Star.
London, England, 1828-12-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
•
• . . •
• COURT OF ChANCitlit DM. ti:
IN RE HARSH AND CO BAlsllllthill.
The Loan CHANCELLOR gave judgment in thisla•e,
the facts or which Mete stated on a foinier
q. estion before' the Court arose up n a pititioa by
the assignees ag 'hist the proof of.. debt on behalf of the
1 u.tees,in whose name=, together with that of Mr.F 'ant-
leroy, a sum i f 16,0001. stock had been' invested in, the
Bank of England, which sum had been s, ld nut frau-
dulently by Fauntleroy,.and the produce brought iota
the partnership fund at different times. Ili. Lordship
secapitolated the facts, and the arguments which had
been raised at the bar, at some length. Adverting to
the fact which had been alleged, that an agreement had
been entered into between the Bank of England and
the trustees, his Lordship said he thought that, was no
ground upon which the prayer of the petition couldbe
supported; because if the trustees had, as they migEt
have, a right of action as well against the firm as against
the Bank of England, they had also a right to elect
against which of the pasties they chose to proteed, aid
having done so, the Latta 'wool.] have no reason to com-
plain that the other was not also sued. It had been urged
that the agreement between the Bank and trustees was il-
legal,because it had for its object to ratify a felonious act ;
but in considering this, be a. rived ..t the opinion which
had been expressed by the Court o. King'slll. nch ; and he
thought :with that Court that there was a fallacy in the
argument, and the- fallacy lay in supposin!, that by
means of the agreement the felony was to go un-
I punished. Under this part of the case came that ob-
jection on which Mr. Sergeant Wilde lrad relied when
he contended that a party sung for restitution of stop n
property could not be entitled to it, unless he prose-
cuted the felon. That was tiue fit general ; but it did
mt apply to this case. It was an universal principle of
.criminal law, and its use was obvioutl because if it • els
not enforced, it would lead to the composition of felo-
hies, and the abandonment of all criminal prosecution.
To make it apply to the tfusees; it must however be
show n that they had wilfully `negected to prosecute ;
it did not however appear that they had done so, or
that they had shown any backwarchtess in out suing the
guilty party, who, it was known had suffered the ex-
tiem•f penalty of the law for a frost cif a native simi-
lar to that which had .been' committed in this case.—
The principlealluded to was one not 'elating to private
transactions, but to public justice; and it could not be
carried further than public justice tccolired. Looking
then to all die facts of the eve—to all the ptinciples of
law which bete upon those facts—and to what appear..d.
to be the clear right of -the patties—he thought the
trustees had a right to' prove for their debt under the
Commission, which was the opinion he had o,iginally
f rated, and he therefOre ordered the petition to be dis-
missed with costs. •
COURT OF KING'S_BENCII, Wimmorrota, Dec. 18.
THE KING V. WALTER TYLEIt.
- WS' wts an indictlient for perjury against the,clesk
of George Reddaway, the attorney, who was yesterday
convicted on a similar intrc:ment.• T..e detenditt' had
sworn to the same. fact. deposed to •by his master, in
corioboraiionAthe fffidavjt of the letter made in the
'Court of Comm:id Yeas. .
-11,.'Gutticky now stated that he *did not propose (0'
call any evidence in thiv-cise, as there was season to
believe that the defendant-had acted under the influence
of his master ; and. th4refore,..not3vithvtanding he had
conducted himself,very ill,. by might, if the Cr utt
pleased, le acqui.ted•orithe prese9t indictment.
A verdict of Not tivillyWat then recorded.
• ' cnit.Ps- v. 818 11.41011.10:T. BOIT.
.This was an action by a livery -table keeper to recover
A sum of 1481. for the use of so tie job horses and car-
riages furnish'ed to the deft•ntlat;t.

. -
The him of the horses and carnage" was, proved ;
and evidence was given th at the charges were reasonable.
The defendant, Coon Vet, Mr. Cowrie, however. oh•
jetted to a charge of 11. 4s. for a -pa.r c 4 horses horn
Piccadilly to Waltham Cross. He said he might call
as witnesses in thii case, the Gentlemen who went tl.e
Home Circuit, who all knew that the charge for a pair
ef horses to Waltham Cross was only a guinea. ..
Lord TENTERDICN—They mo-t take care then, th;t
they do not set out irons Pics.adilly, but from afir ORA
chambers.
No witnesses were called for the defence, and she
Jury immediately found a verdict tot the plain.iff, for
the full amount of his &mild.
GRANT e. JONES AND ANOTHER; •
This was an action *by a wish..., *ho carried on the
business of a bedsacking maker and r!:pe -eller, in Graf-
ton-street, Soho, for a nuisance. The defendants were
brass-founders tad smelters, carrying on busiaess next
door to the pl.2i tiff. They had cope to reside in the
neighbourhood about four years ago, w hen tl eir busi-
ness was confined to that of brass workers. Since their
p:e'ent business had been carried on, great annoyance
had been otcasinned to the plaintiff and tier neighbours
by the smi ke and noise horn their manufactory. Se-
veral of the plaintiff's workmen and lodge's stated that
,dense'vaeours came continually froth the de•etiJint's
premises, and spread all around the adjoining.houses,
causing a sulphurous smell, Which almost suffocated
those who had any disorder in. the lungs. Complaints
Of the nuisance mere made by the plain iff's.a of knien
and others, and some of the lodgers had intimated their
intention to quit their apartments unless the nuisance'
was abated. This evidence was corroborated by that
tit several other witnesses.
For the defendants some witnesses were called to
prove that the -nuisance, if any existed, was not so bad
as represented by the plaintiff's sicknesses, and that no
annoyance to the neighbourhood had been occasioned
by it. The Jury, without hearing the evidence summed
up, found for the plaintiff—Damages ls. •
'MESSER v. Mei AND OTHERS.
This was an attach' 'against the assignees of Dorothy
Smith, lately a coach-maker in Regent-street, to reco-
ver danviges under. the fulloaing citcumstances. In
May, 1826, Mrs. Smith having become a bankruft, a
sale by auction of her carriages and other effects took
place. Amongst them was. a landau which had b‘en
let on a job to a Gentleman of the name of Lore for five ,
years from Sept. 1824. The plaintiff, a coach-maker.
attended the sale. and purchased the landau (subject to
the contract with Mr. tore) for 1781. los. The tetras a f
the agreement with Mr. Lore were,- that he sh- Uld'pay
70 guineas per annum for the use of the landau. and
that tl e coach-maker st raid keep it in repair ; and' a
power was reserved to Mr. Lore to purchase it at, any
time within the five years for 3201. deducting from
that sum all the annual payments which might Jhave
been previously made. The plaintiff having become
the pu cha.er of the landau,• received horn Fair.
Lore one of the annual 'payments 'of seventy iiiineas.
and painted and repaired' the carriage at a consi-
derable expense ; but before -the 'second payment be-
came due, he received a lettet from Mr. Lure, stating
his intention to avail himself of the power reserved to
him by the agreement of purchasing the landau. The
plaintiff was at that time ignorant of the clause in the
agreement, but on the instrument being minced to

71" ''.