Star.
London, England, 1827-07-07 00:00:00

N

LAW. INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 6.
HARTLAND O. SURGES%

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2'l
purporting to be dated the 14th of December, 1826, ac-
cepted by the defendant, drawn by one Latham, pay-
able at two months' date to his own order, and endorsed
by him to the plaintiff.
• Mr. TALFOURD opened the pleadings ; the declaration
included two counts upon two previous bills lot 191. each.
Mr. CHITTY, in stating the case, said, that the plain-
tiff being apprehensive some tricking tieferce would be
resorted to, had declared upon the two previous bills,
though the dem Ind was only upon-the last bill. Latham
owed the plaintiff 951. and in payment gave him, in
Apia, 1826, five bills for 191. each, accepted by the
defendant. Three of these bills were paid, but the other
two being dishonoured, the plaintiff by his attorney ap-
plied to the defendant, who paid him 51. on account,
and promised that Latham should make a further pay.
ment, and give a fresh bill for the remainder. In con-
sequence of this arrangement, sosse further money was
paid, and Latham in last December gave a bill for 204
to the plaintiff's attorney, who discovering it to be writ-
ten upon a wrong stamp,' returned it, and obtained the
bill on which the action is brought. What defence there
was, he, Mr. Chitty, was at a loss to guess. At all
events, if the present bill were inoperative, notice had
been given to the defendant to produce the two former
bill,, which the plaintiff's attorney had delivered upon
receiving the present bill, and as those bills, if not pro-
tinted; could be proved, to them he could have recourse.
Mr. Smith, examieed by Mr. TALFOURD, proved the
handwriting of the defendant as acceptor, and of the
plaintiff as drawer and endorser, of the bill which wit-
ness received from Latham. In April, 1826, he applied
to Latham for payment of 951. due to the plaintiff, and
received five bills for 191. each, accepted by the defen-
dant. Witness applied for payment of the two last.
The defendant paid him 51. in part, and promised that
Latham should pay a further sum, and give a fresh bill.
Latham sent witness a bill upon a wrong stamp, which
he returned, and Latham then gave him the present
bill, on which witness gave up the two bills of 191. each.
The bill produced is in the same state as when witness
received it from Latham.

The bill was put in and read. The officer read it—
" Bath, December 14,1826."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defence, said that
it was an accommodation The delendant had paid
a great deal of money on account of Latham, by whom
he was a great loser; but he had a good defence to
this action, for the bill was altered by Latham after he
had procured the defendant's acceptance. The bill was
originally dated the 13th of December, but Lathan►
altert d the date to the 14th of December. This ren-
dered the bill void, and the plaintiff could not recover.
Latham examined upon the voir dire by Mr. Cnirri
—He had been twice a bankrupt. His estate had not
paid 15s. in the pound.

The ATTOIINIY-GENERAL directed a release to be
given to the witness, whom he then examined. Witness
said, that when he drew the bill and the defendant ac.
cepted, the date was the 13:h of December. Witness
altered the date to the 14th. He altered it, because it
fell due at the time when other payments were to be
made. The defendant did not know of the alteration.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cuirrv—l altered the S with
a penknife first, and then with a pen. I did it with no
bad intention. I bad before given a bill upon a wrong
stamp. 1 did not tell Mr. Smith that I had altered the
date. The defendant and I both live at Bath, about a
quarter of a mile from each other. Ido not think I
saw the defendant the same day I delivered the bill to
Smith. I first told the defendant of the alteration of
the date in last Frbruary, five or six days after the bill,
became due. I have been three times a bankrupt. No
dividend has yet been made under the last commission.
Under the two first I cannot say what was the dividend.
The two bills I received from Smith I delivered up to
Vte defendant. He examined and tore them to pieces.
The witness, alter much pressing, gave the dates, sums,
and descriptions of those bills, which conformed to the
notice given for their production.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted, that the plain-
tiff could not produce those bills against the defendant,
though he might, perhaps, produce them in an action
against the witness.
Lord TENTERDEN thought the plaintiff would have
co occasion for them.

Mr. Crum replied, it was manifest, in the first
place, that there was no erasure on the bill. It the Jury
would pass it between the light they would see none.
There was no mark of the turn of the 3, nor did there
appear any mark of alteration. lle was not willing to
attribute perjury to any man, and it was possible that
Latham had altered the bill which he had drawn
upon a wrong stamp, and have mistaken this bill fur
that. He (Mr. Chitty) hoped, in charity, it was so.

