Star.
London, England, 1828-10-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE CHANCELI.O4II COURT, Oct i 11:

CRISMAN AND NODZI..
'The VICII:CMANCILLIAMI Mid that he had read the af-
fidavits in this case. They were of a most conflicting
and contradictory nature; bbt some of them were so
clearly destitute of credit, that he felt no hesitation in
'superseding the coeunistioa•without &eating an issue.
RUMS ANDrJOTNER.
The argument in this case was resumed.
• Mr. BICIttNSTISTR and Mr.Jacoa were heard against
!lbw petition.
.The argqment of Mr. JACOB was toter-.
Mogul by the rising of the Court, the.irrco-Cnatacar.-.
49a observing, that there seemed Lido probability of
cifget tins through the ease that day. •
•v; COURT OP. KING'S BENCH, GUTIANALI., 'OC.T. is.
-.Adjonams *sings in London, thin. Trinity Tenn, before Lord
' Tmensore and Common Juries.

• r Toutto 0. YATES AZIOTIIIat.
%VA an action • ligainit the executors elf a pen-
- Amite *named Yates, to tecover the sum of 341.16‘54.
,lt appeared that the plaintiff was a clerk with thelate
Vates, in the Filacer's °Mee, in if. Temple; and;
itbit iteras the sluff of the latter to account to them
plaintiff for some of the fees which he received in the
. °lke. Several accounts had been balanced between the
parties, anti the amount of what appeared to be due to
the plaintiff on those accounts had been .paid over t*
' hie hy Mr. Yates. After that eittleosin's death, hoii-j
ewer, the.plaintifF discovered that there were severall
Washes in the castings of the account, which made the
• balance in his favOur less by 191. 16s. 5.11. than by the
,correct distingssit appeared to be, A quarter) salary
due to the plaintiff, amounting to 151. was also omitted
to be given credit for.. Tbdse two sobs the
now smelt to recoier bi this. action.
Tile fact of the miss stings was adlstitted. •
Mr. RICHARDS erospeximined the plaintiff's witness,

iKth kview of showing that the plaintiff was a person
in seedy circumstances ; and he • afterwards addressed
some observations to the Jury- ois the staleness of the
, demand, some of the traisactions. having taken place
inlang ago as 1822; and aubmittid to the Coort..ou
* authority Of a case arising out of the bankruptcy of
'Howard and Gibbs, that' the, plaintiff could not now
*pen the accounts. •
Lora TgIiTRODES said, it was always compeleOt tto
patty to correet errors. appealing on the face of on
account ;'and the Jury, under his Lordship's directions,
immrdiately found for the plaintiff—Damages, thirty.-
four wands, sixteen shilling., and fivepence.
CLINE": v. CAUTT.•
r This was an action by a .hairdresser of Pall-Mall,
• against Mr. Caul, the auctioneer of that place,' to re-
cover the sum of 9(g. kw the occupation of ceitain
it4bles. The only queition was, whether the defendant
.400 k the stables unconditionally, or whether, at the-time
. `l•:the bargain was made, he stipulated that a debt which
.be plaintiff owed hins,imottming to nearly 1001. 'should
be set off against the rent ? A tomer clerk of the de-
fendant's proved that he engaged the stables for the
defendant. who made no stipulation that the rent should
goagainst tire debt ; but a poiter of the defendant's
Need, teat ins conversation between the plaintiff and
"ihitefetidant, the latter expreisly told the plaintiff thsit
he would not take the stables unless the rent was allowed
:.,Iktr in discharge of the debt.
Lord TENTIRDIKIrIet it to the Jury to reconcile these
AIMD statements, ifthey could; or, if not, to say to which
,Aeneas theygave credit.
. The Jury almost immediately found for the defend-
ant. •

•

• ;.

