The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-04-11 00:00:00

THE SA ATESMAN.

. .
slt niontheafter sight, On Stirlitic and Oordon. at tJlas-
gow•. Read was with Harris at the tints the bill was
given, and the condition IVA 4, that it should be returned
as fawn as the seeds were vielirered. After this Read
and Ileiiier became bankrupts. Minns then railed un
Ilarris to krow it tier biii was safe, and should rot be
paid to Read and Helder. Thr bill was given as a se-
curity until the 29 bales of clove: seeds were delivined,
and they were delivered straigllt to liarris. Edward
liarri. Lttrrisaros said, tat ne.Al and IL :her desire
him to place use bill to their aecount, and that he did
so. lie theretOre wouhi rot give up the MI!.
thk cross-exautinahi•r, the witness said that fishier
cause to his lather's- met state.t that hr wantol to raise
a born on the seed*, hut the seeds were delivered to
Harris utily. It 1%:VI a mouth after the sonling ut
the seeds, that witness called on Harris respecting
the bill.

This was the case on the part of the plaintiff.
Oa the part of the defendants, it was contended by
Mr. Serjeant Tinny, that they hail a right to keep pos.
session of :he hilt. be.ause the smells sent by the plaintiff
to Messrs. Harris, were not on!v different trona he
sample at first produced in the seeifical krt. but of a tery
inferior quality, having been kitnalried, and mixed nab
a tonally of brimstone and sand; therefore they could
nut be a stiffi.i.-rit 'wearily fur the ttttt uey odv.:ticed to
Read a Pti Mather, and they kept the bill nutil their de-
n:alit it Shed. A clerk belonging to the &lend-
:ants sr Le to these faet4, and said the good seed of
which a ramp- it.td tors! been vLown by the plaintiff;
was s.:t nti, be him to Hell ; and it nevi doubtful %%he-
thee the seed he sent to the defendants, inste.oi ot it,
troteld ever grow. There wit a quhtity clUsitustooe
and sand among the seed, which It beeeteM•sbary to
takE out. The diilitrence ht the v.tlue between this ;:tivi
the sample W 3, about the third of the cost ..f rtiod
The hops sere delircred bark by the order of Alessrs.
Harris; but tl.e seed and bill wen. kept. The morning
atter the delivery of the seeds, emit e was given to Mr.
Pheasant that the seed ass not 311 :V ed.
Mr. 'I homes hall said, hr had been appointed tied-
!rutin boners, Read and Hellier, and Mr. Pheasant, to-
gether with another arbitrator. When the parties met,
to o samples sere prmluced, hut they did tan correspond
with earl. other. It was ultimately settled, that the dif-
ferent., I.r:ne.c the rattle of each was lt!..
Mr. Serjeatit VACCIAN, is, rep'sy, said, the only reason
why the atefentients refuses! to give nu the hill at as, be-
cause Heiner and Read oweel them motley • and if they
had not become bankrupts, the Court mould never have
beard say thiia about this million.
The t tiler Jca tics, after sittutning up up the evi-
dence, said it te as quite siert. that the tiefentlants had a
right to retain the bills until the seed was delivered by
the plaintiff; and after the seed was delivered, if it ass
good. they had no right to keep the hill. nut if it was
a ba.l, unmarketable roanoility, sent fur the pstipose of
fraud, then the contract was out adhered to. and they
had a ri}ht to keep the bill: they had not, however,
when called on to give up the bill, staled that as a rea-
son shy they n mild nut give it lip. The trestiou then
was, whether the Jury thought that the commodity s-as
marketable and valuable.

The Jury retired Fur some time, mml returned With a
verdict fur the plaintiff—l/at:met s 233.1.

W'!ITI.FT C.

