Star.
London, England, 1821-12-20 00:00:00

LA INTELLIGEN6E.

COVRT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 19.
WARTLASY 0. WARTLASY.
This was a motion made by Mr. HART, praying his
Lordship to direct a bill, which had been filed by the
mother of the applicant, Mr. led by to
be struck off the file, on the giotesTlir that the Lady in:
question was not capable of acting for herself at the,
time she was supposed to have directed the proceedH
ing. In support of the -application various affidavits
had been filed to thew that the allegations in support
of the anodise were well founded, an the course of
which it was stated, that the Lady in question had
denied that sl* had ordered the proceedings to be
commenced against her sou, who had filed a cross-
at against the parties, in consequence of his having
been served with notice of ejectment from the house an
which he lived, byone of his brothers and other persons.
Mr. Haar and Mr. HEALD having been heard at
some length, the Loan Cnaoceuna, at four o'clock,.
postponed the farther hearing.
On his Lordship's rising to ietwe the Court, a Lady
sawed Stubbs, rose amongst the Counsel, and told-
lag up two papers, said, " Will your Lordship allow'
me to address you on this petition?" The novelty of
the application attracted immediate notice, and,
The Loan CRANCELLOIt, apparently surprised, an-:
swered, 44 Not it present," and left the Bauch.
MORT OF KINGS pcm-11, DECEMBER is.
mans/um 'V. TAYLOR.
This was an action by a ship broker, to recover his
oorneaission and brokage upon a cargo procured for
a ship of the defendant, called the Canadian Brig. at
and from London to Su Kites.
The plaintiff, by his witnesses, peeved, that be had
procured a cargo for the ship on the voyage in ques-
tion, and that the defendant had refused to permit
the vessel to go to St. Kites, on account of the late-
ness of the season, whereby the plaintiff lost the ad-
vantage to which he would have been elided, had
she been permitted to saiL
The defence in substanoe was, that the defendant
was not bound by the bargain, the contract not being
conclusive, and that the plaintiff had offered the same
eargo to the owners of another ship.
he case, however, wilt to the Jury, under the
Learned Judge's directions, and they forted their ver-
dict for the phiintiff—Damages US.
DAWSOW V. 11EVLa4.
Mr. Roatirsow opened the pleadings, from which
this appeared so be an action of assault, to which the
defendant had pleaded first Not Guilty, and, secondly,
sos asses& dente:ate.
Mr. Seeant VAIIONAW stated, that, in this CAIN
the defendant was the master of a coal vessel, and
the plaintiff a ligliterman employed upon the River
Thames. On the 22d of October last, the plaintiff
wishing to go on board a vessel called the Freedom,
had passed over some ships lying is a tier, aad,
among others, that of the defendant called the Eagle,'
and on Catlin himself in the defendasu's vessel he
had thought-he might as well take advantage of the
opposuanity, and ask Inc the payment of some money
which the defendant owed him. In reply-to this de-
mand, the defendant had been guilty of using not
only gross abuse, but also violent and, he would add,
almost ferocious treatment; he had even proceeded
to far as to kick the plaintiff in a part which might
have proved dangerous to his health or even his life.
Thomas Tulloch was on board the Ellison on the
day in question; his vessel was on the larboard of the
Eagle; bOth were oolfiers; knew the Freedom, and
thought she was in the tier; it was customary for
persons going to any vessel to pass over others which
aught be in a tier with the one to which they were
going. The plaintiff was passing in that manner
over the &fatalism's vescl, when the witness heard
the word rascal," and on turning round saw the
defendant strike and kick the plaintiff, and order bun
out of the ship ; the plaintiff did not retire the blows
many blows passed from defendant; he kicked the
plaintiff down by the side of the ship, using at die
same time abusive language, too gross to be repeated.
George Wynne was on board the Ellison on the
day in question; he did not hear anything pass be-
tween them before tie saw the defendant strike and
kick the plaintiff violently.
Mr. Serjeant Hutooce' for the defendant, con-
tended that the plaintiff had evidently gone on board
the Eagle for the purpose of provoking the defendant.
James Richmond was a seaman on board the Eagle
ion the day in question; first saw the plaintiff when
he got op the deck of that vessel ; he demanded 15s.
to which the Captain said he did not owe him 1.55.
and he would not pay him. Plaintiff then called the
defendant a d—d rogue and rascal, and said he
would serve defendant as he had served him before.
Plaintiff then struck at him several times. Defendant
then collared the plaintiff, and striking him once or
twice, told him to go out of the ship.
Mr. Serjeant Vaulitan replied on the part of the
plaintiff.—Verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. DECEMBER D.
ROBINSON V. GRAY.
Mr. Serjeant Paul, stated, that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of the estate and
effects of George Hawley, a bankrupt, who bad
lately resided in Shadwell, and carried on the busi-
ness of a cheesemonger, to recover the sum of £4OO,
alleged to have been lent to him by the defendant,
Sarah Gray. She was the daughter of a Mr. Gray,
who a feu, years since carried on an extensive busi-
ness as a confectioner, at Maidstone. After his
death, which took place in 1819, the defendant al-
leged she had lent to Hawley the sum in question,
which was repaid in the June following. When
Hawley became bankrupt, the Commissioners having
some doubts as to the truth of this transaction, sent
for the defendant, and examined her very strictly on
the subject. At that examination she stated first,
that £3OO, of which the loan formed part, came into
her possession, as a legacy bequeathed to her by her
father's will, but afterwards contradicted that state-
ment, and said her father had privately taken the
money out of his business, and given it to her before
his death. The Commissioners, observing on the
difference of the two statements, threatened to send
her to Newgate, but she persisted in the last declara-
tion; and they then asked her what had become of
the rtmainder of the £6OO ? To which she replied,
that she had spent part, and lost the rest of it in
trade, but was unable satisfactorily to prove that
statement. She had further declared, that she had
received this money by a sale of stock since her
mother's death, but that also would be proved to be