Lord TINTIRDEN observed, it would be dangerous
to rely upon the evidence of the alteration, if upon the
view of the bill it was not confirm-..d. The July would
look at the bill and examine it. If they were of opinion
it was not altered, they would of comae find a verdict
for the iff plaint.
_ _

Verdict for the phrintiff—Damages, 201. 12, 6d.
TOTTERDALY V. GOUGH.
_ _ _

Mr. Sosat.rrr stated that this was au action brought
recover damages for false imprisonment. The plain-
tiff was a waiter at the Its)ebuck tavern, furnhatn-
green, and the defendant was the landlord.
The declaration set forth that the defendant assaulted
the plaintiff, gave him in charge 01 a constable, and kept
him from Sunday to Monday a close pt twnet.
The defendant pleaded in justification, that a certain
drawer or till belonging to him, containing a. sum of
snowy, had been stolen from his bar, and thikt suspecting
the plaintiff, he ordered him to be imprisoned.
Mr. SCARLITT then called the following witnesses:
Elizabeth Morgan sworn—l was cook in the em-
ployment of the defendant, who keeps the Roebuck,
Turnham Green, in February last. Totterdale was

waiter there. I remember the night of the 24'h—Mr.
Gough appeased cross to the plaintiff. Next morning,
about 6 o'clock, saw him with a broom in his hand stand-
ing at the bottom of the stairs, and saying he would kill
the plaintiff if he moved. Ile desired his wife to go for the
ostler. The ostler was then sent for a constable who
took the plaintiff away, and afterwards the constable
came for his clothes. The defendant refused to give
them, though the constable said the plaintiff was in a
cold place. The time of the year was very cold, And
the plaintiff was recovering front a long illness.
Junes Franklin was then callzd.
The ATTOUNLY GISNERAL-Art: you the ostler at the
Ruebuck nfciared these.

—to you know if rotterdale riteated as waiter?—
Ves, lie did.

Witness then proceeded to state that the plaintiff hod
been for a long time ill: He remember'," being present
On the mot ning of the2sth Febt nary, and saw the plain-
tiff given in charge. He went the same morning to
see the plaintiff in the cage.
Westall, the constable, was then tatted; and stated
that he took the plaintiff to the cagesafter he had beer
given in charge by • the defendant. Witness went the
same day.for plaintiff's cloak, but it was refused. %sit.
ness asked the defendant next day would he take the
prisoner to Brer•.tfnrd? Defendant said no, he must g:•
to Bow-street. Mr. Halls was the Magistrate, and he
was examined. The charge made by defendant against
pl intiff, was that of robbery. Mr. Halls s►id the de-
fendant had done a wrong thing by imprisoning the
man, and he was discharged. The plaintiff had been
searched, and there were round upon him five shillings
and fourpenee, and two sixpences.

Cross examined—The defendant stated that he had
found his till in the bowling-green. He could not say
what had been in the till, or what he had lest out of it.
He also stated that he found Totterdale in the bowling-
green,and that he asked him how the till had come there?
Mr. Ledley, clerk of Bow-street office, read the entry
in the charge book, which was simply that the plaintiff
WAS brought to the office, and charged with stealing a
till, and discharged. Witness said the charge appeared
'to the Magistrate so ill founded, after an investigation,
that he discharged the complaint. It was stated that the I
defendant was in the habit of taking up the contents of
the till every night, and that Totterdale knew this. It
appeared, therefore, very strange to the Magistrate, that
if Totterdale was acquainted With this custom, he should
have made an attempt on the till.
This was the plaibtiff's case.
Mr. Guises: addressed the Jury for the defendant.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 201.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 6.

?HIPPS V. MAITLAND AND °THUM. • r . • -
Mr. Sergeint-TADox stated that the plaintiff in this
action sought to recover a sum of 1,2001. the balance
of an account due to him from the three defendants, for
work and labour done as a builder. The defendants
did not dispute the value of the work, but said they
were not responsible alone for the amount, but only in
conjunction with upwards of 400 other persons.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendants, said they
were members pf the Royal Navy Club, which con-
sisted of above 450 persons of distinction and emi-1
nence in the Navy Admirals, Captains, and Com-I
wanders. These Gentlemen, for their greater ac-
cornmodation, at meetings, resolved to build a house in
Bond-street, and the plaintiff was employed by them fur
that purpose, a contract being entered into between him
and the members of the Club, dated June 13, 1825.
The plaintiff finished the house, receiving payment of
considerable sums at different times from the Club; but
a balance of 1,2001: still remained due. This sum he
applied for several times during the last six months,
but was not paid by the Club, who requested time to
inspect the work previous to this final payment. This
was acceded to by the plaintiff ; but a short time after-
wards, Admiral Maitland, with the two other defers.
dant', were very much astonished to find themselves
arrested on the suit of the plaintiff, for the payment of
this 1,2001. They were kept in custody for a short
time, and were discharged on depositing the amount of
the account. The only question for the Jury was, wise
ther the contract was made individually with the de-
fendants, or with the whole Club? 'fo prove that it
was with the whole Club. it won' s! only be necessary to
produce the contract itself ; but the very bill on which
the present anyiunt was claimed was made out—" The
Gentlemen of the Royal Navy Club to Thomas Phipps,"
and the receipts given for the previous payments were
written—" Received of the Gentlemen of the Royal
Navy Club ;" thus at once strewing that he considered
himself employed by the whole Club. He should now
only call the Secretary to the Club, to prove of whom.
it, consisted, and who were its members.
The Secretary was then called, who proved, that on
the 13th of June, 1825, the club consisted of 450 mem-
bers, one of whom was since dead. _ _

