Star.
London, England, 1821-12-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

POLICE.

•
Outunutz.--In the course of a cause (ShieUs and Co. v. Rus-
sell) which came on for hearing in the Court of Common Pleas
`eat Guildhall, on Saturday, before Chief Justice DALLAS, the re-
port of which we inserted in our Paper of yesterday, two wit-
nesses, named Pairster and Jahn Nightingale, examined on the
part of the plaintiffs, were directed by the Judge to be prosecuted
for perjury, and in consequence taken immediately into custody.
The mere direction of the Judge that these witnesses should
be prosecuted, would not, it seems, necessarily have implied that
they should have been taken into custody; the commitment,
therefore, if any ccimmitrnertt was ordered, would have been for
contempt of Court, in which case they should have been taken
into custody by the officer of the Court, viz. the Warden of the
Fleet. By some mistake Drinkwater, one of the City officers
in attendance, took charge of them, lodged them in Giltspur-
street Compter, and in this way they were brought up yesterday
for examination, among the rest of the prisoners, before the
sitting Magistrate, Mr. Alderman-lhaen-
Mr. Huisritaxes, who attended as Solicitor for the prisoners,
Inquired upon what charge, and upon what authority they were
in custody? when it appeared that no formal commitment of
any kind had been made out. The only warrant Mr. Teague,
the Keeper of the Compter, Could produce for holding them
being the certificates signed by Mr. Cox, the associate, that the
Chief Justice had directed that they should be prosecuted for
'perjury, and assigned Joseph Green Walford, Esq. as Counsel
for Mr. Russell, the defendant :in the cause, who, by his At.
twiny, had undertaken to carry on the prosecution against them.
Under these circumstances, their Solicitor contended they were
in custody illegally, and upon no proper authority ; and inti-
mated that they might have their action for false imprisonment.
The Solicitor for the prosecution intimated that a charge of fe-
Ion), might be preferred against them ; but the parties were not
present, not did he know that they would be willing to prosecute.
On the other hand, the prisoners' Solicitor was willing that
they should give bail for their appearance to plead to, and an-
swer any indictment that might be preferred against them ; but
their bail was not in attendance, and if they had been, the Soli-
citor for the prosecution would not consent to accept them with-
out time being allowed for inquiry into their responsibility.
The City Solicitor was called in, but no other alternative pre-
sented itself, except that the prisoners should consent to remain
in custody till bail was procured and accepted; and accordingly
they were at their own request remanded until Thursday next.
llow-STREET.—Thterday, a young man, calling himself &aril
Teeke, was charged under the sed George 111. cap. 135, with
" unlawfully, maliciously, and contemptuously" disturbing the
congregation at the Great Queen-street Chapel, during the time
Of Divine Service on Sunday evening.
Elizabeth Dyer, a pew-opener at the Chapel, stated that the
-defendant and several other young men had for a long time past
been in the habit of coming on a Sunday evening, for no other
purpose than to " ogle the girls," and I argil and talk during the
time the Service was going on. Several of the other sex, too, she
was sorry to say, behaved with equal indecorum, and :be Chapel
was matte rather a place forifieestien and love-making, than for
Divine Winship. On Sunday evening lest she saw the defendant
And another mm "ogling" as usual, and when they were applied
to upon the subject, one of them burst into a " horse-laugh."
Mr. Mynah, a reepectable inhabitant of the parish, serving
the office of constable, stated that he had repeatedly seen the
defendant conducting himself in the most indecorous !limner in
the Chapel, and he had him in custody for that offence in
January, 1820, when he was suffered to go at large, upon a re-
presentation that he was just going to a situation in the country.
(hi Sunday evening he resisted being taken into custody, and
• made so much noise that a crowd of at least 100 persons col-
lected about the doors; the congregation were much alarmed,
and the Minister was stopped in his discourse. •
The defendant bad nothing to say.
