Star.
London, England, 1828-07-07 00:00:00

JARRIN V. ZLLIOTT AND SABINE.

Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. DENMAN, and Mr. HUTCHINSON,
for the plaintiff; Sir J. SCARLRTT, Mr. BROUGHAM,
and Mr. LoNosLow, for the defendants.
The plaintiff, Mr. Jarrin, was a native cf Italy, but
had, for thirty years of his life, devoted himself to the

service of the English public. He was an eminent con-
. fectinner in New Bond-street. The defendants were
members of the Horticultural Society, and did not deny
their general liability, but only objected to the amount
rit the plaintiff's demand. In the early part of 1827,
the Committee of the Horticultural Society, of which
the defendants were members, resolved to give a grand
public breakfast, at their gardens at Chiswick, and the
`23.1 of June was fixed upon as the day of the entertain- I
'Lent. Advertisements were then published, announcing
that the tic krts were to be one guinea each. The next step
taken by the Committee was to send round a circular
among the most celebrated confectioners, and among

the test to the plaintiff, desiring him to send an estimate
to the Committee of the rate at which he was prepared'
to contract for furnishing a cold collation, consisting of
meat, fowl, ham, &c. &c: &c. for 1,000 or a greater
number of persons, at so much per head ; and likewise
tea and wines for the same number of persons. The
plaintiff made his calculations, and on the 25th of May
sent a letter to the Committee, informing them, that after
a careful estimate, he was satisfied that he could furnish
a proper collation of cold meat, ham, fowl, &c. at 17s.
a head ; wines at 2s. per head, and ices at Is. per head,
making in all 20:. per head. This, however, did not suit
the purposes cf the Committee, who wanted to obtain a
sum out of the prices of the tickets, for the objects of the
charity, and they sent Mr. Linley, one of their mem-
ben, to the plaintiff, and he stated, that what they
wanted was merely a lunch, and that for that lunch
121. a Bead was amply sufficient. Upon this the plain-
tiff, understanding that the entertainment was to be on
a much lower scale than he at fir,t imagined, wrote to
the Committee, offering to furnish the provisions and
wines at 12s. per head ; and on the 30th May the Corn-
niittee wrote their letter of acceptance, which completed
she contract. They intimated that they expected about
2,000 people. The day arrived—the weather was fine-
- and gteat crowds rushed into the gardens, to the num.
bet altogether of 2,843 people. Ices began to be served
at twelve o'clock ; the more substantial viands were
set ved at a quarter 'before three o'clock, till six o'clock,
and no complaints were heard ; but the company con-
tinued to arrive from twelve at noon till eight in the
evening, and they appeared to expect a splendid feast,
. .

instead of the coliatiOn for which the plaintiff contracted.
The plaintiff had amply fulfilled his contract ; and his
claim, at 12s. a head, for 2,843 people, was 1,7051.165.
Of this sum the Committee, on the llth, paid 1,0001.
and promised to pay the residue, but they afterwards
refused to pay, and the plaintiff brought his action, and
then the defendants paid 3004 into Court, leaving
4051. 16s. still due. This sum was due by the contract,
but even it there had been no contract, more than this
would be due, even on a foardum ',remit. This he would
prove, and then he would be entitled to their verdict.
It was allowed that 2,845 persons were admitted to
,the breakfast on the 23d of June, 1827.

The letters forming the contract were put in and
read.

