Star.
London, England, 1828-01-11 00:00:00

nt 201., we, theft clataitai. lkyr ksiiiaintift As tiie lii,del,q
of the note; but site boy Beiiullq,haysng also c ime •
'it, payment was refused antilabe re:pewee elai s hazel.i'
been investigated. It was sogg4sted to the pas is p 1..;
the plaintiff that he should make-ton affidavat.ve it t
his statement that he was the original finder .of,th note.
He accordingly did -so, and• the matter was b oug;ht"
before the Lqrd Mayor, at the Mansion House, , line
mune invest gation,took place, but no satisfactori crin-
come to, the case nas
pcliniv, referred io two
ja°tiel binedinivgiduals, who, after keating•the conflicting
statements of the patties, proposed, as the hest way..ot
settling the matter, that the two •boys, Diagr (.the
plaintiff). and Beaufoy, should receive V. each, hewn
(the butcher's boy) 4/. and Honey (the street keeper) 21
.This, however, was objected to by the friends of Bead-
foy ; and the defendant having determined not too pay
the money to any one, until the verdict of a Jurt had
decided to whom it. belonged, the present action was
.brought. The principal objection to . the pleintiff's
claim was, that, on finding the pocket-book h 4 hid
:stated that it belonged to his father, who, he said, bad
- i
got tipsy, and dropped it. . . i
As soon as the case had been opened.by Mr. Muer.
Laid TENTERriEN inquired of the ATTORNEY Grtertaat.,
who appeared for the defendant, Whether he would ad-
mit the publication of the. advettisement ? t
The ATToIINEY GENERAL —Oh no, my Lord; wit
can admit nothing. This is a case of very real.
. .
`staspicron. . I
. The,publketion of .the edvettisetniut nn the 6th. of
January; 1827 (the day: after' the. !take was lost) was
then proved. .
Mr. Thomas Fleld,,of, the firm of linber(aanittelci,
iheesemongers of .Netvgate-street, deposed:4a eof
the facts as stated above.
'fire butcher's boy, Trash, stated, that he as wasivats-
ing down Newgate-.stieet on the sth of Imitate 1817, he
saw the plaintiff running, and a bigger boy .dragging
him by the tail of his coat. - The plaintiff -was criying.
and.saying, « Oh, my fathet's pocket-book." Witness.
asked him what wreathe matter,. and he said that boy
(pointing to Beaufoy). had got his father's pocket book.
Witness took it out of Beauloy's bards, and on opening
it discovered a 5001. Bank-note. The plaintiff then said
it belonged to his father, who had received it at his
mistre-s's banker's. and having been itifacrsiscras, and
got tipsy, he had dropped it.
At this pat of the case Lord TENTRUDEN asked Mr.
Platt whether he tanuld go on with it?
•. .
Mr. PLATT said, be should-wish to exaenjeg Honey,
the street keeper. .
Lord. TauTzantusi--Examine who you please ; my
only a ish is to administer justice, and do it speedily ;
but I think after this febrivereientatinis watt pit of
the plaintiff, ytaiteril.tardly expect the. jurfto beikeve
that he vtr lice finder of the note.
Mr. PLarrsaid, after that expression of bi 4 Lordship
he would not press the case farther.
Lord TaNTEßDEN.—Myapinion• is, that it.is a most
important part of the .duty of those who administer
justice to make parties understand that if they don't tell
truth, they have very little to expect at the hands of a
tire. Let the plaintiff be called.
A nonsult was then entered.

. . . .
• 811WERKE0?,.12. ROBERTS.
This was an action to recover the sots if 10i. for
damage done to a .bath cart, in•C'ensequence:of the ne-
gligence of the defendant's servant, the drive; of a
hackney chariot, No. 132.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL Stated the.ease.
Samuel Wefan examined-.--The plaintiffs areproprie-
tors of I:int-table baths. I vias:sVith,Tartiet in a cart on
the I i-tb May la,t ; he was iftiiiog. and. I was sitting;
beside him; it was a_few mlistes after eleven o'clock;
we nem on the left hand aide of the way, which was
our right side. As e nere in Regent-sheet, the hack-
ney coach came up, first on one side and.then on ano-
' they ; it drove against the cart and brokethe shafts; the
coachman was in a state of ihtoxicationi there were
so other coaches by ; I saw Mr. Roberts at the time
the accident happened, and he said he would pay any
•hing.
Cross examined—The coachman was galloping; he
crossed the street upon us, but he n a.; on his proper
bide when he hit us; our horse it a. spit itedhorse ; ire
was walking at the time ; the bath carts are not difficult
to drive; there was a little water left in the cart.
Turner, the man who drove the cart, *and anodic'
witness, depnsed to the•sarne fact, and.q. person who
repaired the cart was examined as to the damage-
I sustained.
The COP.IMON SERGEANT, 12r
h the defence, said
should call witnesses to prove t at the accident bad not
arisen in consequence of the carelessness of the coach-,
m in, whom he should shew was not intoxicated at tl.e
time it happened-, and that he was not driving rapidly.
hut going at a slow pace. The accident occurred in
consequence of the awkwardness of the driver of Abe
cart, and the unwieldy machine he drove.
-
James Cole examined—l was in Regent-street wheal
the accident happened ; it was on the Ist of Nay. The
coachman was getting up from under the carriage when'
I first saw him. The coach was on ,the right.side of.
the way. In my opinion the coachman.was sober.
Toms, the hackney coachman, examined—On
the day in question there was a servant on tin:line- with
me. I was driving at the rite of forte miles an hoot: I
was quite sober. My horses had been out all day. The
cart was' going at tl•e rare of four or five milts an boar,
When the two struck I was on the light side. I said,
41' Why don't you keepion yobr rigid. side r.
, . a surgeonOrrivethe accident,-and--examined
the Coachman, who was fiat drunk,, but appeared to be
labouring under the effects of lEANKltsbiol) of the brain.
The hac knei coach Was on its proper side of llnewor.
Lewis Argos deposed, that on the night in question
the coachman was not in liquor.
Jeremiah Leadb deposed to the same effect.
&footman stated, that Wefati informed hilt it was
very difficult to drive the bath cart, in consequence of
its being so unwieldy. •
The ATTORNEY Gawattaf. repljetil abd the 40:ye-
enzne4. a verdict for the'platutite4aarages'lol.
• . INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S coca; rAituait 49.
:.34ir—gfiswata..-Atiodkloo w 9.0 httaigibt up op hit,,i,e4itiOn
to discharged:. •
• ••• .- •

. .

The insol;eut,was opposed Willett, who- ap-
iarsiiod in. proy4upersoSift, • •
Itta opposiog cseilito!s.4ll4o.o34lmiiiis ; tailor, and
-that -thst-insolreerwas indebted to bits in the sum of
p 34. 9s. for clothes, furnished in the yeav 149.. The
ino4lte4oKlicdVlF dld. Sot go back forthhetblan 1.82:6;
which.be considered' sUffitsient-to remand the insolvent.
to amrrld his schedule. • •
In (s etaaainatitiu b!`frir. Coors (with whom was
:the inuilvebt;..it appeared, that the
and That m 'the month at
,OFttOlsii °the gave- him a bill for 131.95.
tilitieriett ;interest. •
"It ippeateieby the evidence of the insolvent, that a
4istrirssllid%elon put ititope prehiiihs, for 151. wbich
Was brit by dabghtert who is the ovsuar of.the