Star.
London, England, 1827-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

cOURt QF CHANCRAT, bawls. 1. •
JUDGMENT.—HART V. HART. •
The 10011:1 CHANCILLQ4S at the sitting of the Coeur,
delivered his judgment in this case. It came before
the Court in the shape of a motion for. an injunction to
restrain the defendant, Jacob Hart, from interfering in
the business of which he and the plaintiff, Fredericic
Hart, his brother, are the partaers,.and from getting in
any outstanding debts or fonds belonging to the part-
nership. His Lordship said that, in considerittien of
the relationship of the two parties, he hadOkalhem
time, in order that they might, if possible? come to an
arrangement. Of this indulgence they had not availed
themselves, and therefore it now became his duty to
pronounce his opinion on this application. His Lord-
ship stated, that unless he could, in the present stage
of the cause, see an almost moral certainty that on the'
hearing it would be necessary to decree the dissolution
of the partnership, the inference he had drasali from
the authorities was, that he must dissolve the injunc-
tion. This be believed was the rule of theetiurt. He
also collected from the principles laid diaarn by Lord
Eldon, that it was not competent to chi. Court to dis-
solve a partnership, unless the misconduct of one of
the partners was so great as to have already and in
substance practically dissolved the partnership. The
question, therefore, was reduced, simply to this—whe-
ther the misconduct of Jacob Hart wast*n aggravated
as to have produced this effect? His Lordship then
examined in detail the allegations of the plaineiffpehirg-
ing the defendant with having gone abroad, and ab-
sconded from and deserted the business—with having
personally ill-treated the plaintiff—with having dis-
missed a clerk on his own authority. None of these
charges, on being sified, had any weight on his Lord-
ship's mind, add he therefore dismitsed them from hi:
consideration. His Lordship then proceeded to what
he conceived 'leas the only material allegation, the
charge of the defendant's having abstracted large sums
of money from the partnership concern, without con-
sulting the plaintiff; and went in detail through the
accounts, from which he arrived at the conclusion, that
in July of the year 1826, when this bill was filed, the
whole sum thus abstracted did not amount to the total
of the profits to which the defendant was entitled. His
Lordship, therefore, although he considered the con-
duct of the defendant to have been in the highest degree
irregular and improper, could not perceive in it any
sufficient ground for dissolving the partnership; and
wet therefore of opinion that the injunction must
be dissolved.

Alter some further consideration, it was agreed that
the order which had been obtained, for the commit-
ment of Jaeob Hart, should not be drawn up, be paying
the expenses of the motion.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec 7.
Before Lord Timm= end Common Juries.
THE LING V. (MICA AND OTHERS.

This was a prosecution at theinstaWcer4a poor man,
named George Spurgein, against the defendants, who
are the president and trustees of a Benefit Society,
, called " The Alfred Union Friendly Society," for not
lie-admitting the prosecutor pursuant to an order of two
Magistrates, after they had expelled him without reason.
able or lawfuLipuse.
Mr. Pt-Are opened the indictment.
The Arrows GINZIAL stated the case, and from
his statement, supported by the evidence, it appeared
that the prosecutor had been for many years a member
of the society, and hadtegulatly paid his subscriptions,
without calling for any aid.; but at length he was taken
ill with a violent chronic complaint, and received the
weekly sum allowed to sick members, for nine months ;
but when the defendants found he wai incurable; they
peremptorily expelled him fiom the Society, and re-
fused him further aid; whereupon the prosecutor sum-
moned them before the Magistrates of Worship-street,
Police-office, to answer for their conduct, under the
Act SSd Geo. 111. cap. 54, by the fifteenth section of
which it is enacted, " that if any pet son, having been
admitted a member of any such society established by
virtue of this act shall think himself aggrieved by any
act, matter, or thing done or omitted to be done by any
such society, or any person acting under them, it shall
and may be lawful for two or more Justices of the
Peace of the county, riding, division, or shit e where or
near unto the place where such society shall be estab-
lished, on the oath or affirmation of the person com-
plaining, to issue their summons to the presidents, war-
dens, stewards, or other principal officers of such so-
ciety; and if they shall or shall not appear, neverthe-
less, on proof of such summons being duly served, they
shall proceed peremptorily, to hear and determine in a
summary way the matter of such complaint, according
to the true intent and meaning of the rules of such so-
ciety, and shall make such order therein as to them shall
seem just."—On hear'ng both sides, the Magistrates
ordered the defendants to re-admit Spurgein, which
they had absolutely refused to do, whereupon the pre-
sent prosecution was instituted.
Mr. 'hasn't and Mr. ADOLPHUS appeared for the
defence. They objected, first, that the order of the
Magistrates could not be read, as the Company had riot
been proved to be enrolled; secondly, that Spurgein
Could not be admitted as a witness, because he was in-
terested in the result of the prosecution.
Lord MITIRDEN overruled both these objections.
The Learned Counsel then offered to go into the de-
fence made befoie the Magistrates ; but
Lord TZIATERDEN was of opinion that the order of
the Magistrates could not now be disputed.
The Learned Counsel then submitted to a verdict of

