Star.
London, England, 1819-11-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

D,

f

i

1

,;r
~.

i •

-- •
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 3.
The Loan CHasicactost took his seat this morning
at ten o'clock, and was occupied all day in hearing
adjourned Bankrupt Petitions.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 1.
Tits A,POTNIOCARIEB' COMPANY V. WARBURTON.
At the last Spring Assizes for Stafford, an action
was brought at the suit of the Apothecaries Com-
pany, against a Mr.Warburton, for an offence which
he had committed, under the 55th of the King, cap.
121. That Act, which is entitled " An Act for the
better regulation of persons carrying on the art and
mystery of an Apothecary," after excepting from its
operation all pet sons practising as Apothecaries on
Or before the Ist day of August, 1815, enjoins, that
any person practising as such, from and afterthat
day, who shall not have served a regular apprentice-
ship, and passed a regular examination before, and
received a regular certificate of his competency from
the Wardens of the Apothecaries Company, shall be
liable in certain penalties, therein specified, to be re-
covered in any of his Majesty's Courts of Law. The
action out of which the present application to the
Court originated, was brought to recover the sum of
£2O, one of the penalties in the Act, of the defendant
Mr.Warburton, for that he, not being an Apothecary
on the Ist day of August, 1815, was practising after-
wards as such without having served an apprentice-
ship, and without having a license aad certificate.
—The case was tried before Mr. Baron Garrow,
and on the trial Mr. Warburton claimed. a right of
following the profession which he was then exercising,
from having studied physic under his father, who,
though originally a gardener, had subsequently car-
ried on the business of a Cow-leech and a Quack
Doctor. The father was examined on the trial, as to
his capability of givirg his son instruction in the art
of medicine, and in the course of his examination
displayed such gross ignorance as is not often exhi-
bited in a Court of Justice. Being asked if he had
always been a Surgeon ? lie at first refused to answer
the question, but afterwards, on being hard pressed,
rsplied, " I ant a :urgent." Being then requested to
spell the word which he had just articulated, he spelt,
it " syur-gunt, sur-fiend, sur-gunt, and sur-gent," but
cculd not, after all his efforts, hit upon the right or-
thography of it. It also appeared by his ow.s con-
f:ssion that he had never made up any medicines
from die prescriptions of a Physician, but that, though
he did not understand the characters which were used
is them for ounces, scruples, and drachms, he thought
himself capable of making up as good medicines in
his way with the hand, as a Physician could in his
way w ill the scales ! It was also proved, that the'
sea was totally unacquainted with the Latin language
till the year 1817 ; that he was equally ignorant of
the signification of the usual medical symbols as his
father, and that he was equally unable at the time
of commencing the present action to make up from
a prescriptioh any dose that might have been ordered
of him. The Learned Judge, on summing np the
evidence, directed the Jury to find a verdict fb the
Plaintiffs, if they were of opinion that the defendant's
father bad not made up medicines for the sick from
the prescriptions of Physicians previous to the Ist of
August, 1815 informing them at the same time,
eilat by the sth Section of the Act on_which the ac-
tion was founded, this was one of the qualifications
which the Legislature considered essential. to the
practice of an Apothecary. The defendant bad oh-
tamed a Haile to theta cause why a new tiial should
not -be granted, on the ground that this was a mis,
direction in point of law on the part of the Learned
Judge. The case came before the Court this day, when
Messrs. Gow and Castrem.a were heard ..on the
part of the plaintiffs in support of the verdict. and
Messrs. lenvts PULLER, and Twist, in fupport of
the rule .whicl; bad been granted. After they had
finished their respett'ive arguments, the Court pro-
ceeded to give their judgment. .
Lord Chief-Justice ABBOTT said, that he was of
oPinion, that the direction of the Learned Judge wait
perfectly correct, and that the decision of the Jury
ought not to be invalidated. The point upon which
the Jury on the trial were called to decide was, who.
th3r the defendant's father, before August 1, 1815,
had beep practising as an Apothecary ? Now any
puson, before he came to a decision on that point,
wculd -askfliimielf what was the mcanin? of the
words, .41 practising as an Apothecary ?' best
way of making out that meaning would be a reference
to the words of the Act of Parliament. This was
the very mode which the Learned Judge adopted
he referred the Jury to the fifth section of the Act,
wherelsz it was found, that the Legislature considered
the mixing up of medicines from prescriptipns to be.
an essential part of the practice of an Apothecary.
This being,alie sense of the Act of Parliament, it
became the duty of the Jury to decide, whether the.
defendant's father had done this. Now, it appeared
from the evidence, that he was incapable of doing
it ; and, therefore, it followed, as a natural inference,.
that be did. not 'practise what the Legislature intended.
There was no.question left here to the Jury as to the
degree of skill which he possessed ; his want of skill
was decidedly' shewn to make up any physician's pre-.
scription. It appeared, that he could not read the
language in which these prescriptions were written:
and'amt, even if the language had been translated to
him, he could not have made out the number of
grains 'and scruples of which they were to be com-
posed. On these grounds, be was of opinion that no
new trial should be granted.
Mr. Justice liav Ley said, that the intention of this
Act mkt to prevent improper persons, who were not
practising before the Ist of August, 1815, from prat-
uszng in future an art which they did not understand.
Ile thought that the mere act of mixing up medicines
would: not terse to thew that the father was prac-
tising as an Apothecary: those words certainly had
a meaning, and that meaning was to be cellected
from the language used by the Legislature. The
Learned Judge who tried the cause had told the Jury
so to collect it : they were not a tribunal formed to
try his skill; they had to determine, whether the de-
fendant's father had or had not been performing what
isidered the duty of an Apothecary? It
deed, that the defendant had been prac-
father's steps, who had called himself a
-a horse-doctor, and a general doctor!
have administered- medicines to those
to them, but was that all which the Legit-
'tired nccetsary to constitute an dpodia