Sir ItienAßD Boom said, that perhaps the defendant was not
- aware of the provisions of the Act of Parliament upon which
he was brought here, although be must be et-noxious that he was
behaving extremely wrong, and he would therefore read one of
the clauses, for d 4 information of him and others of the same
• class. The worthy Magistrate then read the clause, whfeh sets
forth that any person " unlawfully, &c. disturbing a religious
conga nation, shell be required to give two sureties of £5O each
for his appearance at the Sessions, and there, upon conviction,
be fined is the sum of £40." Ile (Sir Iliciteer BlitN11:';t therefore
called upon the defendant to give these sureties.
The defendant was nut prepared, sad was committed until he
found bail to that amount.
Maneeintoron-sraeer.---Seven gentlemanly-dressed young
blades, wim had made copious offerie:?s at the shrine of Ilse-
iglus, on Sunday night, were charged with kickim: up a row, in
the vicinity of Bedford-square, flooring watchmen, blacking
eyes, smashing lanterns, &c. It was nearly a fec-s;mile of the
row scene in the representation of Tee-and .1.r,, at the Miectr
Theatres, and the assailants seem: el to have aped the dresses
worn in the theatrical representation. A young Lawyer was the
CoresaMaa in perfection, a Merchant's Clerk chewed off Jerry,
and a neater .Logic cannot be found.--The witnesses in support
of the charge were four watchmen, one of whom (I teeth) had
his head tied up. The lira attack was made on ilogatt, who de-
sired them to go on, when they knocked hint down, and, to use
his own words, took away ev,:sy morsel of kis senses. Ile sprung
his rattle when on the ground, god Ikathoame, and his tale was,
that he was knocked down by Jerry. Heath went on to state,
that one called out to the other, " Go it, Toni ; where's Logic?"
when a voice replied, that" he was at work." Heath was again
knocked down, when Sullivan came up, anal the assailants had a
turn at him and floored him. *Here there was a general testae
between the watchmen and the accused, and they were all taken
to the watch•house. Jerry, Tom, Logic, and another, were or-
tiered to lied bail.
Quereevaue ax.—The three men charged with stealing various
ornaments belonging to a tomb in Edward the Confessor's Cha-
pel, in Westminster Abbey, were ageitt examiced yesterday.
Air. GLANVILLS attended on the part of the prosecution, and
stated to the s!agictratc, that in coneequetice of the previous
good character of the accused, the Dean and Chapter declined
to prosecute the case further.—Mr. lielesronn then addressed
the prisoners, who are all young men under ZIO years of age, and
hoped the lenity shewn them would have a proper effect on their
mind; ; it was very humane, on the part of the Dean and Chap-
ter to decline prosecuting. The prisoners were discharged.
Ilarrow-Gaemar.—.inaiJoeia,..i, who had been remanded on
a former occasion, was yesterday put to the bar, charged with
passing counterfeit sovereigns.—Mr. Powell, the solicitor to the
.alint, attended for the prosecution, and she was fully committed.
POACHERS.—We have already stated that on Sun-
day night, the 9th instant, between twelve and one
o'clock, Henry Judd, gamekeeper to Thomas ASIIE-
SON SMITH, Esq. accompanied by six assistants, were
attacked in Ashdown Coppice, at Ted worth, in Ham p-
sl.ire, by a desperate gang of poodle's, consisting of
five or six men, armed with guns and other weapons.,
one of whom shot at and killed Robert Baker, one of
the assistant gamekeepers.—Mr. ASHETON SNIIIII
made every possible exertion to pursue the murderers,
but not being able to trace them in the country, he
sent an express to Sir Ric nAlty Bi [tyre, at the Police-
office, Bow-street, fur the assistance of an active and
itifelligent officer. Taunton was dispatched, who has
at length succeeded in apprehending two of the gang,
,who prove to be Edmund Steele and James Turner,
two well-known men as labourers in that part of the
country. They have undergone several examinations'
belthe the Magistrates at Andover, and were finally
committed last Wednesday to Winchester prison, on
a charge of the wilful murder of Robert Baker. The
prisoner Steele has turned King's evidence, and, from
his confession, it appears that the gang of poachers
consisted of five. The other three not in custody, were
all labourers, who worked in and about Andover.

