Star.
London, England, 1828-02-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

, • ..... .
Ylollt-C1fA14C11449 , kr* COlllllAFsa. 27.
Iit•PARTS OiDFIFLD, ta :tea PATTILR OF OLDVIRLD.
This was, a ,Fetitioe ...be* lielikrOpt .to supersede his
cornesifsloir, on the.geAund that the petitioning treditos,
hid no just debt. It was alleged In .the Petition- that
tie banhriipt (mud) *as in prison for ptnaltltr: so
the amount of 4,0001. infliete3 by a judgment of the
Court of ,:Kineir--Benthr-lad.lhat.the-petitioning_ cry
ditot (Miller).Cinle 10, him, and offered, for 1,0001 to
intercede with R• Noble Lord (or .the remission of the
Penalties. 111,ribinirtupt, having no money at that
time, gave him in I 0 U for the amount, but aftei-
wants gage him the 1,0(X)1. .without obtaining the re
storation pf the previous acknowledgment; and upon
this lOU a debt was sworn to against the bankrupt,
and. a manumission issued. The bankrupt prayed that
the facts might be examined by the Commissioners.
Mr. Miller put in an answer, upon oath, to this state-
ment, in which he declared that the bankrupt owed
him the money fur cash advanced to pay duties for wine.
and that the acknowledgment bad been given for the
sum so advanced.
The letters put in in evidence were declared to be
forgeries; and it was admitted by the Counsel on both
sides, that, in the statements of the patties, there were
irrecqncileable differences, which affised the stamp et
guilt somewhere.
Mr. 13ICKERSTETI7 and Mr. MONTAGU appeared for
Mr..oidfield, and Mr. SUGDZW for Mr. Miller.
- The VICE-CHAt4CELLOR thought the only mode to be
pursued, wheyeAlere was such a singular conflict of
evidence, wits tQ send all the patties h f _c.pre a Jury. He
directed an issue, therefore, to be tried at the next Su-
re); 4asizet, to. determine whether the petitioning cue•
siitor had.a just debt ? and that all the parties should be
ezamined without reference to any leg.,' disqualification.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Fes. 27.
. : TORSTON V. HARRISON.
The plaintiff and the defendant are both law sta.
timers in Chancery-lane. The plaintiff lived in Mitre-
court„„Fleet-oreet, iu 18250,.hen he became a bankrupt;
he had atibat_time an apprentice, named Julin March,
whobaving served three years of his time, had become
of tcitne,aereiee Isibins.. In February, 1826, the plain.
tiff 00100 his ceitificate, at which time the apprentice
wailiving in. the service of the defenclint„to. whom he
had been turned over by the plaintiff!: assignees ; but
the assignment not having been enrolled in tbe.olfice of
t re chamberlain of London, that officer ordered him to
be tapered' to his former master, to whom he accord-.
ingly returned. The Ptesent action was brought to rem
covey the value of the apprentice's se: vices, from Jan.
• to liqe. 1026. the time be was-detained by the defend.
ant after notice to reatqre hip). .. ..
.
Several lar EriXers,were..called, who proved that ex•
.
pest. hand; in that business earned from 404..t0 50s. a
week, and sometimes even a 11. a ,day. . .
On the part of the, defendant, it was contended, that
the plaintiff had no right to the appt eotice's services,
he baying given him leave to go away on.the sale of his
effects taking place, and not having demanded him back.
till after he was of age, although not Out of his
, apprenticeship. .. .
The' LORD CUSEA. Jusrrce recommended the plaintiff
to consent to withdraw a Jinor his Lordship being of
opinion that though the plaintiff Wight be entitled to a
verdict, in point of law, be conk) not:expect, under all
the Circumstances, inner than,nominal damages.. .
The 'plaintiff's CnuMel.acceded.to..this suggestion,
and a Jartiv was withdrawn accordingly. .. .
, eitusitus AND anornett U. kIerCIIIIION. .
'This was'au action .against an•attorney..tor damages
on account .of neglect.. It ap.peased.that the plaintiffs
were merchants, iesi,ing is Leith, in Sea land, and held
two bills, amountingitp, 2 2301. accepted by a person
named f.;ibson, residing in ,London. .The plaintiffs.
transmitted the Wilson the.defendant to procure their
pa% mem; before, however, he nes able to do so, -Gab-
s net became a.botkrupt; the dtleudant wrote an. ac.
count of this to the ,plaintiffs, and asked r them to
send tip an affidavit, that he .might prove the debt._-
Front some cause i,r other, ;thisw plaintiffsf avete not
able to'do to fora length of time ; bucatt last, in April,
