Star.
London, England, 1810-06-29 00:00:00

. 'LAI, INTELLIGENCE.
eptltir OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE es.
• • CAM v. birrcitru.

• This was an action to recover .610 for rent. The
.amount had been paid into Court.
• it appeared that the defendant had taken apart-
ments of the plaintiff, but when the quarter-day ar-
rived the former would not pay hiS rent, unless the
plaintiff made some deductions for his not having had
the use of a kitchen, as had been agreed on. The
defendant tendered the money,but with the stipula-
tion that the deduction should• be allowed, but the
plaintiff refused to receive the £lO note on 'such con-
ditions. Before the defendant's wife went out of the
house, she said to the *plaintiff, " Well, will you take
your money ?" The money was not taken, Cale con-
ceiving, as Mr. GARROW contended; that the offer was
coupled with. the afore-mentioned stipulation. Mr.
Gaaaow further contended, as the money wastendered
under such stipulations, that it in fact did not amount
to a legal tender. The defendant might have used the
kitchen had he pleased.
Lord EL.LENBOROUCII said, that the iender was con-
ditional in the first instance, but it was for the Itiry
to decide as to the nature of the tender made...l4 the
defendant's wife as she was leaving the house.
The Jury returned a Verdict for the plaintiff—One
Shilling Damage:.

GALE v. BRICKFORD.
This was action to recover 410 Bs. 7d. from the
defendant, the Executor of a Mrs. Jones, deceased.
Lt appeared that the defendant had. attended Mrs.
Jones in her lag illness as a nurse for thirteen weeks,
and had not received any remuneration. It was
proved that the defendant had received assets to a
greater amount than the plaintiff's demand. The
jury, under the direction of his L,lrciship, gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff tar £19,85. 7d.
STANLEY AND DIXON ~D. TREDEEICKSON.
The plaintiffs are biscuit-bakers, and the defendant
AvratT of a trading vessel called the Lisbon Packet ;
the action was brought to recover the sum of 109
tid. for bread furnished to the defendant's vessel,
•to 'fitga. The delivery .was proved, and the Jury
fauag-a verdict for the plaintiff.
• GOODWIN v. HAW.
t}ar GARROW, in opening the case, gave a ludicrous
history of the Defendant's circumstances.—He was
by profession a sera') ; he found it lucrative, and
his genius in time soared to an occupation of a higher
order. He still ei•teri.iined that love of profession
which cart), habits have frequently the power of en-
gendering. He would not altogether quit his connec-
.fion with the ceremonials of death, but rose to a higher
Capacity in its service, :and turned undertaker !
Having thus added a trade to.his juvenile profession,
- his ambition seemed so have found its limits. But
he was to go farther, and in a direction which the
Jury would scarcely conjecture. The love of riches
gradually took entire possession of the Sexton's mind,
and in the spirit of strange perversion which some-
times lays bold on firmer minds, it urged him to a
pursuit diametrically opposite to the success of the
trade in which lie had already become fat and happy.
He was bred a sexton--he made himself undertaker

and fortune, in some malicious hour, induced him

to turn, baker. But with all his new eagerness to en-
• counter the labours of contradictory pursuits, he could
not conqtzer impossibilities. In short, lie found that
• he could not be in two places at the same time—in
-the church-yard and behind the counter at once, deal.
bag out nutriment to the living, and paying the last ho-
noursoto the dead. But if he could not conquer, he
found that he could palliate the difficulty. He had a
son ; he put that son behind the counter, while he
himself divided lais time between the interesting avo-
cations of the spade and the shroud. His superin-
tending eye did not, however, lose sight of his new
project; he ordered flour into his shop—he paid the
rent—be paid the taxes; and, when some of those
casualties, against which even the veteran prudence
of theold 'sexton had made no provision, arrived, and
the baking speculation fell like mightier things, he
reclaimed his property—took possession of the furni-
ture, the fixtures, the utensils ; and sent his snn, and
his son's wife, to live in lodgings, with such a share
• of the furniture of their former tenement, as in a sea-
ton's charity he thonglit fit to allow them. The pre-
' sent action was brought to recover 07 10s. the va-
lue alpine flour which was sent into the shop by the
plaintiff, on the credit of the defendant. di We were
told. Gentlemen," said Mr. Gannow, 84 to demand
this value from the son ; but the son is a beggar ; we
*kruiyr the result of making demands upon a beggar ;
there is a proverb upon the subject, and we would
not risque the chance of its being made good."
On the examination of the evidence it appeared,
that though the first quantities of flour laid in at the
shop were on the credit of the defendant, and paid for
by him, he had given no authority for the delivery of ,
that, whose value was sought by the present action ;
and that the shop belonged bona ifde to the defendant's
son.—The Jury, in consequence, found a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 29.
WALTaR V. MANSELL, BART.
Thirwas an action to recover upon an implied as-
snMpsit the sum of €750, paid by the Plaintiff to the
.Pefendant, in January 173, in consideration of an
annuity, to whiclrdie Defendant pleaded non assurnp-
sit, the statute of limitations, and a set off.
Mr. Serjeant Lv.xs, •on behalf of the Plaintiff, the
annuitant-in this case, said, that he would produce
"inch evidence as ?mit take that case out of the sta-
tute of llmitationsevidence that would prove that
negoclations had been going on down to the period
at which the present action 'commenced. The De-
fendant, -Sir Wm. Mansell, was in very embarrassed
eirc-iirnstatices $ -the Plaintifrwanted either his consi-
deration- money back, or that to be made gocid for
which be lad eurttracred to pay it. • He then caPed
• Thomas Newbury and Charles Jennings, subscribing
. svitnesses 'to die bond, who proved the hand-writing
petite Defendant in the receipt passed by him for the
consideration-money, as also his signature to the bond..
Mr. Williams„ the Defendant's Solicitor, was next
calla He stared that he had been employed by
Lady Mansell, theDefen.dant's mother, in 1804., to set-
tle her son's affairs, which were at that time consider-
ably deranged ; that he 114 d had a treaty with Mr. Doi-
ton, the Plaintiff's Solicitor, re.pecting the annuity, and
had. offered to give back the consideration-money, to