Till KING V. FOWLIIR AND CLARKE.

This was an indictment against the two defend-
ants, who are of of the Court of Requests, in Vine.
street, Piccadilly, for a violent assault, on the 25th of
September last, on Mr. William Lloyd Jones, whilst
that Gentleman was endeavouring to assist his sister,
a Mrs. Teasdale, wife of a respectable Gentleman in
Arlington-street, Piccadilly.
The ATTOHNZY GINIRAL stated the case to the Jury.
It so happened-that on the day stated in the indictment,
Mrs. Teasdale had been summoned to the Court by a
discharged servant on a frivolous and impertinent de-
mand ; and knowing pet fectly well that the demandants
in such cases often succeeded, from the delicacy of re-
spectable persons not choosing to appear in such Courts,
'she determined to attend for the purpose of opposing a
claim which she knew to be unfounded. ' For this pnr-1
pose she was accompanied by her brother, Mr. William
Lloyd Jones, who was a surgeon of respectability ; and
on their arrival, Mrs. Teasdale (being a lady, and wish-
ing to get out of the indiscriminate mass of persons in
the outer entrance), tried to get within the bar which
separated the crowd from the body of the Court. Instead
of being quietly told that was a privileged place, one
of the defendants (Fowler) swung her round with such
violence that she fell and fainted. She wis carried out
of the crowd, and as won as Mr. Jones bad placed her,
as he. thought. in a place of security, he ran home,
brought Mr. Teasdale, and also his brothet;Mr. Joshua
Jones. On his return he went up to the bar, and re-

quested to get to the Lady whom be bad just Wt is
' tainting stiste.be defendeuClarke, who was at the
bar, made'nchgther reply than a blow on the *extol..
tasked by QtMrp, be was knocked down, kicked whilst
he was dosiii,,md would hive been still more ill treated
only thirhs was rescued by Mr. Teesdale and his
brother."lll,e( Learned Gentleman was of opinion, that
this wasirntr.t gross misconduct on the part of the
officercof any Court, and he could safely say of the
Court in which:he was then addressing the Jury, that
though it was the most inconvenient Court in England,'
and was as much,crowded as any, yet the officers never
assaulted pessnas trying to gain admittance. In the
present case the only question would be, whether the
defendants had committed the assault complained of?
If they had, the Jury must find them guilty, and their
punishment would be awarded by another forum.
Mr. W: L. Jones was then called, and maintained ,
,the statement of the Learned Counsel with some addl.'
tional particulars. •
Mr. James Teasdale, the husband of Mrs. Teasdae

corroborated Mr. Jones's statement as to the conduct of
the defendant Clarke.
Mr. Joshua Jones also stated, that Clarke struck
Mr. Jones sever al times without any provocation, and
added, that he believed his brother, who was a small
man, would have been tilled it the witness had not
rescued him.

Mr. Holcome, a Gentleman who wits casually io the
County Court, stated that he saw several blows given to..
The COMMON &MEANT (with whom was Mr.

