Star.
London, England, 1818-06-16 00:00:00

prints, and a handsome book-case, the property of'
the deceased, saying, he should send them to London,
and from thence to Suffolk, where he lived. There
was also a gold watch, which had cost the deceased
£5O, which watch defendant made a present of to a

Mr. Robertson.
To a question from Lord ELLIN/1)110110H, witness
said, no person interfered in the disposal of the de-
ceased's property, but defendant.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII—You see, Mr.Marryat, that
the defendant must be considered liable, as he ordered
the funeral and took possession of the property.
Mr. MARRIAT said, he had a complete answer to
the action, as he should prove, that another person,
and not defendant, hatil ordered the funeral, and that
the defendant had only taken the books and book-
case, which he had previously purchased from the

deceased.
-Mr. Watehurst, a bricklayer, said, he had done the
brick-work of the grave. by the direction of defen-
dant, and was paid for such work by the plaintiff.
Thomas Shipperton said, he had called several
times on defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, for
the amount of the funeral expenses, and was repea-
tedly put off with promises to pay from time to time.'
His first application was in February, 1817.
On his cross-examination witness said, defendant
told him, that a Mr. Robertson was liable for the ex-1
penses 'of the funeral. and not him ; but that as he
lad promised to pay it, he should do so when he was
able.—Here the case for the plaintiff closed.
Mr. MARRYAT, for the defendant, addressed the
Jury, observing, it was rather singular that such an
action should be brought. The facts of the case
were simply these :—the deceased had for some time
lived in the employment of Messrs. Robertson and
Co. Gentlemen of great respectability, who had con-
tracted with Government for carrying on the public
works at Chatham, where the deceased superintended
'their business until the time of his death, which took
place in 1813. Messrs. Robertson and Co. immedi-
ately gave directions for the funeral, and desired the
Bill to be sent in to them. The plaintiff accordingly
followed the,orders he had received, and after the fu-
neral actually sent his bill to Mrs. Hurd, the Lady
with whom the deceased had lodged, in order to have
it forwarded to Mr. Robertson. It happened that in
1815 Mr. Robertson became a bankrupt, he took the
benefit of the Insolvent Act, and actually put the
plaintiff's debt into his schedule, and served a regular
notice upon him, as he should prove, the person who
served it being in Court,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—The law and the justice of
the case clearly shew, that the defendant is not liable
for the debt, and I should suggest, that a verdict be
taken for the defendant, he accounting for whatever
part of the property had come into his possession.
Mr. MARRYAT said. that the defendant had only
taken such part of the property as he had purchased
before his brother's heath.
Mr. GURNEY said, he could prove that the defen-
dant had ordered an addition it mourning ccach at the
funeral.
Lord Etteasoaotrott—That makes more aga'nst
than f r you, as it chews, there had been previous di-
rectio s given is to the other parts of the funeral to
which the defe idant was not privy. If the plaintiff
furnis' ed his bill to Mr. Robertson, and now claims
on de endant after Mr. Robertson had entered the
debt n his sche lule, such claim cannot be allowed.
I thi. k, Mr. Gur icy, you had better consider what I
have said, as it is the best thing which can happen to
you. If such as; stem were to be followed, every
per on would be a 'raid to perform the last offices for
a relative or friend who might die in distress, lest, by
so t oing, they mig it be made liable for the expense.
Mr. GURNEY an l Mr. MARRYATT consulted for a
few minutes ; after which
Mr. Robertson was called; he confirmed the state-
!writs made of his having ordered the funeral, his
having subsequently become a bankrupt, &c.—Two
other witnesses corroborated this statement ; and
Lord ELLENNOROUGH directed the Jury to norsuit
the plaintiff.—Nonsuited.
MIDDLESEX SESSION.
Yesterday the Sessions for the County of Middle-
sex commenced at Clerkenwell.
Mr. &take, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said,
that in consequence of the lamented death of the late
Chairman (Mr. Watson), he had been appointed by
the Bench of Magistrates to discharge for the present
the duties of the situation. It would naturally be
expected by them that he should say a few words
upon the character of the deceased, whose death must
be a subject of regret to all who knew his good qua-
lities. He was equally distinguished for talent, for
integrity, and suavity of manners, which rendere'
his conduct eaually pleasing to the Bar 'as to the Fen
sons whose busiue. brought them into Court. lie
had as yet no opportunity of looking into the calen-
dar, but there were, he knew, some important cases
to come under their view. There was one of murder,
and some of Bank forgeries: indeed, of late there were
hardly ally calendars in which instances of the crime
of forgery was not to be met with. Upon this sub-
ject he felt it his duty to make a few observations,
particularly as the nature of the evidence in such
cases had lately been much the subject of conversa-
tion. An opinion seemed to be entertained by some,
that the Clerk whose name was imitated in a Bank
forgery should be produced upon the trial. Upon a
late occasion, at the Old Bailey, one of the Jury de-
manded, whether the Bank Clerk whose name ap-
peared upon the note was present? Mr. Justice
BAYLEY informed the Jury, that " his presence was
unnecessary—that the evidence of the Inspector of
Bank-notes was sufficient."—This was the practice
acted upon by all the Judges, and it was of course to
be considered as law, until altered by the Legisla-
ture. In any case of forgery that might come before
them, they would look upon this as the rule of their
conduct. It might be said, that a Grand Jury being
sworn to keep secret whatever transpired in their pre-
sence, no inconvenience could arise from requiring
that the Inspector of Notes should point out to them I
the private marks by which he was enabled to detect
forgeries. If, however, the Grand Jury might fairly
demand this before they found a bill, the same might I
afortion be required by the Petty Jury, upon whose
verdict the life of the accused depended. The con-1
sequence of making known such private marks before
the Petty Jury in open Court, were too evident to
need any comment. Such a mode of proceeding
would have the immediate effect of doubling the
evil, and in a day or two they would have the Bir-
mingham coaches proceeding to town loaded with