Star.
London, England, 1827-11-09 00:00:00

Where the payments woo all on one side, there could
be no reason fora remedy in equity. Nothing would
be productive of greater mischief to the landed interest
of the country than the countenancing of a proceeding
which would justify agents, by sling bills in equity, to
compel their employers to go into an account of the
transactions between them, at an enormous and alto-
gether unnecessary expense. The demurrer was ac-
cordingly allowed.
COURT OF RING'S BENCH, WIETW2IOI2II, Nov. a.

MAJOR Vs HOLD WORTH.

This was an action tried before Mr. Baron Pinllock,
st York, during the last assizes. The plaintiff, else is
the widow of a butcher and graziers near Leeds, sought
to recover compensation for the less of the services of
her daughter, who had been seduced by the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaiatiff—damages
£3OO.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS now moved for a role to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial granted, on the ground that the damages were
excessive. The learned counsel stated, that, in the first
place, evidence was given, at the trial to show" that the
girl had property to the amount of SOOl. in her own
right ; and, secondly, that there wai no proof of the
defendant's being a person of fortunt. The only evi-
-1
(fence adduced in support of that allegation was that.
he kept two hunters.
Mr. Justice 13AYLIT interrupted the counsel to ob.
serve, that the girl, who had been seduced, proved that
the defendant frequently deposited in her hands, to be
kept for him, notes to the amount of 3,000/. It was
like .rise provei by another witness, that the defendant
was in independent circumstances.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, that though the Court should
be against him on that point, still he would endeavour
to maintain his application, on the ground that the
noodosi tiss*aintiff (the anothei) had not been such
as to entitle her to recover heavy damages. it appeared
that the plentiff had compelled her daughter to go be
fore a magistrate and swear her child to the defendant.
A woman who could thus expose the character of her
daughter, could not be ;supposed to possess any very
nice feelings of delicacy or mural propriety. Again,
it appeared in evidence, that on one occasion the de-
fendant had gone to the plaintiff's house in a state of
intoxication, and proceeded op stairs into a room where
the plaintiff was lying is one bed and her daughter in
another. The defendant lay down on the bed in which
the daughter was for about half an hour, yet after this
conduct, the defendant was allowed to continue his
visits to the house.

Mr. Justice BAUM' said, it appeared in evidence
that the plaintiff quarrelled with the defendant about
that transaction, and that he did not visit at the house
till after the quarrel was made up.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he would only mention one
other circumstance, to prove that the plaintiff had not
bestowed much attention upon the morals of her chil-
dren. It was proved that her eldest daughter was de-
livered of a child within a short time after her marriage.
Lord TENTS/MILS was of opinion that in ewes of this
kind the question of damages was ene peculiarly fit-
ting for the consideration of the jury. The Court was
not in the habit of setting aside a verdict under such
circumstances: it should be made clearly apparent that
the jury had acted under an improper bias. In the
present instance there were not sufficient grounds to
authorise the Court to disturb theVerdict.--Rule refused.

MR ASSIOVERS OF COX V. LORD BAWARDEIC

The ATTORNEY GENERAL Applied for a rule to com-
pel the plaintiffs to show cause why the proceedings in
this case should not be set aside with costs? The plain-
tiffs had sent to the defendant an account of what they
said be was inJebted to the bankrupt's estate. His Lord-
ship called at the plaintiffs counting.huues and told
them he did not owe all the amount claimed, namely
,43/. The plaintiffs, however, disregarded his represen-
tation, issued a writ, and caused has Lordship to be ar-
rested at Brighton. Although his Lo:dship and other
Gentlemen of respectability told the Sheriffs' officers
that he was a Peer,and therefore privileged from arrest,
they persisted in taking him, and he wasobliged to find
bail. In the writ the defendant was styled, ed Viscount
Hawarden," which was of itself evidence that the plain-
tiffs were aware of his rank.—Rule granted.

