Star.
London, England, 1829-10-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 20.
!IL, P. own.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 2001. drawn and en-
dorsed by the defendants, and accepted by Lord Audley.
The handwriting of Lord Audley was proved, but the Common
Sergeant called the attention of Lord Tenterden to the fact, that
though the acceptance to the bill, making it payable at Sir James
Esdalle's, was in the writing of Lord Audley, yet there was added
on the bill, in some other handwriting, " or at 11, Poland-street,
Oxford-street." The declaration stated the bill to be made pay-
able at either place, and was therefore clearly bad, for the accept-
ance only made it payable at the one place.
Mr. Conant. hoped his Lordship would, under a recent Act
of Parliament, give him liberty to amend, as it was a cue pre-
cisely within its meaning, it being merely a mistake of the special
pleader who had drawn the declaration.
Lord Teo/suns said he was decidedly of opinion that this case
did not come within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, for it
was clearly the result of negligence, and not a blunder which might
have been committed, notwithstanding the greatest care and atten-
tion. If he was to give liberty to amend in the present cue, it
would be nothing less than giving a premium to negligence.
The plaintiff then proceeded upon the account stated, in order
to recover the amount of 2001. for the marble, purchased by the
defendants, through an Agent, for Lord Audley, from the plain-
tiff, for which marble the defendants had indorsed the acceptance
of Lord Audley to Sir James Jelf, the plaintiff.
Mr. DENMAN, for the defendant, contended that the person
who represented to be the agent of the defendant was not so, but
had, in fact, purchased the marble, and subsequently sold it on his
own account. _ _

A witness was called. who proved that he purchased the marble
from the alleged agent at Messrs. Wigs 's, in Oxford•street, and that
the agent then represented the property as his own.
Mr. CAMPBELL replied ; and
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages stSlOO.
IN EA WY V. COULSEN.
This was an action to recover the sum of 121. for work and
labour done.
The defence was, that the plaintiff, who is a bricklayer, had
left his work unfinished, and badly executed that which he had
done, and further, that be had already been overpaid.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Damages, if.

THR LING V. CARRINGTON •ND RRAIIMONT.
This was an indictment against the defendants for a conspiracy
to obtain goods fraude'ntly from the prosecutors, Messrs. Fergu-
son and Co.
Mr. Foxiocx stated the case to the jury. The defendant Car-
rington took a shop in Bridge-street, Blackfriars,and obtained goods
to the amount of 2801. front Messrs. Ferguson and Co. part of
which he afterwards sold in his shop for less money than he had
given for them. The other ddendant was named Beaumont,
and he was in the habit of coming daily to the shop of Carrington,
and taking from thence, without invoice or bin, the goods which
had been sent in by Carrington's creditors from day to day, which
goods Beaumont sold in various places and at various times, for
such prices as he could obtain for them. He should prove these
facts, and had no doubt but the Learned Judge would tell them
that such a practice was a gross fraud ; and that if Beaumont and
Carrington had agreed to obtain goods in this way, they were
guilty of a gross conspiracy.
Mr. Tinss an. here said, that be appeared for Carrington, and
no one appeared for Beaumont.
Frederick Martin, a partner in the house of Ferguson and Co.
deposed, that Carrington came to their house in March last. and
bought a quantity of ribands, to the amount of 211. on one month's
credit; he continued for two or three months to deal with them,
to the extent of 2801. of which he paid no part, though he bad paid
other small sums ; witness had heard something of Carrington and
Beaumont, and in consequence sent one of his servants to purchase
some articles at a retailer's house. The witness here stated the
prices for which he bad Geld several pieces of riband to Carrington,
which pieces were brought back by the servant be bad sent to pur-
chase at the retail shop.
Lord Timelines asked if such evidence could sustain the in-
dictment in its present form?
Mr. Pomocx said he could go no farther, nor could be prove
that the shop was only opened for the purpose of getting credit.
Lord TENTERDIN said. however fraudulent such conduct might
be, and however much to be reprebended,still such evidence could
not sustain the indictment.
The Jury accordingly acquitted the defendants.
Lord TENTIRDEN said that persons in trade did not do them-
selves justice in giving credit so very readily as they appeared to
have done In this and many other instances.
ELLIS IP. WOODMAN.
In this case the plaintiff appeared to conduct his own case, and
Mr. Gnawer appeared for the defendant.
It was an action to recover back ,Cl3O, paid as a deposit on some
houses in George-yard, which had been sold at the Auction Mart.
The plaintiff was present at the sale, and bid for the houses from
the description of the lot in the catalogue. On the inspection of
the houses subsequent to the sale, he found so many errors in the
description of the lot that he refused to complete the purchase,
and now sought to recover back the deposit which be had paid at
the sale.
The catalogue described the houses as brick-built houses, and it
was proved that the upper stories were only partially of brick, the
bick part being entirely of wood, which might be seen at a glance.
The front was brick to the top, with a parapet wall.
Upon this proof, Mr. Guantr said be would, offer no defence.
The defendant bad sold as he had bought.
Lord Tali:gangs said they were not brick-built houses.
Mr. Guiterr—No, my Lord.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff—Damages, £l3O.

