Star.
London, England, 1829-09-15 00:00:00

CLEGG T. DUNI= AND OTNENS.

In this cue, which was an action against the defendants. an at•
torney at Rochdale, and a plaintiff in an action tried in the County
Court, and others, officers who were sent to levy an execution.
The only question in the case was, whetbet a cow, that was
taken in execution, was the property of the plaintiff, or that of a
poor man who worked for him as a labourer.
Witnesses were called, who swore to the purchasing of the cow
for the plaintiff, and that the poor man, against whom the execution
was sued out, never possessed a cow in his life.
Verdict for the plaintiff against all :he defendants, except Mr.
Dearden, for .015 10.

NODGION V. MILLINGTON.
Mr. POLLOCa stated this case ; Mr. BROUGHAM appeared for the
defendant.

It was an action upon an agreement, for a breach thereof. It
appeared that Mr. Wan. Hodgson, the father of the plaintiff, and
Robert Hodgson, the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the
defendant, Robert hlillington, who was a brewer, by which the,
defendant agreed to sell all his transferable stock in trade—hops,
malt, and beer, to the plaintiffs ' • and 4is father being desirous
to put him into business, agreed to pay or become security
to the defendant. The agreement was entered into in the month
of February, 1828, and an invoice was made out of the property to
the amount of 2,7331. 10s. one item of which was, "32 pockets
and 14 bags of hops, at Pick fords' (describing the marks), 347/.155.
at intake price, --that w4s, the very terms of the agreement.—
The money was paid, or the requisite security given, and an order
was given on Pick fords' to transfer the hops to the plaintiff, which
was done, and they delivered ten pockets at the hops to the plaintiff.
After this the defendant sent an order of countermand of the delivery
of any more hops to the plaintiff, unless be paid the freight, the
amount of which was about 151. Upon these facts it was con.
tended that there was an entire pet formance of the agreement;
that the bops were sold and delivered at invoice price ; that the
plaint.' had no right to pay the freight, and the defendant had no
control over the hops, Messrs. Pick ford having accepted the order
and made the transfer to the plaintiff in their books; and, lastly,
the defendant having so acted, the plaintiff was not bound to take
the hops.—Evidence was given of the fact, and a verdict was taken
fur the plaintiff—Damages 1,0001. subject to the opinion of the
Court upon the agreement, and particularly the word. " Invoice
price," as contradistingui.bed to " prime cost."

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Scpt 14.

CONSPIRACY TO COMPOUND A FELONY.

Alexander apt Aka May. and William Skeen (not in custody)
were indicted for fraudulently conspiring to prevent one Leonard
Alderson front prosecuting Mary Sullivan and Mary Batchelor, at
the last Old Bailey Sessions, for picking his pocket.
'The prisoners mended and gave evidence on the trial of th e
women, and were committed by the Recorder fur perjury. After
the prisoner had been arraigned,
Mr. Chanson said he had that moment received Mr. C. Putt,
mrs's brief, who was Counsel for the prisoner Boyd. It was for-
warded to him, with instructions to hand it to another Learned
Counsel, who was not then present. Under these circumstances
he did nut know bow to act.

Mr. Aat.ev—l for one never encourage this plan of handing
briefs over ft om one Counsel to another. There are several junior
Counsel present, and in the absence of others, are entitled to a fair
chance of such business as may offer. lam at all times anzions to
do any act of londnes. I can for my brethren, but I do for one
most measly object to this system of handing over briefs (tom the
Counsel originally retained to another.
Mr. Ciasaasoe—lt will be impossible for me to defend the pri-
soner; I know nothing whatever of the case.
The Chairman (Mr.3laaassiter) said, the Court was placed in a
difficult situation; all it could do was to watch the CM on behalf
of the prisoners. He thought it unjust towards prisoners who re-
tained a Counsel, and relied upon his talents being exerted in their
behalf, that he should, instead of attending to the case himself;
hand over his brief to another Counsel, in whom perhaps the pri-
soners had not equal confidence. Such a practice, he believed,
existed to a great extent, and it was extremely reprehensible.
The trial was then ordered to proceed, and at the request of the
Court, Mr. CLARKSON read over Mr. l'un.t.irs's brief, and under-
took the prisoner Boyd's defence.
Mr. Wontner, the Governor of Newgate, produced the com-
mitment to Newgate of the woman Sullivan and Batchelor.
Leonard Alderson stated that hr was bound over by the Magis-
trates at Guildhall to prosecute the two women at the late Old
Bailey Sessions. Shortly before the commencement of the Sessions,
he received a message from a man named Sheen, desiring him to
meet him at the Three Tuns, in Brook-street, Holborn. He went
there accordingly, and found the prisoners there, and Sheen, Saun-
ders, a watchman, and another person. Sheen asked witness what
expense he thought he would be at in prosecuting the two women,
and he replied, 15s. Sheen then said that the women were his
sisters, and that it would break his mother's heart if they were pro-
secuted. He then offered to give witness the 15s. He had but
13s. and the prisoners lent him each ls. each to make up the money.
Witness told them that as be had been bound over, he should ap-
pear and prosecute the women, but that he would speak in their
favour after the trial. Witness at length took the money in order
to get rid of them, and the day before the trial he sent it back again.
Mr. Buckler, the short-hand writer at the Old Balky, proved
that both prisoners gave evidence on the part of the women, on
their trial, when they swore that the matter had been settled with
the prosecutor, and gave such contradictory evidence, that they
were committed by the Court for perjury.
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the prisoners, and said the
prosecution was one of the most contemptible he ever heard of.—
All that had been proved against the prisoners was, that they had
lent Sheen a shilling each.
The Jury, without hesitation, acim:cd both the prisoners.
Joseph Peeps was indict": (Or a criminal assault on Eleanor
Waterloo Bassani, a eiold only four years old.
Mr. ALLEY appeared for the prosecution, which was one di-
rected by the Magistrates of Stanmore, before whom the case was
originally brought, and who (such was he nature of the evidence)
would have committed the prisoner capitally, were it not tor the
objection that would be taken to the examination of so young
child upon oath.
The father of the child, it appeared, was gardener to Mr.
Drummond, of Stanmore, and the prisoner was a man employed
under him. On the day named in the indictment the Prisoner en-
ticed the child into an ou:-house, and there commit; d the offence
complained of.—Verdict, Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN sentenced him to a )car's imprisonment, and to
be kept to bard labour.