SAILS/ IP; ALGA*. -
*This was an action by Mr. Baylis, a printer,.tpinst
the defendant, a broker, to recover damages for negli-
gence with respect to some furniture which had-been
.cammi,ted to the defendant% charge, ind.whith he had
promised to take clue of. Before the whole of tile
plaintifrecase was gone through, Lord TsteraaDssr
•,saggett•ed that toe amount of daunt should be settled
out •of Courts bdt eventually, by cons:mild' the defend-
aat's Counsel, a verdict was eatetedjor the plaintiff—
Damages la.
OwLll IPV WM.

This was an iCtiOJI by an attorney to recover S5l. the
Smoot% of his bill of costs.on the defendant, for prose-
cuting an action art his suit against a person VS h 0 WAS
indebted to him. Jr appeared that the defendant, who
...mss a fellowship porter, employed the planniff to write
Otirdebox for piteuot• elk &mad, chit this 1

money not being paid, the plaintiff tied out a writ, and
continuo, the proceedings. without effect, until the costs
amounted to the som sought to be recovered i this
action. The party took the benefit of the Insolvent Act,
lind then the attorney (the fitment plaintiff) calted on'
the defendant to pay the !o►t•.
Evidence was given of she business done; but there
was no proof of an original retainer on the part of the
defendant. It was, however, stated by one witness, that,
after the cause was at issue, the defendant's wife called
on the plaintiff's agent, and gave in►tractions for the,
briefs with a view of proceeding to trial; and this, it
was contended, was sufficient evidence of the original'
employment, and the sub►egaent sanction of the pia,
iceedings by the defendant. For•the defendant, how-
ever, it was proved that his wife called on the plaintiff,
and expressed her husband's regret that the proceedings.
were going on. as. he could not afford to pay for them;
and that the plaintiff then assured her they should be
no expense to the defendant, as he (the plaintiff) would
charge nothing in the event of his sot recovering the
money.
Lord Tirtiranow observed, that such a course of
proceeding was very improper. Attorniesonght always
to take written retaiaers of their clients before com-
menting actions. According to the old practice,
retainers were always ptoduced in scions for Attoraies'
bills. If the Jury believed the witness for the defence,
the verdict ought to be for the defendant.
The Jury almost immediately found for the defendant..

SURREY SESSIONS.

'KINGSTON, Orr. is.
J. Puddiek was put to the bar, charged with• having;
on the 20th of Junes assaulted William Boulder, at
Chertsey. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
The Cuktastax.—Well, Mr. Boulder, tell ps the
nature of this assault. .
• Mr. Houlder Oiler a pause)—Why, Sir, thelangnalte
he used was so tenible bad, Sir, that I'm ashamed to
mention,it before females. If you'd just send them out,
Sir, then—

Mr. THesstami. for the defendantr.Come, gOO% Sir
we want, to hear none of your improper language; tel
us about this assault you.complain of.
Mr. Houlder—Well, Sir, I had been doing some busi-
ness iwith"Mr. Finch,'Sir, and so we went into the Bull,
, and Mr, Puddick was there, and the moment we went
in, be says, with au oath, says he, '4 here's the wretches
a-coming."
MT. Torsstomt—Come, come, Houlder, you"
seem very fond of 'these expresbinns, and appear anzicus
to, repeat them; do pray keep them to yourself, and,
come to the assault:

Mr. Hon!der—He abused Me for it- long time. gni
my friend and I lefethe tooni,. and went into another,
and then he came round to the window, and lifting it
up he put bit whole body into the room and pitched
into me. He bit nte.na my mouth and cut my lip. He
then asked me if rd have any more, and I said sto,
bed enough.
'Cross-ezam4sed by Mr. Taustoaa—,You say be
strock you on the mouth ?

