Star.
London, England, 1821-12-13 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Yesterday, Henry Cris was indicted for fraud.
Mr. WALFORD stated the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner, he said, was one of those who, by false
representations, induced persons to believe that they
were attornies, and obtained from them sums of money
on pretence of carrying on suits for them without
having any authority to perform their undertaking ;
by which those who confided in them lost the causes
they entrusted to their care, as well as the money they
advanced for carrying on their suits. The present
case was a very aggravated one of the kind, as Mr.
Everest, the prosecutor, had not only paid the pri-
soner £72 for his costs, but, in consequence of his
conduct, had £l4O costs to pay to the Crown, which
he otherwise should not.

Peter Everest, the prosecutor, stated, that previous
to the 3d of July last lie kept a public-house In the
Flay market, and in consequence of improvements
making there, he was, on the 4th of May last, served
with a declaration of ejectment at the suit of the
Crown, a copy of which he produced. The prisoner,
whom he had known as clerk to Mr. Coleman, his
Attorney, came into his house a few hours after.—
Witness said to him, you are the sort of man I wanted
to see, and shewing him the paper, added, that he
was just going to take it to Mr. Coleman, to see wive
was to be done. The prisoner told him that he had
left Mr. Coleman, and was following business for
himself, and would defend him. Witness agreed to
employ him, saying, " I know you won't deceive me."
The prisoner replied, " he'd as soon cut his arm off."
In about a fortnight, the prisoner came to him and
told him the business was going on rapidly, and asked
for £lO on account ; witness gave him Rine guineas.
In a few days after the prisoner came again, and said
all was going on well, and got more money ; and
continued, by representations of the same sort, to get
' various sums, which in August amounted to £72.
On the 3d of July, the witness was put out of his
house by execution under the ejectment, and his goods
all sold to pay the costs. The prisoner still desired
him not to be afraid, for he would make them suffer.
On his cross-examination by Mr. AnnREWS, he ad-
mitted, that on inquiring of the prisoner in the month
of July, whether he was carrying on the defence in
his own name, he told him that he was not, but that
he was beating them all to bits ; he gave the prisoner
several sums of money after this information.
A witness proved that he had examined the Roll
of Attounies in the Court of king's Bench, and that
the prisoner's name was not there.
Mr. ANORRWS addressed the Jury for the prisoner,
but called no witnesses.

The Jury, without any hesitation, found the pri-
soner—Gut/Iy.
The Cu AIRMAx said, the offence of which the pri-
soner had been found guilty, was one of great enor-
mity, and was become so frequent that it must be
checked by making an example; the judgment of the
Court, therefore, was, that he should be transported
for seven years.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 12

WARRANTY OF A HORSE.
COOK le V. JONES.

Mr. Serjeant FELL stated the case, which, he ob-
served, was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Gen-
tleman residing near Bloomsbury, to recover £5O
paid for a horse upon a warranty. The horse had
been advertised for sale in the public papers, in con-
sequence of which the plaintiff had applied to Mr.
Harris, at whose stables he then was, and offered to
become his purchaser at £9O, which, however, was
refused. Soon after this the horse was. sold to the
defendant, and the plaintiff being an elderly Gentle-
man, and having rather delicate health, was anxious
to have the horse, Hs it had been represented as being
very gentle and docile. The defendant at first re-
fused to sell the horse, but theillaintiff pressing him
on the subject, he subsequently offered to sell him to
the plaintiff for C5O. The defendant was required,
at the time of the sole, to give a warranty, to which
he agreed, and on the breach of this warranty the
present action was founded. It would be proved to
them by a Gentleman whose opinion was of the
greatest value in these cases, that the horse had an
enlargement of the bone at that time, and that this
enlargement had been of long standing. He would
not attempt to disguise the plaintiff's anxious wish to
have the horse. It had been described as being very
gentle, and as the plaintiff was in a very delicate
state of health, such a horse was peculiarly desirable
to him. The Learned Serjeant then called,
Miss Mary Jones, the daughter of the defendant,
who proved her father's signature to the warranty.
Mr. Field, a veterinary surgeon, proved that on
the sth of October the horse was unsound. One of
the bones forming the fetlock joint was about half as
big again as the joint of a sound and healthy horse;
the leg had a great number of windgalls on it.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, con-
tended that the case was entirely against. the plain-
tiff, except by the evidence of Mr. Field, and to that
Gentleman he should oppose Mr. Sewell, who was
well known to be of as high repute as any Gentle-
man of the same profession, and whose .evidence
might be weighed against that of Mr. Field.
Mr. Browne, the former owner of the horse, had
kept him from the 11th of June to the 20th of Sep-
tember. He had worked the horse every day, and
had ridden ,down to Winchester on him in one day,
where he remained another, and returned on the
third. The horse was perfectly sound.
Mr. Sewell thought there was nothing in the
horse's leg but what might have arisen since he was
purchased. The horse's leg was slightly inflamed in
consequence of a sprain,
Mr. Serjeant Pau, in reply, insisted that the evi-
dence pioduced by die defendant had confirmed the:
plaintiff's case. The injury appearvili from the evi-