Star.
London, England, 1829-07-11 00:00:00

POCOCE V. RVSSEN.

In this case the plaintiff has supplied the defendant
with coals to the amount of seventy pounds and dome
odd shillings, against which the latter claimed a right
of set-off for the sum of 411.55. 4d.

Mi. F. Pota.out having stated his case, was about
to call witnesses, when

Mr. ATTORNEY GENZRAL, for the defendant, ob.
served, that he did not intend to dispute the delivery of
the coals; it was merely necessary for him to show that
the claim his client set up was a just one. The Learned
Gentleman then called witnesses, from whose evidence
it appeared that the plaintiff had undertaken to pay the
expenses attendant upon the working of a Commission
of Bankruptcy, to the amount of 5% The amount of
those expenses it seemed was 411. Ss.4d. the sum claimed
as a set-off.
Mr: F. Pou.occ contended that this set-off, from
its mature, was inadmissible, and cited a case from 2d
Campbell, wherein was held by Lard Ellenborough,
that the expenses of a Commission of Bahkrupt must
be paid by the petitioning creditor, until the appoint-
ment of assignees.
Lord Tamanzu, after reading the case cited ob.
served, that it did not refer to circumstances similar to
those under which the present action had arisen, and
that a verdict must go for the defendant.
The Jury immediately found for the defendant.
MARTINDALE V. BOOTH AND OTHIIRS.

This was an action of trespass, the Sheriffs of Mid-
dlesex being the nominal, and Messrs. Combe and Co.
the brewers, the real defendants. The case arose out
of a transaction in which the plaintiffs, wine merchants,
had obtained a bill of sale from Mr. Preist, the land-
lot d of the Peacock Tavern, Maiden-lane, Covent-gar-
den. For 1001. and any farther sum they might think
proper to advance him. Daring the time a man was
in possession on this bill of sale, the Sheriffs sold off the
good, on a warrant of attorney. held by Messrs. Combe,
Delafield and Co.; and the present action was conse-
quently brought for the recovery of the amount of the
bill of sale.

William Grafton Preist—ln May last year kept the
Peacock in Maiden-lane, and dealt with the plaintiffs;
at that time he owed 101. and applied to them for fur-
ther credit, as he wanted more wines and cash. Mr. S.
Maitindale agreed to his proposal, and witness was to
give him as security a claim upon the property in his
house, as far as 2001. Mr. Martindale then gave him
a check for 601. and let him have goods to the amount
of 601. This was in April, and he did not sign the bill
of sale till Mg. He was not quite certain whether he
had any more goods after this. He hid not paid any
part of the 1001. The furniture and fiztutes were in
the possession of the plaintiffs for six months prior to
the eaecution being put in. He left the house in the
month of o:tober following.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL—Wit-
ness owed Combe and Co. about 1,1001. which he on-
advanced on the lease of the house.

Witness married the widow of the former landlord, and
`had to pay her debts, her furniture and property not
being sufficient to pay them by one half.
Robert Doris, assistant to Mr. Wisby, an auctioneer.
On the 3d November went with him to the Petcock
Tavern, and was put in possession of the house on the
bill of sale. Did not see any man there from the Sher iff,
but three days alter, one of his officers came and re•
mained in possession about twenty-eight days. When
Wilson, the officer, came at first, he did not put any
one in possession, but did so nine or ten days after. The
man and witness remained there together; the goods
were sold by auction by Mr. Dennis.
Cross-examined—Went on the 3d November; Mr.
Wisby then made an inventory; when witness went to
the house Mrs. Farr was there; did not then know that
the Sheriff was in possession, and sevetal dip; elapsed
bel,re he did. _ _

