinary that ever came before bird.
He had carefully perused the answer, and it was very
remarkable, that no complaint was made by the de-
fendant as to the secret being divulged. This was a
pretty strong presumption that there was no secret I
tor, otherwise, the defendant would have taken no-
tice of the disclosure. He could find no Woof in
the answer of its being a new dieovery, or that the •
defendant was the author of it. At the same time,
it did not clearly appear whether the process had
been fairly conducted or not. It was possible there
might be some . misunderstanding on both sides ; for
he would not pronounce that the defendant was not
a learned chymist, nor that the plaintiff was incom-
petent to manufacturing the soda, if the defendant's
instructions were faithfully and accurately given.
I He was confident, however, that the circumstances
of this case were of very considerable importance to
the public, and consecreatly deserved the most se-
rious consideration. At present it was impossible for
the Cowl to decide whether a real secret had been
sold, and that there was no imposition or fraud on
the part of the defendant. Some farther etplanatinn
must be given by the defendant ; and, therefore, ur•
til the Court was more folly informed of the circum-
stances, the injunction to restrain the defendant from
parting with the mortgage and notes must be con-
tinued.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER
SPUTA V. CHAU/41E11T.
The plaintiff, according to the statement of the
ATIIININSY..GENERAL. is a respectable young man.
of good connexions, who. previous to forming a
matrimonial connexion, was anxious to embark a
capital of no inc. nsider tble amount in a trade that
promised to make A imitable return. He was attracted
by an advertisemeet in a newspaper, which requited
a partner in a lucrative concern : but upon inquiry
he found that it would not suit his purpose. The
introduction he then obtained, however, brought him
acquainted with the defendant, who for many years
had carried on a prosperous trade as a tanner of mo-
rocco leather, in Bermondsey. Chaumert was at that
time desirous of retiring from business. and proposed
to the plaintiff to engage in it, making it a condi.
lion, precedent to the sale of the good-will, that he
should join it, Mr. Roberts, as a partner, who, though
formerly a journeyman, at wages of 121. a week with
the defendant, had. by the defendant's account,
saved large sums, and was fully capable of advanc.
ing a sufficient capital. The plaintiff liked the pro-
posal, and offere4 to lay down £4,000, and to ob-
tain his father's bond for three more, provided Ro-
berts would also add £7,000 to the joint stock. Ro-
berts professed his readiness, and the defendant gave.
repeated assurances that he had ample means of doing
so. This statement afterwards tutned out to he un-
true, and for the misrepresentation the present action
was brought. It was agreed that the defendant
should lend the new partners, besides their own ca-
pital, £5.0110 at 5 per cent. taking care, however, to
obtain. se2,OOJ for the good wilt f his business, and
to compel the plaintiff and Roberts to take a lease of
the premises for 50 years. at the rent of te3so. The
payment of these sums he secured by mortgage, and
by a warrant of attorney to confess a judgment.
The arrangemen!s having been c included, the plain-
tiff married, and the sum of 600 was laid out in
the repair of the. premises in Bermondsey. Some
tune afterwards he was much surprized by a demand
of ,0300 by the defendant, as a debt due to him
from Roberts, which Roberts was unable to pay.
The plaintiff discharged it, on an assurance that it
was the last : but a short period bad only elapsed
before a further claim of £5OO against Roberts, was
made by the defendant. who, it now appeared, had
only inveigled the plaintiff into a partnership, that his
capttat might satisfy the creditors of Roberts. Under.
such circumstances it could not be supposed that the
business would be successful : Roberts never had
more than 43,000 in she world, and that was swal-
lowed up by his debts, so untrue was it that he was
able to advance a capital of £7,000. The defendant
had not neglected to secure his own Interests in all
ways; for finding that the trade, which had been
very advantageous to him. was failing, be entered
up judgment on his warrant of attorney, took out
execution, and was at this moment in possession of
the premises. As to the measure of damages, per-
haps no specific amount could be proved : but with
these facts before them, the Jury would not deal out
compensation with a sparing band.
