Star.
London, England, 1828-06-05 00:00:00

~...,.

LAW INTtLLIGENCE.

rw,FwTl

IRICSTR

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Julius 4.
Sittings before Lord TRITSRMIN and Common Juries.
• HARRIS V. SPoTTISWOODE AND ANOTHER.
Mr. CAMPBELL stated that this was an action against
the defendants, Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, to
recover damages, on account of their allowing the escape
of a person of the name of Neale, who had been arrested
at the suit of the plaintiff for a debt of 501.
It appeared that an officer of the name of Gray, who
had been entrusted with the execution of tie writ, had
suffered Neale to escape, and had eadeavoured to put off',
the plaintiff's attorney with a bail bond,which the officer's
man, a person of the name of Ward, admitted to be no-
thing at all, as the bail were" men of straw; men under
the gateway, men of possession," &c. Tne plaintiff then
abandoned the action against Neale, and proceeded
against the Sheriff.
Nlr. HoeT, for the defendants, admitted that the
plaintiff must have a verdict; but the Jury ought to
give only nominal damages, as the plaintiff still had the
power of proceeding against Neale. It was very hard to
make the Shei.iffs pay for the misconduct of the officer.
Lord .I.ETERDEN—No blame attached to the Shetiff,
in this instance, but they were sesconsible for the con-
duct of their officer, and had their remedy over against
him and his sureties. Tire officer had grossly miscon-
discted himself, and it was but justice that he should
pay ; or if he could not pay, it was but justice that the
sureties who had become responsible for his good con-
duct should pay.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Fifty Pounds.
REX V. HOWES.
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the prosecution, stated that this
was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and
corrupt perkrg. The defendant, in 1824, was a pri-
soner in the King's Bench, at the suit of a Mr. Doughty,
lot 591. In Easter Term of that year he petitioned the
Judges of that Court in terms of the Acts of Parlia-'
went in that behalf made and provided, to be dis-1
charged out of custody, on giving up to his creditors,
all his property, real and personal. He put in a sche-'
dule in the usual manner, to the accuracy of which he
swore, as containing an account of the whole of his
property, real and personal, and he was discharged by
Mr. Justice Holroyd. Some time after this it was dig-
covered that the defendant was, at the time the sche-
dule was put in, possessed of several beneficial leases of
premises in Watling-street, none of which were men-
tioned in the schedule, and on this ground the, perjury
was assigned.
The proceedings relative to the discharge were proved
in the usual manner, and then the witnesses to the
leases were called, but did not appear, and the case
broke down at the outset.—Verdict, Not Guilty.
POWELL V. WILBERFORCE.
Mr. DENUAN, for the plaintiff. This was an action
totecover a sum of 441.1fr0m the defendant, who was
a son of the. late distinguished Member for Yorkshire,
who was well known and highly respected. The plain-
tiff kept some cows in the vicinity of Primrose-hill, and
the defendant, who had engaged in the concerns of a
Dairy Company, occupied the farm of St. John's Wood,
which was managed for him by Major Close. The
plaintiff sold to the defendant's agent a field of mangel
wurzel, well known as excellent food for cows, for the
sum of 44l which the defendant refused to pay. What
defence was to be set up he did not know ; but he un-
derstood that the demand was to be met by a set-:off,
and also by an allegation that the field was not so ex-
tensive as it was thought to be at the time of the bar-
gain, but still, when there was clearly a bargain, the
defendant was bound to pay.
Some witnesses were then called, who proved the
bargain.
Mr. GURNEY (with whom was Mr. LAw) stated for
the defendant, that the plaintiff was indebted to the
defendant in a sum of 841. for milk, and that when
called upon for payment, he often solicited Major Close
to purchase this field of mange! wurzel, in part liquida-
tion of 'the debt. Major Close at length agreed, and
they went to the field, and the Major asked what was
the extent of it? The plaintiff said it was an acre and
three quarters ; Major Close said he could hardly think
it was so much ;. upon which the plaintiff solemnly
awirred that it had been measured, and contained fully
atracre and three quarters, arid that if it were measured
again it would be,found to contain more. It was solely
ors Ile ground of this representation that the price de-
manded was given. But when the field was measured,
it was found to consist of no more than an acre and a
titrarter, and thebargain therefore was at an end ; but
the defendant offered to pay at a valuation for the quan-
tity of mangel wurzel which he had got, the value of
which did not amount to more than 271. or 281. at the
utmost, and this was more than coveted by the set-off.
Major Close, and other witnesses, fully made out
this defence.
-Lord TENTEattax=Well, Mr. Common Sergeant,
what have you to say?
Mr. DerimAx—l don't know what the Jury may
think 'of it, bin my case is not vet y encouraging.
I..hd TENTERBEN—NO ; it is not.
Mr. Detrtank—lt was certainly very foolish in this
man to bring this action, it he knew that such a defence
could be made out. Verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jima 4.
COLLINS V. ICLINILiNBENC:. •
Mr. Sergeant Wave stated the plaintiff's case.—
He was a spermaceti refiner, carrying on his trade, on)
the premises lately used as a private Theatre, In Der-
wick-stt eet. Being desirous of retiring from busi-
ness, the defendant entered into a negotiation with
him for the purchase of the whole plant, for 3,0001.
The defendant did not object to the terms ; but as
every manufacturer in this trade has peculiar me-
thods of his own, the defendant wished to learn how
the business was conducted by the plaintiff previous to
the completion of the contract. Plaintiff consented
to this proposal, and let the defendant have the ute
of the premises and utensils, and also instructed him in
the mode of conducting the processes ; but, after making
use of the place and apparatus for nine weeks, the de.
fendant declined the purchase, without finding any fault
with the bargain,, but on the pretence that, being a
German, the climate of England did not agree with hi.
health. The plaintiff then brought
~thfs: action .to re-
cciver.the sum of 101. a week for the rear and tear of
the presses, and the instruction .given to the defendant
in the art of using them. The defendant had paid 1.51.
into Court, and thereby acknowledged that something
was due.
Mr. Eusebius, a wax and tallow chandler, proved,
most of the facts stated by the Learned Sergeant.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, it looked as if ihel
defendant only came to the place to learn the mode of
conducting the business, without ever intending to pur-
chase it, which was a most dishonest trick; and as he
had boasted of his having travelled far enough to know
bow to snake a bargain, he would recommend, him a
little honesty as a very essential ingredient ink for the
forties: , • .
teidicacir die plaiatiff—Damigei 751.

• -

PRIPP'

‘
. .
. -
. i
' 1
1 .
, • . i
. .
i 1I •
. ,
. ,
1
I r : P
i 1 ii:
) : .
I ; .
. . . . 1
• : i
i
1
iI
i .