The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-07 00:00:00

(FROM THE CARLISLE PATRIOT.)

Although we have already adverted to the inconstant
and inconsistent conduct of Sir James Graham, in refer-
ence to, the question of public distress, his vote of Tues-
day night against any further reduction of taxation
places it in a light so peculiarly scandalous, as to call
. for separate and particular notice. In 1830, at a pub-
lic meeting of his constituents, the right hon. baronet
declared his deliberate conviction, that one of two courses
was imperatively called for,—" either the taxation must
be reduced to the altered value of the money, or the
money must be placed on a level with the taxation."
Those, we believe, were Sir James's very words., Well,
—in one little week, Sir James has had an opportunity
of supporting both those measures; and—both has he re-
jected! Call ye this " enlightened and patriotic," Free-
holders of Cumberland? No, no—we cannot think ye
so deluded now, whatever ye may have been. But of
this we are sure, that whatever ye, in your partiality
may wish to call it, truth and justice cry out against it,
as an exhibition of as glaring political knavery as is to
be found in the annals of humbug.

(FROM THE DUBLIN WARDER.)
CHURCH REFORM.—Whig legislation, if it shall not
succeed in alienating the Protestant loyalty of Ireland,
will go far to establish O'Connell's charge, that the inter-
ests of Ireland are uniformly sacrificed to those of England,
and that the same measure of justice is not held out to the
people of both islands. In the conversation which took
place on Lord Althorp's proposition for the commutation
of tithes in England, the principle of liberality towards
clergymen, as gentlemen of education, was conceded
even by Mr.i Hume, and both he and Sir Robert Peel ex-
pressed a hope, that the average of income would not be
takenat a sum less than £3OO a year. To Sir Robert
Peel the justice must be clone, that he expressed a hope,
that when the tax on the Irish Protestant clergy should
come under consideration, it should not affect a benefice
of a lower value than £3OO per annum. But, why tax
the Irish Established Church at all ? If the thing be just
in Ireland, it would be equally so in England ; and, if
unjust in England, it would not be less so in Ireland. Is
it not, then, monstrous that such a measure should have
ever been contemplated towards the Irish branch of the
Established Church ? We know that Lord Althorn has
received statements from (Efferent clergymen in Ireland,
respecting the exclusive tax measure and its oppressive
and impoverishing operation, which, as a man of truth
and justice, lie could not offer a word of argument in op-
position to. We will remind him of one transmitted to
him from the diocess of Meath, by a clergyman having a
large family, and his benefice, by composition, value be-
tween five and six hundred pounds—this statement in no
part hypothetical, but founded on absolute facts, proved
to his lordship that, between the proposed Whig spoliation
and the deductions to which the living is already subject,
this gentleman, with a.numerous family to educate, (but
we cannot say otherwise to provide for,) would be re-
duced more than one half in his income ! What other
class of society is subjected to such cruel and unequal im-
position ? And, good and just Heaven ! why should the
clergy of the Irish Established Church—men so distin-
guished beyond all other resident gentry, to speak gene-
rally, for their charity and utility—why, we ask, should
they be the selected objects of such revolting injustice
and persecution ? The interrogatory is unanswerable,
except by the wicked and condemnatory admission, that
it is done to root Protestantism out of Ireland, and et-
courage the growth and domination of Popery.

LONDON LAW COURTS.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 27.

(London Sittings, before Mr. Justice GASELEE and a
Common Jury.)
DE BEGNIS V. ARMIsTEAD.

This was an action brought by Signor de Begnis, the
opera-singer, against Mr. Armistead, the proprietor of
the Amphitheatre at Liverpool, to recover £167, the
amount of a bill of exchange accepted by the latter in
payment of a balance of account, originating in the fol-
lowing circumstances :—ln the autumn of 1831, the
parties entered into an agreement to bring out Italian
operas, and dancing, for a few weeks at the defendant's
theatre at Liverpool. By the terms of this agreement,
the defendant bound himself to furnish the lights,
scenery, orchestra, and efficient corps de ballet, and
dresses for the dancers; and the plaintiff contracted to
provide the opera-singers, and also their dresses. It
was further stipulated that the parties were to divide the
receipts on each night equally between them, and they
were each to have one clear benefit night. This agree-
ment was acted upon, but the speculation turned out a
losing one. The parties also tried their luck at Man-
chester for one night, whither they proceeded "bag and
baggage" along the rail-road; but there also the per-
formance was not very profitable. On the winding up of
the account between the parties, a balance of £167 ap-
peared to be due to the plaintiff, for which he ultimately
obtained the bill in question. Some negotiation was
also entered into on the subject of the Signor's repeat-
ing the experiment in the following autumn, and it was
sworn by the defendant's daughter that it was only on
the plaintiff's promising to bring his company down in
the following October, and pay the defendant £lOO for
the use of the Amphitheatre, that the latter consented to
give the bill for six months. However, the plaintiff af-
terwards declined accepting the defendant's invitation to
come to his theatre, on the around that as it was not li-
censed he should be exposed- to a penalty for performing
in it. Upon the maturity of the bill the defendant re-
fused to pay it, alleging as a reason, that since the plain-
tiff declined to come to his theatre, on the ground that
it was unlicensed, although he was aware of the fact
when he performed there the first time, one of the ar-
ticles of agreement being that the defendant was to gua-
rantee him against any such penalty, he (the defendant)
would avail himself of the same ground of objection,
land insist that the bill was void, because it was given
for an illegal consideration,—namely, as a security for
money received for performances at an unlicensed thea-
tre. Such was the defence set up to-day, in support of
which Mr. Weiss, of Liverpool, and Miss Armistead,
swore to conversations with Signor de Begnis, in which
he spoke of the bill as having been given for the amount
of his share of the receipts for three or four nights per-
formances, which the defendant had omitted to pay over.
On the other hand it was contended, that although the
plaintiff might not be able to recover the amount of those
receipts, as the house was unlicensed, yet the bill had
been given for certain advances of money made by the
plaintiff on account of the. defendant, and which consi-
deration was perfectly legal. To prove this, Signor Ve-
nafra, the dancer, and Mr. Nathan, a dealer in theatri-
cal dresses, were called, and spoke to the plaintiff hav-
ing paid £l2O for dresses for the dancers, £lOO to Ve-
nafra himself, and £3O for defendant's expenses in Lon-
don, all by the desire and on account of the defendant.
Several letters were put in on both sides, but they only
referred to the alleged promise of the plaintiff to pay
another visit to Liverpool, which they certainly fell short.
of proving, although that they showed that communica-
tions on the subject had passed between the parties.