the Acs 5
length in
Lord TENTZEDEM
that if ante
annexed
parts of one
was merely
did not come
Mr. CAMPBELL
lagainst the
that the
%,ornpany,
against his ,
several letters
which went '
200 shares '
instalments
s we're
sthase
Lord T,
ccansides

IL? 0..0111141116
INS int action for

tiff, with
Mr. Sergeant
cau.e why
new trial
the Judge.
the trial, plaints , being out with *
his_
the purpose of shoot fowl, approached of
Dawson, whose dog tan from tM house toartaigisim
and barked. The dog. however, was returning to the
house, when the plaintiff thought fit to fire at it.at the
distance of about fourteen yards, by which it was
Dawson summoned the plaintiff before Mr. Coyley,
and evidence was given as to the value of the dog. Ms.
Dawson valued it at 51.
Lord TeramenustrarbWhat jurisdiction bad the Ma.
situate? • •
Mr. Sergeant Btrammt..—He had the jurisdiction en.
der the malicious trespass act. Mr. Coyley said he
would take the value of the dog, not at :1. but at 111.
which, with the expenses, he directed the plaintiff to
pay. The plaintiff said he would appeal to the Sessions.
The defendant again desired him to pay tbe.3l. and the
expenses, and told him if he.did not do so, he "would
commit him for three months. .The plaintiff still re-
fusing to pay, the defendant called in a constable, to
whose charge he committed she plaintiff, repeating deo
obses ration he had made before, that he would com-
mit him for three months if be did not immediately
pay. It did not appear that the constable touched the
plaintiff, but they went out of the room together, and
then the plaintiff paid the amount required by the de-
fendant. In his charge to the Jury. Mr. Justice Little-
dale said, that though the circumstance of the ease did
not amount to what was usually called imprisonment.
yet if the Jury thought that the plaintiff was under the
restraint of the constable,that was sufficient to constitute
imprisonment. To that part of the Learned Judge's di.
rectiods he did not object: He, however, went on to at
that if the Jury were of opinion that the plaintiff had suf.
feted imprisonment, it did not appear that the defendant
could is any way justify his conduct. It was that pas-
sage of the charge of which he coniirlained. Before
proceeding further, he begged leave to read a clause in
the Act of Parliament under which Mr. Coyley bad
acted. It was as follows:—" If any person shall wil-
fully and maliciously commit any such trespass as
aforesaid, every person so offending shall be liable to
he summoned before a Justice of the Peace, and io pay
to the person aggrieved such sum of money as may
appear to such Justice of the Peace a reasonable satis-
faction and compensation for the damage, not exceeitiz
51. together with the costs ; and in default of payment
of such sum, such Magistrate or Justice of the Peace
shall be empowered to commit him to garsl for a WWI
not exceeding three months." It was argued at the
trial that no conviction had taken place in this eases
because no record of that fact had heels made. He
contended, however, that Mr. Coyley having heard the
care, and fixed 31. as the amount of the damage, that
must be considered a conviction. Though the convic•
Lion ultimately became a record, the first parole state-
ment of the Magistrate was sufficient fur this case. In
7 East. p. 533, he 'found an authority on this point.
The Court was there reported to have said—" As to
commitment, it never can be denied that a Magistrate
can maim a parole order that the defendant shall be
retained in custody until he makes out the warrant of
commitment." This authority applied also to the second
point upon which he founded his application for a rule,
namely. that if the Court should not consider that the
plaintiff was actually convicted, still they would be of
opinion that under the circumstances of the case the Ma-
gistrate had a right to detain him until he had finally
decided the case. This was a point of considerable general
importance to Magistrates. It was well known that Ma-
gistrates were constantly in the habit of " settling"
matters which came before them. Nothing was Snore
common than for Magistrates to say to defendants in
cases of assault, " We shall be obliged to commit you,
.if you do not settle the matter with the prosecutor." He
requested the attention of the Court to the principal
laid down in Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, 2d vol. caps
13, sec. 15. It was there stated, " Seeing that In Act
of Parliament gives a Justice of the Peace jurisdiction
over certain offences, and authority to make out a war-
rant to bring offenders before him, it cannot but be in-
tended by the Act also to give him the power incident
to all Courts, of committing the parties who .ap; ear
before him." ,Now if a Justice of the Peace had that-
power, he contended that he also had the power of de-
taining a party before him until the matter in question
should be determined. He saw hardly any &Ermine
between a Magistrate acting alone, and the Magistrates
assembled at Quarter Sessions, where it was the con-
stant practice to allow parses to speak to each other in
the middle of a trial, with the view of accommodating
the matter. But if the Magistrates supposed that a
defendant meditated withdrawing from the Court, they
would take care to detain him.
•
Lord TENTERDIIN—Was there any conviction Wiw*
up in this case?
Mr. Sergeant Russm.—No.
matter.
Mr. Justice Beirtia---Within s.
Mr. Sergeant Huhu—Direct!'
Lord TESTSRDM:-..IiONF
tion took place, unless it was