As two of the gamekeepers of Capt. Ittcay were
on duty, a few nights back, in the preserves around
Mistley Hall, Essex, they were attacked by five men
armed with air-guns : one of the gamekeepers, an el-
derly man, received a violent blow on the head, and
was threatened with death, but his companion, at the
moment, aimed a blow at the man which struck his
wrist and disarmed him • two of the kaows are Woo
yid cola:lined for the &Lank.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 22.
ALLARDTCR v. JOHNSON.
This was an action against the defendant for cri-
minal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The
cause having been entered for trial at the present sit-
tings, and there being still,a large arrear of remanets
from the last sittings, and no prospect of its coming
on for trial Until the sittings after next Term,
Mr. Castrzict, now moved, on behalf of the plain-
tiff, to hasten on the trial, by taking it out of its turn
• and fixing it specially for some day after the holidays.
The CHIEF JUSTICE immediately interposed, and
asked how he could do so much injustice to the
other suitors of the Court, as to take this cause out
of its tern? '
Mr. CAMPBELL said he was aware this was an un-
Usual application, and that very special grounds
ought to be laid before the Court to induce it to yield
to the motion. This, however, was such a case as
required the indulgence of the Court ; and the appli-
cation would not have been made unless there was a
reasonable hope that it would be yielded to. Ile
should premise what he had to state by observing
that there would be no opposition to it from the other
side, as he understood Mr. Puller had been instructed
to consent on behalf of the defendant. It was an
action brought against a Captain in the East India •
Company's service, for criminal conversation with
the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff was a Surgeon in
the 34th Regiment of the East India Company's
troops, and was now in England on leave of absence.
The criminality between the Lady and the defendant
was alleged to have taken place on board ship, during
a voyage from India. All the plaintiff's witnesses
were now in London ; the plaintiff himself was also
in London, and his leave of absence was limited to a
certain time. His object was to obtain a bill of di-
vorce next Session of Parliament, and if the trial was
not brought on at an early period, he would be de-
tained in England at least a whole year, to his great
inconvenience, and injury to his professional views.
The affidavit upon which the motion was made fur-
ther stated, that many of the witnesses necessary to
support the action were about to return back to India,
and that, if the trial did not take place at the•ad-
journed sittings after the holidays, he would lose the
benefit of their testimony, both on the trial and in
support of the divorce bill in the House of Lords.—
Under these circumstances it was hoped that the
Court would be pleased to fix a day to have the cause
brought on.
The (7nter ..111sTicE said, that certainly the circum-
stances stated took the case out of the general tole.
They were very peculiar, ani therefore the cause
might be fixed for an early day after the holidays.
GODFREY V. BRIANT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover compensation in damages for injury sustained
by his chaise and cart, owing to the negligence of
defendapes servant, who was driving a team of horses
in October, 1820.
Mr. SCA RLETT stated the case as, one which would
be easily proved; but;unfortunately,')ike many others, it
skewed how the powerful often oppressed the weak. The
plaintiff had a cart and horse standing at his door
loaded with dung ; and, as the Jury woul.l easily
believe, not very proud of his burthen, or of the abject
state to which he was reduced. Not so, however, the
well-fed team and horses of the rich wh:u finger.—
They cape: e.i along without a driver, and as spi ightly
as if they knew their superiority, ran against the little
horse and cart, upset the cart, and drove one of the
shafts into the horse's neck. Ile knew not what
defence would be made to this, except that the cart
and :mite had no right to stand where they did. Be
that, however, as it might, the wharfinger's horses
had no light tq run down the poor little animal ;
they should have asked him to get out of the way a...,
least; but, as the driver was in a neighbouring pub=
lic-hnise, they Itisked about as they thought proper,
and committed the injury for which lie now sought a
fair and equitable compensation.
