Star.
London, England, 1827-12-05 00:00:00

MO Di LA PLAT♦ /AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Howls moved, on the part of Sir John Herring-
ton, Sir George Duckett, and Mr. Barber Beaumont,
as Dirtctors ie the above Company, for an order upon
Jose Augtiste de la Zcnia. agent.to Maria Antonia Ve-
lasquez de Barquin,•to pay 9,0001. into Court, received
by him from the plaintiff?. Flom the Learned Coen-
sel's statement, it appeaied that 9,0C91. had been paid
to the defendant de ra"Zaniz, as one fourth instilment
upon 36,0001. agreed by the. Company to be paid to his
principal in South Amei ica, for 76 iquare 7uiles ot:
land, for the purposes of the Association. In petulance
of the object of the Company, settlers had- bees left
out, but funds failing, they had not been able to Main.'
fain themselves; and had, in fact,been turned offthe
Mr: Snooze said, it was an unfortunate Specetatior
into which the plaintiffs had entered, but that Court
eireld given relief to them. The Lady in South Ame
del cleclarediqhrough her agent, that she was ready
to sbe* a gad tide, and make 'a legal conveyance of
the whole of the lancrtontracted fot.
The Vitio!Lifeeigstott said, if that was thaaase the
Coitt could not grant the otdet required of

'COURT OF ICI NOi ISENCH. Wanionima, piraftles f.
4AlDOiAr.Witiiii46)4lllll4aarTY
-This win untattion pf trespass on the-u.l),
ing ihr plaintiff 'a hod taking posermitto Of hie
goods. The defendant pleaded theteneral
Mr. HA [COWIE noehei the pleadings.
MF. Joins Watt/sus stated the cese, the facts a
which were proved evidence to she fbllowiag atm
The I laintiff Garden, a tobacconist he Holtiersiebpdt
liughter married to a person named'Anlitsonli Who
had once been a draper, but subsequently 'nihilist's*.
siness, and lust his goods and furniture by Mt mottles
under a warrant of attorney. The plairitiffGardon,his
father.inslaw, purchased the furniture, took a bona ki •
Whetstone, near Barnet, fin niched a chandler's shopi
and delivered to Finlayson the furniture, the house, and
shop goods, on condition that Finlayson should carry
on the business for the plaintiff, and hand over to biro
the surplus of profits after defeaying the expenses of
supporting his (Finlayson s) family. An officer of the
Sheriff of Middlesex to• k possession of these goods and
furniture.on an execution that had issued agai•lst Fnly
son,snd kept possession of them three days, at theexpirae
tion of which time, discovering that 'the property be.
longed in reality to the plaintiff Gardon, the officer
quitted the premises, and restored thepossession of them
to the plaintiff. For this nnlawfdl taking and keeping
possession of the goods, the plaintiff brought•the protect
action. It was-clearly proved in evidence that thObbisse
in Whets•one, the furniture, and shop goods, robll the
property of the plaintiff Gordon. • • •
For the defence, the Arroanav G 11MR AL submitted
to the Jury that the furniture in the house at-Whehrs
stone, being the same dist had belonged to Thigpen
formerly, that circumstance was sufficient to lead Abe
Sheriffs officer into the belief that it still sets the pro-
perty of Finlayson; then the conduct of the Sheriff's
officer, after he had Seised the property, was reasonable
and moderate,•not attended by any act of severity, nor
by any interruption to the business of the shop, nor fol. •
lowed by any loss to the plaintiff. which could call for
compensation from the defendant. The plaintiff's bsode •
of possession of the property, too, being indirect and
by substitute, was not of that nature which could arable
him to maintain an
_setion•of trespass. For these rea-
sons he trusted they would give the plaintiff the least
possible damages that the smallest coin coultivatrye
Lord TENTRRIMIN instructed the Jury that the plain-
tiff Gordon was by law in possession of the hoes* and'
furniture; they should therefore find a verdict for bias,
but with the most moderate damages. •
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Shilling.
Lord TllNTlRDlll—Gentlemen, I have the power of
taking away the tosts from him, and I shall do it.

