Star.
London, England, 1829-12-16 00:00:00

ROCUAVD v. OSOI2.

The Plaintiff, a celebrated foreign artist and miniature painter
in Regent-street, brought this action against a French lady of
fashion residing on Connaught-terrace, to recover £2B for two
miniatures painted and delivered according to order. It ap-
peared that Madame Orgie had sat for her likeness to the Plain-
tiff, and was so well pleased with her portrait when finished,
that she gave an order to paint two others. The Defendant
called some time after to see how the Plaintiff proceeded, and was
told that she could not then confer on him the honour of a sitting,
. as he bad two ladies in his portrait room who bad come by invita-
tion. Madame Orgie considered the plaintiff's conduct disrespectful,
and went away. The plaintiff sent the two miniatures when
finished to Connaught-place, with his account, and the defendant
wrote a note stating that the miniatures were no more like her than
the plaintiff himself ; she also said they were unlike each other,
and therefore returned them. The plaintiff, under these circum-
stances, was compelled to bring this action.
The Jury were in no condition to decide whether the portraits
were likenesses, as the lady did sot appear in Court. The first
pot trait was also kept back. They could only judge whether the
pictures resembled each other.
The witnesses for the plaintiff proved that the portraits were well
executed, and that they were likenesses.
Several French servants, called on the part of the defendant, said
they were not likenesses.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages £2B Is.
„Newman V. SMITH.
Mr. Axxoasrr-Gxnaaat stated, that this was as action to re-
cover compensation is damages for an illegal distress made by the
defendant upon the plaintiff. The facts appeared to be as follow :
—The plaintiff rented a house in Goswell-street, and at
Michaelmas, 1828, owed about £37. The plaintiff gave a bill
of exchange for the amount, which the latter received, without
prejudice to his claim and right to distrain on the plaintiff's
goods, if the bill was not paid. The bill was dishonoured, and
the defendant put a distress into the house. The plaintiff
being absent at that time, his daughter, a straw bonnet maker,
occupied the premises. and representing that her father had
taken away all the furniture that belonged to him, and that all the
furniture then in the house belonged to her, and, after a consulta-
tion with her father, it was agreed to give up the fixtures, on being
allowed to take away her goods and stock. This was agreed to, but
'the father afterwards brought this action, for the defendant having
made the distress after having been paid by the bill.
The question fir the Jury was, whether the plaintiff's or the de-
fendant% witnesses were most entitled to credit?—They found a
verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 15.

On the Loan Caty BAImI coming into Court this morning, his
Lordship proceeded to pronounce judgment in this case. The
Plaintiffs are the bond creditors of William Tate, and the bill
was filed to obtain payment out of the proceeds of a
freehold estate, held by Tate, situate in Greek-street, Soho,
under the statute of IS Elizabeth, chap. 2.5. The aim was at-
tendid with some very peculiar clacumstancer. One Wilding
puichased the premises in question for "500, of which he paid
SOW. and the rest remained unpaid, he being let into posses-
sion; he died in 1800, leaving a widow and two daughters ; one
of whom married Tate, and the other a man named Kirby. The
widow administered to the will, and in 1802 entered into an agree-
ment with her two married daughters, by which she assigned to
them the whole of the property tor an annuity of £BO per annum,
and they were to pay the debts of the deceased. Kirby and Tate
agreed, with the consent of their wives, to divide the property
between them ; Kirby was to have the leasehold property,
and Tate the freehold property in question. Tate paid the out-
standing suns with interest. In March, 1806, a deed was en-
•tercd into, giving Tate possession of the premises upon the
payment of a fine, which was never acted upon, and there-
fore that indenture was void ; and there was another deed dated
in iilarch 184?, upon which the fine was paid, but the consignee
was another person. and that deed appeared to be quite different
from the deed of 1806. Tates interest, which arose solely from
his marial rights, ceased with his life, and therefore the creditors,
having lost their hold upon Tate, could not make his wife, to whom
the estate belonged, pay them their debts out of the produce of the
estate. My opinion is, therefore, that the plaintiffs cannot recover
under thi. bill. There has been another point upon which the
plaintiffs have relied, which is, that the residue of the purchase-
money left unpaid by Wilding at his death was paid by Tate out of
his own-private property, and not out of the effects of the deceased.
I think this point has also failed, as from the whole of the evidence
I think it quite clear that the contrary is proved, therefore the bill
must be dismissed, but, as the case is one of great novelty, without
costs.

