Star.
London, England, 1803-04-19 00:00:00

GRIFFITMS G. KENSINGTON*

MIL °MOW faid, this was a queßian, whether
the defendant, an opulent Banker, fhould pay his
butcher's bill for the liberal fupply of his table for
a certain period ? and email*. if the jury fhould
not find a verdift in favour of his client, all he
could fay was, that himfelf and his Learned
Friends around him had aFted very unvrifely in-
deed in paying their butcher's bills for the fait two
or three years, for that it would have been much
more prudent in them to have inveßed the money
in the public funds. He undertiood he was to be
told that his client. the plaintiff, had not 'given
credit to the defendant, but to his cook ; in other
words, that be had trußed a beggar, fcr the was
at this moment in prifon, having been arreßed by
her matter, whole money the had mod wickedly
embezzled. He had heard the late Lord Kenyon
fay. that if a man fent his fervent out cloathed
with his credit, he was bound to anfwer all the
confequences of his improper ufe of it. He wifhcd
perfons of large climes would condefcend to look
a little into their own affairs, certainly it would
eventually be much better for them; but if they
would truß to confidential clerks and fervants, the
fault was theirs, and honed tradefmen ought not
to be injured by their folly. It might be laid, that
the plaintiff ought not to have fuffered the bill,
which it was the objeft of this aftion to recover,
to have gone on fo far. In anfwer to this he had
only to obferve, that tradefmen, to whom large
bills were owing from men of fortune, were Ire.

