The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-12-05 00:00:00

• COURT OF KINGI BENCH.—Dsc. 4.

COOPER V. HARRATT, SSQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was
imachataker residing in Oxford-street, against the late
Sheriffs of London and Middlesex. The Sheriffs were
merely nominal defendants, the real defendant being one
of their Officers.
The case was conducted on the part of the plaintiff by
Mr. Grinner and Mr: GODSON', and by Mr. Man TTTTT
for the defendant.
It appeared that in the month of May, 11320, a person
named Ashby, a livery-stahle keeper, had hired a ba.
Touche from the plaintiff. An execntion basing issued
against Ashby's effeca the carriage was taken along
with his goods, and sb)l by auction, although the plain-
tiff bad seta notice td e auctioneer that the vehicle was
property.
Witnesses were called to prove that Mr. Ashby had
hired thibarouche. and made I payments on ac-
count. As the defendants were unable to make any sub-
stantial defence, his Lordship directed the Jury to find a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 311.105.
• WILLS V. HURST.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who kept
a lodging-honse in Mortimer street, Cavendish-square,
for the sum of 741. due to him by the defendant (aboard
-arid lodging.
• Mr. Scanterr conducted the case for the plaintiff;
and Mr•Wttoe that for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant was 'a young gentle-
man with considerable expectations from his relations.
. He bid contracted several debts before his twenty-first
year. These he discharged as far as his means would
erforit, sad when these were exhausted, one of his credit.
-ors, who still remained unpaid, pat him into the lettg's
bench Prison. Among the -drmands which•be was ona-
rble to satisfy, wastbe above mentioned' debt, sod to re-
curer that the present action was brought:`' •
A female wi,ness was called by-Mr. Se:tapes% who
swore that the, defendant after he came or 1e..14
•
inised to-pay the debt. . fir+
• Mr. WILDE, on the part of the defendant, eontendod
that this demand could not be considered as doe for ne-
ce:•saifes,ll.She had an opportunity of living at hie father's
, house if he 'rad chosen. That the Jury mast observe
tinder what disadvantages the def.sodant laboured, es be
had not an opportunity of producing anyfeehlenee which
, could-contradict -the witness 'called on the part of .the
• plaintiff, Sas shewas the Only preen's present besides the
:parties conserned. They, shonid,'however, earefolly con-
•okierietar tbatrinoriy,'Cs she tad .beicrincotrett in several
•to tits Of'W-tataremou.t. •
•
The'Ffei: ir ots. the defeadet was no ealled.whn
.5bte4)164461." .111111kiyaYe have resided at his
Innie, and In factthat itjage.Allasplotatt his desire that
.be_akould., •
' • -Thallanr,7.cwrienAmariag summed op 'the evidence,
Assetfiff te theClary.tiristilboy yeie to consider "wbe-
!theYthiti iies.reaily a debt dpi for necessaries, or merely
cotttraeted'lltrough threats:m.4(ws of theJefeadant.
If the forest'[ was their opinion, it was their duty to find
ljseliirefdlct for the phrintiff; but if the latter. for the
odefeidatit, ,
.' *A tort '" i
dry, tiler a s eon mat on, returned a Ter-
.dint hr timplalntie for 144
seam v. SLIGHT. • ~f, ,
lba 'Plaintiff, a linen4raper. brought tip action
aitiviita the Defendant. a licensed victualler...in Totten-
him•coeit-road, tq recover 511; for.girot4fniniihmi. fqr
'the Nfenditit's Wife. The Defeod'int refused to pay
the aosoant, on the ground that bit wife was lieingsepa.
rare from hi ass, that ther was cease fur that separation.
.andthet the Plaintiff well' knew. of the 'aid separation.
1t 'came out.upon the cross-esamination of pie
tiff'slrienessre. that Mr... Flight .had baeu,seen by her
bosbaOd • coming oat of a bad bousein Cailialeotreet
7111 i ifitiiitotw, aid gliirifiti'lt I'eWl,..tiOt
turned her oat of his Vona', tot striped to Jelkeg hive
• her clothes.
' tie Lcittro Cutts JUfTlet said. if the ru
11.4 g 10 .;14
Mrs: aftqr alutayledge of the atoire facts.be
' did If on his •ostwpetil. •.B law a husband was only
. answerable for. necessaries furnished to his wife under
• circumstoncew wbillt•lronld justify the party supplying
the artieles: • .
Mt. it,tailarna a woman out of lais
kwase. what li she to sio?
Low Cater darrtch.—Prove to me there is cause for
tetrniniker out, or there is not otiose. 1 have no proof
she was 'tamed' Owes the boast, Sider:circumstances to
lisstiry any man la
,'inpplylns, hpr with., necessaries.
• 'moat (age the only cause nova. .Tost mut minim this
Ocilla is. for SeessiailiO, and that she 'was impend
kplif out of ,thee Defendant's. house. I will
iitve It to the Ittry if yott'deeire that course of pro-
'. aiding. •
(lite of the airy addressed a witness named Chambers.
Wed asked whether Mrs. Flight ever returned to her
husband's 'muse? The witness answered lathe negative;
' in a private house: •
' • • MK Slimmers'. who conducted the Plaintiff's case,
then iodinated that Ire could not withstand fibs Lordship's
• option, and consented to be nou•suited.—Plaintiff non-
. *Sited.