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.

WRIT OF INQUIRY, SWOP D DAY, Dac. 15.
Commissioners haying taken their seat, at alma o'clpek,

the inquiry was proceeded with.
Peter 11•Lathattt, a physician, was

lie deposed

that be raw Mr. Davies 'upon two occasions; the &at dote was
late in July. His 'conduct and manner were exceedingly
flurried. He said he called upon witness to obtain his pro-
tection. He then produced a printed copy of the proceedings
of the Commission of Lunacy upon Lord Portsmouth, and
asked me If that was witness's evidence mentioned in the book?
Witness teplied, that it *as not his, but his father's evidence.
He said that it was no matter ; be liked witness's looks, and
hoped he would give the same evidence fur him. Ile then
seised witness's arms with a son of trembling force, and spoke in
a sort of whismobserving that he bad tale of the greatest horror
to teU him. was on the 28th of July. Ile then asked, in a
cautious manner, if it were possible for any one to hear him. Asked
if be Might close the window and doors. Thi witnesaateeded to his
closing the window, but objected to his locking the door. He this
tore oft his crevat, and tura open his shirt breast. He then
himself in a variety of attitudes. He was an hour at witness's=
and during that time be said nothing intelligible. Alf cholla* be
never mentiOned tie story of horror he had preelbudraludad to
When he was going away witness asked hint *about tit tale of
horror. observing that he bad forgot to inaction it. He then said
that his mother had revealed to him a secret. viz that I Motive,
an uncle, witness believed, had been insane. Hk then masted a

