Star.
London, England, 1829-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGiNCH.

COURT OP KING'S BENCH, 1 -ASSAM 21.
Beare Lord Tsitesasse and a Spada! Jury.
DREWRY E. BARRIS.
This was an action by the executor of a Gentleman
named Armitage. agai .at the defendant, as clei k or trea
surer of the Commissioners appointed by the Act of Par.
liament for paving a certain district of the parish of S..
P.ul, Shad well, for a false return to a writ of aupirdangto.
It appeared that the Commissioners had, ill
__•ny yews
ago, borrowed of Mr. Armitage a sum of NIX for the
purposes of the Act. The interest was regular ly paid until
the 'ear 1802, about which time Mr. Armitage died, and
the plaintiff became his executor. No intetest haying
been paid since that time, the plaintiff, alter filing a bill
in Chancery. obtained lion) the Court of King's Reach
a writ of ftandamrs to compel the Commissioners to
pay the principal money and interest. The return madr
to that writ was—first, that the money was not due;
secondly. that it had been paid; thirdly, that tie Com-
missioners were possessed of no funds; and lovably,
that they had no authority to pay. lt was now cow
tended for the Commissioners that payment ought to be
[smarmed from the long time that had elapsed. For
the plaintiff, however, it was urged, that twenty years
had not elapsed from the passing of the general act of
the 50th of the late King. till the demand for payment
made in the year 1825, and that toe presumption of
payment was destroyed by the circumstance r f the debt
being tegularly entered in the Commissioner,' books.
Vetd.ct for the plaintiff—Damages, 3001.
Befute Lord TENTERDZII and Common Juries.
MARTINEAU v. SMITH.

This WAS an action on a promissory note fir 1 900/.
payable by instalments. The note purpot led to be made
by the defendant, a farmer at Hertford, and his son in
law, George Edwards, an attorney at St. Alban's. The
plaintiff, a banker at S.. Alban's, bad accommodated
Edwards wi.h the loan of a large sum of money, and
the note in question was given by him as a security to
the plaintiff, who on receiving it, delivered up son:a
other securities which he had previously held. 'limn to
was dated the 2d of August, 1827. Some r.f the instal-
menu had been paid, and the plaintiff now claimed a
balance of 8471. for principal and interest. The action
was defended on the ground that the signature to the note
WAS not in the handwa sting of the defendant, who had
received no consideration for the note. Several witnesses
fur the plaintiff spike to their belief that the signature
was in the handwri ing .•f the d fendant. The wttttes•es
for the defendant (six in number) believed that the sig.
nature was not written by the defendant. o.e of them
said it was nothing like the character of the defendant's
handwriting, but two or three others said it was a very
good imitation.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 8471.
MARTINEAU V. EDWANDS.

This was an action, by the same plaintiff, to recover
a balance cif 1.2544 6s. 2d. on the tame note, and another
for 4101. There was no defence. Pronf of the d tent.-
ant's (George Edwards) handwriting being given, a vet-
dict was entered for the plaintiff.

Sittings before Mr. Justice Baraar, Mr. Justice larmanaLs, and
Sir JAMBS PARKS.

OODWIN V. ROIIIIITS.

This action, which wie tried befo,e Mr. Justice PArk

at the last D. rchester Assizes, was to recover the value
of a bill of exchange. alleg.'d by the pl rintiff to have
been by hm accepted for the accommodation of the de-
fendant. From the not sof the trial, it appeared that
the plaintiff's brother swore that the defendant ad-
mitted to him that the bill was an accommodation bil ;
and that he had asked for a loan s.f SOL to assist him rte
taking it up. To falsify this. a letter in the handwriting
of the plaintiff himself was produced, expressing-his re
glet that he could not p .y the bill which wasthen abootio
become due, but poetising to pay pats immed.a lel y, and
some more in a month. The pl snuff then called It e
Sheriffs' officer, who swore that the defendant, on being
wrested, said that he knew he owed the motley. The
Jury, upon this evidence, found for the plaintiff Last
term, a rule Nisi was obtained t ,r a new tend, on the
ground that the evidence of the Sheriffs' officer came
upon the defendant by surprise, and that it was false.
In support I f this, the defendant, and two persons who
mere present. swore th.t the defendant, on being se.
rested, said that she plaintiff was a great rogue for having
arrested him, as he ( he plaintiff). owed him money.
Mr. Sergeant E. LAWS; now appealed to orpose, and
Mr. Eat.' and Mr. Ilmtarlw to support, the ruse.
The Cowry were of opinion, that vie case ought to
be again submitted to a Jury, anJ thettfine made the
rule ab,o!ute.
The four Judges sit in bona. to-morrow (this doy),
and take cases in the new trial paper.
COURT OF COMMON PLRAS, JAM. CI.
LANZ V %MILKY AND OTHERS.