This was an action brought by the plaint ff, a livery. stable.keeper,
against the defendant, who is a horse-dealer, for publicly imputing
to the plaintiff certain acts of dishonesty, and applying to him se-
veral defamatory epithets.
Mr. Guatisy conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Durmast and
Mr. Purr appeared for the defendant. The following witnesses
were examined in support of the plaintiff's case.
John Angle—h the brother of the plaintiff; recollects the defend-
ant Alexander coming into his brother's yard, in January last, and
asking him did a person of the name of Peers, who was a bankrupt,
owe his brother any money? to which he replied, that his brother
told him that Peers owed him no money. Defendant said that it was
fortunate for him, as he bad a bill of Peers's just returned
on him. Some days subsequently, the defendant came again into
the yard, and asked him for his brother, when be told him that he
was not at home. The defendant then said that his brother was a
swindling thief, and was trading upon other people's money, and
that he was an insolvent, and not able to pay half-a-crown or one-
and-sixpence in the pound. Those words were used in the open
street, and in the presence of several people ; and in about a week
after he was with his brother, when they met the defendant in
Coleman-street, who then said," There goes the swindling thief;'
and he continued this language up to the last fortnight.
Cross-examined by Mr. DENMAN—Though his brother told him
that Peers owed him no money, yet his brother proved a debt of
2001. under Peers's commission ; the reason he told the defendant
that his brother told him so was, that be did not wish to tell the
fact to a man of Alexander's description ; his brother never played
the gray pitch and toss—(A laugh). He might have done so.
George Britton was present at Peers's examination before the
Commissioners, where he saw the plaintiff and defendant. The
defendant told the plaintiff that he was a bankrupt-maker, and a
false-prover under bankruptcies, and that the bankrupt Peers did
not owe him one shilling ; and if it was not for his neighbours,
that his house would look very queer.
A person of the name of Pledger, the landlord of the Castle
Tavern, Moorgate, proved the defendant coming into the coffee-
room of his house, in January last and there publicly stating that
the plaintiff would be a bankrupt in a month, and was not able to
pay balf.a-crown in the pound. On his crosrezamination, he ad.
mitred ttat his house was a sporting one, and that previous to this
' the plaintiff and the defendant were in the habit of resorting to it,
sad were on habits of intimacy. Other witnesses corroborated this
witness, when
Mr. Duaxan replied, and said that justice would be fully satis-
fied by giving the lowest possible damages, thereby leaving each
party to pay their own costs.
The cuter JUSTUS said this was not a case for heavy damages.
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, Damages, 501.

The repetition of Canova's statue of the Magdalen was
made with the marble rut from between the legs of the statue of
Napoleon which is now iii the Duke of Wellington's antechamber.
A bust of Pius VII. was made froni the marble cut from under
the arm. When this statue of Napoleon was embarked on the
Tiber, for the purpose of being sent by water to France, it was
placed in the vessel on a false moveable platform, in order that it
might in three minutes be plunged into the eta, should the English
cruisers approach too nearly.—(Stesseiketa Prawns:4a dans Rome)
EGYPTIAN ANTlQurriEs.—Letters have been re-
raut
'ved at Marseilles from- ld. Champaign, up to July 4. At that
te the researches in the tombs of the,llJags at Thebes were corn-
ed, and the results of five months labour were of great inte-
rest. Among them is " A Table of the Rising of the Comae•
dons of every Hour of the Months of tko Year," with the influ-
ence of each constelladoe. This niatunsent is both astrological
' and astronomical, and of the most remote Egyptian antiquity.-
1 Literary Gaulle.