Mr: flOulder—He did; and loosened my teeth.
Mr. Totestoeit—Are your teeth loose noir? •
'Mr. Heulder (Smiling end displaying a very streets
.set of teeth)—They are not. • - •
Mr. Triremes-4 thought not; for you an give i
very good grin still, I think. Pray what are your
Mr. Boulder? • •
Mr. Boulder-4in eggier (higgleal Sir.
, Mr. Tneestrisa4-41*hat? An gg-Lwyer dal you
ay?. 7 - '•
Sirt an &glee; I provide
Oa*/
for dealers in the LcindOu
Mr. Tuuslosa—Oh, a biggl-r I beg yaw porde%
Lenistook your pronunciation of the word. Come, now,
tell us whether there was net sonar provocation gives
on your part for this assault?
• Mr. Houlden-.No, Sir, none whatever.; the moment
we went in he ups and he says—
Mr. Tosamain—Pray, my good Sir, nor so fag;—
your name is Hoolder, I wish you would contrive to
Add your tongue occasionallytand let us have no more
of your.coriversation than we want. Did you not. when
the defendant struck you, lay, “ very well, thee: enough;
that's all I wanted. I've got you tight now, and I'll pull
you up for it 2".
Mr. Houlder—No, I did not say all that ; when he
asked At if I'd lA* -any More ? • I said no, I'd had
enough. I believe I did say rd pull him up for it. He
pitched lino me once before, about three years . since,
end I gave him a good threshing; but I have lately
been eoufined with the gout, or the I'd scorn to take
Ate law of any usio.
Mr. Tumeitssa—Did yownot tell your friends at tl-.e
Bull, net to ask „that villain;' meaning the defendant,
to dunk? %No, I did not say villain; I said vagabond.'
I was not in the habit -of insulting the defendant's wifajl
Once, about three years since, I met her, and asked her
for—
Mr. . .
Tusesfora-4- don't want to hear That you
asked her ; I dare say ft was some very Improper
question.
Mr. Houlder (warady)—lllut, Sir, I can explain, if—
Mrs. Tuassioes—.No, Sir, we don't want to bear
.it.
You hear, Gentlemen, how his -tongue runs, and .may
judge bow noisy he was at ihe Bull.
A witness Mimed Pinch corroborated the prOsecuter's
statement as to the assault I but. admitted that be bad
fasuapplied the term vagabond" to the defeidadt:
Mr. Tummies addressed the Jury forothedehindalst,
and *as repeatedly interrupted by the PiOnCtliof. who
was,.in his turn, assrepeatedly requested- to bold his
tongue. The Jury would perceive that he had to deal
with what was technically called as " airkward cos-
tomet"—!a man who either would not. or could not hold
his tongue, even in a Court of Justice, where all were
bound to behave with attention and respect. The
Learned-Gentlemen adulated that as assault had bees
committed; but, certainly, under circumstances of pro.
vocation which would guide the Bench in pronouncing
sentence. The fact was, that the plaintif had pitched
into the defendant, three years ago, and sound);
,threshed him; the defendant was anxious to settle the
account. the credit side of which bad been so Ion; in
favour et hibopponont, and.saeordingly,"pitchedTaco
him" on this occasion. So that— •
Mr. Houldee..4 beg your pardon, Sir, but I can--es
plain, if—
. Mr. Mr want —There he is again, Gentlemen—you
see there's to stopping hia—(A laugh). He has told
you that his teeth wen loosened. Gentlemen, if they
are now loose, let me ask yes, whether the incessant
wagging of his tongue is not more than sufficient to
produce such an effect ? (As laugh). The Learned. Gen-
tlemar, after some *further observations, concluded by
stating that this paltry case ought, if brought forward
,at all, to have been carried to the Petit Sessions, in.
stead of occupying the time and attention of that Cant.
• Mr. • Houldct—But, Gentlemen, I wish to say one
W,ord ;.
M. Tursitcsa—There be goes again, Gentlematif

tbe tact ills that ifilte did not speak be would burst, and
so Imogene& his month as* safety valett-4A laugh).
The Jury found the defeudani Guilty, and be was
fined los. • ut
The prosecutuestated.ohen caned upon to pay 544ra.
Court fees, endless :alma to address the officer of the
Court, when—
Mr. Tongan= ield lasa, that if he allowed himself
to be harried away thus, his gouty and odor humours
would end in a decided fit.