The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-02-16 00:00:00

!,f

I Mr. RtOSE thought tet inthAfinle shisuld haul
been .laid before the. Heesekkkelie Honourable
Barditet, as the ground upon which he !hid
itbqught it right tit britig forward this measure.
c did not feel it necessary to augment the. list of
' (ebonies, without cause ; and be **Apprehensive,
that if the Bill were to pass in its present farm, it
be.prodective• of great inconvenience and
embarrassment to the public service. Gentlemen
of ropectability would not feel desirous of engag-
log in the public service in places of great trust
in the collection of the revenue, with the penally
of transportation banging over them, as would be
' the' case if this Bill sere to pass ; and upon a
charge so difficult to be defined, and so easy to be
misrepresented and misconceived as embezzle-
ment. • •
Sir JOHN NEWPORT expressed some sur-
prise at this delicate sensibility on the subject of
penalties when they approached a public Office,
where the son or the brother of a great man might
be affected:. He had stated the-circumstance of a
Collector, who had absconded with 27,0Ci01: of
the public' oneyin his hands, and had afterwards
been taken with 70001. of it iy,bis possession, as
the ground of this Bill. in thatcase, if the Clerk
of that Collector, had been guilty, he would have
suffered death '; but as the law at present stands,
no adequate punishment could be inflicted upon
the principal, and, therefore, the Law Officers
lied nut thought it desirable to proceed against him.:
it was to remedy this glaring defect in the law that
he hail brong.ht _forward this Bill. When he con.
sidered that the Right !Jon, Gentleman must hare
been a party-to the passing of a Bill imposing'
the penalty • ot.death on the clerk or cashier
of a bank ler Imbezzlement ; and also to the
Act, rendering it; transportable offence to shout,
ensnare, or kill.dter in a close park or paddock,
he could n6t help admiring his. tender sensibility
on the present occasian. But whatever might lie
the tender sensibility
.of. Gentlemen, he would
contend, that it was the duty of that House,
to mete out equal justice to all—to have but one
and the same law for the rich and the poor.—,
Could they forget the cases of Mr. Villiers and
M.r. Hunt, as weft• as ethers: which had recently
oczurred, or could any one, who reflected upon
the consequences of such cases remaining unpu-
nished, think the punishment of , transportation
was too severe for the crime of fraudulently em.,
bezzling or making.use of public money ? It would
he for a Jury te,determine what w.as the ettibee.
zleinent. Convinced of the justice and necessity
of 'die measure, he had brought it fOrward.
Mr. ROSE, with some animation, disclaimed
any wish to protect public delinqiients; and de-
clared himself as ready as the Honourable ILle
ronet to punish any offender of that description.
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought there
was a very essential difference between the em-
bezzlement of Bank, S'outli Sea Company, and
Merchants' Clerks, from. thesituation of eeceivers
of piddle money : these receivers
.mixed the
public money with their own, and had. fre-
quently a certain Lime allowed them to. keep it.
in tlasir hands, so that it would be impossible to
say When they fraudulently 'made use of 4
whereas, Clerks s .Merchants,
:of the. Hailkyr
South Sea Company/ had lin .r44lit to mie,ttselr.
master's money with their owni, and 'if thee did,
and made use of tti as 11?40t to be able to pay
when called on, It .wits a.fratuieletat eo
!Itsetzleinent. ' He thought the doctrine urgell by
the Honourable Baronet, .that the Howie made se-
vere la ws •for the poor, and not for the rich, was as
improper as any that had been used in that House.
Mr. H. THOItNTON objected to the term
fraudulently made use of, and proposed, that: in.
stead of." us:: of," should be substituted " away
with ;" so that the words would then be " frau.
dulen tly made area., with."
Sir J. NEWPORT acceded to this amendment.
On the.questiou being pet.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL rose, and
spoke at great length against making any new felo-
nies without the most urgent necessity.
Sir S. ROMILLY spoke a few words its favour
of the amendment.'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
thought that even with the Amendment, the Bill
would not be effective. He thought, therefore,
thetas another suliject of importance was coming
on, the [louse would do well not to come to any
t/sitermination to-night.
The CIA IR NIAN reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again.
The House then went into the Committee on the
Walcheren Inquiry ; and Mr. YORKE •made his
usual motion for the
,explesion of strangers, on
which the Gallery was cleared.
JAW INTELLIGENCE. ,
•
Ofi*ixql BENCH, ]J,