Leonard Cousins, who, on the 23d of June, 1827,
was a servant of the plaintiff, was then called, and
proved the furnishing of the different articles.
Richard Jackson, a wine merchant, at'ended at the
breakfast to assist the plaintiff: the supply for the break.
fast was very abundant. He continued at the gardens
until past nine o'clock : he saw no deficiency, and beard
no complaint of a want of provisions and wines till late
in the evening, after the 'destruction was finished (for
many drank lodate mote like Goths and Vandals than
ordinary eaters and drinkers): the waiters co iducted
themselves remarkably well, except one man, who, at a
- late hour, was very drunk.
Several other witnesses, principally waiters, were
called, who gave similar evidence.
Sir J. ScattLetr, for the defendants, did not dispute
their liability to pay the plaintiff what was really due
to him; but thought it their duty to resist an unreason-
able demand. The defendants had guaranteed to the
plaintiff an attendance of 2,000 persons, and he ought
to have provided for a great many more, as was usual
on these occasions; for, although there should be a sur-
plus of provisions and wines, that was nr t lost. But the
plaintiff bad limited his supply to 2,000 people, and
even for that somber he had provided very ill, and en
der, these circumstances the contract had been broken;
but the Committee were still willing to allow him at
the rate of 12s. per head for 2,000 people, which was
1,2001. - They had paid 1,0001. and instead of the other
2001. had paid 3001. into Court, in order to be sure to
be beyond the mark; and he would show that this was
very ample remuneration for such a collation as the
plaintiff furnished, which might be called a fast rather
than a feast.
John Linley, Assistant Secretary of the Horticultoral
Society, waited op the plaint-fff in consequence of his
previous tender. The sum of 12s. a bead was agreed
on, and the Committee mentioned to him that the num-
ber might be about 3.000; but they would guarantee
2.000 ; and he promised that he would prepare abun-
dance of substantial provisions for 3,000 people.
The Honourable Frederick Byng was at the fete of
last year before three o'clock, with a party, and they
got something, btu his party were net satisfied; he went
away with that party, and returned again after the
scramble, to get something more for himself, along with
others who had got nothing, and there was nothing to
be bad except bones of ham nearly picked, and scraps
of bread, to which the company wtto were along with
him were not accustomed; there was not provision for
one half of the company ; be was in the habit of attend.

ing public breakfasts ; never saw any so bad as this,'
except one, and that was from an accident.
G. Frost, Esq. John Wood, Esq. M.P. for Preston,
and Mr. Brookes, the anatomist, gave a similar account
of the scarcity of every thing but ices. Many of the
♦isiters were also called, who proved that there was
not more provisions than enough for two-thirds of the
company.
Robert Gonter, confectioner, had seen the bills of the
fete of 1827 ; there was enough of bread for 2,000 per
; the wines were not sufficient for that number; •
he was himself at the fete of 1827, and as far as the
provisions met his eye they were not sufficient. The
plaintiff was a man of talent in his way. The tout ensemble
of the fete was good. Witness had 14s. per head for
the fete of this'year ; there was abundance of provisions
and wine left this year, alter all the company were
satisfied.

Lord TENTERDEN left it to the Jury to say whether
1,300/. the sum paid by the defendants, was enough for
such an entertainment as the plaintiff had supplied.
Verdict for the defendants.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDWALL, Jura. S.
Sittings after Trinity Term, before the LOAD Cuter Juane' and
a Common Jury.
RIDDELL N. THOMAS.

This was an action by Mrs. Riddell, who is the widow
of Colonel Riddell, late of the East India Company's
service, to recover 14/.6x. the amount of certain expen-
ses which she had been put to in consequence of the
alleged neglt ct of defendant's servant. The defendant
is a scavenger, and on the 13th of December last,while
Mrs. Riddell was proceeding in her carriage along the
Kingland•road, towards her country seat at Enfield,
one of his carts, under the care of a boy ssho was riding
on the foie horse, was driven with such violence against
the lady % carriage, that one of the shafts was forced
completely through the panels, and a portion of it
broken off. The accident appealed to have arisen in
consequence of the defendat is shalt horse, which was
blind, having started at the sound of some street music;
but it was contended, that if the boy had attended
pipped), to hii duty, by wa:king instead of riding, the
accident could never have happened, and it was there-
fore insisted that the defendant WAS liable.

Witnesses were called, who fully established the case.
Vor the defendant it was contended, that the accident
had arisen from the neglect of the plaint.ff's postilion,
and not from want of care on the part of the boy, who
was with the defendant's cart; and several witnesses
were called, who swore that he hid the command of
the horses as completely while on the back of the leader,
as he would have had if he had been walking by their
side. It was also sworn that the carriage was crossing
on the wrong side of the road.
The Jury, however, not crediting these witnesses, re.
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 14.1.65.

