Star.
London, England, 1810-12-11 00:00:00

LAW LVIELLIG.ENCA.

, _
COURT OF KING'S'.I3UNCI4,-DEC. 10.
EVERETT W. CoLLISS.
The plaintiff in'this case is a cattle dealer, and the
defeirdant a 4alesn#ti ofcattle and 'hides, who had
been employed by:the plaintiff in thit iapacity, re-
ceivinga commission for his trouble.
• • The present action was brought for the sum of
£175, being the proceeds of a sale made by the de-
fendant on the plaintiiPs aceount, after deducting hiss
commission. plaintiff wishing his accounts set-
tled, had sent his slits for that purpose to the defen-
dant, who accompanied him to the counting house of
Messrs. Mingay, the .defendant's agents,
.by one of
wtrose clerks the.aecount was made out and furnished.
The'elerk then asked the plaintiff's son how he would
wish to have the amount paid ? The_young man
answered, by a draft tin Messrs. Mingay's hanicer.—
He accordingly received an order on Messes. Smith,
Paine, and Smith, which, however, was returned,
they having answered no drafts of .Messrs.-Mingay's
that day ; and the house of Mingay and CO. having
failed in the course of the afternoon. Messrs. Mingay
anal Co. however, having been agents for the defen-
dant, who had in his pocket the commission•received
from the plaintiff on account of the sale in" question,
and also the amount of the neat proceeds of thatsale,
and the defendant being' also present when the draft
by his agents was given to'.the plaintiff, fit was con-
tended, that this was to be considered the draft of the
defendant himself, tibial; not having been honoured,
he was still bound to make good.
For the defendant it was contended, that the plain-
tiff had been offered payment of his debt in cash, but
had preferred taking the check of Messrs. Mingay
laitd Co. on their bankers. In doing so, he had adopt-
.ed them as his debtors, and had himself only to blame
for the choice he had 'made. Mingay and Co. had
paid all the demands upon them in cash, or Bank of
England notes during the whole of the day. The
defendant, therefore, if to be subjected in payment of
the present claim, must be a loser by Messrs. Mingay
and Co. to the amount of the p:esent demand, more
than he would have been;but for the choice so made
by'the plaintiffs.
• Lord ELLENIIOIIOIIGH thought there was some
nicety in the case, but left it to the Jury to say whe-
ther In the granting of the order or draft, as well as
in every part of the transaction, Mingay and Co.were
er were not to be regarded as agents for the defen-1
dant.- If they thought they were to be so regarded,
the defendant mint be liable.

' Verdiet for the plaintiff—Damages £175.
MASSOW 4. HENRY.

This was a cafe founded on the 37th of the King,
whicliAct is intended to prevent the seduction of sea.
mien frOm their ships previous to the conclusion of
their voyage.
Mr. "Pence stated this to be an action, to recover
the Suit of :el® for seducing John Whaling, a sta.
214 n, belongingsto the ship. Alexander, whilst that
teasel was lying at Tobago, in West Indhss ; and
alio for the came penalty for seducing Andrew Jo-
seph and :Mother seaman from the same slip at the
same tittle. The plaintiff commanded the Alexander,
and the defendant was master of the ship Charles ;
bath esscls belonged to the port of London. The
defendant hsd frequently seen the seamen on board
the Plaintiff's ship, and knew them ; he therefore
could not be ignorant of their belonging to the Alex-
sfilder. When they were missing, the plaintiff had
them searched for in every place where he thought it
probable they would conceal themselves, Mx M about
inceess: Unfortnnitely, 'there was one place he did!
not think of looking into, or he would have founil
theasi, that was the "coal-hole" on board the &fen-
veisel. Having his suspicions, however, he
c4iarged the defendant with having three of the men
belonging to the Alexander on board the' Charles, to
'which he replied, he did not care where they belong.
ed to, he wanted them to carry his ship home, and
Ned got them. The Legislature, however, Mr. Parke
observed, had wisely provided for ca.cslike.the pre-
sent. In 1797 the practice of seducing seamen in the
West Indies, on tffeir arrival on the outward voyage,
had arisen to a most serious evil; it had been the
practice to car to seamen for the run home, some-
times-R79, or £80; this offer generally tempted the
men to quit their • ships, which were frequently left
without hands to Work them, to the great injury of
the trade ' and to put a stop to the evil, the Legisla-
ture tiaSsald the statute on which the present action
Was brought. By that Act the penalty !Or seducing
a seaman was made ielo9; one-third of which was to
0:o to' the informer, one-third to Greenwich-Hospital,
Ind the- remainder to the Fund fOr the support of
disiblea Seamen. The'plaintiff had considered this,
and-ivlsen'the eiiidenCe taken on interrogatives had
been read,•be (Mr. Parke) hadlio doubt of havinga
Tieralict.

