Star.
London, England, 1828-05-29 00:00:00

LAW. INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCIt-Ovnaiwatc, Mar 21.
Sittings after Easter Term, for London, before Lord Tiorrszarni
and Common Juries.
BROWN V. NICHOLLS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Begonias( stated the case to the Jury. This
was an action to recover compensation for tabour un-
derwent by the plaintiff preparatory to and during the
last election for the borough of St. Alban's. The de-
fendants, Messrs. Nicholls and .Ward, the first a coal-
merchant, and the second a farmer, were employed by
Mr, Alderman Smith, whom he (via. Brougham) saw
sitting.tinder his. Lordship, to canvass the borough of
St. Allian's for, him. They, to assist them in their la-
bours, employedvarious persons, among whom was the
plaintiff, who was to be paid at the rate of a guinea a
day. lied his expenses for his trouble. The plaintiff was
employed- on this business from November, 18/5, to
June, 1826, and now brought his action to recover the
amount that was due to him.
A witness was called, who proved that the defend.
ants had.erniSloyed him to canvass, and had told him
they haderigaged Brown. He. also proved that Brown
v.,: a very active, persevering. canvasser, and that St.
Alban's was a very troublesome place to canvass.
Sir James SCARLET? addressed the Jury for the de.
fendants, and contended that the defendants merely
acted as the agents of Mr. Alderman Smith, and that
the plaintiff was well aware of that fact, always looking
to that Gentleman for his remuneration.
Three or four licensed victuallers were called for the
defendant, who proved, that during the canvass the
p:aintiff frequently took refreshment at their houses,
and always desired it to be charged to Alderman
Smith's account.
An Attorney, the agent of Mr. Alderman Smith, at
St. Alban's, proved moreover to having paid *W. to the
plaintiff, in part payment of his.services.
Lord TENTRODUN. in summing up, told the Jury that
if they believed the plaintiff knew the defendants as the
agents only of Mr. Aldelpran Smith; acid looked to that
last tientleman foi payM.' at of his labours, they would
find for the defendants.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found's verdict
for the defendants.
SALMON D. HART AND RIFE.
This was an action for compensation in damages for
slanderous words spoken• of the plaintiff by the defen-
dant, Hart's wife. The wife, •it appeared, had called
the plaintiff a thief, and a common informer, but the
witnesses called to prove the words recollected nothing
about the matter.—Plaintiff nonsuited.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
HART V. THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the Right Rev. defendant, to recover a compensation in
damages for the injury done to the Plaintiff's chaise by
its being broken to pieces, owing to the careless driving
of his Lordship's coachutap, on the 24th of April last, in
Portland-place.
After witnesses had been heard on both sides, the Jury
found for, the plaintiff—Damages 161.
COMMISSIONERS OF BANKRUPTS COURT. ?tar V.
THW LATE BRUNSWICK THILATRI—III THE MATTAR
OF It: calumniator, A BANKRUPT.
The final examinatiou of the bankrupt in this case,
who was partner with the deceased Mr. Maurice, in the
Brunswick Theatre, was fixed for this day ; he was in
attendance in order to hie being examined.
A Solicitor attended on behalf of Messrs. Bartlett
and Co. bankets of Buckingham, to prove a debt of
1.2901. '
Atter hearing the statements of the parties.
The Commissioners consulted, and thought some fur-
ther inquiry into the matter should be made.
Mr. Wright, on behalf of four of .the watchmen. who
were pat in charge of the ruins of the Theatre imme-
diaely after the accident, by Mr. Carruthers, put in a
claim for their services as servants, within the meaning
of the 48th section of the Act, by which they would be
entitled to immediate payment of their whole demand.
Mr. Harding (one of the assignees) expressed his
surpriie at this claim. These men had rectived.suffi-,
cient for their services ia gratuities for, showing the
ruins. Besides, they had not been put there by the
assignees, and could have no claim against the estate.
They had no objection to pay what was reasonable for
their Services, if they would refend what they had re-
ceived as perquisises.
The spokesman of the v atcbmeo asserted that they
bad dot received a pound altogether—they could only
get a little money fore' drink now and then.
Mr. Bushes (one of the Commissioners) thought it
bon: reasonable that as this demand was made, what
gratuities they had received should be refunded.
Mr. Harding.—Besides the Coroner, who has taken
temporary possession of the property, Charges the
estate with a salary for three watchmen night and day
since the accident.
Mr. Carruthers said, he put these men in charge of
the property before his bankruptcy, and but for them,
the inner's& enfold in all likelihood have been lost to
;be creditors.
Mr. Roberts (Commissioner) said, the question to be
evrisidered was, whether carnal employment such as
this was to be considered as coming within the mean-
ing of the statute, as °S wages ors salary."
Mr. Wright thought the present a case in which 90111,
extension might be given to the meaning of the Act,
considering the importaut services rendered by the
claimants.
Solicitor for the Assignees.—ln this case, the grater
.part of the property had been seized by the Crown as •
deodand, ass:aided by the Jury—a balm for
composition was going on between the and she
creditors, and the effects to be divided would turn out
so small, that nothing but the strictest justice oogkst to
be awarded. The Coroner had in his bill a charge of
244 Mr watchmen,.and it would be too bad to base to
pay-for the same services twice.
After some further inquiry, it turned out that three
of ti e claimants had been engaged as weekly servants
at the theatre previous to the accident; two as car.
petting and' property men, and the third as porter and
messenger, and that Mr. Carruthers placed them to
watch,the materials, herring confidence in them.
Tie Commi.sio..era having consulted together, said,
that the two former having been engaged as handi-
craftsmen, did not come within tie meaning of the Act,
wbieh could only be construed to extenCto domestic
servants and clerks. The other claimant could demand
lip to the +period of the bankruptcy.
Mr. BiAltardson (the second assignee) said the claim-
ants had.received some weeks' salary from the Cons-
mime appoiuted to manage the fund seised for the

SUEMPSO • ' •1.
.01.
ail decimal...they bad .never got one
peony, though they were in the theatre when it tell.
MA. &twister, on the part of her deceased husband
(nne bf the.door-keepers), appeared to 401. but as
Pad 'left !Id will, and she had .not adminiptaed, the
tkmalissionei4 'would not allow her to prove, , Some
sm.,* debts acre "oersted without oopoutsuo. ,
Oa the osuAl question to tbLes,igeess, whethirlf they

ware satisfied with the accounts given them by the
, bankrupts ?
Mr. Harding declared they were not, as regarded the
banker's book, between which and the amount there
appeared some variance—the former making a balance
of about 4001. in the bankrupt's favour, the latter mak-
ing him indebted more than 1001. in the account beta een
them.
Mr. Carruthers explained this by stating, that a bill
for 4001. drawn there by Mr. Maurice, his deceased
partner, had been kept in their hands as cash after it
became due.
Mr. Harding—lt should have been carried to Mr.
Mantice's banker, when due, and we can prove that
there were then assests to meet it. We only require
time to make inquiries.
The Commissioners then fixed an adinurnment day.

L