Two witnesses proved the injury to have occurred
as stated by the Learned Counsel, and the attorney's
clerk the service of the writ on Mr. John Briant, who
said lie was the prop ietor of the waggon:
The farrier wlm attended the hot se, proved that he
was reduced in value full £5; and the plaintiff's son,
that he was obliged to hire another cart and horse
fur nearly five weeks.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant said, the question
here was, was not the wrong defendant sued ? if a
fair compensation would have been accepted it would
not have come into Court.
He called the carter who drove the waggon on the
day in question, but, on being pressed in his cross-
examination, could not say whether the son was not
in partnership with the father.
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages, £lO ; costs, 40s.
WALTER V. SNIITIT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover the amount of a gold watch and chain which
he had pledged at the shop of the defendant, a pawn-
broker at Cheltenham.
Mr. NIA IVIYATT said the plain fact in this case wss,
that the plaintiff, being in want"of a little money at
Cheltenham, pawned his gold watch for £2. 2s. in
January, 1820. Some months after, he wrote to the
defendant to keep his watch for a few days longer,
as the period of its forfeiture had arrived. The de-
fendant refused acceding to this request, and either
sold the watch at an wider price, or kept it, and dis-
posed of it as he thought proper. The Learned Coun-
sel said, although he did not deny the right of sale
in the pawnbroker, yet that such sale should be pub-
licly advertised, in order that the parties interested
might know how to act, and either buy the articles,
or receive whatever surplus it might bring, deducting
the amount for which it was pledged. In this case,
the pawnbroker had the watch undisposed of after
the legal period of sale had arrived ; and the case
being so, he contended,when the amount of the pawn
and the interest was tendered to him, he was bound
to give it up.
Mr. Billings proved that he called on the pawn-
broker, who admitted in. August last that the watch
in question then remained unsold.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended that
when the period of forfeiture had arrived, it was in
the power Of the pawnbroker to make a sale.
The LORD CHIES JUSTICE.—II this case be decided
in your favour, according to what I see of the Act, it
is high time that a new provision should be made as
to patties pledging, But that will not now alter the

law. According to 111! present opinion, though
forfeiture may take place at the end of a year and a
day, yet not taking place, as was proved in thit case,
I consider the plaintiff as entitled to a verdict.
Verdict fot the plaintiff—Damages £lO, subject
to a special case, if it should be hereafter aecessary.
The Court adjourned until the 2d of January, 1822.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 22.
COLLINS R. PICKFORD.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an
action brought by a seaman, lately belonging to the
Resource British merchant-vessel, of which the de-
fendant was master, to recover the sum of £37 odd,
under the following circumstances :—Application
was made to the crew of the Resource, by a South
American man of war, called the Eagle, in the Pa-
triot service, to volunteer their services to attack a
Spanish brig in the South Aw.efican seas, promising
that if they succeeded they should have prize-money.
The plaintiff and eleven of his companions, with the
defendant's permission, accordingly armed themselves
with boarding-hooks, and took possession of this Spa-
nish prize with great gallantry. The prize-money
being
.afterwards made payable at Valparaiso, the
Captain said to the seamen, " You had better put the
money into my hands," and they assented to that
proposal. He should call witnesses, who would prove
that the Captain received the money; but, shameful
as it appeared, he now resisted•the plaintiff's claim,
under pretence that he had left his ship, on account
of which he had marked R. against his name in the
ship's books. Now, however this circumstance of
the plaintiff's running away from the ship might vi-
tiate his claim to wages, which the Learned Serjeant
did not mean here to deny, still this could have no
, application to a claim of prize-money, which was the
reward of the plaintiff's gallantly in the service he
had performed, and for which the money had been
received by the defendant.