Some difficulty now arose between the Learned Coun-
sel as to the payment f,f costs, when it was finally agreed
that a verdict shouli be taken for the plaintiff for 2,0001.
subject to a reference.

CONSISTORY COURT, Jun, 6.
IMMO V. BRI3CO.

S:r C. ROBINSON delivered this morning his opinion
at length, upon the application of Dr. Lee to be al-
lowed access to the bills of costs in the registry of
the Court in this case. The Learned Judge observ-
ed, that this was a claim to a tight of unlimited
access w the records of the registry on the part of
Dr. Lee, in his threefold capacity of Judge in the High
Court of Delegates, advocate, and a private individual,
in the suit of tt Brisco and Brisco." The object of Dr.
Lee had been declared to be this—namely, to impeach
the judgments of the Court for eight or twelve years
past, and to shew that part of the costs in the suit ought
'to be borne by Lord Stowell, the advocates and proc-
tors, and others who had arty connection therewith.—
There was so much extravagance in this course, that it
could not receive any support from reasonable minds.
Dr. Lee had declared that he dissented from all the
other members of the commis:ion. He (Sir C. Robin-
sou) assumed, thertfore, that those Judges would sap-•
pent the decision he now gave. Dr. Lee had even in-
timated his intention of impeaching the conduct of
the L-arneti Judge of the Arches Court. There was
something so extravagant in these notions, that the
Court could hardly treat them with the respect due
to the individual. It would not be the right of the party
in this case to claim an unlimited right of access to the
records of the registry, and what did not belong to the
party interested could not belong to other persons in
this matter. The case had been dismissed by the Court
of Delegates; it had been one of the most vexatious
suits, on the part of both patties, ever known, and the
superior Court had dismissed them both. Both had

declared they had no interest whatever in this applica-
tion. Tnat being the case, the result must be satisfac-
tory to the public, and ought to be as to the individual ;
and he (Sr CiTistopher Robinson) should not act justly
if lie did net declare that he should be unwarranted in

encouraging ex parte stau ments for the purposes as.
signed. He the' efore approved of the conduct of the
Registrar in' refusing the application, and declined to
mike any order.

Nit with.tancbng the lateness of the Circuits this year,
it is sappoied th .1 a number of town causes most ne-
cess.itily be left untried, unless soros of the other
Judges assist the two Chefs.

POLICE INTELLIGEtiCt.

MANSIONsIIOUSE. .
- La Cowin v. Fixes—ln tbis case, which was stated at large by
the parties, (two females resident on the same fbk,e, in, a I,,Aisinc.,
bossy in Bishopsgate.street) the Litter borrowed, on Saturday
evening, of the accuser, that portion of a Lady's attire it would
not be delicate to mention—and, in addition, a jupon and pocket,'
with which to complete her dress on the ensuing Sunday, when
she was to proceed on a " small patty of pleasure to Gravesend."
In Mrs. Le Comte's words, st she promised to pay me for the
I”an, and sure ebough, your . Worship, she pail me ; look here,
(stripping her arm, and demonstrating, with her first dijet, a black
bruise,) and is that the way an honest. bard-working, industrious'
poor woman like myself is to be treated, and all out of civility,
your Woiship ? I was standing at my wash.tuba Monday, and
in conies Mrs. cinch, throws down my things, and was just about
going to make off without paying me at all. when I asked her, in a
civil tone where was the money? and she did no more but up with
my tub, and split it on my head. But that was not all of it, your
Worship, she came twice more that day, and heat me three times
the one day ; now I thought that too bad entirely, and I brought
her to the face of your Worship, to give an account of herself,
for all she looks as innocent down there as if !Otter would not
melt in her mouth."