ThC chatter of the ship Alez,ndei was then pro.
duced and reads. '
_•

Paaity..-7—My Lord; the 'defendant has con-
eented. tliaA the, plaintiff shoidd take a verdict for one
nerliky, rind= ibis action is only brought for the
purpose of doing away the practice, the plaintiff has
consorted to accept his proposition. Verdict for the
plaintiff.—Pamases £lOO.

MELTON ip. EtIV ARDS.
This was an action to recover R5B, for goods sold
and delivered. It appeared, however, that at the
time the goods in question were furniqied by the plain-
tiff to the defendant, he agieed to give 14 months
Credit and that that time was not yet expired. The
plaintiff was non-snited.
AN WORTH W. CROWS.
This was an action of trover, to recover a bill of
exchange for 410.
Mr. PARKE stated, that the plaintiff sold to a per-
s.:4l of the name of Lydiard, a public house (the
Bridgewater Arms) for 16.50, and in part payment
received a bill of exchange for £7O, accepted by the 1
defendant ; the plaintiff paid it into his bankers for j
collection (the house of Esdaile and Co) : when the '
bill became due it was dishonoured ; and the banker's
clerk, forgetting the plaintiff. had removed from the
Biidgewater Arms, left the bill for him there, noted,
by w :ich means the defendant sot it in his possession.
He loss - know what defence would be set
At did not venture to assert that.
bill, but at one time said he had
Inothir, that he had torn off the

had debtroyed the bill
Jury. would give a ver-

'diet for the phiutig for the full ettioUnt. He thee
proceeded to call his witnesses.
John Champion, clerk to a notary, proved that the
bill had been prolested for non-payment.
William Farmer, clerk to Esdaile and Co. deposed
that he left the bill, after it had been noted, at the
Bridgewater Arms, for the plaintiff, not knowing at
the time that he had removed :—on the Sd of Pcto-
her• he went to the defendant's house at Clapham,
accompanied by his (the witness's) father; he Asked
him if he had accepted th.: bill the defendant an-
swered in the affirmative ; he then demanded the bill,
and the defendant told him it was in his possession,
and that he had burned it.

Mr. Farmer sen. deposed, that he accompanied
his son to the defendant's house at Clapham ;the did
not get out of the chaise, but on his son's return the
defendant followed him. The witness asked him if
he had the bill ? be answered in the affirmative, but
he would not give it np until he bad consulted his at-
torney ; but it could not be of use tQ any one, as he
cut the acceptance out.
Thomas Septimus Jones, clerk to the plaintiff's at-
torney, deposed, that he went, on the 23d of October,
accompanied by the plaintiff, to. demand the bill of
the defendant ; he first denied having it in hit pos-
session. The paintiff told him, that When he sawlim
before his shopman, he said he had burned it—the de-
fendant replied, that was nothing to any body, he
might do his best and be d—d, for the bill came to
him through a regular char 1.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. TOPPING, Counsel for the . defendant, stated,
that certainly the defendant was the acceptor of the
bill of exchange, but he put himself into that situation
only to accommodate Lydiard, who never had en-
dors:d the bill, and who took it up from the plaintiff
six months before it was due ; but having some other
dealings with him, gave it again into his possession ;
the bill had been left at Lydiard's, in whoSe posses-
sion it was then, and never had been in that of the de-
fendant. He then proceeded to call his witnesses.
John Lydiard deposed, that he had the bill of
exchange in his possession, but not about him ; it was
at home.

Lord ELutirsottotrou—Whea did you see it last ?
A. Yesterday.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—Where do you live ? A.
55, Old Bailey.
_ _

Lord ELLENBOROUGH" Let an Officer be sent
with the witness for it; and mind, Lydiard, if you
have it not, the consequence will be most serious, as
it will affect you." . _ _

Witness—js It is in my pocket-book, at No. 55,
Old Bailey; my wife is in Court, and she will go
for it."

On his cross-examination, he said he •went to the
Fleet Prison in August last ; lie kept a public-house,
the sign of the Rose, (No. 55, Old Bailey ; it was in
the Rules of the Fleet; he was living there when the
Bill became due ; he had seen the Defendant since,
and told him that he (the witness) had the bill in his
rWO% and that he had torn off the acceptance ;
enneever was anxious that the Defendant should not
be obliged to pay the bill.

On a letter -being shewn him, he acknowledged it
was his hand-writing, and directed to the Plaintiff.
" SlR—The Defendant called on me this day, and told me he
was not prepared to take up his bill: 1 would therefore request
that you would hold it over for a week longer. He will be here
tomorrow, and you can see him if you wish.
" Rose, Old Batley. (Signed) " LTDIARIL"

Mr. P&axa was going to reply, when his Lordship
interrupted him, by saying,
44 Gentlemen of the Jury, the only questi,an for
your consideration is, whether you Iplieve, or do not,
what the two witnesses have told 'of the conversation
with the Defendant ? If you believe. it, you must find
a verdict for the Plaintiff."

