The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-23 00:00:00

If

cOVitT OF KINGS EACH, GUILDHALL, Jims2l
•

IslloltiliLD V. Cif A PPM
PP" ran 'in action of covenant on an indenture of stp-
pfelitlYttaliip, 'by the father-in-law of the apprentice,
agog& ib tentiter,for n•glecting to supply bhp with ne-
tood. and niedictnes during the term. 'The de-
follifittlwas aloot-maker in Covent-garden ; thilad had
'Oven With him six years of his time, but in the seventh
roe% Wilfh aVrain as he was attempting to clean a win-
dow, Whit% brought on a severe and dangerons illness.
Ms *lister having fib accommodation for him in his
own louse, took him to that of the plaintiff, where he
lingered four months and then died. During this time,
his father-in-law incurred an expense of 171. for surgical
*ltem:awe and medicines, and also paid other FWDs to
nurses, which he now sought to recover from the master.
Mr. Cum?, for the defendant. contended that lie was
' not liable in this term of action, becanse there had been
no refitsal to provide necessaiies, but only a humane
acquiescence in the apprentice's remaining under the
care of his relatives. lie also urged that the charges for
medicines were exorbitant, and that the whole could
never have hers taken.
'lbe LORD Culler JI7BTICI was clearly of opinion, that
though there was no wilful or criminal refusal to pro-
vide jor the apprentice, vet that the consignment of him
to.the rare of the plaintiff, hecanse the defendant could
not accommodate him in his own house. was inch neglect
to per' rot the covenant as wonld sustain the action. The
question of damages was entirely for the jarv,who would
give a moderate eon•pensation, which was all the plaintiff'
seemed to desire.—The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 421.
Youwo I'. iiscart.
This was an action by the proprietor of a weekly
newspaper, called the Repreeentatire, which is n.tw
dropped, against the proprietor of the British Press, to
recover the price of, the types and printing-press of the
for Mer paper, which were sold to the conductor of the
1. tter. Mr. Ross, who was the editor of the British Press,
and negotiated the contract, prated that the price agreed
for was 38M. 15.., of which 100/. had been paid before
the commencement of the action,and 1201. bad been since
wad into Court.
After the cause had proceeded for some time. a reference
was proposed and accepted. A verdict was accordingly
tak .n for the dam gee in the declaration, subject to the
Award of Mr. Park. •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JvNe 21.
Adjourned Sittings at Westininster, before Mr. Justice
Freaocon and a Common Jury.
CLARKE V. JOHN WM. WILLIAMS.
Mr. Sergeant PELL stated, that this was an action for
false imprisonment, brought to recover compensation for
an injury of a most serious nature. The plaintiff had
been charged by the defendant, who was a retired trades-
man, with assaulting him, with intent to commit a crime
of a most abominable and detestable kind, and he had been
obliged to,briug the present action to vi nd irate laurel f from
the horrible imputition.He had been taken before a Magis.
trate, by whom the charge was dismissed. This, how-
ever, was not such a complete vindication as an innocent
party world recrire. The plaiutir was a butler in a gen
tleman's family, and a charge of the kind, which had
teen preferred Against him, was, of all others, the most
ealcohted to it ore him, if not openly met, and satisfac-
torily disproved.
John Manson, Esq. a Magistrate of Middlesex, proved,
that the dfendant complained to him of an attempt of the
knit men Toned having been made by the plaintiff ; on
this complaint he issned his warrant, under which the
plaintiff was apprehended. Witness subsequently re-
ferred the matter to Bow-stret t, aced attended there
himself, when the charge was dismissed by Mr filirishall.
John Edgeson, the officer, swore to basing arrested the
• plaintiff on the charge, while standing at the gate of his
matter's house.
Mr. John Richmond, Clerk at Bow-street, pioduced
seed read the urinates of the deTendant's deposition. The
%oak stated, " that the charge was dismissed for want of
sufficient evidence."
Mr. Timothy Scott, a tailor, residing at Hammersmith,
gave evidence, which went to disprove the possibility of
each an event, under the circumstances charged.
Mr. Robt. Haynes and Mr. Saunders gave evidence to
the same effect.
_ Mr. Sergeant VAVOHAN, for the defendant, dwelt at
great length upon the want of any motive in the defend-
ant to make a charge of this nature without some founda-
tion in hoar Even supposing the plaintiff was not the per-
son wl.o bad attempted to perpetrate this diabolical
crime, supposing the defendant might have been mis-
taken in Isis person, still the Jury ought not to visit him
v ith severe punishisient on that account. Let them ex-
Fry their conviction of the plaintiff's innocence—let
them declare his chippeter untainted and unimpeachable
—let them (as far as their verdict could) free him from
all imputation, and clear him from all suspicion; hut let
Cretin not, because the d-fendant had mistaken the person
of the offender, charge him with having maliciously, and
without prohahle.cause, preferred a charge solely with
the intention of heaping disgrace, punishment, and ruin,
on the head of an innocent individual.
Al r. Justice BURROW' summed up the evidence.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
Its—Damages 1001.

ARCHER COURT, SATURDAY, Juma 21.
BAST e. REST.
Sir JOHN Nice°Lt. this day pronounced an elaborate
valence in the above cause, appealed from the Consistory
Court of Rochester, and affirmed the judgment of that
Court, which was, that is the suit for separation by rea-
son of cruelty, instituted by Mrs. Best against her
husband, she bad failed in proof of her libel; and in the
eros suit of divorce, by retoon of adultery, brought by
Mr. Best against his wife, be had oot shown
be entitled to the remedy which he prayed himself to.