The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-07-13 00:00:00

•

LAW vire ['MENGE.

witnesses, the Plaintiff bad some apprehensions

couaT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY It
Oiling: at Nisi Prius before Lord ELLENso.
Rattail, at Westminster.

that the expected match would not come to any
thing. At these apprebemions he was somewhat
concerned, because he_cuiteei.vCd, the match, on
'the part olr his sister, to be an advantageous one;
and, when conversing ott this subject with his
tlittlervind somd domestic friends, observed, that
he would not mind repairing a house for the De-
fendant, but that he must not expect any money
with his, the Plaintiff's, sister. •
'floe
match took place, ,the house was repaired,
and' this action was brought to recover the amount
of sock repairs.
The Jury could not decide in the be:, and ,ac.
cordingly withdrew, and after consulting for about
thrie quarters.of as hour, brought in a verdict.

smuts V. swaisison.
Mr. G ?Meow stated this to be an action to w-
eever compens itinn in damages for disobedience on
•the part of the Defendant to a writ of subpena,
by which disobedience the Plaintiff in this cause
had lust his action in another suit, and had had to
pay the costs attending such suit, because the De.
fi infant had not aUentled, st hose evidence.was ma-
terial and necessary to the success of the action.
The Learned Gentleman then stated the nature of
the action in which the Defendant's evidence had
been required, and for the wain of which- it had
been lost. It appeared that it was a qui tam ac-
tion, to mite cc the regulations of the '2oth of
Henry Vt. chap 5. thu substance of which was;
that custom.buuse officers could nut act as agents
for the merchants and others paying custom-house
duties and passing goods ; that they could not act
in the two capacities at one and the same time ; and
that if they should meddle with the freighting of
ships, or act as agents or attornies For the mer.
chants, they would, on conviction, ffie fined the
sum of 401. fur every such oftmee. Mr. Baker
saw the inconveniences and delay that attended the
constsnt inattention to the regulations of this al.
most obsolete Act ; and was, by commencing a'
qui tam action against Mr. Harmer, clerk to the
Collector of Customs at Liverpool, for an in.
fritigement of the regulations of that Statute,
anxious to do a heoefit to the mercantile part of:
the community, by placing the merchants on that
fooling of equality, on which, by that Statute,.
they ought to be with regard to the passing of their'
valious documents, returns, and accounts. All
who knew how b ishiess was caffied on in thou
offices would agree with his statement, that the
mail who went with a shining douceur in his hand
would be distinguished among the crowd of agents,
brokers, and merchants, who surrounded they
clerk's desk with their papers in ti!eir haunts, but'
without needful &recoil isaiiiment ; that such- a
one would invariably have the first attention paid
to him, in violation of those, wholesome regula.
dons laid down by the Statute on which the qui
tam action had beenfounded. The man, too, who
omitted to send such clerk a douceur, would meet
with nothing but difficulties and obstructions in the
transacting of his custom-house concerns.; but let
bins comply with the expected terms, and every fa.
tility would be *hewn him. Bet if such practices
were to be allowed, and the Defendant's conduct
suffered, of what avail would be the Statutes ?
An action had been brought against Mr. Hanmer,
