Star.
London, England, 1829-06-18 00:00:00

JONES AND ANOTHER. V. HUNTER AND OTHERS.

This was an action on two bills of ezcharige for 3,0001.
and 2,3031. drawn at Calcutta, in the year 1828. The
delendants, James Hunter, jun. William Huoter, and
David Cannon, were sued as the acceptors.
Evidence having been given of the handwriting of
James Hunter, jun. who had accepted the bills in the
name of the firm of 4. James Hunter, jun. and Co."
The Arrourreir GENERAL, for the defendants, stated
that the bills had been given in respect of transactions
in which the defendant Cannon had no interest, and
that the credit of his name not having been pledged to
the plaintiffs, the latter could not recover.

The Learned Counsel auempted to make nut in evi.
dence the facts stated by hum, but failed. It appeared
that the defendant Cannon had been a bankrupt, and
had pteaded his bank, uptcy as a bar to the action.
Lord TENTZRDEN said, he doubted very much whe.
:her the point raised by the Attoeney-General could be
made by any person but the party aggrieved? and bere
be de end int Cannon bad admitted his original liabi-
lity by pleading his bankruptcy.
A verdict was then taken for the full amount claimed.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jena 17.
London Sittings before Lord Chief Justice Tomas and a Coma
mon Jury. •
The Court was bccupied Eluting the greatei part of
the morning wi h inidetem'eJ Causes.

Obit- the injury bad blip Mad by a straight lustrii-
nsedt oboist six bathes krbga
Cross.examisielliOn ponsing the abdomen when be
'first examined the deceased; he found that it was tender.
This-was not a symptom :of peritoneal inflammations.
For two days successively they thought it right to bleed
V* patient, and leeches were also applied. After his
death witness found there bad been an adhesion of the
intestines to the upper part of the rectum. The length
of the rectum was generally from seven to eight inches.
in witness's opinion it World be improper, in a similar
case, to use any unyielding straight boogie of six inches
in length. He bad paid particular attention todiseases
of the rectum, but did not know.how many cases he
ball intbe course of one year; dideot suggest the propriety
of scathe" ter tome medical man at the sultriest ; in many
lastatiees thecoat of the rectum was Tory strong and thick.
• lellainmation, in its ordinary coterie, produces ulcers-
don; witness could not tell what the particular state of
the deceased was before the Sunday in question; opera-
tions would sometimes fail, in spite of the skill of the
operator;
,bad operated upon a woman named Kent, in
St. Bartholomeres Hospital, and she died soon after-
Wards; she been previously diseased; Mr. t3mith,
who examined the part with witness,leas not a member
,ef the College of Surgeons; thought a person might
walk a, quarter of a mile with a perforation of the
illsetum ; the perforation was on the front side of the'
leptons, above the bladder.
- Reexamined by Mr. ADOLPHVS—Considered that.
the death of the patient was caused by the injury done
the tedium.
• Mr. Baron Huu.ocz here stopped the case, and said
that there did no appear to be any evidence to support
e charge of manslaughter. It would be a dreadful state
• of things if a man who had- performed an operation tu:
'the best of his skill and judgment could be !objected to
;such h trciosecntion as this. .
Mr. aoatc"produce here said that he could evs-
,
deuce to show that Mr. Van Butchell was a man of very
,considerable skill; and although be was not a member
of the College of Surgeons, he had received a regular
education.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK said that that point was not at
all material to the inquiry, and he was tearful ofleteing
it go "forth to the world that when an operation was
not avended with success, an operator was liable to a
.charge of mantlaughter. The learned Judge then told
the Jury that the indictment could not be sustained.
These was no evidence to show with what instrument
the operation had been performed. nor. Abet the patient
had actually died in consequence of it. He could also
tell the Jury, that there was no principle of law which
subjected an individual to this sort of inquiry, and
it did not matter whether be was a regular practitioner or
not. If there were, persons in remote parts of the country
would not be able to get assistance, as many men would
eor venture upon an operation from the fear that they
were nor skilful enough.Therc had been no decision upon
the legality of such cases. and this was the first time
that such a charge had been brought before a Court of
,Jostice. Though an action for damages might per-
haps be sustained, yet where no malice was apparent. a
teen could not he found guilty of felony. The. Learned
Judge concluded by stating, that the piisoner would go
from the ha without the least imputation, as the cir-
commences which had transpired to-day did not affix
any criminality to him.
The Jury then returned a verdict Not Guilty; and
the prisoner, on tithing from the bar. shook hands with
several of his friends, who congratulated him.
Before Mr. Justice Lerrimacs.
trostoaleX.
Adtsnrd Martell", aged 25, and Henri Jubile Con-
way. 23, were indicted for forging ancrutteting a check
for 1005. with intend to defraud Mesas. Drummond
and Co. the.bankers. of Cbaring•cross.
The particulars of this case appealed not long ago
in the police reports. The prisoners contrived to get
possession of blink checks belonging to the banking
-house of Messrs. Drummond, one of which they filled
up for lODS. and attached to.it the forged signature of
Mr.BenjaminWortbyHernahis check Martelly carried
vi Messrs. Drummond's, and succeeded in obtaining
the money.- • The case was proved by an accomplice
• sinned George Coombe..
The Jury. after about five minutes deliberation, re-
'turned a verdit of Gailly of 2. tiering the check knowing
it to have been forged.
SEW COURT.
Before Mr. C-ni utopia e.
The Court, and the avenues leading to it, were
crowded at an early hour with weever; from Spital-
fields, anxious to bear the expected trial of five of their
body, which was appointed to come on this nstirainx.
At ten o'clock, John Chaired. aged SS, Hasty Dote-
s" 26, Seised John Awes, 30,WilliaasJoseph Mutk-
land, 28. and Betijancia Stone, 2Z, were placed .at the
bar, and indicted under the Act 7 and 8 Geo. IV. cap.
30. sec. S. for wilfully and maliciously destroying cer-
tain silk goods in the loom of the value of 201. the pro-
pet ty of Messrs. Stephen Wilson and Co. and of Mesas.
Francis and John Gales. To this indictment they pleaded

