Star.
London, England, 1829-12-03 00:00:00

••••,

LAW INTATLICETICE.
COURT OF KINGS DENIM Dna. 2.

WEST WIDDLXIEL WATZ2,-WORLII COMPAPT SUIVIIIKSOP AND
4111101111 BIL •
Thill was an action brought against the defendants for fraudu-
lently placing a pipe and cock on the main pipe of the Company,
by which they obtained water for the supply of the defendant Su-
werkrop's baths without paying the Company, although he had
agreed to give the Company one penny for 56 gallons.
The Clerk of the Company deposed to the defendant applying
for a supply of water to some baths situated In Lucasvard, Oxford-
street, and that the Company agreed to furnish him with it at the
rate of one penny for 36 gallons.
Pdward Smith, Inspector, proved that there was a service-pipe
leading to the tank on the basement of the defendant's premises.
There was a guage In the to*, and it was the turncock's business
to take an account of the supply of water.
William Turner examined—Was in the service of defendant last
year; was first emgloyed In the stable, and afterwards took the
place of foreman; It was my duty to see the cisterns full. They
used to be pumped full; but went away one night about eleven,
and next morning found a pipe laid on ; it had been placed there
during the night ; the business was not quite completed, and the
turncock, Smith, and a plumber, returned about ten o'clock and
finished the plumbing work at the pipe. The cock of this pipe used
to leak, and the defendant said he would make the turncock put in
another. The turncock frequently had a bath, but he was never
charged for it ; the price was 4s. He Is now in, defendant's service.
cross-examined by Mr. Cameau.s.—Did :lot know that Sewer-
krop was the clerk to the Portable Bath Cothpany ; was dismissed
from the defendant's service.

Re-examined by the AITO2II2V Gisn.at.—informed the Com-
pfix ny of this pipe about three-quarters of a year after it bad been
ed.

Several other witnesses were enunined, whose evidence corro-
borated that of Wm. Turner.

The defence to the action was, that the defendant Suwerkrop
was the clerk to the Portable Bath Company, and was not in Lon-
don when the pipe was laid on the main.
The Arroassv-thntaaat, in reply, said, that whether or not
Suwerkrop was a partner or clerk, it did not signify, as be knew
what was going on, and immediately that pipe was laid on, it de-
prived the Water ,ompany of rent ; and the moment the pipe
was taken tiway, the rent was the same as it was before the pipe
was put in, and that it was therefore& fraud upon the Company.
Lord Timm= summed up the case to the Jury. and said that
a master was answerable for the illegal acts of his servant, and if
they thought the son of Mr. Suwerkrop was aware of the facts of,
the pipe being laid on, they would give the plaintiffs the benefit of
the verdict.

The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a •erdict for
the plaintiff—Damages £2O.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 2.

LIBIL—PINDEX V. WSSTLAIM
Mr. Sergeant %toe stated the plaintiff's case. Francis William
Finden was a young man who, while waiting for a situation which
hr expected to obtain in a public office, entered at a very small sa-
lary into the employment of Mr. Westlake, a gentleman who was
in the habit of sending him about for the purpose of endeavouring
to obtain cash for bills, which be went in the habit of drawing upon
a person of the name of Wimpy. But a short time elapsed from
the period at which the plaint.ff enteted upon this employment
before the charge was brought upon which the present
action was founded. Mr. Westlake waited upon the father
of• the plaintiff, saying that be bad looked into the
young man's desk, and from an account there be perceived
that Francis Finden had appropriated to his own use a suns
of six pounds, the property of the defendant; also two
bills of. exchange, drawn upon Mr. Wimpy, mid one drawn by
that gentleman, amounting in the whole to upwards of £2OO.
Upon this a good deal of communication passed between the par-
ties, in the course of which the father offered a bond for the sum
In question; but Westlake required that the money should be paid
immediately. The defendant. not content with making these
charges, caused to be posted up in all the usual places for sticking
bills, a placard, consisting of a notice cautioning bill-brokers and
ethers against taking two bills drawn upon Mr. Wimpy, for eighty-
seven pounds and thirty.nine pounds, and another drawn by that
gentleman, and charged the plaintiff with embezzling them. It
must be evident to the Jury, that if the money were paid by the
father for bills, the real value of which was much to be doubted,
the present cause of action would never bate arisen. If it should
appear to the Jury that the defendant acted bona-fide, there would
be grounds for the Jury's coming to a decision in his favour • but,
on the other band, if be were only influenced by a desire to Obtain
in cash the amount of wettbless bills, the Jury would feel it only
just that Finden should receive compensation for the injury done to
his character.

The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Serjeant ANDIMWS, for the defendant, put It to the Jury
whether, under the circumstances, Mr. Westlake could have done
otherwise than, upon probable cause, institute the prosecution, and
afterwards yield to the importunities of a father and drop the pro.
secution, when, and when only, that father had guaranteed the
payment of the money ?
James Mathews, a clerk of Mr. Wesdake,examlned—l was pre.
sent when directions were given to search Mr. IFinden's desk ; the
bill now shown me was on the 30th of April stuck upon Mr. West-
lake's house.

George Gelder—A paper, with penciled directions on it, was
given to me; I searched in conformity with them, and did not
find the bills; I found an envelope, addressed to Mr. Wright, bat
did not contain the bill stated in the penciled writing.
James Smyth.—l know the plaintiff; I never received the bill
in question.
Crossountined.—l have a slight recollection that Mr. Finden
once said something about a discount to me.
Samuel Wright.—! do not recollect having been asked for the
discount in question ; he usight have done so; at different times I
have paid in cheeks to the plaintiff, sums amounting to between live
and ten thousand pounds, and he might ask about such a discount.
Mr. Finden reexamined.—My son's promising In one of his
letters that I should call and arrange about a bill related to another
bpi, an acceptance of my own.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 2200.