Star.
London, England, 1819-03-08 00:00:00

r

LAY LVTELLIGENI

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH e. .
ltitatmit: v. lIALE.
This was an action fir a breach of coritract. The

plaintiff was a confectioner, formerly residias in
South Audley-street; the defendant was proprietor
of the London Tavern. It appeared from the evi-
dence, that in August last an agreement took place
betireen the parties, by which it wassarranged that
io coAsi•leiation of the plaintiff giving up hit:business
in Squth AU:Bey-street, and going to the London
Tavern to superintend the Confectionary department'
of that establishment, he should.be admitted a part •
ner to the extent of two-sixteenths of the profits.
The plaintiff a;cordingly removed from South Aud-
ley-street, where he Vul for some time carried on his
business, and was in the habit of serving the Lord
Mayor's dinners, Birch, in Cornhill, and balls,
suppers, and masquerades, with confectionary, and
took up his residence in Bishopsgate-street, as a con-
venient situation for his attendance at the Lolidon

Tavern. Here he did attend several times, fkir two
months, in•his department; at the cud of which time
he urged Mr. Hale to complete his agreement, by
executing articles of partnership. Mr. Hale, how-1
ever, put off doing so from time tO tirue, and at
length refused altogethet. Upon. this refusal, the
plaintiff brought the present action, to recover a
compensations for the loss he had sustained by giving
up his situation in South Audlerstreet, and also for
the loss of profit which he had anticipated in the
partnership with the defendant.
Mr. MA RAYAT, for the defendant, called no evi-
dence; but in his cross-examination of the plain►iff's
witnesses, he endeavoured to prove that he hadsus-
tained no inconvenience or loss by removing from
South Audley-street, singe be was in a more conve-
nient situation for attending the Lord Mayor, and Mr.
Birch:when in Bishopsgate-.4reet that in South Au&
leystreet. He further contended, that the defendant
had discovered'the plaintiff Is as involved in pecuniary
difficulties, and having discovered that circumstance,
he was not bound to take an 'embarrassed man as

his partner.
The Jury, after a charge from the Chief Justice,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £6OO.
The CHIEF JUSTICE disposed of several undo en-1
ded causes, and concluded his sittings. His leordship
mentioned the 12th of April as the probable day of
adjournment.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MARCH 6.
ROOTH AND 160LED00 V. PLUM

This was an action of replevin, brought by the
plaintiffs, to recover the injury which they had sus-'
tained from the conduct of the defendant, who had
improperly and illegally distrained a waggon and
two horses, the property of the plaintiffs. It appeared
that the plaintiffs lived at Bull's Wharf, Thames-
street, and on the 24th of January, 1818, a waggon,
in which were three horses, had been unloading at
their door, and its standing there prevented carts and
waggons from passing. The plaintiffs, therefore, to
prevent inconvenience, directed the carman to draw
on a little towards Cook's Wharf, which he accord-
ingly did, and turned the horses a little way into a
yard on the premises of the defendant. Thinking he
should want only two horses for Ills next load, he
took off one horse, leaving the waggon and two re-
maining horses standing In the gateway, while he
took the third horse home. He was absent about
Ave minutes, and on his return he found the defen-
dantbad taken the waggon and the other two horses
into his yard, in charge of a constable, and refused
to give them up. • For this detention, and to recover
they expense which the plaintiffs had incurred, by
being obliged to employ another waggon, the pre-
sent action was brought.
On the part of the defendant, it was stated, that he
had been repeatedly annoyed by carts and wagons
driving into his premises?, which ha had determined
to put an end to, by kidnapping every waggon or
cart which came in, and that on the day in question
he had kidnapped three besides the plaintiffs'.
The Jury, without hearing the plaintiffs Counsel
in reply, or the Judge's summing up, found a verdict
for the plaintiffs--Damages 4s.

HERTFORD ASSIZES, FRIDAY, MARCH S.

INFAMOUS CASE OF ARSON.
James Head, aged 40, and Mardia,, his wife, were
indicted for having set fire to a barn in the occupa-
tion of John Overell, of Wakely, and-burning thereby
an immense quantity of corn, his property, on the
27th of August last.
Mr. WALFORD opened the case for the prosecution.
but in the course of his statement it appeared that the
male prisoner and his wife had al.ernately made de-
clarations upon the subject of setting fire.to the barn,
and that ohs woman particularly had avowed that
she wad tbt hand who did it, but that her husband
was present when the act was'committede
Upon this a long discussion took place..wbetbse
the woman, sting ,a guilty part in the presents
her husband,Avis not excuseon the ground of caw
cion*; thOVistnisel fot the prosecution arguing that
the plingiple 'did not extendti; the crime or amid
-Avocates a other sidecontending 4jffi
(who also Obtained the
coincide(' "