This was a Special Jury cause, hut only siz Jurymen
answered to their names; the remainder were fined in
the mitigated penalty I f 101. each; a tales was then
prayed, and the c.,use proco eded. One of tioe Jurymen
afterward. entered the Conti, and asked to be eztu ed,
on t. e ground of being d. tained on very urgent business.
The LORD CHIRP JU-TICC said that his attendance
in Court was the more urgent, as the parties were put
to a very serious inconvenience by the non•attendance
of special Jurymen, but he woulJ this time take that
'scone. His Lordship afterwards fined the summoning
officer in the penalty of 40s. for not being present at the
sitting of the Coml.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, formerly
secretary to the Imperial Distillery Company, to recover
the amount of his salary for nine months, at the rate of
5001. per annum, from the defendants, who were share-
holders. The names of Mr. P. M0.0.e and John Willis,
jun. stood as Directors in this Association.
There was great difficulty to prove the facts in this
ease, some letters not being evidence unless stamped.
The LORD CHIEF Juarscs observed, that he was de-
sirous that all the laws relating to stamps were repealed.
Ia the course of his eapetience he had known them to
work more injustice than any other acts of the Legis•
lature.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY submitted that the plaintiff had
not proved his case.
The Luau Cum Justus said he must call ups*
'him fur a defecce. lithe proprietors had succeeded is
their golden dreams, the defendatts, as shareholders,
would have ezpected a share. Where a person specs.
lated in such bubbles to obtain great profits, he ought
also to take his chance in the loss; but he (the Lord
Chief Justice) wished he could make the directors, who
had held themselves out as decoy-ducks to entice rie
public into these speculations, pay the salaries of the
servants of the company.
Mr. Sergeant TADDIN in defence, stated that
. _

should prove that the defendants were 'arced out of
the Company by the plaintiff, in consequence of the
di-fondants not advancing the third instaleseot of 51.
per shwa In eamehasioa, tba Loathed Counsel said
it was possible to let posterity know the serioos is
jury their aocestors bad sustained by these babbles,
which hid now happily boost He urishoti. be wild

'have it writtea on the mountains of Peril gni M.1:01
And all other places there these bubbles had extended
heir baneful influence: and he wished he coulJ
all clerks and *ecretarir*, together with the directors,
.0 follow the Lord Mayor's show, that posterity might
.feriJe inch infamous undertakings. The letter watt
then put in and read, N hich stated, that if the de-
tentlints did n. .t tome forward and pay the it:.
stalments of 51. per share, they would abandon all
tut re-t, at cot ding to the deed of cowing ership. and
would hot b: et titled to any profits arising from the
Tech' ttion in which the Company was engaged.
Mr. Serg,ant WILDS in reply sail, that tt.e defence
would not assist the defendants. The Directo.s had not
cat vied the threats usr d in the letter into execution, and
the, .fore the defendants were not te.eased Iron their
liability ; that had been decided by this Court many
years since, and therefore his client had a rig' t to their
verdict.