• Mr. Justice GASELEE had no doubt that if the bill was
given to secure payment of the money taken at the doors
of an unlicensed theatre, it was void in law, and the
plaintiff could not recover. He left it to the jury, how-
ever, to say whether it was given for that, or, as stated
or; the part of the plaintiff; for moziies paid by the plain-
tiff on account of the defendant.

The Jury were of the latter opinion, and returned' a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill, and
1:5 15s. 6d. interest. -

DE BEGNIS V. ARMISTEAD.

MAy I.—This was an action on a bill of exchange fcr
£167, to which the defence set up was that the: bill was
given to secure payment of a balance of account between
the parties, in respect of a joint agreement to, get up
opera singing and dancing, at an unlicensed theatre at
Liverpool, and which therefore constituted an illegal con-
sideration. The cause was tried at the London Sittings,
on Saturday last, and the particulars were Stated- in the
Times of Monday, as related above.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW to-day moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, on the
ground that it was against evidence, and also that the
learned judge (Gaselee) had omitted to tell the jury that
if the money advanced by the plaintiff on account of the
defendant, either for dresses or otherwise, was paid in
furtherance of the agreement for performances at an unli-
censed theatre, the profits of which were to be divided
between the parties, such consideration was illegal, and
the plaintiff could not recover. The learned sergeant
contended that some if not all the items proved by the
plaintiff's witnesses were clearly tainted with illegality:
The COURT granted a rule to show cause why the ver
diet should not be set aside, or why the damages should
not be reduced.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH—THURSDAY.
( Sittings in Banco.)
REX V. HARRIS, ESQ'.

The judgment of the Court was moved against the de-
fendant, who was absent from indisposition, he having
ben convicted, at the assizes for the county of Pem-
broke, of having illegally and maliciously imprisoned a
poor man named David iiarris. At the trial it appeared
that the defendant was interested in the return of Mr..
G-reville as a representative in Parliament, and that the
prosecutor voted. for. Sir• John Owen, the opposing candi-
date. The defendant; who was a magistrate, felt irritated'
at the manner the prosecutor gave his vote; and, some
short time afterwards,' When the latter was broiight befOre
him on a charge. Of poaching, without giving him an op-
portunity to be heard, he sent him to Haverfordwest gaol,
where the poor felloW was detained a month, and then set
at liberty without any indictment having been preferred
against him. The jury found the defendant guilty • but,
on account of his indisposition, the Court postponed •
ing sentence on him from time to time. It now appeared
by the affidavits that his health was not improved, and
the Court, therefore, passed sentence upon him in his ab-
sence. Affidavits in mitigation were read ; they stated
that the prosecutor was a noisy and turbulent man when
he was inebriated; that he had been three times confined
in gaol, and thaewhilst there he had assaulted the gaoler.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, in pronouncing the judg-
ment, observed that there na..s Do doubt that the defend-
ant had imprisoned the plaintiff from pique and
though it did not exactly appear to the Court what had.
caused such bad feelings to arise in the defendant's
breast. Such conduct, however, could not be tolerated in
any one, mush less in a magistrate, who was intrusted
with the administration of the laws, and whose duty it was
to protect and not to oppress. This Court would always
uphold the authority of magistrates, and would deal leni-
ently where it appeared the law was mistaken; but in
this case there was no pretence that the defendant didnot
know that he was acting improperly and illegally. The
sentence of the Court, had the defendant been a younger
man, would have been fine and imprisonment; but, in
consequence of his age and infirmity, incarceration Might
be the cause of his death. The sentence of the Court,
therefore, was, that " He. should pay a fine 614500 to
the KinA. ;" and the Court would send the ,nOtes of the-
trial and of the judgment to the Lord Chancellor, in or-
der to have the -name of the defendant erased from the
Commission of the Peace.
The attorney of the defendant° immediately paid the
fine.