V.•MORTON.
. The plaintiff is a surgeon.dentist, and brought
this action against the defendant, a master of aO
ucademy, for furnishing him with a set of artifi.
cial teeth and gums, &c.
The defence set up was, that they did not an.,
swer the purpose fur which they were intended,-
that of mastication and articulation ; but after an
investigation "it the particulars of the cue,..the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff'.—Damages
521. being the sum claimed."
NOLTE AND ANOTHER V. TOMLINSON AND TANNER.
It• will be remembered, that some time since we
gave rather a detailed-report of this most.import_
ant trial, which took place at Guildhall, on the
20th January, the defence to which was Usury,
and in which the Jerry returned the following ref.
dict—" For the defendant, Tomlinson, on the
gesseral issue ; and for the defendants generally,
Do the ground of the (Iced of co-partnership be..
Meet' Mr. Tanner and Mr. Tomlinson being Usu-
rious, end that the plaintiff, Workman, was cog.
Meant of the contents of it ; and that as to the
crin►n►ission of one 06 cent. we find that, with re-
ference to the trouble the plaintiffs have had in
this ease, it was not excessive ; and we fin►l against
the,ples of Usury as fonuded upon the amount of
such cuutn►issioa." • • .

, .

• -

the plaintiffs were entitli
The plainlithe citi the 26th of January, 712
for a Rule to show cause why this verdict the'ri:
nut be set aside, and a new trial granted, ee ith.'.
occasion Mr. Serjeant -Shepherd, in a most !ck,
when the Court request.
and learned argument, contended, that the d°4
on which the Jury founded their verdict wee ~,geql
usurious, and was proceeding with the other pois"lk
in which
awlthieuhiehico csohner
cdiouisl,e,
ed copies of the deed might be
.left with the lett.
ral Judges, who would take time to consider
it; and, on Monday last, the Right Rn.
th:
CI, i 4 Jus rtcc deliVered the opinion of the f"
Auk
that the verdict of the lary was riot, mid Chert:
fore the Rule Nisi was refused, by which Lleiee,
mittalion the plaintiifi are defeated in recuseels.
from the defendaks' jointf.y; a sum of 23)2ta1l
21. 811. which has been (wins to the pluis4,
ever since the 30th of May, 1807. The ree„,
however, against thu estate of Tanner, is esteL
fished. :. . .