eery ? By no means. Indeed, to the other titles
which the Doctor had imposed upon himself, he
.blight add: theSitle Of:sa•Jodor, •if any pitied, Aiwa
the woful exposure which hail been made of his ig-
norance, should go to him again, either for counsel
or physic. He fully coincided with' the. opinion'ex-
premed by the Lord Chief-Justice.
Mr. Justice HOLHOYD and Mr. Justice BUT 2¢
seated to the opinions expressed by-their learned broi•
then ; and the rule was accordingly ordered to be
discharged.
SEBJEANT'S INN HALL, NOVEMBER 2. 1
7112 ZING 0. POTNIL.
The defendant had been indicted at the Kent A.
slam for refusing to discharge the office of Constable:
—At the-trial he claimed exemption from liability,
to serve the said office, by reason of a place held
under the Crown. He did not produce his patent,
and a verdict was taken for the Crown, subject tef
the opinion of the Judges. •
On this occasion, when the question came to be
argued, the Court was convinced of the justice of,
the claim to exemption, and without going again into
the case, judgment was given for the defendant.

THE KING O. THE INHABITANTS OF CROFT.
The Court was called upon to decide, whether an
order made by the Quarter Sessions for the removal
of a Pauper from Stoney Stratford to Croft ought
to be quashed?
It appeared that the pauper's father had grazed
his cattle in the field of a person at Croft; and, not-
withstanding there was no positive proof of a con-
tract for occupation of premises, as required by the
Statute, the Magistlates concluded that a contrast
had existed, from the circumstances, and that the
pauper belonged to Croft. •
The COURT, after hearing the arguments, decided
that the Sessions had drawn a proper inference, and
that the order of removal ought to be affirmed.
OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.

Tuesday Thomas Wikiish, aged 25, was put to
the bur, on an indictment charging. him with having'
forged, and uttered as true, a certain document, pur-
porting to be a note for £io, on the Dover Bank, on,
Saturday, the 28th of August last, to a Mr. Ander-
son, of No. 25, Holborn, with intent to defraud John
Miner Fector. The prisoner was also•char§ed on
other indictments, with forging and putting away,
notes to the same amount, and purperting to be
(drawn on the same Bank. The facts of.the• cue'

have already been fully laid before the Public..
Mr. K. Bisson, haberdasher, of Oxford-street; VW
Robert Essex, jeweller, of the Strand; and Alr.Ciraigi
of Oxford•street, proved the prisoner to have passed
forgeries forgeries also to them. The case was fully istalb-
lished:—The prisoner called two persons to speak tot
his character.—Guilty—Death.
The Counsel for the prosecution forbore going into
the other indictments.

