Star.
London, England, 1828-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, Dec. to.
THORNSERRY V. SHERWIN.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, an attorney,
to recover a bill for business done for the defendant.
It appeared thkt Mr. Thornberry, jun. brother to the
plaintiff, being in business, as a surgeon, with Mr. Pitt
at Brighton, was desirous of disposing of his shire in
that concern to the defendant, and the plaintiff was
employed to enter into a negotiation and aurange the
terms. In the course of.t)e transaction, thete was some
season to suspect the solvency of one of the partners,
and the defendant declined becoming a purchaser. The
plaintiff then brought his action for business done on
the defendant's account.
Lord TENTSRDEN held that the real state of the par-
ties should have been communicated to the defendant,
and as that had not been done, the plaintiff was non-
suited.

BONNER V. NAYLOR.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who i, a
broker, to recover the sum of Ic2ll. from the defendant,
uhich sum the plaintiff had paid on his account. The
circumstances of the case, as they appeared in evidence,
were these :—The defendant applied to the plaintiff to
sell for him four shares in the Severn and Wye Railway
Company, and upon being advanced the sum of money
in question, executed an assignment of the shares, to
hich he signed the name of Richard Naylor, his own
name being George Richard Naylor. Toe purchaser
of the shares sent this assignment to the office of the
Company, to have the transfer registered in their books ;
but he was there informed that there was no shares
standing in the name of the Richard Naylor whose
signature was affixed to the assignment; but that 12
shares were standing in the name of his father, Richard
Naylor, deceased, to which his three sons were entitled;'
that four of these shares were the property of the de-
fendant, but yet they could not be transferred, unless the ,
assignment was executed by his two brothers as well as
himself, although he was always called Richard Naylor,
and even in his fat' er's will he was so called. His
brothers were out of England, end he had great diffi-
culty in procuring their signatures to the transfer ; but
at last the signature of one of them, who was studying
medicine at Gottingen, was obtained. The other brother
was, however, not so easily met with, and the plaintiff
at length brought the present action to recover back the
money, not wishing to remain out of his capital until
the defendant could make good the transfer, when the
time at which the transfer could be done was so very
indefinite. On the other hand the defendant refused to
refund the money, telling the plaintiff that the transfer
should be executed as soon as his brother returned to
England.
The defence was that Mr. Bonner, at the time he ad•
!sauced the money, must have known that the shales
were the property of the father, for he intimately knew
the whose famly, and he was therefore boend to submit
to any inconvenience which might follow. He knew that
at the date of the shares, which was in 1810, the de-
fendant was only seven years r.f. age, and that he could
dot possibly be the Richard N iy lor in whose name they
stood. Mr. Bonner was a busker, employed by the
defendant, and he ought to have conducted the business
in a proper manner for him, which he had not dons,
and now he sought to recover back the money, when
all the inconvenience was the result of his own negli-

- _
Bence, for which negligence the de!endant had no right
to be the .uffcrer.
The CHILF donut said that there was great ir-
regul4ri• y on all side, in the transaction, but he thought
under ail ►l.e circumstances of the case that the plaintiff
was entitled in point of law as well as iniquity to their
verdict.
The lay accordingly f'►und a •-rdict for the plain• I
tiff to the full amount (Wined, being 1141. 14s. after
deduc.itlg fur the profit upon a subsequent resale ul the
shares.