The bu.hand of the prosecutris, a little man, about four feet,
(between them they might perhaps measure nearly eight feet
three inches), said, he met the prisoner attacking his wile in the
street, as he was coming from his work on Tuesday evening;
his wife was in a most 'plorabk way; she struck her before my
two born eyes, ■nd blackened her body all over ; I asked het
why she did that? and she says, " 171 do it every day I meet her.
Well, says I, if that is'nt aggravating the cause, and so I brought my
wife home with me, and so here we all are to make the most
of it agint her.
. . .

The prisoner said her antagonist was the giver of the first blow,
and if, said she, I could pull up my gown and spew your Lordship
the black mark she gave me, you'd see my story is the truest.
The Loan hlartsa begged to be excused the exhibition, and told
the patties they might, if they pleased, indict each other at the Ses-
sions —The parties left the office, declaring their intention to act
on his 'Lordship's advice, and it was with difficulty they could he
prohibited, as they were descending the steps of the Mansion
House, frum recommencing hostilitiey.

GUILDHALL.
On entering the Justice Room, yesterday, Mr. Alderman
SEAN called forward a newly appointed street-keel er for Cheapside,
and stated to hint that an empty truck had been standing two hours
opposite the Queen's Arms Tavern. This was one of the nuisances
he was appointed to prevent, and be desired him to go and seize
it instantly. The truck was soon brought to the Office door, and a
lad who had charge of It was introduced to the Alderman. The
lad allowed he had been waking an hour and three quarters.
Mr. Alderman Waterman announced that it was his intention to
see that the street.keepers faithfully attended to flack duties. "Nearly
I at noon this day," continued the Alderman, " I saw the scaven-
gers at work in Throgmorton-street. Let Bo tt e r fat , the Con-
tractor, 11
be summoned. I also saw an inn-cart draw up to the foot.
way, and a boy was left with the cart while the porter walked half
round the neighbourhood to deliver an armful of parcels. This was
an obstruction that the street. keeper should not have permitted.
Yesterday afternoon I started a whole line of errand carts that
were standing by Fountain-court, Cheapside. I told them who I
wait and they were off in an instant. They stand about awaiting
their fixed time for starting, but they ought to wait in Inn-yards.
We cannot allow the public streets to be used as Inn-yard." The
worthy Alderman laid a fine of five shillings upon the truck, and
directed the street-keeper of Cheapside to take out a summons
against every cart that remains in that thoroughfare eight or ten
minutes before or after loading. He gave him fair warning that
-he (the Alderman) would watch him.

BOW-STREET.
A few days ago, Marla Coster, a poor woman who keeps a small
green-grocery shop, preferred a complaiot a day oe two ago, against
another woman, who had broken her windows, for the mending of
which she had to pay thirteen shillings, and had likewise threatened
to do her some grievous bodily harm. The woman was sent to
prison till she should pay for the windows, and And bail for the
assault. Since she has been in prison she has paid the thirteen
shillings into this Once, and, thetefore;Maria Coster applied yester-
day to have it given up to her.
The Magistrates were about to grant the object of the application ;
but Mr. Woods, the Clerk, informed theta, that by an Act of Parlia-
ment, the money had become forfeited to the poor of the pari,h,
from the circumstance of the CODVICtiOII having taken place upon
the evidence of the complainant alone; as, to have entitled her to
the money, she should have had a witness of the fact.
The applicant said, she did bring a witness to the office, but that
witness was not examined.

31r. MUISHULL wished to have that wittier. brought forward
now, but

Sir R. Scams said, that as.the conviction had taken place, that
could not be.

Reference was then made to the " Five Acts," in expectation
that so strange and arbitrary a law would be therein amended or done
away with ; but It was found there to be confirmed in other words.
Sir R. MINIM then said, that rather than the poor woman should
suffer by such a law, be would give her 13s. out of the charity-box,
and he doubted nut but the deficiency thereby made, would soon be
supplied ; for there were some good people in the world, u the
liberal donations be had received for his box plainly proved.

t .
i•.
, 1 i
)
t ,I I
ii
t i '
h
ti
1
1
1,,
it
VI
t
•
I
V
It 11.
I
1 I
1
~.
i 1
A`
• °L...
l: '`
W
. :
, .
.!.' 4,
; . •
11:,fitti
1111: 1

1001 C at
!l i''
it was i
for the
Veld
MT.;
~
t.Teco
tiff ws
green,
A . , The
( I the pia
him ii,
The
i ' drawee
I •'
i : 1 too2e)
the ph
Mr.
Elit
ploym
T idol]
waiter
Gougl
about
ing at
the ph
ostler.
took I
came
them,
t cold i
:! • the pl
; 11 Ju
Th,
Ruobi
i;i11 . • '‘,- .
t' •,-..., .
.. .
. • .