Star.
London, England, 1827-08-04 00:00:00

V. TAILOR AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS 01

HIS LATE ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE 01 TORE.

In this case, which is a suit instituted for a general
administration of the assets of his late UoLai Highness
the Doke of York, and in which a reference has been

made to the Master to take an accoont of his late Royal
Highaess's debts, &c. a petition was presented on the
part of a goldsmith and jeweller (Mr. Hamlet, as we
understood), praying an inquiry before the Master on the
[subject of a supposed lien of the petitioner to certain
'articles of plate, &c. of his late Royal Highness, which
had been deposited with the petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner had furnished various
articles of plate, &c. to his late Royal Highness, to the
amount of several hundred pounds, and that, on the

occasion of the Duke being about to take a journey
into the country last year, his Royal Highness deposited
with the petitioner certain articles " for safe custody,"
and after wards gave him an order for mote plate, which
was accordingly supplied, the petitioner conceiving, as'
he stated in his affidavit, that he should be entitled to,
retain the articles deposited with him as a security for
the amount of his demand on the Duke, of whom,'
nevertheless, he took acceptances for it. It was stated
that the aiticles deposited with the petitioner had been
given up to the executors of the late Duke, and slld
with the other property of his Royal Highness, upon an
understanding that the petitioner's claim to lien should
not be prejudiced by that course of proceeding.
Mr. SUGDZN, on the part of the plaintiff, now ap-
peared to oppose the prayer of the petition, which, he
said, was quite unprecedented. There was no pretence
for claiming a hen on the articles deposited with the
,petitionet by the law Doke. It was clear that the

,to6ds furnished by thr former were not furnished on
the credit of any supposed lien, because a considerable
portion of the amongst was incurred before the deposit
was made, and the petitioner- had taken the Duke's
acceptances for the whole amount of his demand ; be-
sides, the petitioner's own affidavit stated that the arti-
cles were deposited with him ,6 for safe custody;' and
therefore, in the absence of any agreement as to a lien,
it was impossible that he could be entitled to what he
claimed by his petition. There were many Noblemen
and Gentlemen who were in the habit, on going into
the country, of depositing their plate, &c. for sate cus.
tody, with their jewellers; but who ever heard of the
jeweller claiming to retain the deposit as a itcurity for
his bill, without some express agreement or understand.
log on the subject? The Learned Counsel said he
thought this was a most improper application, and he
hoped his Honour would refuse it with costs.
Mr. TINNET, who appeared for Sir Herbert Taylor
and Colonel Stephenson, the executors of the late. Duke
of York, also opposed the petition.
Mr. Moons appeared in support of it; and in answer
to a question by the Master of the Rolls on what prin-
ciple his client claimed to be entitled to the lien which
he had ret up, stated that he was not then prepared to
argue the question of lien, but his client contended ge-
nerally that his late Royal Highness having contracted
a debt with .him, and deposited artain articles in his
hands, he bad a tight to retain them as a security for
that debt.
The %wise of the ROLLS—There is no principle
like that, in the t nglish law, Mr. Moore. The petition
most be dismissed.
Mr. SUDDEN said he hoped his Honour would dismiss
it with costs.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—Yes.
Mr. Sioaaorrom said he appeared for the Princess
Sophia, the residuary legatee of the late Duke of' York,
and he had to ask for ber Royal Highness's costs.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—The costs of all parties
appearing must be paid.
Petition dismissed, with costs,
VICF..CHANCRLLOR'S COURT, Am. S.
INJUNCTION AGAINST A TAILOR.—ROBINSON AND
Co. V. HOLMES.
Mr. Holm', for the plaintiffs in this suit, applied to
'the Court for an injunction, under the following cir-
cumstances :—The plaintiffs were tailors and drapers,
at Beverley, in Yorkshire, and in 182 S the Nobility and
Gentry resident in and neat Beverley represented to
them that it would be extremely advantageous to the
'plaintiffs, and eery convenient to them, if a tailor who