John Wishy is an auctioneer; was employed by the
defendant to sell off the goods in question.
The particulars of the sale were then put in. The
goods sold for about 1401.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. contended that the assign-
ment to Messrs. Martindale ought to have been a
specific one. because the goods might have been
changed every month ; for it had always been held that
an assignment of goods and chattels must be specific,
or ina commercial country like this such instruments
might be executed and made the ready means of de.'
handing creditors. He contended therefore this bill of
sale could not legally be generally acted on. It happened
in addition to this fact, that the Shrriffs were in posses•
sion of the premises prior to the man being sent in
under the bill of sale, and that the Mrs. Farr named
by one of the witnesses was left in possession during
the absence of the officer. _

A young man, servant to the officer, deposed, that
he went and took possession on Saturday, the Ist Nov.
under a warrant of attorney; remained there until
Monday, when he lett, taking the warrant with him.
A number of other witnesses were examined.

Lord TENTERDEN observed that the facts of the case
were not disputed, and therefote there was no question
for the Jury, but only a point of lasv. His Lordship
then suggested that a verdict should be enteted for the
plaintiffs subject to the opinion of the Court on the
point of law reserved. The verdict was accordingly
entered for the plaintiffs—damages 931. 16s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 10.
HINDS D. PLEDGER AND DEVEREUX.

This was an action of trespass, in swearing the paint
of the plaintiff's house.

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE said, that the trespass here
complained of did not seem at first to carry much injury
with it, but on further examination it-would be found
to be attended with no slight dam.'ge to the interests of
his client. He was a tea dealer, carrying on business
at No. 7, Philpot-lane, and had been very successtul•in
his trade. Much depended upon a number. There was No.
37 snuff, which had a high reputation, and was so called
from the number of the house where the maker lived.
The defendants were both in the same way of business,
and being jealous of the estimation in which the plain-
tiff's wares were held, came by night and smeared his
number. The plaintiff put up a fresh number and in=scription, but the defendants again obliterated it. He
(the Learned Sergeant) did not understand painting,
being only used to draw now and then—(A laugh); but
' Pledger, one of the defendants did, and he put some-
thing in the paint with which they smeared the wail,
which made it extremely difficult to remove, so that at
length the plaintiff was obliged to put up a moveable
board which be could take in at night. He did not seek
for vindictive damages, but the miseries of human life
consisted of petty vexations often repeated, and he
therefore hoped that the Jury would impose such a
penalty as would prevent the defendants from annoy.
ing the plaintiff in future.
Several witnesses were called to prove the case; but
it appeared that the plaintiff's house was at the corner
of a covered gateway; and it was not distinctly shown
that the defendants smeared the plaintiff's side of the
Court, though they were seen painting the other side,
and it was doubtful whether the wall on that side
belonged to the plaintiff's house, as it merely supported
'the upper part of it which c sme over the gateway.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, who appeared for Mr. Deve-
rem said that his Learned Brother, although he pro-
fessed not to paint, had drawn this case so as to give it
a different complexion to its real one. The tact • as,
that Mr. Hinde, who had his name on every possible
part of his house, thought he should be ruined if he had
it not also on the opposite side of the court, and there-
fore took upon himself to paint out Mr. Devereux, and
several other names that had been there for years, and
put his own there instead. He was the last person in
the world that ought to cdmplain on the subject. His
client had merely painted up, by order of the parish,
a very common inscription—" Commit no nuisance."
The LORD Cuter Jusrica having unsuccessfully re-
commended the withdrawing of a juror, charged the.
Jury that the wall formed part of the massage of the
plaintiff, if, as one of the witnesses had said, the joists
of his house were let into it.

Verdict for the plaintiff aeainst Pledger—Damages,
One Farthing—Devereux, Not Guilty.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Jur.v 10.
Before &rCaatissornis Ramon.

THR WAxestat.D.—This was a suit to decide the
validity. of certain bottonny bonds, to the value of
1,900/. given by the pro import Master for money and 1
stores advanced for the service of the vessel.