COURT OF CONIIIJON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, D. 10.
HALL AND OTHILIis V. WRIGHT AND OTHERS.
Mr. CHANNEL, in opening the pleadings. stated that'
this ashen was brought upon the alleged breach of a
contract which had been entered into between the plain-
tiffs and the defendant,, in December, 1826. The de-
claration stated that the plaintiffs were possessed of
certain steam vessels, one called the Harlequin. and
the other the Columbine. which they employed in
the passage between London and Margate, and that
in consequence of the machinery of those vessels
having become unfit for service, a contract was en-
tered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
by which the latter agreed to take out the defective
portions of the machinery and to replace them by
new, and to make such alterations in other parts of the
machinery as to render the whole complete and fit for
service. It was fuithir agreed that the alterations and
additions in the Harlequin should be completed by the
20th of April, and those in the Columbine on the 20th
of March, 1827. The decl .ration then alleged a breach
of this contract by the defendants. The defendants
pleaced first the general issue, and after wards several
special pleas; one of which was that the agreement
con' aked certain exemptions, which were to exempt
them f om the exact performance of th u contract, in
case of :lie stoppage of the canals. They then alleged
that such if >toppage had occurred. In an ,ther plea
they stated that there had been an accord and satisfac-
tion between the plaint ffs and the defendants, as the
for mer had paid, and the latter had consented to receive,
certain bills in pat mew t foe the work they had done.
Mr. Sergeant 'WILDS stated that the plaintiffs were
the Directors of an AssUciation fmmed for the purpose
Of carrying on certain steam vessels as passage-bo .is
from London to Margate and elsewhere, and that the
i.ofensfai is were engineer*, cart ymg on business in Der-
byshir•, under the name r f the Butterleigh Company.
The Jory had already been made acquainted with the
nature of the action, from the opening of his Learned
Friend. In December, 1826, the contract upon which the
present action was brougl t was entered into between
the parties, and in that contract the parties stipulated
to Lase the vessels repaired in such a substantial man-
ner as to be able to stand the Leavy wear and tear pro-
duced by the extreme rapidity with which they pre-
formed their voyages. It was also important to the
plant:ll's that the vessels should be ready for service in
the early part f the spring. and it was therefore made
a part of the contract that they sbuul be complete
by the months of March and April.lB27. This being
the nature ti the contract, the plaintiffs now complained
that the defendants had tailed to fulfil it; and evidence
'would be given by which it would be proved that the
old parts of the machinery had been properly removed,
arid that those new portions wh ch had beer, supplied were
of an insufficient degree of strength, and were made of an
improper description of n.etal—ca,t iron, in many in-
stances, havir g been made u e of where copper ur Inns
was absolutely nrcessary. Ile could not help feeling some
sutpri,e at the na;we of the pleas which had been er..-
tered nu the ri cord ; nor did be think that the defendants
*maid be able to support them. The defendants would.
probably say, that they had perfot Bled their contract,

and that the vessel; had actually performed their,
voyages during the season ; bat in reply to that, it would'
be plowed on the rot of the plaintiffs, that although
it was true that the vessels had been able to go through
the season, yet that the machinery, in consequence
the unsubstantial manner in which it had been fitted np
by the defendants, was so constantly out of repir, that
li
the plaintiffs had been put to. great expense to keep it
in proper and safe order. Having produced &lid, evi-
dence, he submitted he should be entitled to a verdict,,
ai it would then be evide .t that the defendant. had not
performed the work in such a manner as to satisfy the
contract.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after the first witness had
been partially examined, suggested the propriety of re-
ferring the amount of damages tti some person out,
of Court.
The Counsel on either side immediately adopted the
suggestion, and even carried it further, by agreeing to
refer to an engineer not only this cause, but also two
others pending between the same parties in the Court of
King's Bench.
Mr. BROUGHAM, who appeared for the defendants.
said, he hoped it would not be supposed that his clients
had furnished the defective pins ef the machinery, as,
.f the cause had rme on, he should have proved from
the plaintiffs' own witnessei, that the vessels had pet-
formed their work in the best possible manner.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE replied, that of course no
judgment could be formed on•a mere ex parte statement.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Dec. 10.

Before the the RECORDS,.

W. Morley, aged 21, and Thomas Maley, aged 22.
were indicted for a burglary in the house of Mr. Car.
penter Austin, and stealing sundry articles of property.
Mr. Austin deposed, that he lived in Worship-streetal
Shoreditch. On the 27th of October, about twelve at
night, his house was broken open; he called the watch.l
and, searching the house, found several snicks stolen.
Morley had once been his servant.
Several watchmen identified the prisoners. as appre-
hended by them on the night in question. Morley had
a dark lantern, a key which unlocked Mr. Austin's
door, and part of the stolen property.
The Jury found the prisoners Guilty, but recom-
mencl,.d them to metcy.
The Court received the recommendation, but in-
(wined the prisoners they must expect to 'leave the
country.
Thomas Lovell, John Ayres, and Harriet Cox, were
indicted, and the first two fund Guilty, for stealing a
sheep, value fifty shillings, from a flack of eighty-sit,
placed to graze by the owner in a field at Hampstead.'
on 22J November last.