(MEIN V. BLladelca.
The Arroansv Guiana'. stated this case to the Jury.
The plaintiff was a gilder and frame manufacturer, sod
the defendant was a Gentleman of great respectability,
who for many years had acted as attorney to the late
Mr. Sheridan. It was out of his connexion with that,
distinguished character that the present cause of action
arose. Mr. Sheridan bad a picture of his first wifar
Miss Linlay, executed by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Wishing
to have a copy of it, he sent it,, without a frame, to.Str
W. Beechey, to get copied ; but for some reason or other
he hem demanded' its return, but allowed both the

original and the.copy to remain on Sir W. Beechy's
hands. Mrs Sheridan having married, a second wile,
was perhaps not snansious to retain a memorial of his
first wife as he previously had been; but his friend (Mr.
Burgess) was not quite so lukewarm on the subject.—
Having heard, after Mr. Sheridan's death, diat the ori-
ginal picture of Mrs. Sheridan' by Sir Joshua Reynolds,
and also a copy of it, were in the possession o 4 Sir We
Beechey, he proposed tt that artist that he should take
them, informing him that he had formerly had a pro- •
mite of them from Mr. Sheridan, and had expected.to
have received them as a bequest by Mr. Sneridads
On receiving the pike of the copy from Mr. Burgess,
and also an indemnity for giving up the original poe-
trait, Sir W. Beechey parted with both pictures to that
gentleman. Sir W. Brecht, had, however, framed the
original picture while it, was in his possession ; and it
was therefore •necessary to: make some arrangement
respecting the value of the frame. Mr. B. in consequent,
said to Sir W. Beechey, .4' Send your gilder to me—
and 1 will order him to make for any of your.Pittores
a frame equal in value to that which L am taking from
yen." Sir W. Beechey assented to this proposal, and
some time *fel wards cent.* present plaintiff, Mr.
Green, to the present defendant, Mr. Burgess, to receive
orders for a picture frame valued at 15 guineas. Mr.
Burgess gave Mr. Green the necessary orders, and io
pursuance of thema picture frame was delirered,ir.S.r.
William Beechey's. Whew ,th• ,diy of payniect ;amt.
Mr. Greens on sending in his. bill to 41r. Burgess, was
tolJ, first of all, by that Gentleman, that Le would pay
it shortly. and nest,- that he would speak to Sir, Wm.
Beechey, who was Gut of towN upon ihe 'object. )ow.
if there was any mistake respecting, t' e -agreepept, be-
tween Sr W. Beechey and Mr. Burgess, his Ova qughi
not to suffer by it. He should prove that his client had
received an order fair the picture frame froth.the
:de-
fendants and when he ,had done that, he shopltrbe en.
titled tb their verdict. . . • .
Thomas Browne-1 am servant to Mr. Green, who is
a frame maker. I wens with my master, •in 1826, to
defendant's hotise..l heard Mr'. Burgess give my master
an order to make a frame after a pattern ititnishad by
Sir W. Beechey, and to deliver it. to that Gentleman.—.
Ar. Burgess said distinctly, that hi would pay for
the making of it. The frame was iecoidingly made,
and I vas one of the men ** r.
delivered it at W.
Beechey's. The price of it was 16/. that "aka reason-
able price.
As nobody appeared for'thellefitsdatitot fordict for
_

151. was taken for the ptaintifFt -- .
[ln our report of " Maier v. Ball" there h As "OW =Wake,
winch we take this opportunity of correcting.-,ln the erostoraanitn.
Anon of .ildr. J. W. Edwards, he is represented to have.
said," My
father has lived for 27 years'in Conduit-street, and Ina been neater
fur 15 years." It ought to have been. "My father has lived foe
57 yeirs in Cenduit-street,and lir. Miller has beesbis attorney kr
15 years."] .

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Dilemma 44
Sittings after Michaelmas Term, before Mr. Justice kicademii and
. COMMOS Juries.
DAVID DOWSITTJ A$ tartans, sf ions Dewitt% win
sect.t.
-Mr. Sergeant Wilms (with whom was Mr. talfourdf:
stated the case to the Jury. The action was brought
by the infant plaintiff, who was s child under ten years.
of age, to recover compensation in damages for the veryt.
sevefe injury he had received, in consequence of Ike
negligent driving of the defendant. I appeaied that
in August last the little plaintiff, with some other chit.
slain, was playing in the IJzbrislge-toad, beneath a gar-
'den wall, from behind which some persons.were throw..
ing apples to them, when the de'endant, With a friend,
drove op id his gig, and without calling oat to the
plaintiff to get out of the way, drove agsinit himp and
knocked him down under the horse's legs, wbeti,
defendant attempting to pull up, the child receilltd
most serious injury, in consequence -Of the horse t
ling upon his head. The poor child being' at
removed from his dangerous situation, it was es
that the defendant would stave shewn some empathy,

i

~~
~.
~~ .

-11 --