NEwma s a. 11URFORD.
The plaintiff is a printer in Frith-street,
succeeded to the business of the defendam g
he retired. lie was engaged in priming 4
on Mineralogy for a gentleman of the n 4
Atkins. At the request of -the deftedin,,
plaintiff continued the work, arid, p.hen ha'
he, agreeable to the order of the defendant
vered it to Mr, Atkin, the defendant end'.
lug to pay the. plaintiff's demand, aniuuntiag
431. 34. 9d. : . .
The defence was, that the time of credit•
months) was put aspired at the time the salmi
brought, the plaintiff boring eetered us his pan
or the work its,February 11109 and contostpred ila
action in Sell(eintier !eat: it however appears( 4
evidence,
_froyv Mr! Atkins, that his origisti
agreement with 'Mr. Burford was fur 12 misty
credit from the corntnencemeot of the printing,!
the mock, which was in April,.lBoB, and (lit
he had, in fact, paid Mr. Burford for the printisi
Of the 7shole. work.. .. .
The Dory Emit! a verdict for the plaintiff—Di,
meges 431. 3s. ill.
citoss p, BUJILKLfY. . .
Mr. harts stated this action to be for tat bi,
lance of an account between the po.rties.f4iimi
sued and didoviled, in rho cabinet-raakinoai
nest, and 'which had hecn eiold at ready : 't
price; and ror.riedY.nioney. . . .i
Thu defence. wasp As; •-the 'One of ctedit, •
incinthst by bill of excharigh, apeeptostby $h
fentlint, had not esTire4t:. at the time of , •
fheat!ion ; thisapplied only to the second in
goodt ; the first lieidmitted to have been for R 441
Wail
money, but
,as to .tliskt•tbasmijunt liii4 has tail
tiered to plaintiff. i
It. appe.ared in evidence chat this was 644',
but that in a connotation between. tbe,yl ' 1
and defendant there was a misnotsterstaudinor
tWeeu them, ulion the tiooptiot.of
.wheiljertfoi
&oasis of:Messrs: Inglis end cu. were tug...,
(he payment of the dutatidaist's acceptance; ,
plaintiff alledging that 1* kite. 00e111 partof . •
agreement, the defendaat insisting that the
ment only was that the bill should be r
itealt bow*, 'up + Orhis6.LOrd.tilenbor ,
imam,- to iniot. the. justiFe of this case,. ..
Piaisitiff tiling; a Vuraict , for the balance . .
case,,
him, without ciosti,llolthich the parties OM • .
Verdict fur plaintiff,;—"Damoiis 1451. 19s: wit of
. .‘
diets..
WOLPE 0, TOMiINSOW. .
The Cutts jurricx said, that. 1110 a was set*
in whieh the Court 44 taken lime to CODIAS
whether a tule phonic'. -be granted to sheet arty
why. there should not be. a- Espy trial, and Ilt
Jadvv had taken this tieed of partnership vill
theist ,and Ilsf4
,tb,o offidaeits to peruse; apel
which the)?
.viers Satisfied there was tot mg
ground to doubt of the propriety of the oeidr
skin which 'the Jury had drawn. in favour of 1k
defendant In this cuoty therefore no nay hid
ought to be granted, and the posica must be doh,
vcred to the defendant, *
The Arronsci.Genisir. Aid, he was to hit
shewu cause,against a n.0(1,01%11'1* by Mr. V
ford, fora mandamus to •be directed to the Jr.
ticcs of Staffordshire, commanding them to lee
and deterniine on certain claims made by reel
Roman Cathdlics who nought .the benefit d
a certain Friendly Society, of which they tot
metobers ; but is Mr. Clifford was out of ink
he should let' the rule be enlarged until theuel
term. . .
Lord ELLENBOROUGU observed, that if ast
person moved to enlarge, or to revive the ralft
the Court would order it of course, if sot op
posed, but otherwise it must fall and expired
course ;; for the Court would only act whee jO4
daily put in motion. .
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he happeoeilts
know, personalir, that Mr. Clifford intesdeili
lepport the rule, and therefore . some. Coati
.shotild; on ble'beheicitian h motion for Pk*"
it, aced that should by given is to.the office Gil
that purpust
Bond-streets on Wednesday, was more eh I, "4'.
Iy croullod with pedestrians of broth sexes, and!!
carriages .extended in double rows from Picci#ll
tio Oiford:street. A dashing Jehu of cele".,_
' threw down 'his greys .and overturned his eetflo
:near Couiluit-strear, hilt little damage "•° talky
tained.. . . ~.....-.4 . . .
hIAKR I ELi
On the Ith of Janunry,.it Coilii, bathe Rer:niaDro. t
ham;*cialrison ►'Chaplain of Gibraltar,Joky Wi ._.
Esq. to Maria, seeoad of 41. 8. liatltl,tirr
Consul of the Uoipsi Staissatoittigroeslea.at Cad .

11/IA. GOSS, SURGEON,; has the hollow IP
INA inform his' Friends and Co rrfiontiebb, ibelf"m„„il
coatinaed .lacrease of applicationfoethe eUre
REAL CDlti PLA IN TS and Debility, be lis bets
take. a Partner, and the corers bar&dfOrth eat "`
all
ducted under the Arm of GO9rand Da. He MM,
also that•the same prlbripits et integrity, ewe"' —kyr
casy . will tie imafiiikiy • abiory.4.. , hitnerle.,
marked a practice as toinceisfitias k
.viMy enilleeet.„10
Letters trom the &ntary, coptainiag a Mush NikeeTridii,
In particulars ut tttg eafte,sau, wit *email ""
punctually attended. to, and Advice and Malkin
part of (We K ingdtan.
15, Ilidierie sue* .Am Streit;
LON

r Primed and paraid by U. Lori:Lit It
STIITESSI4I3I, OFFICE, Eli, rietwarem.