promise to call upom him the nest day. He, said that he wassailer
the care of Dr. Burrows and Dr. Lawrence. He said Dr. Bur-
rower wanted to confine him. He asked witness if be thought be
was insane. He spoke of his wealth, his skill in trade, and his
knowledge of literature, and quoted largely from Lord Byron and
Shakspeare. As he was going be turned towards witness and said,
if he failed to call on him according to promise that he should
dread the revenge of a madman, for be carried loaded pistols.
Cross-examined by Mr. Baotionax—When Mr. Davies used
these last expressions witness did not see his face, and therefore
could not say if he smiled, but the expressions were followed by
loud laughter. Witness did think that Mr. Davies was labouring
under much mental excitement. Witness admitted that he had
sworn only to this extent with respect to Mr. Davies, namely,
" that he had an apprehension of possible insanity," and this he
said after seeing Mr. Davies for the second time.
The affidawit was here pot in.
This witness was re-examined, but nothing material elicited.
To the Commissioners—When witness saw Mr. Davies the nest
day he was less excited, but his conversation was equally rambling.)
In reply to a Juror—Has very little practice in cases of insanity.
He was not paid any fee from Mr. Davies on either of the occasions
that he saw him. His fee has been paid within the last month by
Mr. Jones. It is usual to pay a fee to a physician whether be pre.
scribes or not.
George Griffin examined by Sir C. Wirrnsatu.—ls a clerk in
Ransom's banking-house. Knows Mr. Davies, the subject of the
present inquiry, for the last seven or eight years. Knows the mother
of Mr. Davies, and his sister, Mrs. Pugh. Was in the habit of
dining at Mr. Davies's house. The conduct of the mother and sister
towards Mr. Davies was of the kindest nature. He was equally
kind towards them. They appeared to live happily together. Mr.
Davies has called at my lodgings, Margaret-street, Cavendish-
square. Ile once called on me at the batik. This was on the Nth
of July last. It was about ten o'clock in the morning. I saw him
in a private room attached to the bank. Did not perceive any par-
ticular appearance about him at first. Asked him why he did not
call upon him. He replied; " Sir, it Is beneath the dignity of a cid.
sen to visit any one in furnished apartments." These words were pro-
flounced in a haughty manner. His manner of speaking those words
was different from that in which be used to speak. I made no reply.
He then said be was veil ill, and that the doctors had said he was
hot here (pointing to his forehead) He said that he told them in
reply, It be was hot there why did they not put ice on it to cool
it?" He then asked me to visit him at his country-house. He af-
terwards called for a pen and ink and some paper; upon the latter
he made me write" Alderman Harris." He then observed to me.
" I suppose you are too high to call upon persons living in Philpot-
lane ?' I replied, " Nonsense, Davies; how can you speak so r
He instantly pulled from his pocket a pistol, and said. Nonsense 1
by GOD, sir, do you see this?' pointing to the pistol. He then
went away. I called afterwards and saw his mother, and men.
tioned what had taken place. Mr. Davies was a very timid, ner-
vous young man. It was my opinion from what I saw that Mr.
Davies was decidedly insane.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. Annulus, but nothing
particular transpired.
John Williams, examined by Mr. Wmone—ls a porter at Furni-
vat's Inn Coffee-house ; remembers Mr. Davies coming to the cof-
fee-house on the 3d or 4th of August ; saw him in Mrs. Chatham's
parlour; saw hint again at six o'clock in the morning; he was
dressed ; he said he wanted to see Mrs. Chatham's nephew ou very
great business ; called Mrs. C.'s nephew, but he would not get up;
I returned to Mr. Davies, who made an observation on seeing some
women wasbtog—( We cannot repeat the observation.)—He then
said there were thieves in the house, for be heard them striking a
light, and snapping a pistol; there were not thieves in the house; I
thought Mr. Davies looked very wild ; I did not see him again un-
til be was going into a carriage after breakfast ; he looked more like
a madman than any thing else.
Cross-examined by Mr. BIODMICK—Saw two persons take Mr.
Davies by the arms to lead him to the coach; could not say that
Mr. Davies's room door was broken open by those men; the men
came at eight o'clock in the morning.
Gibbs, examined by Sir C. Wxvitseett —Knows Mr. Davies
for the last six years ; he was a young man of great judgment in his
business; about the 13th of April witness observed that he be-
came a different sort of being ; he repeated oaths, talked incohe-
ready, and said he was beset by a set of villains, who would murder
him were they not deterred by the laws of their country; he said
belted a call, which he desuibed as the immediate work of GOD ;
and pointed to the tops of his fingers as a proof of the call. Wit-
ness called upon him at Crouch•hill on the 4th of August. He
found him in bed. Witness laid down beside him. He told wit.
ness that he had seen a vision, in which the Auncornr said that his
troubles were an over, and that for the future riches and happiness
would follow him. Witness called again at Crouch-hill on the Bth
of August. He found Mr. Davies in a highly excited state. He
then spoke about his mother, and said she was a base villain ; and
exclaimed, that if be saw her at that window (pointing to t►e room
window) with a reser in her hand, cutting her throat, he would
say, Thank GOD! -thank Gon!
Cross-examined by Mr. Aziotenus—There were two persons in
the house at Crouch-hill belonging to Dr. Burrows. This was
known to Mr. Davies. Ile also knew, or supposed, that they were
there by order of his mother ; and this circumstance ft was that
induced him to express himself in the way he did with respect to
hii mother. Witness made two affidavits , yet be never winked
in either of them any thing about what Mr. Davies said touching
his mother cutting her throat, and his saying that he would ex-
claim Thank Gnu! thank Goo! But be knew that Mr. Davies
did make use of the expressions alluded to, for he took a note of
them the same night. Witness knew Dr. M•Kinnan was related
to Mrs. Byfield.
Mr. Ammon—Did not Dr. WKinnan say that the young man
was no more mad than be am; and that it was a shame to keep
bins in confinement? -

Sir C. Iffruseastr. objected to the question.
Mr. BILOUGNIAX replied.
The Commissioners decided that the question could not be put.
It being five o'clock, the inquiry was adjourned until to-morrov
morning (this day.)

