The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-01-26 00:00:00

THE sTi

They urged that they were phronts ; had they felt for other
Perents, to whose children they had supplier! the means of
ruin anA despair? Thee Aided to their ill health ; per.
haps if a little wholesome exercise were added to their
im-
prisonment. they might find it improve. The trade they
had carried on was most profitable; and unless the Court
parsed inch sentences as would render it a losing concern.
it would still be pursued, to the destruction of the fortunes
and the morals of thousands.
Mr. Roane ►poke in aggravation an the case prosecuted ,
by Mr. Erskine Want.
Tits Judges deliberated for a considerable time, after
which,
Mr. Justice BATLEY proceeded to pass sentence. The
Court, he said, were molt anxious to avoid p iniabing
twice for the same offence; and, therefore, as one indict-
ment applied to the same period with that under which the
defendants were suffering, they would give no judgment
upon it. For the other cases, they would direct hard la-
bone to form a part of the punishment, but that the act
anthorising that infliction did not begin to operate till
after the commencement of the offence; and therefore they
forbore to order it on this occasion, though undoubtedly
they would employ it in future. After expatiating ow the
pernicious consequences of gaming, and observing that
the ill-health of the defendants, though no doubt brought
on by their coarse of life, had prevented the Court from
inflicting additional imprisonment, he passed sentence;
which was, that °Weld, on the first indictment in which
lie alone was convicted, should pay a fine of 500/. ; and
that on the second indictment Oldfield should pay a flee of
1,500/., and Bennet a fine of 2.0001.; that on the third in•
dietment, the defendants should pay a fine of 1,5001. each ;
and that each of them should give security for good be-
haviour for five years, himself in 10,0001., and two sureties
in 2,0001. each, and should be imprisoned till such fines
were paid, and inch security given.
tintlelmelet

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAT.
-.0....-

SELLS V. BOARS AND OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN moved for a rule to stow cans.
why the verdict which had been given for the plaintiff in
this case should not be set aside, and a nonsait entered or
a new trial granted. This was an action brought against
the defendants, who were extensive brewers, trading under
the name of Goodwin and Co., fur an excessive distress
slleged to have been taken by them in the Coach.and
Horses public house, at the time the plaintiff was tenant
thereof. The Jury had given a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages one shilling, and the defendants now again
brought the case forward fearing lest an imputation shonld
remain on their character by a verdict having been given
against them.
Mr. Justice BURROCOH.-1 gave my opinion on the me-
rits of the action, which 1 thnnght ought never to hare
heen brought ; 1 certified, in order to deprive the plaintiff
of his costs.
a hlr. Sergeant VAUGHAN mentioned as the first ob-
jection, that the third count of the declaration stated that
at the time when the distress was made for the sum of 951..
there was but a small sum of money due." to wit, the sum
of I/. 3s. and no more•" Under this allegation he con-
cluded that the plaintiff was bonnd to have proved the
sum actually due, and that nut having done so, there was
a fatal variance between the declaration and the proof.
The second objection was, that the sum of 951. was really
doe at the time of the distress being made; but that went
to .the merits of the ease only, and related to the second
part of the motion, if the first part should be refused. The
third objection, which was of the same nature, was, that
the distress had subsequently became matter of arrange•
went between the parties.
Lord Chief Justice Gtr►oao.—On this statement, I
think the action was of such a nature as ought not to have
been encouraged. With that, however, we have at present
nothing to do. The question now before us is, whether
on the objections which have been made, the plaintiff
ought to nave been non-suited. On the first, I am of
opinion that the plaintiff is n•.t bound to prove the sum
actually due; and, as to the second, I think that, on the
defendants own 'hewing, a sum of 821. Ws. was alone due.
There is no imputation on the defendant's character ; but,
in point of law, the action is sustainable. As to the ar-
rangement between the parties. I am of opinion that that
does not destroy the right of action, though it certainly
is matter for the consideration of the Jury in their esti-
mation of the damages ; I am therefore of opinion that the
rule must be refused. I may perhaps add, tat I consider
the certificate to have been very properly granted by the
Learned Judge who tried the cause.
The other Judges concurring, the rule was refused.
At one o'clock the Chief Justice sat at Nisi Prim,.

BEAMS V. TRIGGS.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated that this was an action
brought by tde plaintiff, a painter of considerable emin-
ence, to recover damages from the defendant, a printer, for
having unskilfully printed some copies of a splendid plate,
representing the Duke of Wellington giving orders to his
Staff previous to a general engagement.—Miss Heaphy, a
lady of very elegant and prepossessing appearance, was
called to prove the contract, by which the defendant had
undertsken to print lthNl copies of the plate in que diem.
and she al.o spoke to the number that bad been spoilt.
Qa her cross-examivation, she particularly identified four
which were unfit for sale. Some of Oe perfect proof
copies had sold as high as 25 guineas—the subscription
price was only 10 guineas.
Mr. Colnaglii and Mr. Clay were also called t hot both
these gentlemen being of opitilon that the numbs spoilt
did not exceed what might have been expected io the print-
ing of such a plate, and the plaintiff being unable to
carry his case further, he submitted to a non-suit.