Star.
London, England, 1828-02-25 00:00:00

MORRIS IL DAVIES.

Mr. WRATRLY reminded his Lordship of this cause.
The LORD CRANCELLOR said that he would take
care to see the Learned Judge by whom the cause bad
been flied before he left town. An curly day, of which
the parties would have previous notice, would then be
Lied for giving judgment.

JACKSON V. BOURNS.
Mr. KNIGHT requested that this cause might be al-
lowed to stand over until Thursday neat. It had
originally been heard before his Lordship at the Rolls
Court, and it was now desired that only on .Counsel
should be heard on each side. Mr. Sugden, who was
his (Mr. Knight's) leader, was then absent, and it was,
therefore, hoped that the cause would not be pressed on
in the absence of that Learned Gentleman.
Mr. AGAR, who was on the other side, consented to
the postponement.

Its THE MATTER OR SMITH, A LtJWATIC.
Mr. flours stated that this was the petition of Samuel
Wagstaff, whe prayed that he might be appointed
receiver to the lunatic's estate, with a proper salary.—
Upon a reference to the Master to appoint a fit person
to be the committee of the lunatic, he had reported Mr.
Wagstaff as the most proper person for that office. The
petitioner, however, would not consent to this art ange-
Malt, the nature of the lunatic's estate being such that
it would require constant attendance to its management.
A pplications had since been made to many of the lunatic's
friends, but all bad declined the arduous duty. Under
these citcumstances the Learned Gentleman thought
that the most proper course would be to refer it back to
the Master to appoint a proper person to be the com-
mittee, if one could be found ; if not, then that the Master
may appoint a receiver, or any other denomination of
person, with a competent salary.
His LORDSHIP thought that a reference to that effect
ought to be directed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Falk 23.

THE KING V. ILANDL

This was 'an indictment against the defendant for
wilful and corrupt perjury, at the last election for the
borough of Reading, in which Mr. Blandy was agent for
Mr. Spence, one of the Members returned. A Petition
against the return was presented to the House of Com-
mons: and in the inquiry into the truth of the allega-
tions of the petition, Mr. Blandy was examined. and
swore that he never went to the house of
,one of the
electors, named Davis, in company with Mr. Spence...
On that fact the petjury was assigned.
Sir J. Sea ((LETT stated the ease to the Jury.
Mr. Bnoootritst-called a number of witnesses to prove
the formal proceedings on the petition.
Mr. George White, ckrk to the Select Committee of
the House of Commons, proved the evidence given by
Davis, who had kept the Peacock. Davis swore before
the Committee that Mr. Blandy called on him, in com-
pany with Mr. Spence, and that Mr. Blandy promised
to interfere in his behalf, and to get him the Dolphin
public-house ; and on his engaging to vote for Mr. S.
gave him a check for 201. on account of his salary as
manori .1 bailiff. It was very much against his con-
science chit he did this.-and he had never been happy
since, and bad determined to develope the secret—(A
Lutes). He now promised to vote for Mr. Palmer on
similar terms. There was no question about Radicals,
it was all about the Pope and the Pretender—(A
laugh). Mr. Bland), promised most solemnly to make
a man of him.
Mr. White then read the evidence given on oath by
the defendant, before the Committee. The defendant
swore, on that occasion, that he advanced the money to
Davis, on his sepresentations of distress, out otitis own
funds. and that Mr. Spence had nothing at all taido'
with it, and could know nothing about it. He never:
received any promise from him to vote f'.r Mr. Spence
in return. Never told Davis he,yrould make a man of
him.
The Committee then decided against the charge of
bribery.
Mr. Dermot-ram called Mr. Weeden, Attorney for,
the prosecutor, who proved that. Mr. Blandy heard Mr.'
Harrison's speech for the sitting Member, and sa'd be
should put Mr. Blandy into the box to contradict that
evidence most positively.
On hi, cross-examination he said this prosecu.ion was,
carried on at the expense of Mr. rysche Palmer. He did
not recollect talking of lex talionb.“ Did not say
anything of the kind alluded to at 21re Clerks Chronicle
Office.
Mary Davis. wife of James Davis, remembered Mr.;
Blandy coming to her house a short time before the'
election.

On being MSS examined by Mr. ALDZIUIOII, the
witness said she thought that Mr. Blandy and Mr. Spence
came together once before.
Thomas Moor Davis, son of last witness, saw Mr.
Blandy come to his father's.
Many other witnesses were called, who corroborated
this evidence.
Lord TEN VIRDEN interfered, and said he thought the
allegations hot made out. His Loschlup therefore
direcesi the .T.tiry to acquit the defendant.