clerk to Mr. Swainson, Collector of the Customs
for the port of Liverpool ; but Mr. Swainsun,
who was the only person that could legally prove
that Hanmer was a clerk to him, had refused to
obey the writ of subpasna, by which the purposes
of the action hail been defeated. The case 4ad
been opened, but for want of Mr. Swainson's evi-
' deuce, the Plaintiff in the preseut action, .and the
plaintiff in that iction, bad lost his cautte;` ind
his share of the penalty ; and in consequence of
having lost such cause, he had to pay costs to the
amount of 2111. B'. I ld. Thu Learned-Gentle-
man said, the evil of disobedience on the part of
witnesses to writs of subpena called loudly for a
remedy ; as it happened almost daily that parties
lost their actions solely because those witnesses
whom they hail subpoenaed had not attended. He
hoped that a wholesome etanipie would be made
of the Defendant in the present action, 'who had
not even set'ont from Liverpool for London; nay,
be had even said, when served with the writ,
44 that he would not attend—that he would not go
for any money." Were the writs and summonses
of the Court to be trifled with in that manner?
Were the property, liberty, and sometimes lives
Of individuals to be at the risk of the caprice of
witnesses who bad been ordered to attend to give
evidence, but who would not attend, beta= they
might find it somewhat inconvenient with their per-
sopal interest t He felt confident that the deci.
aims, on the present occasion, would show that
such was not to be the case.
• Mr. Whitely, an Attorney at Liverpool, proved
the service of the writ, and that he had tendered`
131. fur travelling expellees, and that the Defen.
dant said he would not go for any money. It ap..
peared 'he the writ hs'l been served on the De.
fetsdant• at a place nearly two miles from
pool, at about five o'clock on S.ttniclay evening,
and that the writ required that the witness shoulsl
be at Guildhall it nine o'cluck in the morning itt
the Itionday fogoeing.
Lord r.i.LENBOROUGH interrupted the proceed..
;rigs, ohs ruing that it was a most grievous com.
pulsion to require of t man to be in London at
such a short notice; be hies, the Defelident tuight
have to prepare some papers, as necessary to his
evidence, and what time would he have to OH
• such papers rely, and be in London, a distance
of 206 miles, by unto o'clock on the Monday,
morning ?. *1 he witness had a right to require
that convenient time be given him to attend as
desired ; but in the present instance it appeared
to be a most unreasonable monition to desire..
Swainson's attendance in London at so abort a
period.
ThOplaintiff was nod.eisited. •
TA BEIt. V. Cli A LIMAS.
This was an lction to recover 241. ls. 6d. fbr
work and labour in repel** at a house fur the
Defendant. •
The defence set up by the Defbtithint was, that
the Plaintiff had promised to give him .the repairs
of a house, by way of marriege-portion with his
is et, whom the Defendant was • going to marry
w! • , this promise war made, and to whom he was
seminally married. This promise de- Plaintiff
de ii d to have been made In such a way, as to
ake it bintling in law. It appearedi that the
Fla cliff was a bricklayer-and plaisterer, and that
hit fiber had left his affairs in a precaelons eats,
and hill left behind him two daughters, without
any provision, and who were consegaeistly thrown
on 'he hands of tile son, the Plaintiff in this
cause, for protection. One of those sisters. had
• been courted by the Defendant for some. time,
when, according to the evidence of one of the

