Star.
London, England, 1827-04-28 00:00:00

alteration was effected with as much haste as could
be reasonably expected. Even this,. however, did not
satisfy the plaintiff, and be proposed to assign the lease
of his house to Mr. Clement for fourteen years, at a
rent of 180/. a year. Mr. Clement acceded rp this pro
position, great as the rent was, and Mr. Watson then
came forward with a new demand. He asked for a
premium of 8001. and a rent of 1901. a year for a
fourteen years' lease. The ohject of the plaintiff
clearly was, by bringing frequent actions, to compel
Mr. Clement to come to any terms, or else to give
up the whole of his valuable property. He (Mr.
Scarlett) trusted that the Jury wpuld not aid the
plaintiff in such an object. A new engine had been
substituted for that which had annoyed the plaintiff,
and no reasonable cause of complaint now existed. Until
the new engine was constructed, he admitted that thel
nuisance had existed, and therefore that a verdict must
pus for the plaintiff; but as he should prove that that
engine was erected and worked before the 9th of No.
vember, he should submit that no nuisance bad existed
subsequent to that date, and consequently that the Jury
could not take any period after that date into their
consideration. _ _

Mr. Tucker, surveyor of the parish of St. Clement
Dapes, was then called.—He was acquainted with both
the parties, and asked the plaintiff to come to some
terms with Mr. Clement, and the plaintiff said that he
would be glad to get rid of the praises on any term
and that it Mr. Clement would give him 1801. a year,
he would give up the house altogether, and assign the
lease. Witness mentioned this circumstance to Mr.
Clement, who agreed to the proposal ; but upon mess•
timing the subject again to plaintiff, he said that he
would not take 1801. per Year, bits that be would take
1401. a year, and a .fine of 8001.
Several witnesses were also called to prove the cost,
of the present engine, and that it was so fixed as to
prevent noise and vibration.

- Witnesses were alto called to prove at what time the
new engine began to work; but they were unable to
speak decidedly upon the point, and merely stated that
they believed it to have been in October.
Mr. Gunge: replied.

The Loan Cruel Juane& said, that there had been
two trials on the same subject, and that damages bad
been obtained on both occasions. It had been contended
that no verdict could be given for nuisance subsequent
to the 9th of November. The declaration spread as far
as the 18th November, and if what had been contended
for was to hive been granted, it could only have been
by the defendant shewing when the new engine hid be-
gun to work. In this, however, the witnesses spoke with
great uncertainty ; they all said they believed it to hive
been in October, but then several witnesses on the other
side had spoken to the existence of the nuisance subse-
quent to that period. The plaintitEtherefore, was entitled
to a verdict. The next question then was, the amount
of damages. It appeared that the old engine had been
removed, and another erected in its stead. This had
not been done without considerable cost; a circumstance
which was not perhaps altogether unworthy of the con-
sideration of the Jury. At the same time, however, it
must be recollected, that the defendant had not :moved
this nuisance until he had gone twice to trial upon the
subject.—The Jury retired for about a quarter of an
hour, and then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 2001.

COOS V. THE EARL Of SCARSDALE.

This was an action brought by Mr. William Cook,
executor and son of the late Mr. John Cook, against the
Earl of Scarsdale.
Mr. MARRYATT ,said, that the facts of the case were
these:—So long ago as the year 1784, Mr. John Cool-
obtained a judgment against theisEarl of Scarsdale for
1,0651. Is. and 60s. COM. Up to the month of April in
that year, the Earl of Scarsdale had a seat in Parliament.
Parliament basing been dissolved in that month, and he
not being reelected, found it necessary to go abroad,
where he remained for twenty years.
The Learned Counsel was here interrupted by a pro-
position from the other side, the result of which was,
a verdict of £6OO for the plaintiff given by consent.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
DIDD AND *TRW V. ASTON, aarrvirus, AND PLIMICID.
This action was brought by Bird and Company, who
carry on the business of iron founders, at Cardiff, in
Wales, to recover 4,1321. for goods sold and delivered
to the defendants, as three shareholders of a Company
calling itself the Imperial Distillery Company. The
single question for the consideration of the Jury was,
whether these goods were furnished on the credit of
'the partnership, or whether they were furnished on the
credit of Griffith, who acted as engineer to the Company?
The case for the plaintiffs was conducted by Mr.
SCARLETT.
The'Cosmos SEROSANT was Counsel for defendants.
The plaintiffs laboured under great difficulty in
proving the three defendants were partners, but finally
succeeded in making out that fact. The three de-
fendants had become partners in the Imperial Dis-
tillery Company by a deed executed in July, 1825.
The goods were supplied in October following. The
Company having been formed to carry on a distillery, it
was requisite to have a quantity of iron work. It rip•
peared that an advertisement was published by the
'Company, calling upon persons to offer tenders of terms
upon which supplies necessary for the Company could
be furnished. Griffiths, who had bun appointed en-
gineer, accepted the terms 'offered for the supply of the
articles, and applied to the plaintiff, Mr. Bird, to carry
his contract into effect. Several letters passed between
them, and it was stated that the goods were for the Im-
perial Distillery Company. The plaintiffs supplied the
articles, and drew bills on the Secretary for the Com-
pany. The observations made by the Secretary induced
the plaintiffs to believe Griffiths was the Agent of the
Company, and that he acted by their authority. Some
doubts afterwards occurred on the subject, and Ga.
fiths and the Secretary went down to Cardiff. They sa-
tisfied the plaintiffs that the goods were ordered with
the authority of the Company ; application was
afterwards made to the Company to explain a reportl
which appeared in some of the London Papers, refiecting,
on the firmness and stability of the Company: To that'
letter the Directors ordered their Solicitor to write an
answer, and inform the plaintiffs there was no founda-
tion for the report. He was instructed, at the same
time, to avoid any expression which might make the
Company liable to the plaintiffs. On the part of the
defendants two bills .of exclunte which the plaintiffs
bad drawn upon Griffiths wete read. The plaintiffs
also bad taken at~ assignment of all that was due to
Griffiths frons.the Company; and the inference was, that
the plaintiffs could not have done that, if he had not
been sensible he had no claim's on the Company. It was
firther contended, that the plaintiffs bad no right to
Indict the defendants to pay their demand. They might