totally unfounded. The Learned Se; jeans then pro•
seeded to say, that he should show that MT. Gta
had lived on terms of the greatest affection with hi,
wife, and had only given by his will a re-iduary in-
terest to his daughter, in the property he !xwesse
There was no doubt that the money had actually
been paid by the bankrupt in June, 18'20; bat the
question for their consideration was, whether it had
ever been lent to him, or whether the whole was not
an invention of the parties, for the purpose of de-
frauding Hawley's creditors?
Hannah Gray, aunt of the defendant, proved that
Mr. Gray had carried on an ostensive business at
Maidstone. He had subsequently !,old it and taken
a small shop in Stoke Newington. lie possessed
some property, but in her judgment not sufficient to,
live upon without business. After his death Mrs.
Gray and her daughter removed to Shadwell, and
carried on the tea trade. Mr. Gray behaved towards

his wife with great affection. He did not seem to
have a more than ordinary attachment to his daugh-
ter. Mrs. Gray was not before her death incapable
of managing business.
The Will of Mr. Gray was produced, by which he
gave his property to his wife for lite, but in case she
married, it was to go over to his daughter and
her issue. The property sworn to was under £GOO is
the Five per Cents- He directs them to go into some
little business, and if they should want money for
that purpoqe, they are to sell out to the extent of
£lOO or £2OO. The Will concludes recommending
to the defendant—" My dear child, be dutiful and
kind to your mother, and Gon will reward you for it."
The first witness was then recalled : she said there
had been a search for the will after Mr. Gray's death,
and it was ultimately found in tee possession of the