A Mr. Butler was the first witness, but he only
spoke to a preliminary interview between Spitta,
Chaumert, and Roberts, in which a capital of
:111Q,000 was spoken of as necessary for the business :
heard the defendant say nothing regarding the means
Roberts possessed of producing £7,000.
Edward Roberts, the person with regard to whose
circumstances the representation was alleged to have
been made, being put into the box, also denied that
the defendant, in any of the conversations. had re-
presented that his (Roberts's) affairs were flourish.
ing, or that he could ulnae" a capital of €7,000.
The defendant had never told the plaintiff any thing
_upon the subject. •
The plaintiff having no other evidence to establish
the misrepresentation, Lord Ermsrsonotrom directed
that a nonsuit should be entered.
MIDDLETON AND SAILS! W. POTTS.
This was an action for wort and labour, to reco-
ver a compensation for the trouble which the plain-
tiffs bad, in making the estimates of expense for
building the New Custom-bouse, for which the de-
fendant had entered into l'coatract. The defendant
paid £2lO into Court. .
It appeared that the defendant, having made a
tender for re-building the Custom-house, bad em-
ployed.the plaintigt to make an estimate of the et-
pense,for which it was **whited that they were to
receive the sum of £5O in case of the refusal of the
defendant's tender by the Commissioners, but that W
the tender was accepted, they were to be libesally rap
munerated for their-trouble. The tender was to be
made on the 26th of July, sad on the 2d of that
.month the plaintiffs heti received their orders from
the defendant to complete the estimate, To effect
this, it appeared that they bad worked sometimes
aereatees hours a day, is copying plaaa, and other

%maw latieet to 'bake oat the eseini,i,
Was completed in time for the defeaclant, who oh,
, tabled the contract, The ease went to the Jsiry aeon
the quanta* leer:tit, the plaintiffs insisting that they
had a right to receive for their trouble the sum of
t 6497, and the defendant Contending that the money
paid into Court was sufficient to cover the demand.
A great number of most r•spectable surveyors were
examined cn bath sides, and the Jury retired for
about an hour, and found their Verdict for the plain.;
tiffs—Damages ,C 250.

INSOLVENT' DEBTORS' COURT, DECEMBBR IL
GREEN AND omen D. F. I CLEMENTSONs
Mr. Domani opposed the discharge of this petso
ner, on the authority of the last Insolvent Debtors'
Act Amend:newt Act, which provided that the
debtor should not be entitled to his discharge if it
appeared that at the t4nelof coturacting his debts he
had no prospect, or visible means, of p..l ioti his cre-
ditors ; and that in such case he s'iould be r•,:tianded
to prison for the space of five bears. Ti:e prisonce
Was the son of a revestablc ftztor in the City, awl
had been educated for tl:e piofession of an attorneys
to which he WP :id 13: red, hut far the last two years
had not taken out :,is cc; tificate. During that period
he had led an extravag,:int course of kite—frequentinit
coffee-;ii.nwc and taverns, keeping horses, driving his
tilbot y, drat king Fiench wines. and, in short, living
in the style of a nein the first fortune and fashion.
His horse account for the ye..r 1315, and part of the
present year, uniranited to about re2.:50, and his tai-
tor's bill, from Janturi to July in the present year,
amounted to £77. The pi incipal creditors opposing
,his discharge were Mr. Green, the master of Wills's
C..ffee-house, Setle-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields. with
wham lie had incurred a debt of £5O in two nt.:nths,
fin the most ecpensive luxuries; Mr. Ilunibett, the
proprietor of the Piccadilly coffeezhour.e ; Mr. Ana-
tin, a livery-stable keeper; and sevaal other persons.
The Learned Commissioner was clearly of opinion,
that if he were called upon to decide the easel he
must remand the prison( r. Bet
Mr. PoLI.OOK and Mr. HeAT4, as Counsel for the
prisoner, proposed that the claims of the creditors
who actually appeared to oppose the defendant's dis-
charge, should be excepted; upon an understanding
that the prisoner's father would pay them ; and that
with respect to the remainder of the debts he should
be discharged.