The LORD CUM JUSTICa said. this was merely a
case of partnership. Every partner was liable to the
debts of the concern. The question was, were these
persons partners? It appeared they hector) e share-
holders in the middle of June, 1825. and if this veto.
Winn had gone on prosperously, they would have been
entitled to a share of the profits during the time they
(Anoint" d partners. Fur the defence it was alleged that
the shares were forfeited ; but as the law stair d, it the
other partners waved the right of forfeiting the shays,
then the defendants remained pastor IN. If the JNry
the tight the defendants were partners. then the ietdiet
must be fur the plaintiff; but if. on the contrary, the
D.,ectors enforced the partnership deed, then the de.
lenslants must have the benefit of their decisir n.
The Jury, after deliberaiing a few minutes, asked the
,Lord Chief Ju Lice several questions, which teing an.
sleeted. they again consul ed, and returned a verdict
I r the plaintiff.— Damages 3751.
PF.DLIT tJ. WILLCSLLT.
M.. Sergeant Cunha and Mr. IiII..DRICIC appeared for
the plaintiff. The Emmet rtatrd that tins was an actei.n
brought to mover a sum of money ...compensation foe
services performed by the plaintiff f r the defendant, inn.
procuring the attendance t f witne•ses, aid in obtainer g
evidence relating to the appeal in which Mr Wellesley
was cum din the H •use of Lords. The Jury *mold
probably ri collect, that in the early part of t.te la t
year, Mr. Wellesley a as engaged in an important litiga.
Pon in the Court of Chancery, in which t! e Lord Chan-
cel!• r had give.. judgment against him. Front that judge
meat Mr. W. had thought proper to sppe rl to the House
if Lords; acrd when his case was remove) 'Whet, he
lime:tied to suppose that he would be allowed to adduce
new evidence upon it. To do this it was nesessai y for him
to collect the testiniony of p. rsoris resident in London
and in Paris, and for that purpose he requited t,,e
assi .IROCC of 4 man in the habit of fp viewing both these
cities. Such a person he brand in the plaintiff, who
was an Engl shoran, but who had been catty ing on
trade in Paris as a manufactnier of minetal waters.
He the broth. r of two persons who had long car•
ieJ on the same business in Lood.in. Mi. Wellesley
applied to the plaintiff to come over to th s cou.itty. a
requisition with which be immediately complied. and
on his rrival here Ire went to a hiuse occupied by
Mrs. Bligh, in Biker-street. where he met Mr. Welles.
ley. Mrs. high, Mt• Powell. their Solicitor. and Colonel
Paterson, the father of Mrs. Bligh. The fit at thing these
parties did was to hold a conteresce together as to
the cour e to be pursued ; and it was arranged that the
plaintiff should sleep in Colonel Pat. rot n's house
that night. and should go off the next morning to f Cols
Mrs. Scott from Peri . He did so, anif intro eshwely
returned with her to this count! y. Ile • fter wards made
a second journey to Peas to fetch a Mr. 0' %leara;
but as the Courts here did not possess the poser of
entoteng the attendance of witnesses residing out of
'keit jorisdictioo, be moaned • i bout having sue-
ire•led in the abject of his missi: n. When he came
back he was placed in lodgings by Colonel Paterson.
who paid for those I dgings, and who also wiled some
pat t eat the platiours chartors fur expenses, a. Ai I Met.
Insley did nor Ilk: to ap, ear in any.pecuniat y toait:ac-
ton connected with the business. don.e espeirses t f
the plaintiff, however, still re I. mined unpai.l, and lie had
lece.ved no remuneration for his loss of time, for the
set vice be had palmated, or for the loss he had sus-
tained in s.eglecting his own business to attend to that
of .lr. 'Wellesley. It was to recover s. me compensa.
ton for these services and this bitable, that the present
action was in.tituted. The defend .nt alight say that
he had reaped no I enafit fonm these services, for that he
as not stiffesei to give fresh evade' ce in the flo ise of
Lords; and that although he had a.teurpted to turn
,that ev:dence to account in an indictm nt be had pse.
rr. d at. the sessions, Le had tailed in doing so, as the
that d Jury threw out the bill. This de vice, how.
eser, was no answer to the plaintoff's demand; that
demand would be proved from the enemy's quarters,
but he had no doubt he should be able to make ut his
C 45e.

