Star.
London, England, 1816-11-28 00:00:00

•
41.thkilteeilatissile4e elnue•
,111-rlule; upon very long affidavits,
,stated, that parsons Isamed/slestander and Fox, tea
proprietors of a Bripeost comb *and eight bouts,
. been guilty of some violation,. of the Stamp Aet;
consequence of which, an Extent issued against
coach and horses, for penalties and costs, .to the
louat of 490. 'they applied to Mr. Joseph Hilt,
their difficulties ; but that person not having the
money himself to advance, he borrowed it of the
plaintiff, Sharman, and then released the coach and
horses, he himself taking possession as a security for
repayment of the money. The plaintiff being
able to obtain payment from Hill of the money he
..lent, issued execution . against the coach and
lorses ; but the Sheriff returned nulla bona. In con.
nience of which, the present action was brought
inst the latter; for a false return; and the case
ig referred, as above stated, the arbitrator award-
. in favour of the plaintiff, although he expressed
some doubt upon the law ; it not being satisfactorily
maue out that any consideration had passed from the
indif to Hill. It war, however, now sworn dis-
tinctly, that Sharman had actually advanced the '
money to the latter, in the way above stated. Under
these circumstances it was contended, that 'the Court
could not open the case again, the arbitrator having
come to a final adjudication upon the law and the
-sits of the case, there being no suggestion of injus- '
or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. In
ippon of the caee for the plaintiff, Chace v. West-
more, 13 East R. 357, was referred to.
Mr. TOPPING, Mr. GURWLY. and Mr. Esrieessz,
support of the rule, contended tliat the Court
ight to set aside the award. They submitted that
arbitrator had mistaken the law in deciding that
, previous judgment obtained by Sharman against
was conclusive evidence of the validity of the
debt upon which the execution was founded ; parti.
cularly as distinct evidence in point of fact was offer-
, that there had been no consideration for the judg-
ment, no money having been lent by the plaintiff to
Hill. The affidavits in support of the rule distinctly
sffirmed this circumstance, and when it was ;hewn
)at the arbitrator himself had expressed some doubt,
well upon the law as the fact, it was hoped that
the Court would do what justice required, by sending
the case back again to the arbitrator for review. If
were permitted the defendant to go into the affi-
ivits, it would be :hewn that Mr. Oil had acted a
Jost exuaordinafy part in this transaction, he had
assumed almost as many shapes as Proteus. He was
irst. the Attofney of Alexander and Fox; then the
)uyer of the coach and hones; next the supposed
debtor of Sharman, pretending that he had borrowed
100 from him, for which he had given a warrant
of attorney against himself, upon a judgment against'
\imsele, upon which he entered up judgment against
imself in the name of a man named Sharman $
then having taken out execution against himself, he
went with the Sheriff's officer to point out his own'l
Supposed property; he then gave notice of a motion
in the Common Plans to set• aside the execution in
;uney ; and having obtained the rule he issued a'
fresh writ in Middlesee, and again went with the
Sheriff's officer to seize the same goods, and then be
'simself brought the present action in the name of
Sharman, against the Sheriff of Surrey, for a false
return. On these grounds it was submitted that the
‘ward of tho arbitrator should be set aside.
The Cotner, after material deliberation, were of
opinion, that the award of the arbitrator could not
be set aside, inasmuch as the whole case had been laid
before him for adjudication, he himself not
.having
expressed any wish to have the opinion of the Court!
upon the point of law in question.—Rule refused. 1
TUB KING O. TUCKER.
Mr. NOLAN chewed eauite arinst a role for a maw
daises, commanding two Magistrates of the County
of Devon to discharge the defendant, a Church's?.
den of the parish of Raberton, art of custody, hay.
ing been committed to the County Gaol, for refusing
to account for a certain balance of parish money re.
maining in his hands at the time of his bankruptcy.
The defendant had obtained his certificate, but the
parish had never attempted to prove the above-men-
tioned balance under his commission, and the ques-
tion for the opinion of the Court was, whether the
defendant's certificate discharged him froni his liabi-
lity for this debt ?
The COURT ruled, •upon the authority of Rex v.
Egginton, 1 T. R. 369. and ex parte Exley, 6 Vele
jun. 811. that this was a balance which might have
been proved under the Bankrupt Laws, being a debt'
v presenti, and therefore made the Rule absolute.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0V.27.
TAYLOR v.• WATIRS.
This morning the loafs CHILI Jvsricn gave judg.
ment in this cause.
It was an application to the Court to set aside the
verdict for the plaintiff, and ester a non-suit on the
ground that the action could not be supported. The
action had been brought by Mr. J. Taylor against
Mr. E. Waters*, for having prevented him from en.
japing an admission to, and being present at the per
formances at, the Opera Boole. Th• title re ibis
privilege was derived from Mr. William Taylor,
who, as Manager of the concerns of the Opera House,
'bad granted it to a Mr. Goodison, by whom it was
granted to the plaintiff, who bad enjoyed it without
saterroptien until 1814, when he was excluded by.
the defendant. It had further appeared from the,
application made to the Court, that the whole of the
concerns of the Opera House we:.• in the. month of
August, 1799, vested in certain trustees by deed,
which directed them to receive the revenue, and
apply it to certain purposes. These trustees, how..
ever, had not exercised their functions as such, but
left the whole management, &c. &e. in the hands of!
Mr: W. Taylor, until the year 1804. In the year
1799, and of course during Mr.W.Taylor's manage.
ment, he made a rant to Mr. Goodison of six silver
(free admission) ticketi for 21 years. One of these
was given by Mr. Goodison to the plaintiff (Mr. J.
Taylor), who constantly used it until 1814, when
Waters excluded him. He then brought his action,
end got a verdict.
, The grounds. of the objection to the verdict were
two :—First, that this befog an intereet arising from
lands, it could not (by the statute of &awls) be vest...,
ed without u deed,. and here no deed was
The second ground of objection was, that if there
',were no deed necessary for such a grant, Taylor bad
no legal sight to make it without the concurrence 4*
the trustees, who alone had such authority.
The LoaDCuiss kaucia, in giving judgment,