00SHIT OF COMMON PLEAS, Phylum Tim, Fn. 23.
Sittings after Hilary Term before Mr. Justice Boauousin and a
Common Jury.,

GROOM N. DOWLAND.
This was an action by an attorney's clerk, to mover
a conspensation in damages for an injury he had received
in consequence of having thrust his leg into the hole in
the public footway, which was used by the defendant
for the convenience of admitting coals into his cellar,
and which, it wAs alledged, he had neglected to keep
in a proper state of repair.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the dan-
gerous state of the bole, which, they affirmed, was not
properly secured ; and the surgeon who attended the
plaintiff stated, that the injury he had received in his
leg was of so serious and painful a nature as to have
confined him to his house for two months, during which
time he was incapable of attending to business. He
added also, that a mortification had taken place in the
injured part, which he was compelled to remove by an
operation. The amount of his bill was 231.

•
For the defendant, who, it was stated was a green-
grocer in very poor circumstances, it was contended,
that the injury to the plaintiff resulted purely from one
of those inevitable accidents to which all were liAble,
and not from any neglect on the part of the defendant,
who, it was urged, could not at all times be expected
to be intimately acquainted with the safety ur unsafety
of that which he had not frequent occasion to use. He
regretted exceedingly that it was not in his power, as it
was most certainly his wish, to have compensated the
plaintiff for any injury or loss he might have sustained
in consequence of the accident; but in his very indigent
circumstances, with a family about him, he had not the
means of doing so; and whatever verdict might now be
rdturnrci against him, if the Jury thought the case was
ohe in which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, he
could discharge only by submitting to imprisonment.
The Learned Junco told the Jury, that if they thought
the coal-hole was in an• improper state of repair, they
must find their verdict for the plaintiff, as a person was
bound not to neglect that part of his property, which, if
neglected, might prove dangerous to the public.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver•
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.

PALACE COURT, Frs. 22.
COE V. RELIBBN MARTIN.

Mr. FLANNAOAN stated the case. The plaintiff was
a poor .shoemaker, resident at Hampstead. The defend-
ant was the celebrated Reuben Martin, upon whose
fame and achievements it would be equally idle to ex-
patiate, as upon those of the " Great Captain of the
age," and present Prime-Minister of England. Amongst
the fashions of the day, pugilism occupied a conspicu-
ous place, and the defendant, to use the classic slang
employed in the records of this barbarous practice,
ranked as a first-rate scientific pugilist. It seems
that being put somewhat out of sorts by an effort in
his calling,—or probably labouring under the effects
of intemperate indulgence, after " a well-foeght
Geld,"--the defendant, with the advice of his friends,
determined on trying those so►ereign remedies, air
and eiercise. Recourse was had to medical autho-
rity, and the air of Hampstead was prescribed by
the Doctor as best calculated to restore the ener-
gies of Reuben to their pristine vigour and efficiency; in
addition to which he recommended a spare and moderate
diet. There are few places in the country now, where
a pugilist does not stand a chance of meeting with a
bird of the same feather. A friend of this kind (a Mr.
Pilch) introduced the defendant to Mr. Coe, and it was
agreed that Reuben should have the run of his house for
11. I ls.6J. per week. When the bill for the first week
1 was presented, the defendant said he would remain the
whole month, and would then discharge the total sum.
The plaintiff was, of course, quire pleased with this ar-
rangement, and on the strength of it, he paid IL for ac•
count of the defendant to a Mr. Buck, and 7s. for some
trifling repairs made in his shoes. At the termination of the
month the bill was seat in. The defendant put it in his
pocket, and said he would call in a week with the money.
A fortnight elapsed, and the pugilistic hero was not
forthcoming, still the poor shoemaker felt no misgivings
as to Reuben's honour and solvency. In a short time
after, however, he had the effrontery to return to Hamp-
stead, and take up his residence with his friend Mr.
Pilch, who keeps a public house there. The plaintiff
immediately called upon him for his money, but the
reply which he received soon opened his eyes. " Coe,"
said the ornament of the ring, " I came to Hampstead
flat-catching, and I caught you." Seeing that it was
vain any longer to appeal to the honour or honesty of a
prize fighter, the plaintiff was obliged to have recourse
to the present action as his only remedy.
Evidence was then produced which fully sustained
the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Ross, on the part of the defendant, maintained,
that as the board and lodging were given with the
plaintiff's knowledge, for the purpose of enabling the
defendant to commit an illegal act, as in fact he had
furnished him with training diet to prepare him for another
battle, payment for such could sot be legally enforced.
Witnesses were examined as to a settlement between
the parties, but it was not stated upon what account the
settlement was made. Evidence was also given that the
defendant had gone to the plaintiff's house at his soli-
citation, he 4the plaintiff) having a bet of 101. upon the
defendant in a battle with young Gas.—The Jury found
for the plaintiff—Damages 71.145.