Colonel Pate, son was rut into the box, and he prem. d
that the plaint•ff had peilitrined the rervice► stated; but
from the Colonel's evidence it appeased that be had
himself given the detections to the plaintiff, and had
paid him money on account of the expenses incurred.
That money had, in two instances, been repaid him by
his daughter. She was at that time living in the same
house with Mr. Wellesley. llie money was paid to wit•
ness in a dressing-reborn adjoinii•g Mr. Welle,ley's bed•
room. Witness did not ask her where the got the
money. He never asked questi ins ; tie trolley was
tepid to him, and that he considtre I s fficitnt ; I.e toe*
tv.i► trouble,
.and he incurred there exl•ensts, tor the
benefit of his injured daughter, and he would have paid
thirty times as much f be h .d bad it. The plaihtiff
always received hib directions and money from witness.
Mr. Wellesley never ante' (net! in the m.rter.
Mr. Sergeant Caoss directed the Geier of the Court
to call Helen Bligh, otherwise Well sley.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS asked Colonel Paterson,whether
he had not been present at his daughter's marriage to
Mr. Wellebley,
Colonel Paterson answered in the affirmative, and
added, that the marriage took place in Nov. last.
Mr. Sergeant WILDI objected, that a wife could not
be admitted to give evidence against her husband.
Mr. Sergeant Carus said, she had received her sob•
cena before this marriage,and it could not be pee mitied
to one party to deprive another of a witness, by marry-,
ing her in the mean time—(Laughter).
Ttie LORD CUM JUSTICe thought it was not very
likely that many witnesses would be withdrawn from
causes in that manner—(Continued laughter).
Mr. BRODRIOIC said, there had been a case in which
the Court held, that an underwriter, who had acquired'
an interest in a policy subsequent to receiving his sub•
pans, was still liable to be examined ass witness iu the
cause—(Loud laughter).
The LORD Cam Jusuce could not conceive that
there was any resemblance between a wife and as
derwriter, and he should reject the evidence.
Susannah Scutt was then called, and she describe*
the employment of her.elf and the plaintiff, as havink
bees originally masked•oat in a tonversatina hem"

her and Mr. Wellesley upon her first arrival in London.
She often saw Mr. Wellesley afterwards, but never spoke
to him, as it was ensiled that he should not appear in
the business, although In h's first interview with her he
had promised her protection, and an annuity of 1501.
for Tile, if she would do what was required. Colonel
Paterson, ton, told her that when she was speaking to
him or to Mr. Powell, she might consider herself as
Speaking to Mr. Wellesley. When she found that they
w -wed her to contradict her former evidence in the
Court of Chancery,and to entrap her into an indictment
for conspiracy, in order that she.inght turn round and
b., King's evidence, sbe refused and quitted the country.
She swore that her expenses had been paid by Pedley.
On cross examination she was repeatedly asked if she
had not represented that she bad'gone to inns at Henley,
Oxford, Wallingford, Dartford, and Lestherhead, with
a man timed Nixon, the clerk of the attornies engaged
against the present defendant? whether she had not ac-
knowledged sleeping at those places with Nixon ? and
whether the journey she had spoken of had not been
undertaken in order that she might be identified by the
servants at those various inns? She answered these
questions at first in the negative, but upon their being
pressed,
The LORD CHM Jure= said,. that such admissions
would be evidence against her in the Ecclesiastical
Court, and she was nut bound to make them. His Lord.
ship regretted with Mr. Justice Blackstone, that there
was no other punishment for adultery in this country
than what could be inflicted by the feeble arm of the
Ecclesiastical Court; but still a witness was not obliged
to tender herself liable even to that punishment.
Mr,'Sergeant WILDS put into the witness's band a
. paper, desiring to know whether that WAS her signa-
ture attached to it? She answered in the affirmative.
and the paper was handed in to the officer to be read.
The very first sentence of this paper made the admis.
anon which the Lord Chief Justice had deleted he would
mot receive.
His LORDSHIP complained of this proceeding, and
after some warm discussion between him and the
Learn d Sergeant, the paper was rejected: The cross.
ersmination was then continued, and she swore that
although she.had signed this paper she did not know its
cement.. and that the paper prepared by Mt. Powell
as he statement was not the statement read in Court,
and did not begin in tile same manner. She adMitted
.that she had been at these various places with Nixon,
bid that when she senit round again to their: with Ped-
ley and 14 ickham, the clerk of Mr. M hitelock. Mr.
Wellesley's attorney, she did not know fir what pu
pose she had been taken to them. and she did not dii.
cover until Deafly the end of the business.
Butliven, the plias finer, who had accompanied
r to her husband's residence on her arrival in town,
as she pretended to be alarmed at his passion', was called
.to prove the esrployment of Peale y by the defendant.
but gate no materi.et evidence on the point; and in his
-cio,examotation, distinctly stated that Susannah Stott
had t him she came to England for the purposes
alluded to by Mt. Sergeant %Ade, and which she had
just .icnied.
Mr. Sergeant WILDR submitted that there was nu
evidence to go to the Jury in support of the pl.tiutiff
CAA'.