was a skilful cutter-out was procured from London, in
order that the clothes they had made might approximate
to the shape and semblance of those worn in the capital,
without putting themselves to the trouble and incon-
venience of sending up to London every time they stood
in need df a coat or a pair- of trousers. In compliance
with this suggestion, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Mark
Robinson, came up to London, where he made diligent
inquiries after a person skilled in the metropolitan mode
of cutting, and was introduced to the defendant, John
Holmes, as a person likely to suit him, and fit his cus-
tomers to their satisfaction. After a variety of preli-
minary negociatious, with which he would not trouble
the Court, the plaintiff engaged John Holmes as his
foreman and cutter-out, under certain conditions, which
were reduced to writing, and signed by both parties : thle
effect of this agreement was, that John Holmes should
serve the plaintiffs as their foreman and cuttet•out, and
that he should visit their customers for one month upon
uial. If at the expiration of this term of probation it
should be found that John Holmes's talents equalled
the representation that had been made of them to the.
plaintiffs, then he was to continue in their service for
the term of six years, commencing with a salary of 255.
a week, which salary was to increase by Is. a week until
the gross amount thereof reached the sum of 90e,
per week.
The VICH CHANCELLOR observed that they had
scarcely given this poor tailor the wages of a poet.
Mr. MoRNZ said, that provisions were cheaper in the
north than in London. In addition to this salary of 901.
per week, the plaintiffs were also to allow the defendant
pocket money, and provide him with board and lodg-
ing. In return for this, the defendant was to bind him-
self not to practise as a tailor within 50 miles of Bever.
ley for the apace of 20 years from the date of the
agreement; and the plaintiffs covenanted, on their part,
not to dismiss the defendant without reference to a
Justice of the Peace, and to give him two guineas to
defray his expenses to London whenever they parted
with him. On trial, John Holmes was found to be a
cunning workman and a steady person. He was ac-
cordingly engaged ; the agreement was signed and
sealed, and the Nobility and Gentry in Beverley and its
neighbourhood had abundant cause to congratulate
themselves on the improvement in the appearance of
their outer man up to December, 1826, when Holmes
became extremely negligent, and misfitted the customers
of the plaintiffs, in consequence of which many suits of
clothes were returned upon the plaintiffs' hands. Now,
if Holmes had really been a bad workman, there might
have been some apology for him, but he was known to
be a very good one; and, finding that there was a very
lair opening for a tailor at Beverley, he had recourse to
these measures for the purpose of obtaining his dis-
missal. This object he effected. The plaintiffs were
obliged to dismiss him in the month of January in the
present year.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked what equity Mr.
Horne's client had ?
Mr. MoRNI said that the defendant had refused all
reference on the subject ; he had taken the two guineas
to defray his expenses to London, which he had not
devoted to that purpose, but had set up business for
himself at Beverley, in direct violation of the agreement,
and was now employing five or six workmen and ap-
prentices. Under these circumstances, he trusted that
the Ostia would interfere, and extend its protection to
the plaintiffs.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked what was prayed for
, in the bill ?
Mr. Hoene said it prayed fir an injunction, and for
a specific performance of the agreement.
The Vicx-CnancaLLoa said that they had better have
prayed for an injunction to restrain him from misfitting
the customers.
Mr. !WWI was heard on the same side. The Learned
Counsel said that the only case which he should cite in
support of the present motion was a case of " Williams
v. Williams," reported in the 2J volume of Swanson.—
In that case a man entering into a similar agreement
was restrained from running a coach, from a certain
place, through Reading to London. •
The Vice CHANotLLon said, that no case that he had
ever heard of could be cited in support of an applica-
tion of chi; nature. It he granted this injunction, he
should expect to be applied to next for an injunction to

