Star.
London, England, 1827-10-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, Ocr. Is.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE this morning took his seat
ih the Old Court of King's Bench, remarking at the
time, that it was-impossible for any individual to sit in
the other place for many days together, without expo.
sing his health to peat danger.
CUNDELL V. PRATT.
This was an action to recover the rum of 9161. The
plaintiff is a livery stable keeper, residing in the Borough,
and, it appears, was a creditor of a person of the name
of Henwood, to the amount of 3001. in part security of
which he held a bill of sale of Henn (30(11 household
furniture, which was at his residence in Gloucestet•row,
Walworth. Aboat the period he was going to enter
execution, a distress for rent alleged to be due was put
in by the defendant's wife, by which a quantity of fur-
'enure to the amount now sought to be recovered was
condemned and removed. It appeared that Henwood's
wife was a relation cf old Mr. nuke, the proprietor of
the house, and that it was an understood thing that they
were to live rent free. The old Gentleman left the
Management of all his /routes to his niece,- who lived
with him, and who was the wile of the present defend-
ant, from whom he (defendant) had been separated for
upwards of twenty years, and who not being in the
slightest degree mixed up with the transactions, can
plead upon the record, as only a nominal defendant, his
wife being protected by her covertute. It appeared that
Henwood had left the country, and likewise that he had
lung been in insolvent circumstances.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS and Mr. HUTCHINSON were
for the Plaintiff. They argued, that no rent was co.
venanted or ever expected to be paid by Hammond to
Pratt, senior, and that this distraint having been put in
for the sole purpose of defeating the effect of the bill
of sale, their client was entitled to recover the amount
of th.• goods so taken away. They called the broker
who levied the distress, who stated that William Pratt
had told him at the time, that it was for the purpose of
prevenuing the goods from being taken in another way.
Mr. Sergeant SPANIELS and Mr. Sergeant JONES ridi-
culed the dea of their being a confederacy between the
parties; and endeavoured to prove that Henwood was
merely a common tenant, and consequently subject to
the payment of rent.
The LORD CHME■ JUSTICE thought the weight of
evidence, as well as all the points of law that had been
raised, clearly in favour of the Plaintiff, and under his
direction the Jury found for the Plaintiff—Damages
161. Cots 40s.

The Low) Caw Justice allowed the Defendant to
move, if he thought proper ; but he questioned if the
play would pay for the caudle,

BATHEWS P. GAIANO.

This was an acrioi; upon a Bill of Exchange, for the
amount of 111.
Mr Sergeant WILDE appeared for the Palintiff.
Mr. Sergeant LAwts, for the defendant, said, that
the main defence to this action was usury, and usury
too of the worst description. He said the circumstances
out of which the transaction arose, were shortly these:—
The defendant sent a child to a school kept by Ma
cauly, the drawer of the bill, which was given for the
amount of a half year's board and tuition. Whr n the
bill became due, Mr. Galen() applied to Macaoly for
a further extension of time, and actually gave one
pound for that indulgence. On a second application
for time, he was told by Macauly that his bill was in
the hand of Bathews, the present plaintiff. Galeno ac-
cordingly had recourse to him, and it was ultimately
agreed that the defendant should give B.ithews a dis-
count of 2/. for an additional indulgence of one month.
The defendant had thus ,given to M.scauly, the drawer
of the bill, ICOI. per cent. iiterest, and to the plaihtiff
be bad actually paid 2001. per cent.
The Learned Sergeant their called Mrs. Jaker in sup-
port c f his statement.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wittrz—l gene-
rally go by the name of Galeno. Mr. Galenois not
married ; he bas children ; the age of his youngest child
is two years, and of his eldest, tour and a half. lam
the mother of these children ; I have beet under Mr.
Galeno's protection for about six years.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought the evidence of
tffis Lady could not be received. A married man could
not call his wife as a witness on his behalf, and it would
be anomalous indeed, to allow a man living in a sinful
state io he in a better condition than if he were married.
" I am not aware (continued his Lordship) that the
point has ever been directly decided. The great diffi-
culty here is, that we have the evidence of the fact from
the woman herself. Get other proof, and I shall at
once decide that this woman is not a
.competent witness.
At the same time I must say that I would not have per-
mitted her to criminate herself, had I the slightest sus-
picion that she was going to admit her connection with
the defendant."

Mr. Sergeant WILDK then called the defendant's So-
licitor, but although he was examined at great length,
nothing tangible could be elicited horn him. He had
been often to the defendant's house ; hod dined with
him ; he had seen Mrs. Jaker in Mr. tiraleno's bed-
room whilst he was sick, but there was nothing in their
conduct which led him to conclude that she was the
another of Galeno's children; he saw her speaking to
the children, but not caressing them after the fashion of
a mother.

The Learned Sergeant then had recourse to Mr. Or-
chard, the plaintiff's Solicitor, and was more fortunate.
That Gentleman • proved that he had seen the Lady
walking with the defendant in Wilmington-square; they
were accompanied by a child, which the defendant
called his. Other circumstances occurred which ptored
that Mrs. Jaker a as its mother.

Mr. Sergeant Lewis cross-examined the witness,
without being able to remove the impression which his
direct examination was calculated to make.

Toe LORD CHIEF Jtrancs then left is to the Jury to
say, whether they believed that Mrs.Jaker was " under
the protection" of the defendant ? in considering that
point, they must altogether dismiss from their minds
Mrs. Jaime' own admission. His Lordship added, that
I.‘,rd Kenyon had refused to receive the evidence of a
woman so circumstanced in favour of her paramour's
life. Was it not equally proper to reject her evidence
when offtred leipecting his property, which she wAs to
share with him.

The Jury were of opinion, that Mrs. Jaker was living
criminally with the defendant, and theteforeiound their
verdict for the plaintiff.

Mr. Sergesni Limas applied to his Lc rdship to re•
,sane the point for the consideration of the Court; this
-tould save expense to•the pArtier, who were very poor.
'The LORD Clilit/ JUSTIOE—I shall do no such thing.
.11'10'001d be 4:pole different if I had any doubt upon the
ipint. Lord Kenyon did not doubt it—why should I
doubt it ?