“ not guilty.”
By the 3d section of the above act, the offence of ma.
liciously cetting and destroying goods in process of
manufacture is punishable on conviction at the discre-
tion of the Court, by transportation for life, or for a term
of notiesurlitan seven years, or by imprisonment for tour
years, and public shipping. on Oil prisoners belng
ranged at the bar,
Mr. ADOLPH us stated that he understood it to be the
whit of their masters, on the present occasion, not to try
tfio indictments against the prisoners, but to lair t4sem
to depart the Court on their entering into their creole-
eognmances to appear to answer the charges against
them if called upon.
Mr. ALLev, for the prosecution, copsented to the

_ .
application.
The COMMON StRORANT obsereed, that the .Court
could do no saber than accede to this application ; end
was,highly gratified in being spared the painfuL duty ot
Whig to pass sentence on men who hue been long M,
OfttOlNOd to habits of industry. The Court hoped they
wweldlease the bar with feelings of gratitude tp theie
cougars. and a disposition of mind which would
,A 'pally restrain them, from the commission of any
IMOINIOM in future. " You ere now discharged.'
DI rilimrs bowed very regretfully to the Court
apd retired. The ticutioation of the business seemed to
Agin general satisfaction thtooghout the Coot,.
Thsi.euluolgoecitly entered into dim owaniosaisiocits
to Pep tit pisce fpt tee year:. ,
sot.sic ACOUtILTION.
*Om alaim, a, sesgectablo looking young twin.'
apprentice to a calm** mikes in Tottothaoi-couri-rords
wiisplawd at dm bn'. 4POO rir irdirtrreot charging him
with stualiago silk, pocket liaadkerchist from therm=
•1:611040 GlFYDeites falif
. 'Thip poOmOtol,ltAtC4. that about Wu o'clock on ,the
g*i
• 4 the 10th iwitlllit he tr 4.1101106111 Prrajuiwiw
*l.O of his threaSh SYdrrer,r4eY. :Lfielleter!,
Out ititfrited iploggb,4 0* thOt 11 (elk* .044
his pocket; WigPir&WORI wolowlcanci okwrigit;
4whieitkeiEble.f Oft OROMPSIN" 11/44* rh

• 7

oner ataedies near it; be atinopted to seise him. beti
he socemided in getting sway; whom pursued and
came up With him in Coventty-street; he struggled to
get away, but be did not, and be gave him into the
custody of the watchman.
The COMMON SZIONANT—Mid 700 feel the hand-
kerchief leave your pocket ?
Witness—No, I did not, Sir; I should not have known
it had not my friend named it to me.
Mr. Robert Carter, the prosecutor's Mend, corrobo-'
rated his testimony, adding that he mw the bandkerehief.
go from Mr. Gwynette's pocket, and pointed the pri-
soner out as the thief. The prosecutor proceeded after
him and appreSeaded him.
The COMMON SUOICANT (to the prisoner)—Have yein
any question to put to the witnesses?
Prisoner—No, Sir; I shall reserve what questions
have for my defence.
The. COMMON SONORA NT—lf if my duty to inbuilt'
you, you are at liberty to cross examine the witnemesill
you please.
Prisoner—Thank you, Sir.
William Alcock, the watchman, proved taking the
prisoner into custody at the desire of the prosecutor.
The prisoner then banded in a written defence, which
among other things, stated as follows : "As I was pass.'
ing through Sydney's Alley on the night in question. 1
saw two Gentlemen before me very much intoxicated;..
one, who gave his name George Gwynette, turned round
Ind struck me a violent blow in the mouth, which
knocked me down; be then commenced kicking me,
end gave me into the custody of a watchman. On our
way to the cage he began beating me again, and- hie
itooduct wai so boisterous from drinking, that the night
constable ordered him to be locked up, and not till then
did the gentleman charge me with a robbery."
Mr. Gwynette was again called, and askedif he had
been drinking on that evening.?
Mr. Gwynette admitted that he hpd been drinking.
The COMMON SIROZANT—And were you locked op
fa .the watchbouse for being in-a state of intoxication ?

Mr. Gwynette said it was true be was locked up.
The COIIMON SIBRUIIAIIT—YouCaIIMt swear tile ea.
r
sorbet stole your handkerchief?
Mr. Gwynette—d cannot, my Lord.
Mr. Carter recalled—l had also been drinking with
Mr. Gwynette on the evening in question.
The Cosmos SaaoaawT.—Then, Sir, being in liquor,
can you take upon yourself to swear that the prisoner
is the man who took the handkerchief from your friend's
.pocket ?
Witness (after some hesitation)—l certainly should
not like to swear that I clearly saw him do it.
The Cosmos SUeZANT therefore ordered his ac-
quittal.
A Verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned,
nod the young man left the Court with a host of respec•
table persons, his friends.
The prosecutor and his witness were refused their
expenses.