The Lotto CIIIEW JUSTIcg %%as of the same opinion.
an J the Jury exprebsing their belief th it the credit had
been given to Colonel Paterbon, and not to Mi.Welles-
ley,the plaintiff w•a► tionsuited.

Mr. P.uwell wished to address the Court as to the
'statements made regarding him by Susannah S.ott,
whom he cosld compla, ly contradict; but as the Cililbe
was at an end, the Lord Chief Justice refused to hear
bun. However, at the moment his Lordship was about
to leave the Court, lie said viat, in justice to Mr. Powell,
br was bound to observe, from all he knew of that
Gentleman, he was incapable of acting in a dishonour.
able manner.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Jas. 21.
THR CAMBRIAN.

The KING.B A DVOCA Tit applied for head-money, for
the officers and crew of his Majesty's ship, Cambrian.
In the year 182.5. the ship was stationed on the African
coast, for the purpose of suppte•sing piracy. About
that rime she fell in with a Spanish privateer, carrying
sixty men, with which she had an engagement, and
captured ; f nrceen of the pirates were killed, nineteen
cf them made ptisoners, and the rest, it was supposed,
were droned, the vessel having been set on fire.
The Counz decreed head m•,ney for sixty men.
VIZ ADRLAIDE.
This was an appeal from Bei muda, in respect to
certain slaves seized by Captain Jones, of his Maje,ty's
ship Orestes, on board a trading vessel proceeding from
the port of Hamilton, in Bermuda, to Trinidad, for an

alleged contravention of the slave laws. The facts of
the case were fully detailed in our report of the pm-
ceedings last term, when the querion was partly arguet4.
The KING'S ADVOCATS appeared this day on behalf
of the Crown, and observed that no appearance had at
first been given on the Crown's par ; hot in conse-
quence of a communication horn the Colonial Office,
he had considered the subject, and he thouOt it a C4' e
in which it was proper that the Crown should intet-
Irene. with a view of protecting Captain Jones (slo,
bid exerted himself very merittuionsl)) from any pre-
joidice. He (Sir H. Jenner) should be satisfied to
leave the case on the argument which had been of-
feted by Doctor Lushingto.n. Th- opinion of the
Court would depend upon the Enna fides of the patties.
The Act of Parboil rut prohibited the sending away
of any slaves, except in cases esi.ecially provided, and
he contended that no tie of the exceptions coveted this
case. He was not called upon to negative every ex-
ception, but there was a general and universal pn hi-
bition, and the parties were bound to bring their case
within the exceptions pointed out. With regard to the
alleged loo:eness of the information, it was stifficient to
inform the patty of his offence; there could be no
mistake as to the 'mute, for the consolidated slave-
* law had repealed all the farmer statutes. The pelt)
had even met the charge, alleging that •he biases
were domestic, thereby Joining issue. As to the
objection, why had the parties not been proceeded
against as felons ? he would reply, that they
might still be ; but, whether or not, the omission
afforded no answer to the proceedings m this Cvort for
penalties. The Act of Parliament, in order to put an
effectual stop to this practice by every possible means,
had provided for both species of prosecution. The
Learned Advocate then went into many of the topics
urged before by Dr. Lushington, observing that the
transaction in this case was exactly that which it was
the' object of Parliament to prevent, and that if the
Caen affirmed the sentence of the Court below, there
was nothing to prevent the whole slave population of
Bermuda from being conveyed to other islands, and
• being converted from menials and domestics tts field
slaves there.
Dr. Dotson", in reply, animadverted upon the severe
' msemarki.hith had been applied by Dr. Lushington to
'lbw daimons id this cause, who had been denounced
as a set of people who had systematically, and from the