The Jury recommended the prisoners to mercy.
liichard Kenny and William Ayres were indicted for
stealing foul coats and other articles, value 101. the,
property of W. Davison.
W. Davi.on, who had passed by the name of Wm.
Davis, refused to identify the property, though he had
sworn to it before the Magistrate, and the pti.or.ers
were Acquitted.
The Foreman of the Jury inquired if the prosecutor
could not he punished for his conduct?
The RECORDER replied in the affirmative, and com-
mitted the prosecutur for wi:ful and cortupt perjury,
binding over two witne.srs agatn-t him.
The Sessions closed this day.
NEW COURT.

W. Varffield, a .young urchin, not more than ten
years old, was charged by his father wilt stealing a pair
of breeches, value nine shillings.
The lather stated th.t to was obliged to take some
step to save the child from ruin, as he would steal
eve, y thing that he could lay his hands on ; although,
when he took him before a Magistrate, he thought that
a summary punishment would have been inflicted, and
never intended w place him at ti e bar of that Court.
A pawnbroker said, the boy pledged the pouters at
his shop.
COMMON SIIRGIANT--YOU ought not to take io pledges
from such clrldren. _ _

The pass nbroker said he had been many times before,
and always said he was sent by his father.
Cosasatiti SattottANT—l consider your conduct im-
proper, and sh ill not allow your expenses.
The father, who seemed much digressed, said, he
thought the child not naturally vicious, but he was
connected with a most daring gang of young thieves.
On the boy being a ked what he did with the money,
he said, " Oh, I spent it in lolly pops."
The Jury found him Guilty.
At half-past three the RECORDER entered the Court
for the purpose of passing sentence upon the prisoners
convicted in the course of the Sessions.

The following prisoners were sentenced to suffer Death—Matthew '
Riley, John Nightengsle, John Ponsonby, Wm. Deacon, Robert
Shearston, Peter Mennen. Edwin Harris, Wm. Woodward, Wm. '
Wood, Cherie s Yates alias Coombe', John Attridge, James Colman,
Jas. Wheeler, Daniel J. Quay, Thomas 'kooks, Edward Rowley,
William Humphreys, Jos. Mott, Wm. Murky. Thomas Maley,
John Lovell, Thomas Ayres, Wm. Jones, and John Price.
Miry, who had been convicted of forgery. on being
asked what he had to say why he should not re•
cthe judgment to dig•, said that he wished to ask whe-
ther the question meant anything, or whether it was
metely put as a matter of form► ?
Mr. SHELTON informed him, that if he had any ob•
jection to mike on a pt•int of law, it was then that he
I would he affot ded an opportunity of doing so.
The pi ismirr said that he objected, because the law
in its foundation was unn- mut y.
The If ',column said, that he could not sit and heat
die law atraigned.
The prisoner said, that if the Recorder were in his
situation, lie would think it very natural for him to
arraign the justice of the law. He must arraign it.
The RECORDER begged the prisoner to consider the
situation in which he stood, and not to aggravate his
offence. 11 he could point out any point of law in his
favour, the Court would have much pleasure in listening
in him, but lie mutt not arraign the justice of the law
of the land.
The prisoner said, that in that case he had to say that
the .1-Age who tried his case had neglected to point out
die difference of time between the date of the letter and
of the forgery. Besides which, his friends had proved
that he was insane—decidedly mad at the time.
The Ku nom' observed, that it w.is not he who had
tried the prisoner ; but as the points of which he had
spoken we:e facts, he Was quite sure that they must
have been left to the Jury, who had decided against him.
Toe prisoner said, that he merely took that opportu-
nity of speaking, that what he said might reach a
hither quarter.
Tt.e RECORDER assured the prisoner, that there was
nothing that had transpired in the muse of Isis case
that should not be faithfully reported to the Sovereign
in Council. What might be the decision there is to his
late, it was not for bans (the Recorder) to anticipate;
and. indeed, it would be indecent in him to do so.
John l'Onsonby, whose crime was a second conviction
of wining base coin, on being asked the usual question;