—.foethe Defendant. -
LUKE V. LADY ♦NN BARBARA PRANCES WYKD-

UAM.
This was an action against the Defendant on a
Bill of Exchange for 2501. granted by her to the
Plaintiff ; and -the defence set up was, that she was
a fern, se coaverle, br married wwnan, at
.the

time of granting the bill in question.
Earl Jersey was called, who I,ruved'that he Was
present at the marriage of the,Defendant, with the
Hun. Chas. Wm. Wyndham, in Gloucester-place,
'in February 'lBOl.
Mr. PARK, for the Plaintiff, ,centendeet that it
was incumbent on •the Defendant, the marriage not
Laving been performed its Church, to produce the
authority for its celebration. •
The Clerk of the yarish of St. Marlfrierboone
.preduced the register dr the marrier•hetween
noneurable C. W. Wyndham, bachelor, and
.L?dy Ann. Lambeth,. Witl9w4 dated, 4th of Fe.
bruary, 1801. ,
• Mr. PARK contended, that thin was not the per.
Soo' on the recpid, and that it would not do.
. Mr. Gaattow said- this was simply a question of
Identity.
• Fut Jersey was call ei hack to prove. the idea.
thy ;',but
.it appearini. it the Declaration was
spina Lor Ana Wyndham only, and that it
was in, the plea, that the. Defendant *as set out
under the name of Lady Ann. Barbara Frances,
whereas the Bill. was signed only in the name uf,,
AUn, Perker.OatnteCto non-auited.
•. •..
COURT Or COhildON PLEAS, JULY 14.
LOPT9II V. VINT E*K. -• • •
'o was enaction to' recover 351. tise amonat
of :an accounialledged to ,be. due by the tiafes•
dant for board aid lodging: -1
`The action Win brought by the executor of a
'holy named Sneak, deceased, who kept an oil.
shop in Guildford-Street, and with whom the Da.
fendant,lodged and boarded 4. for ,w hid accommo.
dation it was asserted he was.to have paid 301. per
week.
On an investigation of the facts, however, It
was proved that the deceased had been on terms
isf.the closest intimacy with .the,. Defendant, 111141
In fact was for some time his reputed we,4,.andoc.
'Nally went by his name: A ahnrc Pre/64
to her death, a qnarrel,toOk ehice between her
and her protector; and from her instructions the
present demand was made. The Jury returned a
verdict fur the Defendant. . • ,
sialcuts.no v. •C 1
that this action
was bronght by Mr. BeiChtird,;,,wfio lox respeita.
ble • upholsterer and tildes:tattle in Tork.street,,
Westminster, against the Defendant, .a" shop.
keeper at Charing,Cross, .to fame! 461., for the
funeral oU f a r, Staid'. 'The Defendant and Me.
.Smith -mere on good terms of friendship, and
when he came to loan from Dartford, in'Bent,
where ho resided, he remained occasionally in the
honie of Mr: Chappell end died there. Mr. Chap.
pel.serit for the Plaintiff, and gave orders toeonvey
the body for interment to Dartford, where it was.
I accordingly interred. The Plaintiff sent a person
tome time after to collect the amount Of the bill,
and when the man went he was told to make out
;the bill to the administrator?, As the adminietris.
tors did not pay, Mr. Chipped was again applied
to, and he said the bid ihnold be paid at Christmas.
.The Learned Serjeant aincltuled by observing, if
a man chuses to order the funeral of a friend, he
must pay for it. . • I
Mr. Surjeant Hur coetendid, that the befend.
ant was not bound to pay the bill cud- that the'
demand ought to' be discharged by file relations ef
- the deceased. • It was rather-hard, he said, that
the family of the deceased were to go down to
Dartford in mourning coaches,: with pages and
otheigrand attendants, at the expence of the Do.
fendmit. He also objected to the bill. Mr.
*Downs, said the Learned. Serjcant, who makes
'.patent coffins to preserve people frolit the rasur.
rection men, and who ought to charge as high
as any man, would not chinas., euravagantV.
It appeased, Wader alt':' to circumstances, that
'the-Defendant had given the Order for the fnutrall
and the Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff.
RA I ISSPORD W. SUPPLE. * •
This was an action to recover 31. for fixing the
Duke of Claretices arms over the shop of the De-
fondant, an engraver:. The question was, she.
titer the 'Plaintiff had been employed by Mr.
Supple, or a Pelson named Remmington.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff.
The Learned Judge lamented the folly of the
parties in going to law for so small a slim, as the
casts an both sides would be more than the victor.
could gain by a verdict.
EST,VIIVSTRIC SESSIONS.
a
These Sessions 'commenced pisterday before
Mr. Justice !ILIUM,' LING and the Bench of Jus-
dces.
William Freeman and William Cases pleaded
'silty 'to an indictment preferred *Oast them fur

guilty _ adicti dein
keeping disoiderly houses in the parish of St. Mar-
tin. It appeared that they kid quitted their on.
nntions tenements, and in consequence of their ex.
pressions bE contrition, they were only sentenced
to seven days imprisonment.
<The next person tried wig 'a gentlemaa.eamed
Patrick Davey O'Shaughnessey, formerly a re.
spctablc shoemaker in St. James's street ; but' n
consequence of becorOing insolvent, was con.
strained to takb the benefit of she luenlveut Acts

~;

~.

•

- -.:'_ -

-

7.'

. , .
. .
.•. • . .
t Nitl•
, i____ . •
~, •
I. v 4,. THY. .STATESMAN.
, • . i-L.=l

and is, of. coarse, not in very flourishing eiy.
eumstances. "He stood indiatea for violeoily as.
eaulting Robert Smith, on the 7th of November.
last, at a public-house in Crown-couvt, Pall.
Mall. The Prisoner appeared at the bar sup-
I pokted on crutches •