CAPES V. ELLIOT.
This action was brought by a bookseller' in•Tleet-
• street, to recover the sum of -151. 17,.61. for books
supplied to a lady reborn, it was alleged, the defendant
had recognized as his wife io the shop of the plaintiff.
-ft was proved that a gentleman, called Mr. Elliot, ac.
sitimpanied a lady to the shop of the plaintiff, where she
agreed to subscribe to that h dry, and bargained for the
• purchase of some books. She asked the gentleman in
what name they should be sent ; hp said " Elliot," and
' th,leyWere accordingly', laced to accdunt of Mr. Elliot in
theitielntiff's boob. 'file books were ordered to be'
'tfollliltmt-tolf-o. 155; I'oftenbliftpc6ilit4oo, where sot).
lregutiit purchases of the lady ire also delivered. The
...khopmen of the plaintiff, who proved his cafe, were,
.: ~..
bathedsoy My. Gurney fo look round them, and see if
ilstir iMilii point out the Mr. Elliot who accompanied
• lady, but they were unable to do so; nor; whewthe
• indidewas shown to them, couhl they.,tell if be were
'siege person.
•ei
.._' Mr. 011iN EY said that the plaintiffs.hati _undoubtedly
' tilpentiken the person. ,
Y ..,The f;orto Cuicr JusTice °berretta. *lsolate ressoo-1
'llple evidence ot the identity ought to ,hejriven.
_lied it
,ipien shown that the defendant was luigkeitat the house
• whither the hooks were Sent, that wcirthliseve been same
evidence for the jury to cousjder : bathe thought at pro-
sent the case was defective. • .
~_ ,_
• Mr, Scant.err, for the plaintiff. eilltrifii'd 111$ "I
could • not carry it •farther.—To' plOalitf.,was non-
atti MI. t .
mat v. bcsittx.
''This action was brought to recovek the sum or 391.
74.'6d, had and received by the dermulaut to the plain
tiff's use.
:It apperir,d in evidente;that in 1814 as I:hiatus, the
'ellefendint. kept a school at Maiststoue; the terms of
Whieh were 25 guineas i s ear. To titiOlChool Mrs.
"Own sent one of her daugliters, aO4 Toy. some roams
Which did not appear, paid 51 guineas iti advance, for
two• years. After Miss Dorn had remaiumi six months
in the achonl, a fire broke net in Miss.paititin's rooms.
occssiona by her reading in bed, Maff,Mlss.Burit., who
steel. in 'the next room, ran in oo hearing ' the alarm.
bike found the curtains in flames, and eat so • alarmed,
that .1•• was taken ill of a fever, went hothe, an shortly
after died. This avian was now brought to, Ilfe a
plinportionate part of the 56. guineas Intlia jitas 'Ow
%trent to the death of the pupil;
.7 • . . , t •

. ~.

...._.

0," VILA

.

FARM

.tea" .

~~

a,.~r —~.. ~..

•ffZ