Star.
London, England, 1829-07-14 00:00:00

SMITH V. HOLTZMETER.

In this case the plaintiff was the clerk to trustees under
a local Act for regulating the affairs of the parish of St.
Mary, Whitechapel ; the defendant was the surety of a
Mr. Charles Feltwick Harpin, in the amount of 1,0001.
for the due collection and paying over the sums received
by him for the poor and watch rate of the said parish of
St. Mary. The defendant pleaded that Harpin was ap-
pointed receiver in October, 1825, for the remainder of
the year only, ending the 25th of March, 1826, and up
to that time the terms of the bond had not been violated.
To this there was a replication, that the appointment was
to August, 1828.
A witness was called, who proved that prior to 1821,
the parish officers were elected to serve from March to
March; but that in that year (1821) it had been altered
from August to August. Mr. H.'s predecessor having
died before the expiration of his year, Mr. H. was ap-
pointed in October, 1825, and at the termination of the
year, in August, 1826, he was re-elected for the year
ensuing, and in August, 1827, he was again appointed
for the customary term of twelve months, and the bond
given by the defendant, at the appointment in 1825, was
read over. Mr. Harpin's misconduct did not commence
till after the appointment in 1827. These facts having
been put in evidence,
The Attorney General submitted, for, the defendant,
that he was entitled to a verdict.

..—.... _
Lord Tenterden observed, that he thought upon the
issue the verdict must be for the plaintiff. The question
was, whether Mr. Harpin was appointed in the first in-
stance for a longer period than until March, 1826? and
on the evidence it appeared he had. With respect to the
bond, on reading it he was fully convinced that the sug-
gestions of breaches were all bad, for that bond, dated
October, 1825, was only for the faithful discharge of his
duties for the period he was then appointed, and the
breaches appeared to have been committed subsequently
to the expiration of that time, and during his service un-
der his reappointments. The plaintiff must consequently
have a verdict for one shilling damages for the detention
of his debt, and might move to have the damages assessed
for the breaches. .

The Attorney-General remarked that it was particu-
larly hard that his client should have to pay the costs.
Lord Tenterden said it was, but they were bound to
try the issue.
The Jury then, under his Lordship's direction, found
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages one shilling, with
leave to the plaintiff to move to enter damages upon the
suggestions of breaches, if the Court should be of opinion
Cud he was entitled to do so.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY I&
CARTER V. RICHARDS.

This was an action for work and labour done be the
plaintiff in making a sewer in Porchester-terraee, 13ays-
water. The defence to the action was, that there was
not the stipulated length of sewer done, in the first place;
and, in the next, that the contract bound the plaintiff
to lay the " surplus ground, sand, &c." upon the road,
whereas the workmen employed by the plaintiff took the
gravel away.
The plaintiff's witnesses said that there were 67 feet of
sewer agreed for, and that it was customary for the ex-
cavator to take away the gravel as his perquisite, and that
the defendant saw the gravel taken away, and that no
more .was removed after he objected to it.
From the evidence for the defendant, it appeared that
the plaintiff made the full length of sewer agreed for, but
that the difference arose from its falling short, by sevenr
teen inches, of the full extent of the ground belonging to
a Mr. Donovan, who employed the defendant to make the
sewer, which the latter afterwards engaged the plaintiff to
construct.

Mr. Gutch, a surveyor, said it would cost 61. to make
the road correspond with the rest of the line.
The Lord Chief Justice charged the Jury; that it ap-
.peared that the plaintiff had constructed the full length
of sewer agreed for, though it did not begin at the exact
point that some of the parties required.. With respect

1•••-

iirma

to the taking away the gravel, that was not an answer to
the action. Thi plaintiff could only be called on to ac-
count for the value of the gravel taken away, if the Jury
thought that defendant did not give leave to remove it.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the full balance, 451.6 e. 9d.
deducting nothing for gravel.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JULY 13.

These Sessions commenced this morning before Mr.
Coast and a Bench of Magistrates.
Since the last adjournment day the Court has been
considerably altered, indeed the interior has been alto-
gether metamorphosed, and it now presents as perfect a
specimen of confusion confused as it has ever been our
lot to witness. For instance, the Dock is placed in the
centre of the seats, which in all Courts have hitherto, and
for time immemorial, been appropriated for Counsel ; and
the prisoner is absolutely surrounded, not by the gaoler
or °Scars, but by Gentlemen of the law ; and were it not
for the wig, it would be impossible for a stranger to tell
but that our friend Charles Phillips, or Mr. Alley, had
been called upon to answer for some of those misdemea-
nours from the consequences of which they have so fre-
quently protected others.
Mr. James Shoolbred, an extensive linendraper, re-,
siding in Tottenham Court-road, was charged with as-
saulting a Gentleman named Packett, a lace manufacturer
in Goswell-street-road. The Jury returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
Frasres Hall, Benjamin Burn, Daniel
Malcolm Sil-
cock, and William Marchant Clarke, were indicted for
a conspiracy in uttering a certain instrument as the will
of Anthonyttond, with intent to defraud John Baines
Bond.
This case has been postponed from Session to Session
since last November.
No witnesses were in attendance for the prosecution,
and the defendants were.c.onsequently discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN,

Juir 10.

EIBEE.-RANDAL RERAN, ESQ. BARRISTER-AT-
LAW, V. EDWARD ARCHDALL, ESQ.
This was an action for libel, alleged to have been spoken
by the defendant, at a meeting of the Brunswick Club,
and published in the Fermanagh Impartial Reporter.
The damages were laid at 1,0001. The defendant pleaded
the general issue, and put in six pleas of justification.
Mr. Rolleston, K.C. stated the case on the part of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Johnston, K.C. replied on the part of the defen-
dant.
Mr. Sheil spoke to evidence.
Lord Plunkett charged the Jury, who, after a few mo-
ments' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
6d. damages and 6d. costs.