dered the coachman to Amp, fuld got into the car-
riage. After some few words, the elder prisoner,
who accused the other with having brought her into
trouble; gave ,him a parcel, containing -fifty new
Bank of England notes, which she had received in
exchange for five tens ; he also received several coun-
try notes from the old woman, and two guineas in
silver from the young one, making in all £ll5. He
afterwards searched the elder prisoner's lodgings,
where he discovered a great quantity of new linen-
drapery, which she hid bought from a Mr. Bennett,
in chapel-street, Westminster; with whom she hail
left a £2O and a£s country note. A publican of
the name of Cutmork produced a £lO note of the
Rochester Bank, which the elder prisoner had endea-
voured to get changed by him, through the medium
of another person. About £l6O of the property had
been recovered. The old woman informed Gilmour
that 455 were placed in the hands of a publican is
Westminster—but he denied all knowledge of it. He
war stated by Gilmour to be a man mi a very suspi-
cious character, and strict injunctions were-given to
the officer to look sharply after him.
The younger prisoner was found guilty. Her mo-
ther-in-law was acquitted, as she appeared to have
been made a mere tool of by her daughter in putting
off the notes.

Richard Cranston and Richard Clare were indicted
for hurglariously entering the house of Thomas Dadd,
arid stealing therein a variety of articles, the property
of the said Dadd.

The prosecutor and his wife resided in Howard's-
green, parish of St. Luke ; and, on the 4th of No-
vember, left home for the purpose of going to Bays-
water : they fastened their house in the best manner
they could—but, on their return the same night, dis-
'covered it had been entered through a window, and
two blankets, two pillows, a pair of candlesticks, and
several other articles, taken away. The window had
a broken pane of glass in it, through which any per-
son might have put his arm, and removed the gimlet 1
with which it was fastened. Suspicion fell on the
prisoner Cranston, who was a neighbour to the prose-
cutor, and had been reconnoitring his premises at a
most unseasonable hour, a few weeks before ; he had
also been observed, on the night of the robbery, car-
rying a bundle near the prosecutor's house ; this bun-
dle he had taken to the lodgings of the prisoner Clare,
and they went out together, and soon after returned
with a quantity of luggage. On Cranston being ap-.
prehended, he begged to be admitted King's evi-
dence : he stated, that he and Clare, assisted by a
brother of the latter, had committed the robbery, and
mentioned the pawnbrokers where the things were
pledged ; as be had burned the duplicates, the pawn-
broker's
books were examined, and part of the pro-1
perty was recovered. Clare was apprehended on I
board the Dorset East Indiaman, at Gravesend ; but
he denied all knowledge of the robbery.
Mrs. Dadd could not identify any of the property
produced in Court; she had lost such things, but she
would not swear that these sheaved to her had been
stolen from her premises.
The Jury found Cranston guilty of stealing, and
acquitted him of the burglary—No positive evidence
being adduced to criminate Clare, and Cranston's
confession against him not being allowed to go to the
Jury, they acquitted him.
Charlotte Tayler wad don Steven, two of the Pa-
phian corps, were indicted for feloniously assaulting
John Adams on the King's highway, putting him in
fear, and taking from him an umbrella value 2s.
The prosecutor, a tailor, was going through Bi.
shopszate-street, between one and two o'clock on the
18th of November, when he was accosted by the two
prisoners, who asked him to give them something to
drink. The tailor resolutely refused—on which the
&lag took off their pattens, and laid open the prose-
cutor's skull in several places—he immediately fled—
but they soon overtook him, and bore away his um-
brella in triumph.—The prisoners were shortly after
apprehended, and the umbrella-found in the apart-
ment of Taylor. The Jury found them both guilty—
Death.

R. Lawson, for stealing a quantity of muslin and a
piece of Irish, the property of R. Evans and J. Savage,
an theirldwelling-house ; and J. Ladoane alias Michael
Dodds, for stealing a piece of cloth, the property of
J. Francis, in his dwelling-house—were also capitally)
convicted.

The following were also convicted of felonY, •iz.
R. Morris, for stealing three quarts of brandy ; Mary
Waring, for stealing three coats ; W. CLirhe and Jesse
Snued, for stealing 8011 as. of lead ; J. Williams, for
stealing 21bs. of linen rags, sentenced to be impri-
soned one month in Newgate, and publicly whined
100 yards in 'Thames-street; J. Oxley, (or stealing
several articles of wearing apparel, one month in
Newgate, and publicly whipped ; Mary Smith, for
stealing 60 yards of ribbon; J. Leonard, for stealing
the furniture of a bedstead—ordered to be transported
seven years.

The following were acquitted—R. Clare, C. Reeve,
J. Davis, and J. Wood.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Yesterday eleven persons appeared before the
Court,- anct applied for licences to become Preachers
of the Gospel. It apprared they were in obscure sta-
dm: of Vh.
'The Chhirrnan (Mr. IVIAINwAnINo) expressed great
. .
desire,

He was at a loss to know w
up, for the defendant did
4. he had paid the bill, but
burned It, and ,at anothir,
acceptance. If the defend:a.
Ly Lis own, vo/untary acts