Star.
London, England, 1820-12-21 00:00:00

LAO' INTELIGf.NpfI _
.
cot* lir cuAmitir, .
13gNEFIT 60010.11*
RED Ail) °TORRE V. rARKVSS AND OTHIRE.
Mr. HART, in bringing this case forward, said it
Was one of the many instances in which persons en-
lered'into contracts that they were unable to accom-
plish. The parties here were the Members of a Be-
nefit Society, called " The Helpmates," and the ob-
ject now was, on the part of the Le caned Counsel, to
free them from the liability to which they had ex-
posed themselves. To do this, linn-was instructed to
move, on the part of the plaintiffs, for an injunction
to restrain those persons who formed the Committee,
from paying or otherwise issuing any monies-belong-
ing, to the general fund, and aso to restrain those
persons who were-in the nature of Trustees to the
Society, in possession of the invested property, from
parting with it. The Society was founded in 1796,
and had for its object the prOvision for persons who
should arrive to the period, as it is termed, of old
age. This was to be done by those subscribers pay-
ing proportinnally, and at ther4exot time there were
245 persons entitled to claim per annum. In
the course of the next year an additional claim would
or might be made, to the amount of £2610, and in
the succeeding year 120 more claimants would be
entitled to an additional suni of P-3090 t' and in the
course of five years, there would be no less a sum
its,
bad than £16,690 against the Society, while
bad but £15,000 to meet the demand. This would
clearly spew that the. Society, if k was conducted on
the same principles as at present, could not exist for,
more than two or three years, and therefore it became
necessary, if possible, to put a stop to the mischief
that must otherwise accrue.
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the injunction,.
at the same time expressing great fear that it was the
case with many of the Societies instituted, which held
out hopes that they never could realize.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 19.
PARKINSON V. LAUGHTON.
The plaintiff, in this action, is a farmer, the defen-
dant a maltster and publican, living at Saddleworth,
in Yorkshire.
The plaintiff claimed the sum of £7B 16s. for malt
sold to the defendant, who admitted the delivery of
the goods to the amount claimed by the plaintiff, but
stated in his defence that the sum had been paid.
One witness was examined, who stated, that he
saw, while sitting in the defendant's tap-rooro, the
money paid to the plaintiff, being the sum of i.:405, as
the balance of the account due to him. Two bills of
exchange were also put in, amounting to £49 15s.
which bad been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Mr. Detimatt, in reply, urged the extreme impro-
bability of the story told by the witness who had
been examined for the defendant ; it was; he laid,
against the usual course of human dealing for the'
.defendant, who, it appeared, was quarrelling with
the plaintiff, to pay him, without any voucher or any
evidence except the man who was casually in the
tap-room, not only the amount of his demand, but
even over payment of nearly £l5 ; it was impossible
for him, not knowing of the existence of this witness,
to lay before them any evidence to rebht the state-
ment he had made, but the extreme improbability of
k made him perfectly easy in leaving the case to the
good sense of the Jury.
Mr. Justice HornoYb observed shortly on the prt.',
babilities'of the case, and
The Jury, without a moment's hesitation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1:96:11.
HUNTER V. XING.
:• This was an action against the defendant, an ad-i
vertising money-broker, and who acted as the agent
for the plaintiff, in purchasing an annuity for him',
for negligence in the performaoco of his duty.. .
lidrcaamerr. shortly stated the fasts of the cam
to the Jury. The defendant, he said, was one- 4,
those persons who advertised to lend the money of
Other peOple ; he was introduced to the plaintiff to
vest some money for him ; he stated to the plaintiff
that a -Mr. Tufaell would grant an annuity on very,
adiantageons terms, and to make ;he security, unex-
ceptionable, the Rev. Mr. Pyke, of Baythorn Park,
in Essex, would join with Mr.Tuffnell in it. The
plaintiff consented to advance his money, and after
a time the deed was prepared, and signed by Mr.
Tuffuell, the Rev. Mr. Pyke,
.and duly witnessed.—r
The plaiutit paid £499 for an annuity of Lit) per
4umum, payable half-yearly. Ist the end of the first
half-year, Tuffneil decamped, and Mr.-Pyke being
applied to, he denied having ever joined in any such
4ecurity, and affirmed his signature to the deed was
a forgery. He (Mr. Scarlett) was far from charging
the defendant with any knowledge of the fact, that
the signature of Mr. Pyke was forged, there was not
the least suspicion of that, but the charge was, that
being.the agent of the plaintiff, he bad not made
those proper inquiries concerning Mr. Pyke, nor ex-
erted that degree of diligence which it was his duty
to do.—Witnesses were called, who proved the facts
as above stated.
Mr. DRNMAN, for the defendant, put forward se-
veral technical objections, which were overruled by
the Learned Judge who presided. The Learned
Counsel then contended, that, on the case as it stood,
-there was not evidence for the Jury to find a verdict
,against his client; for aught that appeared to the
contrary, Mr. Tuffnell might be dead, or might, as
was stated, be absent front this country, and he
might have left sufficient assets to satisfy all de-
mands against him ; for aught that appeared to the
contrary, the plaintiff himself-might have undertaken
to procure the signature of Mr. Pyke; and, under
all the circumstances, he thought it was a case upon
which the Jury would pause before they found a ver-
dict which would be ruinous to his client, on the evi-
dence which had been laid before them.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD summed up the evidenc
and the Jury, after a short deliberation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages £5ll.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

SEVERN,. LING, AND CO. V. THE PMENIX. FIRE-OFFICI.-
' Tuesday, this important cause, which had been
six days under consideration, was brought,to a con-
clusion. The plaintiffs, who are eminent sugar-re-
finers, sought to recover £15,000, for damage sus-
tained by them in the destruction of their premises.
by fire, in the month of November last year. The
chielpoints the durybad to decide on, were, to what
cause was the fire owing, and whether or not a IiCZO
:process used by the plailt►fs in boiling the sugar

viot • .