W. Nimpky deposed, that the plaintiff, himself, and
nine others, the crew of the Resource, volunteered
their services, as above stated, and having succeeded
in the enterprize, the Commander of the Spanish Pa-
triot man of war, in consequence of their having
made a prize of the Spanish brig and brought her
safe into the port of Valparaiso, gave each of them
prize-tickets. Witness means, that Captain Pickford
got the tickets tar them from the Officer of the Pa-
triot man of war. Captain Pickford did not tell his
men how much they were entitled to; but he took
them on shore with him to the house of a merchant,
at Valparaiso; to whom they agreed to sell their
prize-money for £37. 3s. 9d. although witness was
afterwards informed it amounted to £3OO each,
which the defendant received for them, and took on
board his ship, giving the men bills, or promissory
notes, on the house of Macdonald and Bushel, of
London, for the £37. is. 9d. per man. The plaintiff
had lost these bills
Mr. Scrjeant TADDY submitted, that the plaintiff
was not entitled to recover against the Captain, since
it appeared, by the statement of this witness, that the
money was paid to the merchant at Valparaiso, who
gave bills i;; ex,hange for it.
Witness, in cross•elaniination, admitted he had re-
ceived payment of the bills uhich he and others had
received, and which were paid by Macdonald and Co.
immediately on presentation. •
Under these circumstances, the Learned Serjeant
submitted, that the plaintiff having failed to present
those bills on Macdonald and Co. fur payment, could
not maintain this action.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN submitted, in reply, that
as the bills had beer lost by the plaintiff, and the
plaintiff's claim never having been in any manner
sati fled, unless the Captain could spew the bills
given to tl:e plaintiff had been satisfied, he was liable
to pay him nut of the money received by him, the
Captain, that being " money had and received for
the plaintiff's use."
'the witness proceeded to state, that several of his
fellow-sailors lost tlieir bills. Witness lost one of his;
the• other was received by witness's wife from Mac-
donald and Co. Witness did not know that the plain-
tiff left the ship of his own accord, but that he was
turned out of her by the Captain.
Mr. Serjeant N submitted these bills never
had, and in all probability never would, appear
against the Captain ; and in that case it was hard
upon the plaintiff that the Captain should keep his
money. He should call another witness to prove the
Captain received the money.
Paterson deposed, that he was a seaman on
board the Resource. Knew that the plaintiff and.
others volunteered their services, and succeeded in'
carrying the Spanish vessel as a prize into Valparaiso.
Ile had reason to believe Captain Pickford, the de-
tendaut, received the money ; witness saw the bags
which contained it brought on board the Resource,
and also one of the men (who did not send it home),
paid his•prize-money out of the bag by the defendant.
Believes Collins has not received his money, having
lost his bills.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY, for the defendant, observed,
however the Jury might think this case insufficiently
proved.by the testimony of these witnesses, who gave
such a confused account of the business, the charac-
ter of the Captain, more than the sum sought to be
recovered, was at stake, although, in fact, he had
not received the money ; but, as appeared by the evi-
dence of Nimpky, these men went to the house of
Field, Brandon, and Co. of Valparaiso, to sell their
claims ; and that these merchants gave them bills on
the house of M'Donald and Co. payable in London.
Then this plaintiff having last his bills, until he makes
an affidavit of that fact, or procures substituted bills
from the merchants at Valparaiso, the plaintiff's claim
could not be paid by the agents here. It was evident
that the money must have been paid to the merchants
there, from whom these bills were received, and not to
the Captain. The Learned Serjeant said, he sincerely
hoped the plaintiff would not ultimately .lose his
claim; but, in the meantime, having lost his bills,
he had lost his remedy in this action.
The CHIRP JUSTICE observed, what demand could
the plaintiff have on the Captain, on account of these
bills having been lost?
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN.—I submit, my Lord, that
as the plaintiff has lost these bills, and. they. have
sever been presented, unless the contrary can be
shewn, and it is competent for the Captain to prove
otherwisecccalled
aCHIRP
etudu rpio) bajnvyt
sont the
glce
payreceived
t evidencelo v
thinker o
thet
of Mt
lin
money,oDp;.aaltnydd:esna.ntlthiiadaebrteToiroetil:be.el
:boll direct a uoutuit.—Plaiutiff Nousuited. "