This was a feigned issue direeteil by the Vierd'itarc-
(*immix, to determine whether a ha n!it tyt of the name of
lutes was indebted to the plaintiff !Aim of I la
at the ti:ne the runsinissi 0000 issued. Luntley was an sec-
tioneer, will the defendant all one lie assiwates of
Yatsos. Theca • was opered by Mr. S.ojeant l'a Lanais,
whir said it stasis short situpk visa, wit; h the bankrupt
wnald prove.
James Yates said lie hail (sera a bankrupt he
bad carried on the businoss of a pea terrr in ;
hr ball known sir. Ltintley a long time. Ls July, I ~
he purchased from pi:ill:Hitt a quantity of growing grass
in Waltlisainstuw marshes, tear : in the sear he
borrowtsl 73/. of him, part of wisich was Kite's by a
eheccpte on the bank of Olvnn and Cu. In September,
1141 s. is. had also burros% ell 510/, of him, and at die time
gave hi,u a owtourandlo, whirls lie prods's-, if. Witness
had nut p.sid ariy of this money ; 41111 011Iy gate him
goods to the amount of W. On cross-examination by
Serjeant Lens, the witness s Lid he had made no en-
try of these transactions in his hooks. tie had borrowed
stuns Irons others anal hail not entered do is.. soul these
were allowed under tire essiiimission. Some time before
his transactions with Luntley, the latter lent takeu the
benefit of the !resolvent Art. Being ;idiot how sorb a
man could 'AVM 44444 nes. In lend, the is 1111CS3 said lain/Ivy
had besot a e11111.1:11/1 of rents for other., atilt lie supposed
it was lost of those tents he had act. iiiii to,Alat..d hint.
Lunde:. always Is.ol been and is still a collector of rents
at WAharsistow, to the amount of MOIL a year.
Mr. Serjeaut I.LNS, for the defendant, -aid, this issfie
arose from a stispicion that the, debt claimed lay the
plaintiff was nut a fair one, and it was now incumbent
WI hilt' to produce bunks anal other documents, besides
the evidence of the bankrupt, before he could substan-
tiate his maim ; awl it was must improbable that an in-
solvent man sands! lend WWII a sash of money. There
was reason then to suppose that the whole was a collu-
sion lietwer ii the bankrupt and the !plaintiff.
Tbe 1 nice Justice said this was a most serious en-
quiry, affecting. the conduct of two persons; fur if the
Jury found for the defendant, they would du so from a
conviction that Yates the bankrupt had col 1111 l itted gross
awl wilful perjury, at the subornation of Lumley; and
they ought not to come to any such conclusion, if they
believed tbe testimony of the bankrupt. That person,
however, had given a clear testimony without ally hesi-
tation; yet it was the duty of the bankrupt to come pre-
pared With every possible confirmation of his ease. Why
not bring evidence to prove the occupation of the gross
lanai by Imes ":—lthe not produce the clierque for Zit.
on filvnu's house, which lairs said lie rt., rived of the
plaintiff, as part of the sum borrowed of hiss? nen.
with regard to the bed., a tne.noranfluto prodoved U to
tbilt transaction, proved notiti•ig. The iiirroorauslum
msnigiel the No. art date of the note ; anti why /tot trace
that note to slav:v it hail been in the pw•sessasn of the
parties at the time it was said to lo.ve been Lorrowed ?
thrift were the circumstances 01 t..,p.eion. But mil; it
would be a woe serious thing to deriare by a verdict
that gross perjury, and subornation of perjury, hail ,
been con.iiiitte.,. tie was glad the case was in the hands
of the Jury, and they intuit dispose of it.
The Jury retired for about half an hour, and returned
W;::1 a ren.i..t for the plaintiff fur the 3We.

LONDON SESSIONS.
-imp-

Yesterday these Setlions coninienee,l befure the Low
MAYOR, the t'0,1)10:01 SERJE4N r, Ahicruuttl Sir W.
DoNvit.i.ii, Sir It. C. tiLYN, litsCM, LiiltiliTON, and
32AONAT.

Darizoti, a publisher of political pamphlets,
{rho was seme time awe convicted bri",ne the Lo :.d
Mayor (Al:len:tan Atkins) of havit:g printed hills re-
lating to the address palmed at the first Smithfield inet•t-
witlsoo t being ditty licensed, aud fined Pt/., now :ap-
pealed against the conviction.
The appellant being asked whether l,e bad Cottn,el,
Ittlel, be will a pour utan, and could aCurd to Cr:
plir any.
After 11...arin4.-the facts of the rn... the Court cm,-
firmed the 1.1.11 vietion, and fined the dezt ttdant in the
vtnaite. but remitted the costs.
lir Leggeti to be :::owed sonic flute, t ut was turd that

the Act tUrected the payme,t of the pem,'!y before the
riming. of the Court, otheroise the titter lint must go to
prisma.