Mr. Smith, the Peoseeutor, stated, that he was
formerly a green.igrover, and that the Defendant
dealt with him for some years ; but broke fifteen
pounds in his debt, having first given a bill for the
amount of his ecceunt, which he neglected to
pay, and which he, the Plaintiff, was obliged to
Cake up. •On the dayi specified. in the indictment,
witness was walking in P4ll.Mall, and -observed
the Defendant, hot did not take any notice of
him. He then went into tit/ public-house in
Crown.court, kept by Mr. Nl*G.averan, to whom
he mentioned the circumstance of this having met
the Defendant ; and alto observed,, that he wished
never to have any call to him, from the dishonour-
able manner in which he bad acted. While he
was streaking, the Defendant came in ; when Mr.
M'Gawran remarked, that " Here came the man
of whom they were speaking !!' The Defendant
instatitly pounced upon the Plaintiff, and seizing
him by the neck,- twisted his neckerchief in such
a manner as almost to suffocate him ; observing,
at the same timel that if it was not for the law,
he would ram his fist down his throat, and then
struck him several entnersiful bluw3 on the
foe. From this dangerous situation witness
was lescued by the landlord, who, with some di?.
firefly, extricated him from the urious grasp of
'the Defendant.
Mr. 'A LLEY, Counsel for the Defendant, then
cross-examined the witness as follows :
Q. To what reason do you ascribe the violence
'of the Defendant?—A. I suppose when he heard
that I had been talking of him, he knew I had no.
thing to sorgood of him, and was therefore re.
solved to take his red:lst of me without kuoiviug+
-for what.
Q. Pray did yea not return the blows of the
Defeudant ?—A. I had not the power to do so.
Q. Why you must have been very much hurt ?
—A. I was exactly like a man that was hanged
and.cnt down.
Q. !bye you ever experienced the sensation of
Itengitig ?—A. No ; I can't say I have.
Q. I sec the Defendant is very' lame—has he not
lost the use of one arm ?—A. Faith I can't tell ;'
but .I.know I felt the effects of both.
Mr. M‘Gaetran.was next examined; he corro.
berated the testimony of the Prosecutor, and de.
posed, that • the. Defendant ran off without his
wig, swearing by J-8 he would prosecute the
whole kit of them for a rubbery. What became
of the wig he hneti not, but he saw an Irish•
barrow-woman *pursue the Defendant, calling. on
him to take his wig ; but whether she succeeded in
her solicitations or not, he could not tell.
Mr. ALLEY made a very ingenious defence for
his client, contending that the Plaintiff was the
first aggressor, and struck the Defendant a blew
on the face, before he resented it. This, ho ob.
served, he could prove, by a witness who saw the
fact. He then called the witness to whom he
alluded ; but he was much disappointed on examin.
ing him to find, that he corroborated the testimony
of all the persons who bad been questioned iu be-
half of the Prosecutor.
Mr. Justice MAINWARIN, summed up the evi-
dence, and the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty
' without hesitation.
After some deliberation, Mr. MAIMWARING
sildressed the. Court, and observed, that himself
and his brother Magistrates were at a buss how to
act, under the circumstances of the present case.
From the prisoner being itisolvenl, It would be
useless to impose such a fine on him as the aggro.
Wed nature of his offence deserved. They were
therefore reduced to the necessity of passing a
sentence of imprisonment, which, from the ap,
parent ill health' of the prisoner, could not be
so severe as bis misconduct merited. He then
addressed the prisoner, and informed him, that
`the Court sentenced him to Two Months Impri.
.sonment.
The
,pritonorAlen shortly addressed the Court
as follows:-
46 Mr. President—l have to return you my
thanks for the patient hearing you have giveu my
prosecutors, notwithstanding they are perjured.
My Advocate, with much eloquence, has told you
thereat state of the facts, and I feel myself muck
indebted for his exertions. I must-also express
my gratitude for the lenity shewn to au ould man,
like myself, seventy.one years of age, 'in only
sendlug me to prison for two months : God bless
you all ! The butt-end of an ould man's bless.
ing will do you, no harm !"
Here Mr. Justice NAttes remarked, that the
prisoner should take care and conduct himself wit/
due respect to?thet Court, as they had tbe'power to
cxtend Ike term of his sonfinementrif they thought
proper. , .
Mri Aim., on behalf of the Prisoner, ob.
served, that he meant nothing disrespectful to the
Court. -
'The Prisoner, In continuation, declared, that
nothing could be further from his wishes than to
insult the Bench.--Although he was, a bcoken
shoemaker, he knew better than to go beyond his
last=" he sitter ultra crepida m." He hoped.
howevet, the Court would send hint to some Com,
iferieble place, where his healthiwonld not be sa-
, bakes to the unjust prosecution of his enemies.
lia was then consigned to the care 9f a Jailer.
• • ADMIRALTY SESSIONS, Juzr 12.
At ten o'clock the Court assembled with the
usual formality, arid Sir WILLIAM SCOTT and
Mr. Baron GRAHAM set on the Bench.
William Oliver, $ Frenchman, was Wick,
for the wilful murder of David Totter, on board
a merchant vessel, called the Peggy, of Ranier
on the 22d of 'April last, on the seas nos Gib.,
ratter.
From the evidence of Timms* Gee and Joht
Smith, who were seamen in the jewel, it appeared
that the deceased was a manor Colour, andsailall
in the ship from Halifax, in America, to Gibral-
tar, in the capacity of cook, and that the Pi.
scaler was engaged at the latter place as a seaman.

;~