Star.
London, England, 1828-10-17 00:00:00

CHISMAN AND RODEL.

The argument on this Bankrupt Petition, which had
been partly heard during the Litt sittings, was resumed,
and occupied the Court all day.
The VICa-CHANCELLOR said, that the simple question
to be decided was, whether the commission was con-
certed? At present he felt himself unable to come to a
decision on the point; but he would not send the case
to a Jury, if he could avoid it, and he would therefore
take the depositions home with him and rximine them,

• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Gurcurract., Omr. 16.
(Adjourned Sittings in London after Trinity Term, before Lord
Thrum= and Common Juries).
HARRISON AND ANOTHER V. HARRIS.
This was an action to recover the twelfth part of a
sum of 1,7131. under the following circumstances:—ln
February, 1812, the then proprietors of Covent Garden
Theatre, Messrs. Thomas Harris, J. P. Kemble, George
White, John and Ann Martindale, and Henry Harris,
executed a bond to Messrs. Richard and Thos. Martyr,
timber merchants, for securing the payment of 5,1001:
the amount of their demand on the proprietors for work
done in the rebuilding of the present Theatre. On this
bond Messrs. Martyr sued the present plaintiffs, who are
the executors of Mr. George White, one of the late pro-
prietors, and obtained a judgment against them for
1,7151. which the plaintiffs were obliged to discharge,
and they now sought to recover a twelfth part of that
sum from the defendant, Mr. Harris, being the amount
of his proportionable share as one of the proprietors of
the Theatre.

' • The formal proofs having been gone into, Sir JAMES
SCARLITT, for the defendant, put in a deed, dated in
March, 1812, between the parties, proptietori of the
theatre, named in the bond, from which it appeared that
the defendant covenanted to reimburse a twelfth part of
all sums which might be recovered against any of the
other proprietors on account of their joint engagements ;
.bat that no proceedings were to be instituted for the re-
covery of the debt due on the bond without ten days
previous demand. The Learned Gentleman contended
that, under these circumstances, ten days' notice of
action ought to have been given to the defendant ; and
that, in def tuft of his paying, au action might have been
brought, as it were, for breach of covenant, and not an
action of assurnprit, u in the present instance.
Lord TENTNIRDEN thought that there was some force
is this last objection, and therefore recommended that
the 'plaintiffs should be nonsuited, with liberty to move
the Court that the nonsuit should be set aside, and a
verdict entered for the amount claimed, there being no
dispute between the parties as to the amount.
A nonsuit was then entered, with liberty to move the
Court above to set it aside, and enter a verdict for the
plaintiffs.

WHITEHOUU R. ATKINSON. IIQ.
This was an action against the Sheriff of Stafford-
shire, to recover the value of certain goods belonging
to a person of the name of John Holland. a bankrupt,
which bad been seised by the defendant, as Sheriff,
under a writ of Jeri facies, at the suit of a person
named Williams, and sold by public auction, alter
Holland 'bad committed an act of bankruptcy. The
plaintiff wed as assignee of Holland. There was
no question as to the trading, petitioning creditor's
debt, arid act of bankruptcy ; but it was contended
for the defendant, that the plaintiff had sued the
wrong person. It appeared that the defendant suc-
ceeded Mr. Mennel, the late Sheriff of Staffordshire,
and that the name of the latter was endorsed on the
writ ; but the return to it was made originally in the
name of the defendant (Mr. Atkinson). This, however,
it was stated, was a mistake of a clerk in the Sheriff's
Office ; and the defendant's name was ultimately erased,
and that of Mr. Mennel substituted; but this was not
done until July last, at which time the cause st 'od for
trial. The question, therefore, now was, whether the
rrturn originally made in the defendant's name had"
been made by mistake, or whether the substitution of'
Nr.Mennel's name was an after-thought of the defend-
ant or his law advisers, and clone with a view to defeat
the plaintiff in the present action ?
The case went to the Jury under the directions of
`Lord TENTERDEN; and after a few minutes' delibera-
tion, they found for the plaintiff—Danrages, 3891.
THE ZINO v. RIGBY AND ANOTHER.
This was an indictment against the defendants,John
Rigby and Thomas T. wnsend, the former a school-
master, and the latter an attorney, for a conspiracy to
obtain money by false and fraudulent pretences.
The'case was opened by Sir J. Scaat.rri., and from
' bititaterhent it appeared that one of the prosecutors,
'Nicholas FiAter, had married a daughter rf a person
named Rigby, who died in 1791, and, by his will, gave
his wife a life ipterest in his property, and directed that
after her death it *tumid be divided equally between
his children. The wife died in 1827. leaving a will,
which Was made by the defendant Townsend, appoint.
ing the other defendant, Rigby, and another person
named Saunders, executors. The parties delayed ;woe-
' Mg the will, and ultimately a sum of Money was ob-
"taitted from the prosecutorssunder a promise which was

nevi r fulfilled. This was the false pretence alleged in
the indictment. _ _ _

Lord TENTIRDEN, on hearing the statement of the
Learned Counsel, decided that the facts opened were
not sufficient to sustain the indictment.

Si' JAMES ScA HIATT acquiesced, and defendant a were
acquitted.

ASHWIILL V. BUCK.

This was an action by the plaintiff, an attorney,
against the defendant, an apothecary, for an assault. It
appeared from the evidence, that on the evening of the
27th of May, 1827, the parties were at the house of a
Gentleman named Curtis, in Thavies Inn, where them
10. a% a dance; a id that a Lady named flambe', who
was of the party, having declined the defendant's: in-
vitati.in to dance with him, the- defendant suspected
that the plaintiff had been the' cause of her refusal; in
consequence of which, when the plaintiff was leaving
the house, the defendant went up to Mrs. Hamber, and
requested to know what the plaintiff had said to induce
her to refuse his invitation ? The plaintiff, hearing the
question, remonstrated with the defendant upon the
impropriety of it—angry words ensued between them,
and the defendant struck the plaintiff a tremendous blow
on the eye; a scuffle followed, and the parties were at
length separated by a watchman.—There was no de-
fence, and the Jury found for the plaintiff, damages 40,.