READER and Mr. Arbotpaus) addressed the Jury at-
some length for the defendants, and stated, that though
certainly great •iolence had existed in the County
Court on.the day in question, he should thew thatit
originated with the prosecutors. It was absolukely ne-
cessary that some sort of regulations should exist ill a
place like the County Court, or else all the suitors
would soon be in a " state of pugilism;" and to pre-
serve that order, one of the defendants had been sta•
tioned at the place spoken of, with a list of tie different
cases to come on, and he was ordered to admit no one
out of their turn. Mrs. Teasdale and Mr. Jones were
lord their case was not in order, when they attempted
to force the likr in defiance of the °Meet, and then the
subsequent occurrence took place.
The COMMON SERGEANT Calk(' a number of wit.
news, who stated that the prosecutor got his blows by
endeavouring to force himself within the bar, and that
Clarke only laid his arm against him, after he had re-
ceived a blow. The witnesses did nct agree in their
statements. Some said Clarke was struck on the
breast, and others that he received a blow on the face.
One witness, named Russell, said Fowler was not pre-
sent during the scuffle.
Mr. Teasdale being called up again, said he knew
the person of Fowler, and was certain he was present
during the affray.
The Armitage GENERAL, in reply, said the defence
was an aggravation of the offence. The question the
Jury had to try was, whether unnecessary violence had
been committed by the officers? It had been distinctly
proved by Mr. Teasdal., Joshua Jones, and Mr. idol.
come, that upon Jones the prosecutor going up to assist
the lady, he received blows on the face. A defenceless

woman was taken ill, and when her relatinn ran to assist
her, he was assaulted with violence. All those fiats
weie proved on the part of the prosecution, and the
Jury could not avoid finding the offending party guihy.
Lord Tgursanaw, in his charge to the Jury, ob-
served, that great variance was found in the testimony
of the witnesses, and it was far the Jury to decide on
which side the truth was to be found. The evidence
was greatly at variance as to the conduct of Fowler. It
was uncertain whether be did or did not take part in
the affray, and there was also a difference of testimony
on the subject of the scuffle in the Court of Conscience.
It was clear that when Mr. Jones entered the Court
with Mrs. Teasdale, she was desirous of going within
the Bar, to present her papers to the Commissioners,
and that she was resisted. The officers, in the execu-
tion of their duty, might have orders to prevent papers
going in irregularly, but blows were quite unnecessary.
The prosecutor (Mr. Jones) might be naturally desirous
of going in to as.ist his sister, and if the officers used
more violence than was necessary, the Jury ought to
find them guilty c•f the assault. If they should think
Clarke struck no blows until he himself had received a
blow from one of the parties, they should acquit him.
The Jury acquitted Robert Fowler, and found Wm.
Clarke Guilty.
The Foreman at the same time said, the Jury thought
Claike had received some provocation.
Lord TENTIRDIN said he should make a note upon
the communication of the Jury.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Warrionwria, Dec. 7:

Sittings after Michaelmas Term, before Mr. Justice Gaaaaa■ and

Common Juries.
SIMMONS V. CRI.P.

Mr. Horcutteson opened the pleadings. This was an
action for goods sold and delivered. The defendant
pleaded that he was not liable.
Mr. Sery cant Jones stated, that the plaintiff in this
case was a tailor, who brought the prebent action to re.
cover 44 the value of a pelisse. The defendant was a
carpenter, and it might poisibly puzzle the Jury to
know what he could want with a pelisse. He begged
to assure them thtt it was not for his own wear—(a
laugh), but for a person of the name ot Kitty (another .
laugh), who it appeared was his servant, but to whOra
he had thought proper to give a handsome pelisse. As
to the terms upon which Mr. Crisp and this Kitty lived
together, perhaps the less that was said the better. He
should prove that the defendant had ordered tae pelisse
for this young Lady, and that it had been supplied, and
he should then leave the defendant to make what de.
fence he could.

Thomas Bull was then called, and he stated that Le
was now a tailor, but that in October, 1820.11 e lived in
the employ of the plaintiff, who made a pelisse, sad he
(the witness) carried it to the house of the defendant,
and it was received by Kitty, fur whom it had been or-
dered. He considered 44. to be too reasonable a charge
for it—(A laugh).
Cross-examined.—The defendant and his brother

lived in the house at which I delivered it. Kitty was the
servant of the defendant, but in what capacity I don't
know—(Laughter).
Mr. Frazer proved that some time in the year 1825
he was at the Running Horse, in Chapel•street, May.
fair, with the defendant and the plaintiff, and be then
heard the latter say to the former (4 You owe me for thit
pelisse for Kitty," to which he replied, 's I know I do,
but I'll see you d--d before I pay for it." • :
Mrs. Ann Shewer stated that Kitty was herhnsband's
sister, and in 1821 she called on the defendant in con-
sequence of a circumstance which was exceedingly rn-
pleasant to the family—(A laugh).
gave birth to a child, of which the
father, and when he was spoken to
said that he was tradesman eoougl
want, and that she should live with