OLD BAILEY, JULY ..

j- -••• . • • -

OLD COURT.

William Bull, aged 30, and William Smith, alias Cox,
aged 30, men of respectable appearance, were indicted
for stealing, on the 19th of February, from the Houn-
slow Post Office, twenty-nine mail bags, the property
of his Majesty.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the case to the Jury.
It was usual for the country mail,when proceeding to
London, to stop at Hounslow, when a window was
raised up, that the bags for that post might be thrown
in. About six o'clock the first coach generally calls,
and in less than an hour the last of them passes; twenty-
nine bags were missing shortly after, when a ladder,
and the Newbury bag, were found in the street. The
ladda was identified as one that was seen at the lodg-
ings of the prisoner Bull. A key that had been stolen
from the Coach and Horses public-house that morning,
was found in the possession of Smith.

•
Many witnesses were•examined.
Mr. Justice BUR RouGu then summed up be evidence
with great perspicuity, after which the Jury retired for
a few minutes, and rrtorned a verdict of Not Guilty.
.NEW COURT.

Jane Smith, aged 17, a young girl of respectable ap-
pearance, was indicted for stealing a watch, value 18s.
the property of John Tehbutt.
The prosecutor, a stout-built, }warty-looking old man,
stated that he was a brick-maker, and lived at Ken-
sington. On the mottling of the 16th of June he Went
out early, leaving the watch in question hanging over
his mantle piece. Oa his return home it was gone. The
prisoner's sister was in the habit of coming to his
lodgings to make his bed. lie suspected the I.risoner,
and charged her with the robbery, which she imme-
diately confessed, and told him where the watch was;
he then sent for an °dicer, and gave her into custody.
The pi isoner, on being asked it she wished to put any
questions to the witne.s, slid, that her sister lived with
him as his wife, and that she gave her the.. atch to take
to be repaired; that she took it accordingly, and left it
with a watchmaker ; she did not sell ir, or obtain any
money on it. •
The prosecutor was recalled, and Mr. Sergeant ASASIN asked
him if the prisoner's sister lived with him a% his wife?
Witness—What, live with me. my Lord—an old man like me—
it's all nonsense. I don't want any such hussey—l had rather have
a shoulder of mutton at any time.
Mr. Sergeant ARAZIN—Tben you never lived with her?
Witness.—No; and I'll swear to the truth of what I have said
through the thickest door in Newgate.
Mr. Sergeant Asaatx—Have you ever been in a Court of Jus-
tice before?

Witneu—l know what you mean ; I'm " down" to you ; hut
I'm ad honest, a man as any in the world, and I defy the world
when I leave this place, to call after me " Stop thief !"
Sergeant A saint—Have you never been at Cie: kenwell?
Witness—What, you want to make a thief of me whether or no;
but k won't do—k's no go. lam quite surprised at you, my
Lord, "axing these ere questions ;" L thought you had known
better—(Roars of laughter).
Mr. Sergeant AllAlUN—Were you ever at Clerkenwell—you
know what I mean ?
Witness—lf you come to that, I was there once for " face
making" (bastardy) but that is a matter of forty years ago—
(renewed laughter)—You will make me quite angry with you, if
you go on in this ere way. You want to make me out a thief ;
l'U at any body if I look like a thief.
Sergeant Musa—Have none of your family gene abroad at the
expense of Government?
Witness—lts an extraordinary family that has neither a wh—e
nor a thief in it.—None of my children ever went to eat old bulls at
Woolwich, or wherever it is you send 'em to.
Mr. Sergeant Against—You may stand down.
Witness—l am glad of it.
Thomas Young, a watchmaker proved that the prisoner left
the watch with him to be tepaired. She did not ask fur any
money on it.
The Jury immediately expressed themselves satisfied, and ac-
quitted the prisoner.
The prosecutor, as he was leaving the Court said, I had rather
work bard for twenty-four' hours than be in such a queer place '
as this for five minutes."