said, that it was the want cif employ that had ocra.!
sinned him to do what he had dune.
Edwin Hanes, who hail been c.invicted of burglary,
said that he hoped the Court would take into its cor-
e:Oro-46m, that no wioletice had attended the commis
%ion of hii clime.
Willi m NVoodwaid made the same observation.
The lollowing sentences were likewise passed:
William Cunnerford, Jeremiah Sibley, Richard Kettle, George
Smith, arid %Valliant Vyse—Transportation for life.
Sarah Pratt, Sarah Smith, Robert Mills, Caroline Macleroy,
Thomas Barge, Margaret Royland, Henry Bryant. Mary Price,
Thomas Hawley, and Elizabeth Gray—Transportation fur fours
teen years.
Falward Seymour, Mary Ann Wallis, John Clark, William
Buckland, William Cole, John Parsons, George Williams, George
Reynolds, J. Jennings, Elizabeth Murphy, It. Hastings' J. Mur-
rell, Mary Ann Crow;ley, Ann Walker, J. Bassett. J. Baylis, J.
Drennan, Jane Golding. James Jackson, Ellen Morton. Jane Pro-
bin, John Williams, Ellen Wetherell, George Clark. John Mark-
bon, Thomas Powell. Thomas Carvill, alias George Johnson,
George Gray, Mary Stewart, Mary Bryant, William Wright,
William Taylor, William Clark, Ann Willianii, Henry Gardiner,
Thomas Fitzgerald, Julia Welsh, Wdllam tiro%fn. Joseph Dor-
man, John Walker, William Edwards, Sarah Twin, Mary Clif-
ford, Mary Ann Ilasledowit, John Teenr, Ellinor Dwyer, Joseph
Chapple, Armstrong M‘Naughten, and George Knight—Trans
portation for seven years.
Charles Todd, and John Stevens—lmprisonment, and bard
labour, for two years.
Francis Sweeney. and James King—lmprisonment, and hard
labour, for 18 month*.
John Stephens, alias Robert Stanley, and Thomas Jones—lm-
prisonment, and hard labour. for twelve months.
Wni. Godirey. Wm. Johns, John Lane. Wm. Dickson, Sarah
Ashley, Dennis Hayles, Hannah Smart, John Alexander
Mourow, Alexander Morgan, and James Latimer—lmprisonment
(or silt months and hard labour.
Eliz. Davie and John Robertson—lmprisonment foi four months
and hard labour.
James Marshall—imprisonment for three months, bard labour,
and one private shipping.
John Ryan, Elia. Laren. James Fuller, James Brown, Mary
Hell, Thos. Johnson, Thu.. Itariger, Thos. Collard, Itubert Hay-
Linton, Ji.hn Fulbrook, Thomas Johnsen', John Forrester, Henry
Richardson, John Morgan, Daniel G. Whaley, Rich. Knight, and
John Ityan—imprisonment for the. months and hard labour.
James Edwards and lbontas Thonias—lmprisonment for two
months and hard labour.
James Webb—imprisonment for Piz weeks, bard labour, and to
be publicly whipped near the place who re the felony took place.
Wm. Davis Geo. Floward, Jame* Solidi, Sarah Comes, Jane
Smith, Ann Bonner, Tim.. Howell, Geo. Spreogham. and John
Hall—lmprisonment for six months, and hard labour.
George Peanon—lmprisonment for one niestrh, hard labour,
and to be whipped.
Mary Slade' Caroline MlCann, John Lewis, Charles Long, John
Steele, Mary Woods, liseph harrow, Thomas Mullins, William
Henderson, Josepb Clark, Susan Haley, Daniel !Daniels, Wildam
Thomas, Dan. Mollie, Sarah Griffith, John Baker, Sarah Kemp-
son—lmprisonment for one month, and hard labour.
Ann Malotty—lntirisonment for three weeks, and hard labour.
Catharine Long. James P. aree, John II mcock. Mary Grieves,
and Hannah Connor, alias Dresser —lorpris..ilicrit for fourteen
days in Newgate.
William Brown. John Mahoney, William Hood. Patrick Brown,
George Brown, Thomas Hughes, Johu Humphreys, John S.M.
mons, John Thompson Wiliam.' Martin, Ben. Colston, EdWard
Brett—to be whipped aod discharged.