.ISFEIt ASSIZES.
CAVI3LING.
THE K 1741; I. swrreazt.L._

This was an indictment arainst the defendant. upon
the s'atute of It tiro. 11. f. 34, s. fur winning mo-
ney from Thonnis Routlyd_-e, hr betting upon cock-
tigitts foal:lit at Preston and Lieerpios!.
Mr. 'I opened the prosecution, by observing,
that the vice of gaming, pernicious as it always WWI to
society, was double so in a commerciai hove. tnasinurh
as it wranerl the mind from that steady perseverance and
sober industry w easential to mercalit!le success; in-
spired it with rash and sanguine spa • IA: :ons ; and, by
degrees, euitioldenerl it to trnst every tang to the hazard
of the die: that the lows of England, from the reign of
Henry the Eighth downward., ba.i denounced gaming
under the heaviest prohibition-. This prosecution was
instituted by the opulent and respectable !muse of Crop-
per. rsen44oll. and Co. of Liberpool, who hal been im-
pelled to it solely by a sense of public elute; all motives
of private emolument were quite out or the question.
fur the penalties recoverable under the Statute would
go, not to arm, but to the pour of the purists where the
offence wa, committed. The immediate occasion of this
prosecution was, that Thomas goutledgr, hirtnerly
clerk in their etni.oyment, had, from his unfortunate
conneximi with the defendant and other preiessed
Wen, been nitrify raised in Isis eirstesusterees, forced to
abscond from Liverpool, and was now in enstody for the
of the funds of this rowers. Messrs.
Cropper, Iknson. and Co. had. therefore. htstiteted this
proeecofion as a warnlog example, to deter young emu
from associating with characters like the defendant; and
to conrince the defendant and other gamesters, that the
law would not stiffer them to continue their prodigwe
course% with insennity. lit. Tindall said he should con-
tine himself to poring two bets on etwkdights.
Thu", examined by Mr. Mimeo:v.—De-
femlant lon, a billiard-table at Liverpool won furry
guine.is from witness by betting on the main of corks at
Preston. and to et!y guineas an. cock-lights at Liverpool.
Both these bets were non within six minutes before the
indictment.

'mists took 114010 C technical objections ; upon
31r. Justice II VILIT. after remarking that this a•as a
mist nis.)l,....tar Act I•lPar:iament. directed the Jury to
ycyt it the defenilant.—Aciiititird.

VIE NANO r. rt.CTiVIVAITR.

Mr. TINDALL %teed. that tbis prossmittinn Was insti-
tuted against the detest laid by Coopprr, Henson, and
Co., from the same tts.eives a furnser one; and
that it arose ont of gaming trainstalions between How-
ledi;e anti the &feminist. 'llse eri.t..twe of *maimlv.
wand(' be confirmed by a hestioe areount signed by the
defendant, and made nut with all the ret isiiirrity u
us..rrantile aeronlit, In surf. a sr*tesii had defendant
brought this infamous tratbr. s: 1.1 select for
proof IWO lwts, une upon califs, an.i the other upon
bone-racing.
T. Koudedge examined by Mr. Ontsisov.—Prorral,
that in April, last be was invitril to sup at Henry
Patrickson's loafing.. in Liverpool. After snpper, Pa-
tricksou, the defendant, and witness, sat down to cards.
Among various bets. ree..llerts, in particular, one bet of
21W. oa who slimild have the highest card the next deal
at Ion; lost hy hint to defendant. and paid in Haut-
notes at the time. About the .311,* period, witness, in
Liverpool, het defendant a hundred ruiewas to t went::
against Ithadatuantlins aifinitir the liativisester cup.
which witness lust, an.l paid part of it on siecount.—
Proved the defendant's hansbwriting to the betting as

Crtroi-evinoinetl be Serjeant ('puss.—Arlrnittrof his
ow•u misconduct, and tbat Ise haul nriNapplied the money
of his wasters, Crotiper, litiwinn. awl Co., who were
Qii.ekers.—lte-examined. Mr. Mew, wle of the part-
ners in tliat tinn, is not a trucker. The
plied consider' entirely of mosey raid bs• the lima to wit•
ness. au•l nut of money Null to wttness.by third persons
on account of the firm.

Serjrant Caos., fur the defendant, heron ity qtating,
that the reaaion why indict tient. had ben preferred
again., the defendants, aa. because Alessrs. Cropper,
Benson, and Co. being Ql•titers, cunld toot take au
oath, and prosecute Itoutleelge as they taught to have
done.

Here he was interrupted by the Counsel for the pro-
secution, who remindr.i him that one of the partners
was not a Quak,r : and that the offence of Rontledge
was only a civil breach of trust, and not a criminal
temberslement nithin the Act of Parliament un that
subject.
The Learned Serjeant then resmnrl, and contended
I that the Jury could not safely convict :Inv man, on the
1 evidence of an accomplice like Rvutbdgr, uncorrobo-
I rated by other testimony.
I The Learned Juoue, in his siimminz up to the Jnry,
said, that it ‘cas overstating the case to icaituilate fow-
-1 ledge to an accomplice, in case of fclony ; that it was
8.4 to be expected that the prosecutor should call other
nitnesses, the persons present at the betting might
reasonably he supposed to favour the defendant rather
than the prosecutor ; that the slefrti last might have
protlnced those persons, either to contradict the state-
! meta of Houtledge, or to disprove the defendant's hand-
-1 writing; that liy not having done so, the presumption
was. that the tirt.entlant could not impeach the veracity
of Routledge; that with regard to horse-race, inas-
much as the race was run at Alanclo•s•er, perhaps there
I might be some doubt wlwthrr the .-ea or its the indict.
1 mem should not have laid the offence at 3lanchester,
and not at Liverpool, where the bet was artnally made.
The Jury, however, would slecitlr on the farts, and the
.defendant should afterwards have the benefit of the oh.
ject. , if available in lau.—The Jury immediately
found the defendant Ouilty.