The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-04 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN

Westminster, or the parish% thereof within the Bill-
of Mortality, save and except those wink were licensed
by the Commissioners for Hackney-Coachet ; and also
enacting that all persous offending against the said
Act should, for each offence, forfeit a penalty of M.
with costs. The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to
state, that by another Act, 53d lleorge 111, e. 1E45,
for the protection of stage-coaches, the 12th section
provided, that from and uPr. r the passing of that'
Art, no provision contained in any former Act should
operate to prevent any stage coach from taking up
or setting down a fare within the cities of London
and Westminster, &c. &c. provided they did not devi-
ate from the regular line of their road in so doing.
Now what happl.ned in this case was simply this :
the plaintiffs had taken up and booked a passenger in
St. Paul's Church•yard, who professed to go the whole
way to Ken.ington with the stage, and paid his fare
accordingly; but who thought proper at Hyde Park
corner, which was on the direct line, to quit the
coach, as he had a right to do if he pleased, for there
was no law in this eoftntry to prrvent any man from
taking his place and paying his fare the whole way in
a stage-coach, and stopping at any part thereof and
leaving it. It might be foolish for any man to take
and pay his place to Bath and stop at Knights-
bridge, but there was no law against it. Sorely the
coachman w."tl I he liable to an action for fake id&
prisomnent, if under such circumstance he pre-
sumed to detain a pa•se9ger against his u ill. That
was the real state of the ease, mid he would in a mo-
ment prove the facts.

Mr. Snernasso rlid, that he was very anxious for
the attendance of the Solicitor tieneral, as this case
was of great public importance. He meant to state,
that the Court eras precluded from entering upon this
ease at all, it hating been already derided before a
competent tribunal. The ComitaltNi 'tiers for Hack-
ney-coaches had already pronounced an adjntli•
ration upon it, which they here entitled to do hy the
Ad, and from their tleri•don there was no ariiral.
The Court would perhaps recollect a boat ruse
involved the saute principle. and precluded the Coin.

Chief Justice U.ALL.►+ said, he reeorect..d the -Bnan-
Coat case, ►there a penalty hull lireu imposed by some
Magistrates under a particular act of it hick then• hail
specific cognisance without appeal. The►• lied a Ijudi-
cated, and the case was brought into Court, II:N.11 a
pru-uffer of proof that the vet.sel, or whatever it tie.,
was not a bum-Wm, but a checked ship. The Court,
however, declined to touch the adjudication of the
Magistrates.
Mr. SIMPIIERD said, that that was precisely the
p tint here. The Solicitor-fieneral meant to contend
that the Courts:ere nut competent to disturb the adju-
dication already prunuuuced by live Cu 00000 iissioners fur
harkaec•cunchcs.
Mr. .Sergeant (NIA and Mr. PoLLocu. jun. both
contended. that, if the Commisiiinners had tra►-elled
out of their jurisdiction, it was the special pro-
vince of the Cutt:t to arise what thee had door.
The Jet," ii•c.—lV hat was the fare paid from
St. Paul's to Ilyde Park-corner:
Alr. Sn►eilaass--Eightcenpence, I understand.

Tile CHIMP Jts7,cc said, that tips ease had better
stand over anttrlhe NoteitofttfliAl^rittite. ni‘a

was three o'clo:1 now, perhaps it would be as well the
case sholla be passed for the .lay. It certainly might
not be connected with impottant interests.
The case was then nriltra to stand user until au-
other day.
Several uadefended causes were di:posed of.
IVANIII W. 31:3131CR1.

The defendant in this cast was a pork-butcher, and
the plaintiff WAS a ittrileyilAti, and employed as such,
and to kill little !Ur, by the defendant, in whose
employment he remitted for seven or eight weeks:,
and to recover a remuneration for such services the
present action was hrought. A witness was called to
prove the amount of remuneration to which the plain-
tiff was entitled. This witness, a fellow-labourer, nut
in the vineyard, but in the slaughter-house with the
plaintiff, said he received halt-a-guinea a week fur his
surgical operations, but the plaintiff could not ki.l su
well or so expeditiously as the witness, and was not,
in. his opinion, worth wore than eight shillings per
week.

The opinion of tliis witness as to the skill of the
plaintiff was, however, non-effective, as an error was
discovered in ithe record, which operated to nonsuit
the plaintiff; and this important case was thus put
out of Court.