worst motivet, opposed themselves to the Legidatore
of Great Britain. Such a sweepicg denunciation was
not very liberal; but k did not proceed firm his
own mind, but from his instructions—not those given
him by his own particular client (who had shown a
real liberality), but from certain self-styled li'serals, who
would not suffer others to think differently from them-
selves. Acting upon these instructions, he had declared
that it was an insult to common sense to suppose
Mr. M'Alister to possess any bowels of compasskon ;
that he and Mr. Wainwright looked to their God, and
that God was mammon. This only showed that the
charity of Dr. Luthington's instructions was on a tooting
with their liberality. It had been sworn by Mr. M,Alister,
that he had purchased the children for no other reason
than that they might not be separated from their mother.
He would not say of the individuals to whom he alluded,
that their God was mammon, but he was sine that god-
liness was great gain to them. Dr. Dodson then reite
rated his objectien against the information, on tl e
ground that no exportation had taken place, the vessel
not having quitted her port.
Here a chart, showing the situation of the vessel at
the time of seizure, was given to the Judge, whence it
appeared that the Adelaide had, the day previous to
the seizure, quitted Hamilton, crossed the Great Sound,
and anchored off the extreme point of Ireland island.
Mr. DODSON proceeded to deny the' universality of the
clauses on which the information was founded, and
contend;ng that the special exception clauses were those
upon which It should have proceeded, the universal
clauses, as they were termed, not applying to the present
case, or to any case where tt,e slaves were domestic.—
That these were domestic slaves was clear; Hannah;
'the mother, was a laundress, and the children were born
in a domestic character, and never bore any other. On
the whole, he maintained ti.at there was sufficient to
satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court, that the sen-
tence of the Judge below ought to be affirme.f.
Sir C. Rostrum/ said, that he should give the ques-
tion that attention which its importance demanded,
previous to deciding it.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, JAS. 21.

OLD COURT.

The Court did notsilttli past ten o'clock this morn•
ing. on account of the execution.
Charles Smith was indicted for stealing a coat, value
31. the property of John Leaman—Guilty.
The prisoner, on hearing the verdict pronounced,
burst into te4rs, and declared the witnesses against him
had sworn faisely.
The RaconDart said, on account of the great distress
it appeate.t the prisoner was in at the time of the rob-
bery, the Ciitirt would only ►entence him to be impri-
soned for thtee moi.ths.

Edward 13illeii, aged 14., Meat Cooper, aged 16,
and Hears Biggs, aged 17, three young rogues. were
indicted for steeling thirty-six yards of carper, value
42.51. isle property of Richard F4Mcett and Co. Verdict,
Gouty
The officer stated, that all the prisoners were notori
ous bed characters, and well known to the P lice.

The Itt.COnDti immediately ordeted them up fer
judgment, and sentenced them tst be transported for
'even /ears.
Wand° Douglas Talver, age] 18, woo indicted fot
einbezaling several sums of money. the property of his
master, Mr. John Hood, baltrr.—Guilty, but strongly
recommended to mercy by the Jury, m which the pso-
secutos joined.
The RICORDeIt. in passing sentence, said that owing
to the condition the prisoner had shown, and ti-e re-
comfy eudatton of the prosecutor to mercy, the Court
woulJ only order him to be imprisoned three months
and kept to hard labour. If it had not been• for the
con.idet anon. above mentioned, he would c. rtainly have
b. en sent oat of the counts y.
John Jones was indicted for stealing a parcel from
the coach-laid of Gerard's Hall, cont4ining a crtatuity
..1 wilting paper, value 41. 1.5 i. the property or Mrs.
Gibbons.—Guilty.
The prisoner pleaded hard for mercy on account of
his wile and four small children. Ile was sentenced to
be transported for seven years.
This being the last case for trial, the Court adjourned.