igniiihey feat up the affidavit, requited to prove under
the cOnsthission. Thete was no Netting of the steditors
fibres that time till Dec•ealarr,;lB2s.l . It appeared also,
that.* diVideid,had facentnade, of whirls the plaintiffs
ceilt :tent essjoy, the benefit, iii consequence .of Abeir.
dilit tacit haffing been proved, It was argued, oo the
bio
par(Of. the defendant, that_ag there had been no meet.
ing of credit..re till 1825,,the defendant was ont_able
to peek; fill 'ben, saiii4 was not, therefoie,-guiltpoi
negrect ; but this was answered by the ,plairatiffs, w .
contended that she attoeaey Aught
.to lawn
.talc iii.
special meeting of the creditors directly hereeeivai,thet
power of. proving the plaintiffs' debt,
.. s. ~_ , •-,. ,
Lord Tenting:me concurred in the. .opioion..of the
Learised Counsel (Sir .1. Seadet!). for the plaintiffs, and,
the Jury returned, a verdict for „them, eccoedingly•-•pf
Damages 1311. being the arnneint. of the &Oknd *.
plaintiffs would have been entitled tchhad they proved. ,
. , .COURT AV COMMON PLEAS, 4/m. 27, "• -
... 11011$10 DZALIMGo-4114114AIN• NICAKIN.
Mr. Sergeant Armaswanteith- whom was Mr. Quin,
stated the case. The plait:44'km°, who had the manage-
ment of her husitteue ; pin 41 valuable horse into, the
hands_of the defendant, at bis request to sell on her
a-count, the defendant *eying that hal:knew an.lndia
niercbant_ who would buy; .it. ,lie.waa.to be paid com-
mission for his 401114 e, and was no to•sell the 'animal
for leas chap 1544 Alter several false representations,
the defendant, said he had, staid the.horae for 1401. and.
charging (or his, commission. ;and ;horse, keep, while in
his stables, payingpveribe.halance to the plaintiff's son.
This was in May, 4825. , The plaintiff had reason tube
dissatisfied, with the defendant, and ,wished to know to
whoins,the horse was sold. The defendant refused to
tell ;,but in the spring ()flag year the plaintiff learnt
that the horse was bought be, a Gentleman of the name.
or Eilwand,,Who gave the defendant 250. guineas for it.
Tiris.actioa was brought to .recnverr, the latter,sunt, and
1401. for which only the defendant had accounted.. • .
Mr. Sergeant Lawcs, for the defeadant, attempted
to show, in, the first place, that the plaintiff's son was
acting on his own account, and-that the plaintiff could
have no right to sue; and in,the neat, laat,the horse had
been sold first to a span named Reeve f0r.1401. and after-,
wards sold for him to Mr. Plwand Or. the 250 guineas,
Verdict for the plaintiff---Demage5,4161.105.6.1.• .1 ,
. , ...DAWSON APR WIFE% VIZILDOIII4' • • - .
We are requested to gugution in this owe; which was.
an action, in forvia 'imperil, against the defendant, for'
the negligeacs pf his servant, in driving a bseak, or some
other carnage, by which, the plairuira, wife waa,ean
over, and severely injured, and which was tried. in. the
Common Pleaslast 'Tuesday sentsight, and a report of
which trial appeared, in qur Paper of the following day,),
that the
•Grapd ,Jury found a true
bill for oiriary
against the witness Daries. .It will.be kin.the.aiioilee.
tiitn of our readers, that, on the evidence of, Deviev.s:
an‘lict went agiinat the plaintiffs. The plaistiffn will
of cootie move
,foe axisw vial, as the grataad.ch Atoka

I • . . , •

. •

having perjuted himself; and it should be noticed that
the plaintiffs were not in a situation to contradict 1) ivies
un the trial; inasmuch as he was a witness ca lel cti
,their behalf. •-• •• • '•' • • •
As the Counsel for -the defendilifminfe mine very'
strong remarks on the evidence of Davies, as militating
against the- pla;niiffs' ease and the'plaintiffs' attornes,
we have been also requested to state-the perjury whiCh
trs Giand Jury; upon their oath, have declined Davies
have committed upon the trial. • ~•
• Thtassigaments af• perjury (amongst:ad/trill-Ire as

:
1 e •
witness, Thomas Davies, did not see some =en
coming by, and tome ozen were not coming by, and
the horse was not frightened at any often; not did the
accid nt occur from -any often; and also that the plain-
tiff, Mar yagwson, did not tell Davies that she would
take ss. as a compensation for the injury in question;'
and also Vat the attorney for the plaintiffs did not tell
Davie; that Vernon, the defendant in the action, was a
wealthy man, and that he, the attorney, would grt 501.
or 601. out of him. •