DOBSON r. 101117, Esq.
This was an action Cur work and labour done in
preparing and painting a cottage, the property of.
the defendant. s
Mr. Solicitor-Uenentl and Mr. Comyn conducteeildt,
plaintiffs ease, and Mr. Scarlett and Mr. (loft the J'
fentlant's.
It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff is a re-
spectable tradesman, and that the defendant is a gentle-
man of (octant, lit jug. at Holly-LULU Kent. A Ate. ,
Haggerty, describing himself as a general agent for 1
all manner of hminess, and living id Stanhopelnreet, 1
May-fair, applied on behalf of a Mr. Leslie, 'coin-
anouly called Lord Newark, to the illbfentlant, to'rent
the cottage in question fur his lordship's residence.
A written agreement was drawn up, by which Lord
Newark was to become tenant, at the rate of a pound
per week, the defendant covenanting to bear:balf the
expense of putting the cottage into neeessiry repair.
After the agreement way executed, • Mr. Dobson, die
hived • the Noble Lord to do the
papet-h an ge rs

Mr. Ilargertv, a general agent, who negotiated the
tran•action of taking the cottage of Lord Newark, de-
nied that his general arency extended to the persona-
tion of a servant. He denied that he had passed at
Capt. Ashe's honer as Lord Newark's servant ; and
he also denied that Lord Newark had passed as his
servant, and that he and the Noble Lord had inter-
changed characters. A female cousin of his had been
on a visit to Capt. Ashes housekeeper, and lie had
been to see her once before the agreement between
Lord Newark and the defendant. The defendant was
between tilt and 70 years of age. Lord Newark was
stated by one of the witnesses to have had considers-
able dealings with a Mr. Ellesinore, a horse-dealer.
The ilemaail for the work, which took upwards of six
weeks to do, was stated by the plaintiff's witnesses to
be fair and reasonable : a considerable part of k
even Indersprinie jest.
Mr. Seant.rrr,flor, the defendant, contended that
this was en attempt to impose upon his client a most
unjust dtmand. lie acquitted the plaintiff of taking
'env partit the original design, but he insisted that
lki-had afterwards lent himself to it, in a manner not
quite justifiable. The agreement between the defend-
ant and 31r. Leslie, calling himself Lard Newark, was,
that the latter was to pay one pound a week, and that
the defendant was to bear half .the expense of putting
the cottage into necessary repair. Was it to be sup-
posed that the defendant, fir the consideration of a
rent of one pound a week, inte subject himself
Ito an expense of perhaps sevseillrindred pounds:
011 that the defendants agreed to pay was his half for
necessary, not ornamental repairs. lie was instructed
that he should be able to show that the cottage was
hired by Mr. Hargerty for his Lordship, representing
I that it was for a new married couple. lie should also
prove, that none of the work was ordered by the de-
fendant, and the plaintiff himself knew it to he done
on the credit of Lord New:irk alone. Besides this,
he undertook to show that the plaintiff's demand far
exceeded what it ought to be, fur that his charges
; were mist extravagant. Eviiienee wus called in sup-
I port of this statement.
The Login (Hive irsrfee, in stimming•up, •a;4l it
leas fur the jury to consider whether the plaintiK. had
given cr.lit to Lord Newark, or to that person and
' Captain lithe jointly : if the former, then their verdict
would he for the defendant—if the latter, for the

The jnry found a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF EXCIIEW'EIt, Dar. 2.

711 F. Is I N.% C. lll•i.rtr.
The Arronstr.t-thrtcu it, stated the ease for Ow
trawl). Ile said this.was au infortuatiou brought uut
to recovef penalties, but duties, which had lour
been withheld by the defendant, who had hew fur 31.1,
yea* a usaltster at Ilungerford.
'llie Jury found a verdict fur the Cron-a fur 2,31 W.
9s. I id. the full

R %MCAT. COFFEE.
THE ATTIi,:NEI-ORREitAL V. HENRY HUNT.
This was an information tiled by the Attorney-fie-
neral against Mr. U. Hum, to recover penalties in-
.. . .

grain, in Imitation of, and to be
for coffer.

r -
is a

Previous to th' case being called on, Mr. Hilt, In
the part of the defendant, moved the Court to have it
po.tponed to lieKt term.
The Al TouvevAlaNesai. said, that lie had seen his
Learned Friend's ditlacits, and although the reasons
therein assigned were not conclusive, yet he lir! no
iligme.ition to hurry on the case if the defendant was
unprepared.

• •