Ann Trecon was put to the bar, on an indictment
charging her with stealing a watch, and a Rocket-
book, containing a1.:5 note . and five £1 notes, from
the person of Henry Hoffman, a seaman, in Ratcliffe
Highway, on the 10th of October. The prosecutor
appeared with his arm in a sling, having been so
brutally used by two men who were in company with
the prisoner, that be had lost the use of it, and had
been.confined in the Hospital up to the present time.
One of the- desperadoes had been indicted with the
prisoner, but he was not yet in custody. The unfor-
tunate prosecutor .had had his head.cut open, his
collar-bone broken, his ribs dreadfully bruised, and
his arm injured.—Guilty of stealing from theperson,
but not violently. .
Barnet Deans was put to the bar, on an indictment
charging him with having, on -the 12th of Septem-
ber, intermarried with Mary Ann .Lox, spinster, his
former wife, Eleanor Morgan,.being. then living.
The fact of the first marriage was proved by the
Parish Clerk of St. George's, Bloomsbury,
Elizabeth Conuor proved witnessing the ceremony
of the first marriage, and signing her name in the
register. She had heard Mrs. Morgan My she was
;a N./Wow, and that she had lost her husband at sec
The CQMNION SERJiANT here interfered: the first
wife was described in the indictment as a spinstet,
when, in fact, the witness said she. had known her,
and that she was a widow. This objection was fatal,
as Eleanor Morgan was not present, nor any perm
,who could state that she was a spinster.—Theini.
;sorer was acquitted. •
Catherine Harris was put to the bar, on an indict-
ment charging her capitally with stealing, on the.
27th of October, in the house of Mr. George Smith,
of Leicester-square, a watch, value 5, and a scarf,
value 15s. the property of Miss Caroline
Not Guilty.
Richard Jennings was indicted for feloniously utter-
ing an instrumeet, purporting. to be Bank of
England note, to a Mr. West, with intentlo defraud
the Governor and Compairy.of the bush of England.
*-4C9t Guilty. • •
Yesterday,. John Russell, aged 19, was charged
with ;stealing frvettloaen. of silver ferks,• and .othier
articles, the property of Messrs. Tvimlett and.Kidden
It appeared from the evidence, that in October Mr.
Kidderseut five dozen silver forks, and some silver
spoons, to Me. Leslie, an engraver in Ozeadonotreet,
in order to have them engraved. A day or two
after Mr. Leslie received thesproperty, a man called
at his hoUse, am/ represented thathe had been sent
by Mr. Kidder for it. An apprentice of Mr. Leslie's,
named Brooks, saw the man, . and told him that the
engraving was.not yet completed, but that the plate
would be sent to. Mr. Kidder's that afternoon, In
about two hours after, Brooks was sent by his master
to carry the plate to Mr. Kidder's: as he was passing
along Castle-street, Leicester-square, the same man
who had called at his masters house came up to
him, and asked him if he had Mr. Kidder's forks
and said that he was just going for theta. Brooks,
believing that he was the servant of Mr. Kidder, de-
livered the forks and spoons up to him. Irvine i;ftes‘
wards discovered that Mr. Kidder had never audio.
rized any person to obtain from Mr. Leslie the Po
which he had delivered to that gentleman. A f
days, after the transaction took place, Brooks snit
the prisoner at Knightsbridge, and recognized him
to be the person to whom he bad given the plate;
took him into custody, and the prisoner was ideatii.
fled by two of .Mr. Leslie's servants, who warepw
sent when he came as their master's house. •
On the part of the psi, several witnesses awe
called us prove an *• , but, upon their erosHinual.
nation, their evidence differed m many particulate.
The Jury found the primer


I tiie Actapp•eat con
appeared;
tying in his
cow-doctor,
Tkey might
•
who came to
latutc concei