quently IMF applying to them lea they (holtld
give offence a..d lofe dick cuttom. The Learned
Connie' alluded to the cafe of a Gentleman, whom
he defcribed as a moll amiable chara&er, who had
had this truth exemplified in a way extremely
jurious to his feelings. It happened that his brewer
called at his bottle with 'a (mall bill, and he ob..
ferved there could not any thing owing
to him, unlefs he had fent in in the cowrie of
the week, for that he had given his fervant the
money to pay all his tradefmen's bills; however,
he laid he would enquire, and call bpon him. He
accordingly enquired of his fervant, who 0
dear, Sir! it mull be tome millake, he has been
paid." The Gentleman, who was a Member of
Parliament, and was jolt then departing for the
Houfe of Commons, hail not at that moment time
to call for the voucher. which his fervant pre-
tended would prove the pay ment of the bill ; but
he afterwards thought it would be as well if he
gave the brewer a call. Accordingly he paid the
brewer a vifit, and was infot ntel it was a miltake,
and that the bill had been paid. Upon interro-
gating him as to the probabi:ny of a middle. the
brewer candidly (aid-4, Sir, if I mull tell you the
truth, your fervant has paid the bill fince I pre-
fenced it to you." He told me you was a very
good man yourfelf, and always gave the money
to pay your tradefmen punCbially, but your Lady
had filch an itch for gaming, there was not getting
a tingle guinea out of her fib. Upon inquiry it
turned out, that this infolent fervant bad told the
fame kind if (tory to all his tradefmen, that he
had defcribed his matter as a punaual man, and
his miftrefs as a woman who intercepted for the
purpofes of gaming that money which he appro-
priated to the payment of his tradefmen. The
whole Rory was as wicked as it was falfe. In the
prefent tale, whenever the butcher applied to the
plaintiff's cook for his bill, the faid, my matter
cannot pay it you now ; but here is fomething in
part. The caufe was of very little importance to
Mr. Kenfington, but it was far otherwife with
regard to his client, the plaintiff. He had no
doubt but Mr. Kenfington's cook had cheated him,
but it was his duty to have controuled her and
{prevented her from fo doing. It was impoffible
for the plaintiff to force his way into the drawing-
room of this Gentleman, and tell him his bill was
running on too far; he gave credit to his cook,
under the idea that the had his fantion for run-
ning in his debt. The balance due to the plaintiff,
after deducting two (urns of tol. which the defen•
dant had paid him, without prejudice to the pre-
fent aftion, amounted to 471. and this furn, he had
no doubt, the Jury would give him.
The plaintiff's fervant proved the delivery of
the articles contained in his bill.
Mr. Eames faid, he wakCounfel for Mr. Ken.
fington, and, in his (boa addrefs to the Jury,
would (fate on what reafons and principles this ae.
tion was defended.• He faid it was not neeeffary
for his Learned Friend to have appealed to the au-
thority of Lord Kenyon, for the purpofe of flawing
that if a man authorifed his'fertant to go to a but-
cher, and if he did not give him any money toper
for the articles he port hoed. that he was account-
able for the credit given him; law,juflice =deem-
mon fenfe required in Inch cafe the ;rade:nen
ought to be paid his bill. In the prefent intlance,
Mr. Kenfington had always been very particular in
defiring his butcher to bring in his bill weekly.—
He had made it the condition of his employing
him, that he fbould do fo, and for more than a
year he had dealt with him, the Plaintiff regular-
ly received his money of his cook—for a length of
time the had abed with honetty, and had devoted
the money he had given her to the difcbarge of
the debts the had incurred. What Mr. Keating-
ton complained of was, *at when his bill had
been regularly paid, week after week, and that
there was fuddenly an omiffion of the payment of
it, that he did not give him notice of the eircum.
Itance, in order thatlemight be put upon hisguard,
and make enquiry as to the caufe. Mr. Kenfing-
ton, upon deteaing the difhonefty of his (avant,
found that he was indebted to tradefinen, whole
bills he had given her money to dilettante, in a
fum amounting to fomething more than seal.—
The Leas ned Counfel faid, he ' &mild prove that
the Plaintiff had declared he had trufted the conk,
and that he did not wins to mention the dram-
fiance, from the fear of hurting her in her matter's
elteem. If this was fo. he ought not to look to
the mailer for payment : if a man made tai agree-
ment with a tradefman to pay him weekly, and
he gave his fervent money to difcharge the bilis,
was it reafonable that he thould afterwards be call-
ed upon to pay the bills incurred by his fervent ?
He would elk his Learned Friend Mr. Cearrow,
wealthy as he was, whether be or any man, if
Poch was the law, could keep a houfe over his
head ? He was well perfuaded Lord Kenyon would
not have expreffed himfelf in favour of filch a
cloarine. He thought it was quite fufficient for a
man to pay his Valls once. The Plaintiff bad re-
ceived his bills regularly for a year and a half, and
upon that regularity of payment ceafing, be bad
never thought proper to come near the Plaintiff to
inform him of it. The Learned Counfel urged
the incontinency of the Plaintiff's applying at dif-
ferent times for the loans of ten pounds, when he
con. eived he had a demand upon the Defendant
for a much larger film, and he thought his accep- •
tanre of that loan a fufficierit proof that he bad no
, legitlMMC or legal demand.
A svitnefs, of the name of Carried. proved
the circumftance of the Plaintiff having borrowed
twenty pounds of the Defendant, but it appeared
to be under the exprefs condition of returning it
again. in cafe he &mild not prevail in his Wit
againtt him.
Blanche Morgan, the Defendant's cook. was
brought into Court by Wear eels., in order to
provecertain payments, but fuch was the confciouf-
nefs of guilt and flume the exhibited, that (be
neither could hold up her head, or give the le in
tatitfaaory tellimony ; nothing whatever was cul-
lefted from her evidence. _

Mr. Divatt, the broth er.in.law of the Defendaata
merely proved, that he had recommended the plain.
tiff under an affurance that he would be paid
weekly. as he was paid by the witnefs, but he could
Dot rove a pofitive agrecatest that the &sleep

between the Plaintiff and Defene!'tit were to be
upon no other terms.
Lord la.t.Fvaoaoucrt was of opinion that the
evidence on t le part of the Defendant did not
amount to ar anfwer to the Plaintiff's claim, and
the Jury returned a verdiet for the plaintiff.

HUMBERT V. HARRIS AND WIRERS.