WINTER ASSIZES.

--op.-
HOME , CIRCUIT.-MAIDSTONE Du. 15.

Mr. Baron Gaaaow, in Ws charge to the Jury, observed, that
he bad to beg of them to take care that the depositions were taken
in a regular way, as in cases of murder, manslaughter, or highway
robbery, where the parties died after the deposition had been taken,
then the depositions formed a part of the evidence against the
accused party ; should those depositions not he regularly taken, the
guilty party would escape the bands of justice. In the depositions
returned at the present Assize, there were many of which net one
word could be accepted as evidence, and .ome of them not in the
shape of a deposition at all, as they merely state " John Nokes
says," without its being stated that it was a deposition taken before
a Magistrate, there being only a signature attached to the state-
ment. If the Alagistrates felt any doubt as to the proper form In
which depmitions *ere to be taken, be was well assured that any
Bow-street Magistrate would, on being applied to, forward the re-
quired forms. He therefore hoped he should not have occasion to
call their attention to the subject again.
Before Mr. Baron GARROW.

Maria 13arringeon was convicted and sentenced to six months
imprbonment for uttering base coin at Llealey, in this county.
George Beard, aged twenty-eight years, a private in the Wool-
wich Division of Royal Marines. stood capitally indicted for
breaking into the dwelling-house of Major Jones, R. M. in Wool•
wick liarracks, and stealing a watch, £2 sa. 6d. in money, and
wearing apparel, the property of W. Malings, a private in the sante
Division.

Mr. PoLLocc and Mr. CLARKSON appeared for the Crown.
The charge being satisfactorily proved, the Jury found the pri-
soner Guilty.
--Cleggait, aged 18 years, was found guilty of stealing a cart
bone. the property of Mr. Robert Rugg, a farmer at Wiley.—
Death.

Thomas Ross, aged 23 years, waOplaced at the bar, charged with
uttering's' forged and counterfeit 51. tune, with intent to defraud
the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.
Mr. D. Poixoce and Mr. livt.avo appeared for the prosecution
—Mr. CLARVION for the defence.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty—Death.
Thcophiles James Keimuall, aged 27, and Charles Kidney, alias
Matey, aged also 27, were convicted of stealing a sheep, value Att,
the property of Wm. Gascoigne, at liapchild, in this county.
William and Alfred Ayres, too brother., were capitally charged
with stealing a mare. value £l2, the property of Mr. David Me-
i
pham, of Wendershatn, Surrey.
The Jury found William Guilty, and Alfred .Val Guilty.
The will of the late Thomas Shelton, Esq. who, for
nearly half a century, filled the offices of Clerk of the Arraigns and
Coroner for the City of London, was proved on Friday last at Doc-
tors' Commons. The personal property wu sworn under thirty-
five thousand pounds. The testator, after bequeathing an an-
nuity of sel6o to each of his sisters, Maria Ann Shelton and
Letitia Shrinin, and an annuity of a3O to his nephew, William
Clarke, with a reservation prohibiting the latter from either
wiling or transferring his interest under the will, bemrstln
a legacy of fifty guineas to his principal clerk, Mr. Mucky,
and the like sum to Townsend, the-keeper of the Simons House;
leaves the residue and.remainder of lie real sad personal estate to
his nephew. Mr. John "Clirki(who sucauded.hlas as Clerk of the
Arraigns, Clerk, of the Plum, &e.) The will is dated he 10th of
July, 1829. (the day of the. testator's death.) and appoints hit
slaters and nephew, John Clank, elf cutrhanitnd executor.- •Ie was
proved by Mr. John'Clarke only, with a power reserved for the
executrixes to administer.