To this proposition the creditors present acceded.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN DISC.
CRIM. CON.
HINDS T. MIDDLETON.

The damages were laid at £sooo.—Mr. dOO.O
stated the caw. The plaintiff was an attorney in
Dublin—the defendant the keeper of a private esta-
blishment for insane persons at Carlow. His part-
ners were a Mr. Clay and a Mr. Delahoyd, wier have
similar establishments in England. Mrs. Hinds was
the mother of three children and about S'4 years of age;
having unfortunately become deranged in her intel•
lects, she was sent down to the defendant's Insttu-
tion, where she became pregnant, and informed De-
lahoyd that it was by the defendant. She repeated
her charge in presence of the defendant and Dela.
hoyd, at the request of tilti latter, whett she was
surely ordered to her room by the former. When
about five months gone with child, Dr. Middleton.
on pretence of taking her home to her friends, re-
moved her to Kilteagan, an obscure torn re town,
where he described her as a Mrs. Hamilton, and
where she lay in of a male child. All this was un-
known to the unfortunste husband, who continued to
pay the stipulated laJaid of one hundred guineas Vet'
annum. The evidence to limy,: the affection v..hicis
subsisted between the husband and wife previoas
the unhappy malady. was conclusive.
The first witness called to prove the adultery was
Delahoyd,'the defendant's partner. Ile spoke to the
examination above mentioned of the Lady, her confess..
ing her pregnancy to him, and also accusing Dr.
Middleton with being the cause of it to his face.
On his crass-examination, he admitted that be was
a married man, and had left his wife and two children
in England : but that he had intrigued with one of
the servants of the Institution, who had a child by
him : he admitted also that he had treated Mrs.
Hinds with punch once fir twice to make her speak
out against Ors Middleton—that he had once kept
an improper female for twelve days at the li,sti•
union, and gave her twelve shillings when she
went away; he also owned to sleeping with Mary
Ryland, the cook of the Institution, whir used
to come to his bed. Being asked if he had ever true
females at once in hod with him ? He declined an-
leering until he had the opinion of the Judge. but
the latter declined interfering. Knew Mrs. Conelly,
the Matron of the Institution, very well: she was a
eke woman, but she escaped him Nakao and uidoucher4
Has heard of her intimacy with a lunatic patient,
called Alonzo. He was a prisoner for debt in Dub-
lin when he first communicated what he kkew
Mrs. Hinds.
The next witness was this Mrs. Conolly t :Le ad.
mitred that improper females were frequently caught
in Delahoyd's apartments : knew Mrs. Hinds to be
pregnant. but could not tell by whom. Tnis witness
confessed to several love-letters which had passjd be-
tween her and the Patients of the Institution, anti
which were produced.
The next witness was the person with whom Dr.
Middleton placed Mts. Minds during her accouthe-
meat. He believed her to be a Mrs. Hamilton, until
her husband, Mr. Hinds, came to enquire for her.
The servant of this person deposed to seeing Dr. Mid.
dleton kiss Mrs. Hinds when he visited • her during
her accouchement, which was attended with great
danger.
Here the Plaintiff's case closed t and the trial was
adjourned over to Monday hit. On that day Mr.
Gawne addresed the Jury for the Defendant, and ex-
amined witnesses.
Lord Noasuav then charged the Jury, and at half
put seven they retired.
After remaining out an hour Alderman WARNaIt,
the foreman, came into Court, and said, as the Jury
could not agree in their opinion, he wished to know
if the parties would withdraw a Juror ? the
Defendant's Solicitor agreed to, but the Plaintiff re-
fused. The Foreman then retired, observing, that
there was no chance of the Jury agreeing, and from
the tempen of some of them he knew they would
stay all night.
In the course of the evening, however, Mr, Hinds,
the plaintiff, consented to withdraw a Juror, and thus
the seek termip,ated. Each party pays his own costs.

r