The Counsel on a previous day had concluded the
arguments, and the suit was assigned for sentence.
The JUDGE said, that these bonds were given under
particular circumstances, and some of the evidence
went to taint their acquisition with fraud, and another
part to establish their validity. The Wakefield was
chattered by Messrs. Harris and Co. of Cork, to proceed
to Trinidad, with a gratuitous cargo, and to receive a
return cargo from their correspondents Messrs. Macdo-
nald, Hayley, and Co. of that place. On her arrival,
it appears that the cargo was not ready, and the
master was prevailed upon to undertake an interim
voyage to St. Bartholomew. Hiving taken in her freight
there, the master became seriously ill, and the mate,
Scott, was directed to assume the command and pro-
ceed to sea. She had not left the port many hours
before she sprang a leak, and was obliged to put into
St. Eustatius to refit. One of the bonds was for the
expenses there incurred. When she arrived at Trinidad
a regular survey was undertaken, and further repairs
and stores supplied, for which the other bond was
given. In the interim the Master died; and the Mate,
who bad acted in his stead, was superseded by a person
of the name of Brooks, the party who granted the,
bonds, and who also died before his return to Eng.
land. It has been attempted to, prove Macdonald
had this latter survey made for the purpose of pro.
tecting Messrs. Harris and Co. the charterers, who
would have been subject to a demurrage of 20 dollars
per diem; but there does nut exist sufficient proof of
this fact; and from the nature of the evidence in
general, the house of Macdonald, Hayley, and Co.

i

Istands exculpated from any charge of fraud in this
transaction ; and it becomes the duty of the Court to
pronounce generally for the validity of the bonds,
referring the accounts to the Registrar and Merchants
to regulate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, JULY 7.
REX •. RICHARD RADFORD ROL

The prisoner was brought up a third time to assign
error and plead thereon. Immediately after the sitting
of the full Court, he prayed Oyer r f the Record, which
was granted. As soon as Mr. Bourne had read it all
through, together with the judgment upon it,
Mr. A.HAMILTON; on behalf of the prisoner, prayed
a further extension of titae to assign error. It was really
impossible, he said, to be prepared at this short notice.
Mr. O'CONNELL—ReaIIy. my Lords, this is too bad
Seven weeks elapsed from the conviction till the writ
of error issued, and seven days have since intervened,
and now, on the second last day of term. the Court is
called upon to prolong the time of assigning error. The
object of this procrastination is manifest; if the case be
not argued either this day or to-morrow, it must lie
over till November next, and the prisoner will thus be
enabled, so far, to elude the judgment of this Court,
and to escape from punishment.
CHIMP Armee—That argument would be very good
against a further extension of time to assign error upon
the writ; but this is the first time the prisoner has ap-
plied since he craved oyer of the record.
Mr. BENNETT, K.C.—That is his own fault, my
Lord; on Saturday he got, upon his own application,
an extension of time till Monday. Oa Monday, upon
the application of Counsel, the time was further pro-
longed ; and nos, when brought up for the third time,
the prisoner demands a still longer indulgence, becau.e,
indeed, this is the first time he heard the record reid;
and why did he not crave oyer of the record on Satur-
day or on Monday? Because his object is to put the
ease beyond the reach of the Court during the re-
mainder of the Term, and thus to escape the just punish-
ment which by the laws of his country he ought to suffer,
for the crime of which he was found guilty. I hope,
my Lords, the Court will oblige the prisoner to argue
the points on which be means to rely forthwith.
Mr. HAMILTON—How can we plead upon errors
which have not as yet been engrossed ?
Mr. O'CONNELL—Very easily. In order that the
writ of cnor should have issued, it was absolutely
necessary that Counsel shculd certify thereto, before
the Attorney-General gave his fat. Counsel must,
therefore, have been aware or the points on which they
meant to rely in error; and I can see no reason at all
why the case should be any longer postponed; besides,
the prisoner had a copy of the info:mations.
Prisoner—l never hAd, Mr. O'Connrll.
Mr. O'CoawaLL—My authority is my friend Mr.
Green.

Prisoner—Your authority is wrong, Sir—(A laugh).
Mr. Gazgw-1 certainly ordered the prisoner to be
furnished with a copy of the informations if he called
for it.