been hit to this defendant on bond. The Learned Coon- instaimel
ant.
'lug
s ecl that these wets aecoonts which could net chants wlbe sad=")setttled by an action at law. Pulth All
Mr. fluonast *as about to reply, wises Lord '
Tir ViCt CKAPCSLLOIt said he would wit trpnble rassides
.0.4. It appeared tel him peifect4letitiirt that the de- •
.•-- is the had said' -.KA
:67 the tieattliedtf." 4f Laid *testy 11114 *kat payments 06 by ,i; p
`Lord treat da• al!, pan of Mt.N Rhoades, and Mr. Rhoades on the pats gistrartC.
esingen, Lord &hey, the matter would have been different, Justice I
, • - •• • l

, • .
~,
. . . : .
N., 1-1,, t . . ...
t- • '
, •
~
. ••••
izt • fw la.. • .dfi .
, • ... ;' ",. j%. . • .:..... ... •
, . •a .
.:, ~.. 'N.;• ;s .:
. . r.d ...::
itotr
, r .
..4%
..
.!. •
_ .
.4 . A*.• . L -.1
4481fill"tilt4e--
;:a• ...ft. ..,c_. ..
..,,.
- i••• , . ---.4- I, _ - I- - • 4
[PRICE SEVIINPENCE.
67 George 111. and argued at considerable
I support of his proposition.
rearm:ass said the words of • the Act were.
ny instrument should be 4' endorsed upon or
to" anethee, they should be con•iiered as
one iemeemeot. In the present case one deed
sly refereed so in another. which he conceived
:ome within the meaning of the Act.
AMPIELL then contended that the verdict was •
the weight of evidence, which went to prove
plaintiff was a partner in the British- Iron
y, and therefore could not maintain an action i
his copartners. The Learned Counsel read
letters from the plaintiff to the defendants,
'ent to chew that the former was the holder of
es in the Company, and bad paid the requisite
nts upon them, and that be knew the defend
ire merely the agents 'of the Company in the
e of the mines.
TENTWIDINI said the Court would take time to
whether it would grant or refuse a rule.
ALDO li? li4/4111441114-
Pi an action for false i riseneneat,
slaintiff against the defendant, who waisvirlit
The cause was tried at Stafford before Mr
E.trri.enata, and the verdict went for the plaid-
i 161. damages. • ,
i I
iergeant Russatt moved for a rule to shrew
by the verdict should not be set aside. and .a
I granted, on the ground of the misdirection of
v. It appeared from the evidence gives on
, that the plaintiff, being out with his gmeo, for

ts. 'llle plaintiff eatetIMIOC
• I ..,,,,eoatib
bin ecsiltdials? oftshit,-.4.44 .
irectly., ....:, • ......,
. CA .•.$1,_0,,,,
can ere My chit I anltvon. I
La ultimately recordeVuk.
•