Mr. Sergeant TADDY, for the di
that he could not be bad liable for

. Kitty at that time
e defendant was the
CO on the subject, he
;If to keep her from
hhim.
tefendant, contended
r goods supplied to a

woman with whom he was hying in a stare et peestitlirl
ion. His Learned Friend bad just managed to steel
gear of the statute of limitations. It was not quite six
years since the debt arose, but when the first witness
commenced his story so far back as 1820, he certainly
ttmught he might have been mistaken, and have meant
11720. Re talked so much of Kitty, that he thought he
must have been speaking of a time when Kitties were
far more numerous than at present, and when, in fact,
they were made the subjects of poetry, and so beautiful
and impressive were many of the lines that some even'
now presented themselves to his memory—
To any Kitty, Love his Car
A seam: wilt engage,
Set Prior's Kitty, fairer far,
Keqrs serf rant for an age.--(laysister.)
These lines were written many years since, when it was
clear there were many Kitties, and from what bad oc-
curred today, it was equally clear that we bad Kitties
now. In short, Kitties there always were, and Kitties
there always would be—(Loud laughter).—The only
question for the Jury in this case was, whether the de-
fendant was liable for the Kitty that had been spoken
of to-day—(A laugh).
Mr. Justice GaseLaa, in summing up, said the case
appeared to him to be entirely without a defence. If a
Mims keeping a woman as this defendant was proved to
haie done, chose to pledge himself for any article that
Might be supplied to her, he must be responsible for it.
Ms Jury instantly r. turned a verdict for the

OLD BAILEY, Dac. 5.

---e.......
OLD COURT.

lasses Brownest/1, who was convicted at the July
Sessions of stealing a large quantity of valuable plants,
hut in whose ease s point of law was reserved, was
brOught up for judgment.
Mr. Sergeant ARABIN said, that he thought, at thel
time of the trial, the cue was clearly established, and
that the conviction was good ; but a point having been
raised by the prisoner's Counsel, he had named the same
to, the Judges then on the rota, and their opinion coin-
cided with his. The case was a very aggravated one,
and he felt it his duty to pass upon him the severest
sentence the law allowed, which was—that be be trans-
ported for the term of seven years.
Ana Page, aged 18, was indicted fur stealing nine
sovereigns, the property of Mary Davis. The prosecu-
trix and the prisoner lived fellow servants together in
the family of Mr. Harrison; at Kensington, and slept
in the same bed. On the 15th of November she found
that her pockets had been removed, wherein were the
keys of her trunk. On examining her trunk she found
that nine out of thirtynine sovereigns were oriuing.
The prisoner's trunk was searched, and several new
articles of fashionable wearing apparel were discovered
in it.

Mrs. Harrison. the Lady with whom the prisoner
Lived. was called, and on being asked when the pd.
toner's trunk was searched, stated that it was on the
13th of November. _ _ _

Mr. Sergeant A amine said it was a case of strong
suspicion, but no Jury could find the prisoner guilty on
such evidence.—Verdict, ?sot Guilty.
Mary Collins, aged 15, was indicted for stealing a
reticule, containing a gold watch. The prosecutrix
identified the watch. Several witnesses gave the pri-
soner an excellent character, stating that she had been
living with her mother, a laundress, in Little Portland-
street, The Jury found the prisoner Guilty oldie larceny.
Thomas Dean, alias Brown, aged 19, was indicted for
stealing a gelding, value SCA and a saddle and bridle,
the property of Richard Peck.—Verdict. Not Guilty.
Masons Cutts, aged 40, was indicted for receiving
the above gelding, knowing it to have been stolen, on
the 17th of. October last. The Learned JUDGI summed
up, and the Jury returned a verdict of Gailty.—The
prisoner left the dock smiling.
James Herring, aged 19, described as a labourer,
was put to the bar on an indictment, charging him
(with a Margaret Hinds, who was not arraigned) with
a,saulting Thomas Mason, of Charles-street, Middlesex
Ilospital, and taking from his person a watch, chain,
seals, and also an umbrella.—The charge was posi•
tively sworn to by the witnesses, and Mr. Justice Hot.-
ROYD. having summed up the evidence to the Jury, they
round the prisoner (;silty—Dealh.