Star.
London, England, 1820-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 2.
*CUD V. TUFFERY AND ABBOTT.
Mr. Serjeant PELL said, that he really knew nothing
in this case which was in doubt. The case was
simply this : The plaintiff, Mr. Cloud, was the pro-
prietor of a Hammersmith stage-coach, and had,
on two several days, taken up a passenger in St.
Paul's Church-yard, who booked himself the whole
way for Hammersmith or Kensington (the fare
being the same), but who chose to be set down
each time at Hyde Park-corner. For so acting the
Hackney-coach Commissioners issued a was rant, on
which the coach and horses were seized by defendant
Tuffery, who carried them to the yard of Abbott.—
By the Statute of George I. chap.s7, the third clause
enacted, that from and after the 2lth June then nezti
no persons should presume to ply carriages for hire
within the streets or liberties of London and West-
minster, or the parishes thereof, within the Bills of
Mortality, save and except those who weze licensed
by the Commissioners for Hackney Coaches ; and also
enacting, that all persons offending against the said
Act should, for each offence, forfeit a penalty of £5,
with costs. The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to
state, that by another Act, the 53d Geo. 111. c. 185,
for the protection of stage-coaches, the 12th section
provided, that from and after the passing of that
Act, no proiision contained in any former Act should
operate to prevent any stage-coach from taking up
or setting down a fare within the cities of London
and Westminster, &c. provided they did not deviate
from the regular line of their road in so doing. Now
what happened in this case was simply this : the
plaintiff had taken up and booked a passenger in St.
Paul's Church-yard, who professed to go the whole
way to Kensington with the stage, and had paid
his fare accordingly; but who thought proper, at
Hyde Park-corner, which was on the direct line, to
quit the coach, as he had a right to do if he pleased,
for there was nu law in this country to prevent any
man from taking his place and paying his fare the
whole way in a stage-coach, and stopping at any part
thereof and leaving it. It might be foolish for any
man to take and pay his place to Bath and stop at
Knightsbridge, but there was no law against it.—
Surely the coachman would be liable to an action for
false imprisonment, Wunder such circumstances he
presumed to detain a passenger against his will. That
was the real state of the case, and he would in a
moment prove the facts.
Mr..SßEPtiroto said, that he was very anxious for
the attendance of the Solicitor-General, as this case
was of great public importance. He meant to state
that the Court was precluded from entering upon this
case at all, it having been already decided before a
competent tribunal. The Commissioners for Hack-
ney Coaches had already pronounced an adjudication
upon it, which they were entitled to do by the Act,
and from their decision there was no appeal.
Chief-Justice DALLAS said he recollected the bomb-
boat case, where a penalty had been imposed by some
Magistrates, under a particular Act, of which they
had specific cognizance without appeal. They had
adjudicated, and the case was brought into Court,
upon a pro-offer of proof that the vessel, or whatever
it was, was not a bomb-boat, but a decked ship. The
Court, however, declined to touch the adjudication
of the Magistrates.
Mr. SHEPHERD said, that that was precisely the
point here. The Solicitor-General meant to contend
that the Court were not competent to disturb the ad-
judication already pronounced by the Commissioners
for Hackney Coaches.
Mr. Serjeant PILL and Mr. POLLOCK, jun. both
contended, that if the Commissioners had travelled
out of their jurisdiction, it was the special province
of the Court to revise what they had done.
The Cxrar JUSTICE—gg What was the fare paid
from St. Paul's to Hyde Park-corner ?"
Mr. &Emma-4g Eighteenpence, I Understand
that is about half the hackney-coach fare."
The Cum JUSTICE said, that the case had better
stand over until the Solicitor-General came. As it
was now three o'clock, perhaps it would be as well
the case should be passed for the day. It certainly
might be connected with important interests.
The case was ordered to stand over until Monday.
MONDAY. DECEMBER 4.
The case was again argued this day.
Chief Justice DALLAS, in summing up the evi-
• dente to the Jury, said, hat the simple fact for their
consideration was, whether they believed the coach-
man took up the passenger for the purpose of setting
him down in Piccadilly at an eighteen-pence fare,
the regular coach-fare being double that amount?
The Jury retired for twenty minutes, and then
brought in a verdict for the plaintiff, and that he did
not know the passenger was to be set down in Picca-
dilly.—The question upon the law of the case will
be argued next Term.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 4.
THE KING O. JACKSON AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against the defendants for
unlawfully conspiring to create a commission of
bankruptcy out of the High Court of Chancery
against G. Jackson, the younger.
Mr. Toesna having produced the commission
sued out on the 4th of July, 1817, on the affidavit of
G. Jackson, the elder, against G. Jackson, the younger,
Mr. GURNEY objected to an informality in the in-
dictment, which charged the defendants with conspi-
ring to sue opt a commission under the Great Seal
of England. The commission bore the Great Seal
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and he
contended that the alteration was certainly fatal to
the indictment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that he could
not say that it was a commission sued out of the
High Court of Chancery under the Great Seal of
England, because, in fact, there was no Great Seal
of England.
His Lordship's opinion being fatal to the indict-
ment, the Jury, under the direction of the Learned
Judge, acquitted the defendants.
DUFRE V. TAUNTON.
This was an action to recover from the defendant
the amount of a bill.due by hin3 to the plaintiff, who
)s proprietor of the Star Inn, at Oxford.
The daughter of the lady who keeps this inn,
.
proved that the defendant was in the habit of fro
quenting the house from the year 1805 to 1811, and
ghat he ran up a considerable bill there. The
ness generally kept her mother's accounts, and knew