daughter.
Mr. Muchett, the stock-broker, proved that he
had sold oat stock for Mrs. Gray, when she was
about to commence business, but none for the defend-
ant alone. The stock sold out amnunted to £lOO.
Mr. Setjeant VAUGUA 11, tor the` defendant, sub-
mitted, that auto itlistanding what the Com t had just'
heard detailed hi evidence, the cloy for the plaintiff,
was not satisfactorily proved. He . had very little
doubt in saying that the witnesses he should call
would entitle hint to a verdict, for he should prove
from the evidence of the bankrupt and his wife, that
the money had actually been lent by the defendant
to him ten months before its repayment, and, conse-
Ilqueotly, before a bankruptcy was in contemplation.
IHe should be able to clear his client completely from
'the imputation of fraud and perjury, which had been
cast upon her.
The two first witnesses called for the defence,
proved that the defendant's father had always ex-
pressed a very strong attachment to his daughter,
and had declared to them that he should leave his
property co her, as his wife's intellects were so weak,
he feared she would not be able Us take proper care
of it. Mr. Gray was a man of considerable property.'
George Hawley, the bankrupt, deposed, that in
August, 1819, being rather embarrassed in his cir-
cumstances, his wife had requested a loan of £4OO
front the defeadant, who Aid, she would consider for
a few days, and then return an answer; at the end of
that time, the defendant came to his house, and de..
posited the money on his table, but took no security
for it, nor would she accept any interest; witness'
took up the money and put it in his cash-box. and
made a memorandum of the transaction in a private
book; this book had not been given up to the as-
signee under his commission. The witness produced
thebook and a receipt, which the defendant gave
him in June,lB2o, on the re-payment of the loan:
both were handed to the Jury, who examined them.
Mrs. Hawley corroborated the evidence of her hus-
band in every respect.
Mr.Serjeant Pau. replied to the evidence adduced
for the defendant.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS then charged the Jory.
After impartially. observing on the testimony of the
different witnesses, he said, that the question for their
consideration was, whether the defendant had ever
been possessed a this money, and had lent it to the
bankrupt, or whether the loan was not a fictitious
transaction, invented to defraud the creditors of Haw-
ley? He recommended the case to their most seri-
ens attention, as the point involved was of the ut-
most importance to the character of the parties.
The Jury retied for about ten minutes, and then
returned a verdict for the defendant, by which the
charge of fraud was negatived.
SECONDARrS OFFICE. DECEMBER it.
Jolib:soN O. iouxsont AND HOLLER.
This was an action for a breach of covenant.
Setjeant Huttoet stated the plaintiff's case, by
which it appeared, that in chi year 1814, the plaintiff
entered into the tea trade, in partnership with the
defendants and the brother of Mr. Holler, who had
since died, under the firm of Holler, Johnson, John-
son, and Holler. In the month of May, 1815, a deed
was entered into and executed by all the parties, by
which the partnership was dissolved, and the amount
of capital in the trade belonging to the plaintiff was
declared to be £6678; the payment of £6078 of
which it was agreed should be secured to the plain-
tiC which was accordingly done, and the money
since paid, and the balance of £6OO was to remain in
the hands of the defendants as a security against the
eventual failure of any debts due to the firm which
had been taken as good in estimating the capital.—
It was also covenanted by the deed, that if any of
the debts deemed bad, and therefore left out of the
estimate of capital, should be recovered, the plaintiff
should be entitled to his proportion of the money re-
ceived on account of such debts. And it was farther
covenanted, that for the purpose of ascertaining the
state of those accounts, the plaintiff should have ac-
cess to the books at all reasonable times. For the
breach of thiscovenantion the part of the defendants,
the present action was brought.
Mr. Edward Chester, the plaintiff% attorney, provedl
the defendants' refusal to allow the plaintiff to in-!
spect the books to which the deed referred.
Mr. Howe addressed the Jury for the defendants ' •
he said this was the first instance of one partner
bringing an action at law against another on any
transaction respecting the partnership. The fact was,
the defendants had imprudently kept the accounts of
the new partnership in the same books that contained
the accounts of that which was dissolved ; and it
would be highly inexpedient that those accounts
should be exposed to the plaintiff, who was their com-
petitor in trade. The Jury consulted together a short
time, and returned a verdict—Damages £3OO.