The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-19 00:00:00

This less an action brought by the Plaintiff, a ►e-
spectable pianoforte manufacture►, spinet Eliza-
betb Astor and Sons, a Cornbill, who deal eaten-
sively in she game trade, for a conspiracy, In taking
from the Plaintiff 14 of his workmen, during the ex-
istent• of their regular engagement with him. There
were several other counts in the declaration, who+
charged the Defendants with 'breach of ermined, &r.
Several of the • °slum wine esamined in sepport
of the l'lsintit's ease. Front their testimony, it
appeared, that early in Jseery lest they were in-
duced by the Messrs. Astor to assemble together for
the Impose of receiving an older to quit their master's
employ, and p over to the Defendants: they were
entertained with pleat. of breed, beer. ale, gin. apt'
rem,. and regaled themselves heartily, so that they
did tot Morn to do any other Wiliness on that day.
Many of them rejected the solicitation to quit the
Plaistiffs, bat others yielded, and signed a paper,
consenting to go to work with the Defendants the
moment they bad finished the piece•sork on which
they were then engaged et the Plaetetirs. Fourteen
agreed to do this, sled each received for so doing one
poised.
' It also appeared in evidence, that a contract had
subsisted foe some time between the Plaintirs house
and the Defendants, is which the latter bad stipule,.
ed to 'eke • certain member of pianos we►kly from
t'•o plsltotiff, at a stipulated price: end that the DP
fendauts hail, on more then one occasion, regretted
tor eebtente of this agreement, and intimated a
desire to keep he their own pockets the money they
paid the Plalitiff for menefacteeing pianos for them.
When some if the workmen, during their negoci..
lion with the Defendants, allotted to the force of this
contract, one of the Messes. Actors was staled to
• have said, that they would soon render the Plaintiff
unable to fulfil his part of it, which, in the resell,
was the fact, owing to the removal of so many of his
acs. The contract was said to be worth from 8001
to 10001. a per, and was, for seven years, subject
to a clause of separation at three pars.
For the Defendants two witnesses were called,
who proved that, when complaints were made re-
specting some of the pianos to the Plaintiff, be spoke
in so angry tone, end expressed a desire to gel rid
of the contract, which he offeeed to burn; that af-
terwards some negodation was carried on for the per-
ches* of the Plaintiff% stock, which did not termi-
nate in any agreement.
The Cutts J MICR betel that the seduction of the
owe was clearly made oat, end left the amount of
dentate% to be ascertained by the 'airy.
The Jury. af►er five minutes' coosideration, re.
tuned a verdict for t►e Plalatiff—Damages, 18001.
T►e trial lasted from ten o'clock until four.

BOARD f)F Fjusg.
CAUTION TO ARTISTS.

Mr. Bull, a pain", was ch.il.d wit► painting
transparencies, not being duly licensed for the same.
Ile was also charged 'slob having painted a transpa.
rency upon cloth, for w►ich the dirty had not Iwo
paid.
J. R. ReVoson, an exciseman, stated, that he
was passing by the corner of Corson.street, Mayfair,
when ha saw a y pang man painting a large transps.
read. Ile asked him if ha was licensed ? To
which he replied in the negative. nod asserted that he
had never heard before that any sorb thing was fee
quisite. Perceivi.g that 'he cloth spins wl.irh it
was painted had no stamp upon it, the witness
seized it.
Thu transparency was condemned, but the Court
remitted the penalties.
IMITATIVE PI.PPER.
By as Act passed in the last Session of Parliament,
which has been in force since the bob of July. Ih•
pnw er of handing peneleies in cases where ficierateri
',raper way be kind rpvu sey rt. iva: yang.