Mr. iIt;KINE oblerved, this cafe lay within a
narrow compafs, and retied on adrniffions on both
fides. It was an at9ion brought by the Plaintiff,
who had been fccretary to Admiral Kingfmill, on
the Irith Ratio's, and putter of the Doris, when it
was ct annanded by Lord Ranclagh, and after-
wards, when the command was given to Captain
Halliday ; by Atl of Parliament, officers in the
navy were enabled to appoint agents who had cer-
tain duties affigned to them, which were not only
extremely lucrative to themfelves, but convenient
to the officers who appointed them. The Doris
having taken a prize, the Defendants, by a letter
of attorney, executed by Lord Ranelagh and his
officers, were appointed agents to manage their
concerns relative to all captures and recaptures.—
In January 18ot, the Doris was in port, and Lord
Ranelagh dying, the command was given to Cap.
tain Halliday, and on the zoth of the fame month
the Doris captured a valuable French fhip, which,
on the loth of March following, was condemned,
allotted, and arranged for fale. On the ta.th of
April the Captain and Officers made a new power
of Agency, appointing the plaintiff to act jointly
with the Defendants, he contended, that by virtue
of this power the Plaintiff was entitled jointly with
the Defendants to the profits of the Agency. The
(Ingle quetiion would be, whether the &ft power
of Attorney was revocable ?
Lord ELLINIOROUGH was of opinion, that the
Officers of the fhip could not appoint an addi►ional
agent without firti afcertaining whether the agents
before appointed wand confent to aft with him ;
and further, that before fuch appointment, they
ought to have tendered to the firft appointed agents
the amount of thole profits which had been vetted
in them. Upon the espreffion of this opinion, the
Plaintiff was nonfuited.

LONDON SESSIONS.
Yeßerday William Bowen was indicted by the
churchwardens and overfeers of the parifh of St.
Andrew, Holborn, for a mifdemeanour in having
refored to terve as a conllable of that parifb, after
he had been regularly chofen for the office by a
wardmote.
Mr. Srivarrea, the Common Serieant, Rated
to the Court the motives which had induced the
par& to commence the prefent profecution, as
oceediogfrom the contemptuous manner in which
thec defendant had treated their orders, with refpee
to his appointment as a conftable. His abode was
at No. 6, Furnival's-inn court, where be kept a
ihop as a tailor. In that llama= he had refuted
to acknowledge the authority of the Inas of St.
Andrew's, under a pretence that his horde hood
in the county of Middkfex. The Jury would,
however, fee by the evidesee if Inch an denims
could be supported. It was a matter that required
a aria iuveffigation, it was not only material to
the defendant, but alfo to the city, as it went to
afeertain the extent of its boundaries.
The witneffes for the profecution were called :
they were principally the colletiors drams belong-
ing to the parilh ; they all Paid that they had re-
ceived the different taxes for St. Andrew's, from
Bowen, who had paid them without complaining.
A map of the city was brought from the office of
works, by which it appeared that the buildings in
Furnival's-inn were in the city, and its garden was
is Middlefer. This map, however, differed greatly
from that made by Stowe. It made the Temples
in Middlefex, at the fainctime part of one isknown
to be in the city. In many other refpeas it was
erroneous.
Mr. Phips, a City Surveyor, raid, that part of
No. y, the houfe next to that in which the defen-
dant lived, was the boundary of the city ; it extend.
ed across the court to a drain which belonged to
the with, and that No. 6, was twelve feet in the
county of Middlefex.
Mr. Knowias called the evidence for the defen-
dant, the moil material of whom was Thomas
Clarke, an oaicer to the Sheriff of Middlefex : he
Paid that he lived at No. 9, in Fut nivars.inn-coort,
nearly oppofite to Mr. Bowen, in whole both he ,
could not arra a man with a London procefs;
witnefs had once executed in the defendant's book
a Middlefex procefs for 130=1. and he always be-
lieved it to he in the latter county.
Several other Sherirs officers Rated to thetas=
effea.
Thomas Wellfield, the landlord of the hoofe in
which Bowen lived, Paid that be bought the fame
at Garraway's, as a Middlefex freeholder, and he
held it as such.
Theodofius French, an officer at the Court of
Requeas in Fulwood's rents, Rated, that the ex-
tent of the boundary for Middlefex began at No.
5, in Furnival's-inn-court, part of which was in.
the laid county, and all below it in the city.
The Recorder, Sir Jona Rosa, summed up the
evidence and exprefsly Rated the erroneous appear-
ance of the maps, which had been brought toffiew
the limits of the parifh ; from them he &ferved no
pofitive information had been derived as to the
true fituation of the defendant's houfe. He was,
however, of opinion, that the latter was under the
jurifdietion of the parith, as he had paid the re-
lar rates, levied by the different officers. If the
jury were of the fame belief they would find him
guilty, and enforce the tine attached to the of
fence ; if they lhould think otherwik, they would
act sit him.
The Jury %tired for near an hour, and on their
return pronounced the dclendant—Not Gurhy.