Mr. It. N. BENNET—You may as well assent at once
to our request. We need not be here at all if v e chose
ourselves, for as yet issue has not been joined.
Sotacrroa-Genannt--Very true; but then you were
served with notice by the Crown to came up at once, or
if net, the Attorney-General would recall the writ of
error; you were therefore obliged to come up under
the habeas corpus.
Cam JUSTICE—The Court are of opinion that the
prisoner shall be allowed time %mut to-morrow to assign
error, and if he be not prepared then we sb.ll know how
to act by him.
The prisoner then v ithdrew in custody of the turnkey
of Newgate.

CRIMINAL INFORMATIONTIIR KING, AT THE PROM
CUTION ON MR• TALBOT OLASCOCE, C. DANIEL
O'CONNELL, MAURICE O'CONNELL, AND MICHAEL

STAUNTON, ESQRS. AND W. SIZE.

Mr. ARTHUR BURRS applied on behalf of the pro-
secution for a rule Aid against the defendants, for
having spoken and published libels against the prose-
cutor's character. The application was founded upon
several affidavits. The first affidavit was that of Mr. C.
Brcs se, who stated having purchased in the shop of one
of the defendants, Size, in Anglesea.street, a placard
or handbill, headed, " Attempt to assassinate Mr.
O'Connell—Toby Glascock." Ti'e next affidavit was
that of one of the prosecutor's servants, who stated that
he saw Daniel O'Connell, Esq. going into the office
of the Register on the morning of the day when this,
placard was published, and a few hours before the pub-,
lication thereof. Deponent heard and believes that the
same was printed and published by the directions of the
said D. O'Connell, in order to injure his (deponent's)
master's character and professional reputation. His
master, the prosecutor, and he went to the county of
Clue in the beginning of the last month, and in the
streets of Ennis they were attacked by a mob, who had
been incited to do the same by the aforesaid Maurice
O'Connell, Esq. and by him urged to throw eeponent's
master into the river Feigns; was assailed while sitting
in the dickey of his mulct's carriage with sharp-
pointed instruments, and was nearly killed by the mob,
who were thus excited by the aforesaid Maurice
O'Connell. Two other affidavits were put in by the
prosecutor himself; they corroborated the former state-
facia', and added, that the deponent had no intention
of shooting at, or taking away the life of, Daniel
O'Connell; and that although it was natural for
him to wish to outlive t,.e said Daniel O'Connell,
he had no intention of taking away the said
Daniel O'Connell's lite. There was a fifth affidavit'
made by the Reporter of Saunder's News Letter, which,
stated, " that on Saturday, twentieth of Jane last, be
attended at a meeting at the Corn Exchange, pursuant
to a requisition by Daniel O'Connell, Esq. for the
purpose of reporting the proceedings of such meet-
ing for the said paper, and said that the words • two
er three wise attorneys took it into their heads to send
down a maniac candidate to oppose him. The peop)e felt
it with indignation; and if he ccntinued much longer.
all his (Mr.oTonnelrs) friends could do, would not
prevent hit (the maniac) being Hung into the Fergus.
He was tcld to be off in five minutes; and in less than
three minutes and a halt he was not to be seen,' were,
as the deponent best recollects and believes, uttered by
the said Daniel O'Connell, in a speech, then and there
delivered by him on said occasion."

The CHIRP JUSTICE having consulted with the other
Judges, said, that it was the unanimous opinion of the
Court that the rule should not be granted against the
two Messrs. O'Connell, bat should be allowed as against
the publishers.
Mr. O'CoNezz.r., at the rising of the Court, said that
he had learned, since the above case bed been on, that
the affidavit stated to have been :Worn by the reporter
of Saunder's Ness Letter had not been either sworn or
filed. He must, therefore, apply for the protection of
the Court against such misrepresentation and unwar-
rantable conduct.
Mr. Justice Jun said, if Mr.'O'COnnell were rightly
iflformed, the conduct be complained of was highly
improper.

dersmod had been