Star.
London, England, 1820-10-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OR KING'S =gm OCTOBER SO,
CROSSLIIIT 0. Lilllllo AND ANOTHIR.
The plaintiff in this cause had bees employed by
the defendant, the Captain of at East Indiaman, to
purchase for him a certain quantity of porter. The
'plaintiff accordingly made the purchase from a per-
gen of the name or Hibbert, and the porter was put
on board the defendant's ship. Upon arriving at the
Isle of France, the porter turned out to be bad, and
the defendant demanded a reduction of price. This
wits resisted by Hibbert, the person from whorls the
porter had been bought, and he brought his action
against the present plaintiff, to recover the full amount.
Upon the action being brought, the plaintiff applied
to the defendant, ig learn whether he should defend
the action in his, the plaintiff's name, or in that of
the defendant, he ha\ing. money of the defendant's
in his hands, which he might apply to that purpose.
'The defendant wished the action to be defended in
doe name, and by the Attorney, of the plaintiffff. The
plaintiff being cast, the present action was brought to
recover the cogs ; the debt itself having been paid from
the money of the defendant in the plaintiff's hands.
The defendant's ship-broker. who bad been a wit-
ness on the former trial, proved the facts of the case;
and the plaintiff's attorney stated the costs to have
amounted to £149, viz. C5l paid to the attorney of
Hibbest, the then plaintiff, and I.:98 to himself.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
$149, with liberty, on the part of the defendant,. to
move the Court of King's Bench for a nonsuit. The
original debt was only L'7B.

. ,

THI XINO v. T. T. TO! AND T. lIINNET.
This was an indictment by the Apothecaries Com-
pany of London., laid against the defendants. for a
conspiracy to violate the. Act of the 56th of the late
King, for regulating the trade of Apothecaries, undue
the following circumstances :—The defendant, Ben-
net, who had, in the month of August, 1818, re-
ceived a certificate tb practice as an Apothecary, ap-
peared subsequently in the month of May, 1819,
and received a certificate under the name of Fox.
The certificate, thus fraudulently obtained, he trans-
mitted to a. person of the name of Fox, residing
.at
Butslem, in Staffordshire, who commenced practice
under it. Suspicions of the transaction being en-
tertained by the Company, they sent two sconfiden-
tial persons to Macclesfield, where Bennet resided,
and to Burslem, the residence of Fox; and in conse-
quence of the information thus procured, the indict-
ment was laid.
Mr. GURNAY, for the prosecution, called witnesses'
in support of the charge.
Edward Bacon, Clerk to the Company of Apothe-
caries, proved, that the Examiners had been sworn in
on the 4th of August, 1818, and that they had all,
as was required 'by the rules of the Society, been
Members for ten years and upwards.
J. Watson was Secretary to the Court of Exa-
miners of the Apothecaries Company. On the 27th
of August, 1818, a person of the name of T. Bennet
had been examined, and received his certificate. On
the 18th of May, 1819, a person of the name of T.
Fox had demanded to be examined ; and a man who
answered to that name had passed, and received a
certificate. On the 6th of December, 1819, the wit-
ness, accompanied by an Officer of the Company, left
London in consequence of certain information that
the Company had received, and went to Maccles-
field, to the house of Mr. Bennet. Upon enquiring
if he was at home? he was asked if he meant Mr.
Bennet, the weaver? The witness said no; and
that he wanted to see Mr. Bennet. the Apothecary.
He then went up stairs, and asked Bennet if he had
always gone by that name, and whether he had not
once called himself T. Fox? which he denied. The
witness then endeavoured to call to his (the defend-
ant's) recollection a conversation he had had with
him about a certain trial at Stafford, on the 13th of
May ; but the defendant said the 'conversation bad
been with Fox, and not with him ; and that Fox had
told him so when they lodged together. The wit-
ness proceeded thence to Burslern, in Staffordshire,
and went into Fox's house, when he informed him
that it was reported that he practised without a cer;
tificate, which Fox denied; and upon the witness
asking if be knew him? the defendant said No! but
at last said, he thought he had seen- him at Mr.
Brooke's Class-room ; and that he (the defendant)
bad been examined by Mr. Upton ; but upon being
questioned, could give no satisfactory account, either
of Mr. Upton, or of the place where he said he had
been examined. The witness then observed, that he
was certain Fox had never been examined ; the father-
in-law, and the family of the defendant, seemed quite.
astonished at what they heard. The person who ac-
companied the witness then told Fox, that the Court
of Examiners would probably be favourable to him
if be told the truth ; but the witness himself said no-
thing. Fox, on the 20th of May last, had given up
the certificate, and applied to be examined.
On his cross-examination by Mr. Corm', who
was Counsel for Fox (Bennet, the other defendant,
had no Counsel), the witness said, that he was ena-
bled to recollect Mr. Bennet, both because his coun,
tenance was somewhat remarkable, and by a conver-
sation be had with him at Apothecaries Hall, re-
specting a trial at Stafford.
J. Sayer, Beadle to the Apothecaries Company,
confirmed the evidence of the last witness.
James Beveridge, a Surgeon and Apothecary, to
whom Bennet had been an apprentice for two years,
was of opinion that a letter which was shewn to him,
was in the the hand-writing of the defendant.
After some argument as to whether the letter was
evidence or not, it was allowed by the Court to be
read. It contained a full admission, on the part of
Bennet, of the fact with which he was charged, and
his earnest request that the Company would not
prosecute, its he had already been sufficiently punished
by the consequences of his misconduct.
Mr. CHITTY contended, that no conspiracy had
been premed against the defendants; what the result
might have been had they been indicted separately,
he should not take upon himself to say ; but there
was no proof that they had acted in concert, and con-
quently could net have been guilty of a conspiracy.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY told the Jury, that the ques-
tion for their consideration was, if a conspiracy had
been proved or not? If they thought the defendant
Fox was not guilty, they most also acquit the other
defendant, Bennet, as they had both been included
in the same indictment. The Jthdrew half
an hour,:and then acquitted bot t 1 4sfeadaati•

-.