restrain the Irish giant froth exhibiting himself contrast
to the contract with his keeper. lkisould not grant
injunctions in cases where the patties Itad a better
medy open to them by an action at law.
Mr. Hon said, the object cf this bill was to patent
the multiplication of snits—(A laugh).
Mr. y D if (who was on the other side) salt there
could be no doubt that it was intended by this applies:
Lion to prevent the multiplication of the suits of hi,
client, in order to multiply those of the plaintiffs.
The Vice CA Anntoa—vltieser saw a case in which
there was less foundation for an injunction. Pray more
something else, Mr. Horne.
The motion was consequently diimissed.
ASSIZE IigTELLIGENCE.

SALISBURY, Atrouse e.
MANSLADOHTER.—THE CELERITY AND DEZIIANot.
John Mauk was indicted upon the Coroner's verdict
for manslaughter, for killing, on the 18th of July,
Thomas Strange, by violently upsetting the coach on
a hich the deceased sat.
Mr. Powin, in stating the case tt, the Jury, recom-;
mended them to banish from their minds their previooi
impressions from what they had heard of this cast. The
prisoner was the driver of a coach called the Celetiity,
and the other coach with which it had come in contact
was called the Defiance; they were coaches pasang be-
taeen London and Exeter at a very fast rate, and is
opposition. On the night of the 18th of July, about
half-past one o'clock, as the two coaches were proceeding
in opposite direttions, the Defiance ascending the hill
near Amesbury, and the Celerity descendi g, the latter
at the rate of I I miles an hour, while the lotmer was
only proceeding about 5 or 6, the coachman of the De-
fiance hallooed out, and endeavoured to airoid the
contact which' unfortunately took place, by which One
Gentleman was killed, and several persons severely in-'
jured. He then desetibtd the evidence for the tea'
cution as it seas afterwards given on the trial. 44,4
The first witness, T. B. Naylor, stated that he seas
student of Magdalen College, Oxfbrd, and was passing
on the night of the 17th of July between Andover mid'
Amesbury, towards Exeter, in the Defiance coach.
The night was hazy, but there had been a little moon'
light. The Defiance had its lamps lighted. When
they first SAW the cthet coach, the Cavity, there was arl
ascent immediately before the coach on the hot of which
he was sitting, and the Defiance driver, who was on
his right side of the road, hallooed out to the other, ands
pulled aside upon the turf. Both coaches had their.
lamps lighted, and the Celerity appeared to be driving,
down hill, at the rate of about eleven miles an hour,
while the Defiance was not exceeding six or seven miles.
In a moment the coachman next whom be sat, Paid,
" Sir, we shall be over;" the upset instantly esecnrind,‘
and the passengers uttered a shriek of distress. The
Celerity carried off the cap of the fore wheel of the
Defiance, and then struck the Coach between the bind
wheel and spring. Most decidedly there was room
enough for the Celerity to have passed without this con.!
tact. None of the passengers on his coach was hurt 0
it fell on the turf on the side of the road, and so near to
the bank as almost to touch it. The Celerity appeared
to him to have fallen as near as possible in the Centre'
.of the road and across it, and about four or five far&
from the Defiance.
Cross•examined—lt was about half past one o'stlock
in the morning, and the night was hazy. He was
muffled up in his cloak to escape cold, and his view of
the approach of the Celerity was only fbr a few setonds.
He was positive the Defiance had both its lamps lighted,
for they were brought to assist the sufferers after the
accident. The hallooing out of the coachman was fol-
lowed instantaneously by the contact. He ceftainly,
heard the prisoner call to somebody to look at the pod
sition of the coaches, and his was found in the centre of
the road. His estimate of. the rate of driving of the
coaches at the time was of course formed upon ma
mentary conjecture. He admitted that he had expressed
an opinion upon the conduct of the coachmen, bat he
had never said that they were equally to blame, on the
morning after the accident. It was a gravel road be•
tweets two turf lines. •

James Bridge, a coachman of Mr. Bastard, of Devon.
shire, was a passenger on the front of the Defiance, be-
-hind the coachman; he saw the Celerity about 100
yards before them descending the hill at the rate of ten
or eleven miles an hour, and heavily loaded. The
Defiance was at its right side of the road, and only
going at the rate of six miles. The coachman of the
latter hailed and pulled up, to draw off, leash% con•
siderably the greater share of the road to the Celerity.
He then corroborated the first witness's description of
the position in which the two coaches fell. From the
best judgment he could form at the moment, he did
not think the prisoner had a sufficient command of his
horses.

In, hie cross-examination he repeated mach of hie
direct testimony, and said the night was rather foggy.
When the accident happened, the Celerity coachman
said, " Maule, you have often tried to do this;" and
there was some recrimination between them.

Wm. B. Rendle, an inhabitant of Clerkenwell, and
an ironfounder, was an inside passenger in the Defiance
on the night in question, with his face towards the
horses. Just before the accident occurred he looked
out of the window, to see why the jumbling of the coach
ceased, and he observed that the near wheels of the
Defiance were driving on what he first thought. sand,
but afterwards saw it was turf. While doing so, he
heard his coachman bawling loud to another coachman,
and a few seconds after the contact took place, and the
Defiance went slowly over. His account of the respec-
tive positions of the coaches did not differ from that al-
ready given in evidence. He assisted in raising up the
Celerity to extricate two Ladies,who were much injured,
beneath it ; be also saw the deceased Gentleman lying
on the road. The coachman of the. Defiance appeared
to him to be perfectly sober at the time. Nothing par.
ttcular arose out of his cross examination, except his
repeating that the Defiance was driving partly on the
turf at the road-side when the accident occurred. •

Mr. John Leather, a London auctioneer, who had
been outside at the back (and his back to the horses) of
the DeSance, described the particulars of the accident
in nearly the same terms as the preceding witnesses.
On going towards the Celet ity, after the occurrence, be
observed the deceased lying near it; he was not then
quite dead, but life became extinct immediately after.
Upon calling over the names of the Celerity passengers,
there were some who did not answer.

Jehn Fowler, a surgeon, of Amesbury, proved his
having been sent for at the time of thy accident; he
reached the ground between two and threeo'clock; he
was strewn a dead Gentleman lying on the road side f
the prisoner came to him at that moment; there wai a
thick fog at the time; the face of the de'rWed wat .
'covered with dirt and blood, and a •ast quantity of t>:e

,1,1
•

•