The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-12-11 00:00:00

'TEE STATESMAN

cowtr OF KING'S BENCH, (WitrixesDAY.)
LEA e. BUDD.
This Was an action to recover damages, charging the
defendant, on the tirst count. with the loss of a pared, and
on the second with delivering it too lee.
On the nth of September last the plaintiff went down
to Cheltenham, intending to show some patterns of window
curtain fling's there, 4111 in Oxford on his return to Lon-
don. In the conrse of the morning before he went, lie sent
a box rontaininz fifty or sixty patterns of fringes to the
Saracen's Ilead,l to be sent by a van that evening to Chel-
tenham. The book ke- per booked the parcel, and signed
the entry of it as it lta, written in the porter's book, viz.
to go by " a yin." The book, keeper was authorised by
the defendant, Budd, to take in parcels for his waggon,
n hie)) leaves the King's Head in the Old 'Change fur
Cheltenham on Mondays, Thursdays, and Satnrdaye. The'
Mb of September was on Saturday, but the waggon for
that day hail left town before the parcel was delivered, so
that it was detained nntil the Monday following, and did
not rea.di Cheltenham tfil the 4th of October. In conse-
quence of its having been so long delayed, the plaintiff gave
orders at the Bell Inn in Clieltenham,where he. was staying,
that if a parcel should he sent there directed to him, it
should not he taken in, but should be sent back. He lost
his opportunity of showing his patterns, and returned to
Loan. A correspondence took place between him and the
fief. ndant upon the expenses of bis journey and the less
of his time; but the defendant did not think himself
boned to give him any compensation, and the present action
was brought.
It 'appeared in evidence that the defendant Lad no "van;"
Ids confeyance was by a waggon. The simple question
which the Jury had to try, was whether the defendant had
undertaken to send the parcel by a van or a waggon. The
entry in the book of the potter who took the parcel to the
Saracen's Head, and which was signed by the book keeper
there, imputed that it should he sent by a "van,' and the
Jory fount for the plaintiff —damages 51.
It was insinua'ed on the pert of the defendant, that this
action was brought at the expense of a rival carrier on the
Cheltenham Road.

COURT OF COMMOVLEAS.—Gcmonatt, Dec. 10.
/LICK e. TOLLAIASH.
This was an action to recover from the defendant a sum
of 61.
Air. Sergeant VA traitor stated, that the plaintiff was a
'tailor residing at Woolwich, and the defendant a gentle.
man of high station in society, who had got a fortune for
changing his name. The plaintiff bad furnished the de•
fendant's son with a suit of clothes, which the defendant
refused to pay for, and that circumstance gave rise to the
present action. The Learned Sergeant observed, that be
underatood the defence relied upon on the other side was,
that the clothes were not of a description suitable to the
yoting gentleman, but it would be for the Jury to deter-
mine whether that was Ilia rase or not.
Thomas Thelkel, an irritable journeyman tailor, with
s'arp eyes. small visage, and characteristic air, proved the
m 'king of the clothes, and the delivery of them to the
voting gentleman, who was a Cadet at the Academy at
igoalwich.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant PELL-110w long have
you known the plaintiff?
Witnesa—A long time. I have worked twelve years at
Woolwich. I have been in the artillery myself.
Mr. Sergeant PILL—Theo you have been a Cadet,' sup-
pose ?
Wimesa—Catlet, indeed! Oh, no! lam no gentleman.
:Lard bless yon, I'm only a journeyman tailor.
Mr. Sergemt Pshc—Very well. John. don't be angry.
Witness—aly name is not John, but Thomas.
Mr. Sergeant PecidnWell, Thomas. look at that parer
'(it turfing him the order against furnishing Cadets with
aeticres contrary to the repletion of the Aradem), and
tell me it yon have seen any like it in the shops at %Visal.
lab+ ?
Witness—l can't read it without my 'asses.
Mr. Sergeant POLL—there, take mine.
Witness—No, put on my own ; I like them better.
Mr. Sergeant PlLL—Very well, then put on your bar-
aptc'es.
Witnesa—(having pot on his epecterl s)-1 think I have
seen papers of this kind before. (Aside)-1 suppose these
lawyers want to make a fool of me, but they will tiud them-
selves mistaken:
Mr. Sergeant Pgm.—Witere have yon seen them ?-1
can't say a here 'twixt God and my conscience.
Mr. Sergeant Pam.— A tailor's conscience !
Witness—Tailors have a conscience as well as lawyers.—
; (A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant Fem.—Have yon never heard your master
Mita of a regulation against furnishing young gentlemen at
the academy with clothes ?
• Witness —My master never talks to me on such matters,
.1 am only his journeyman, and my business is to work and
not to talk,
• Mr:Sergeant PALL—Have you never heard any think said
about it ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Sergeant. Paht.—Yon may go down Thomas, yon are
**very honest fellow.
• • Witness—l hope I am; and so best for myself.
George Latten, an apprentice to the plaintiff, proved
the delivery of the clothes, and denied alt knowledge of
.111 e prohibitory order in question.
Aim Calder, a quartermaster. proved that the young
gentleman had left toe academy for the vacation, taking his
+thee with Lim, contrary to the regulation, which direct.
ed that they were on &trench occasion. to be left io the
.care of the witness.
Mr. Justice BURBOUGH was of opinion that as yet
no evidence had been adduzed to make the father re
*pen si ble.
' Mr. Sergeant PELL submitted, that there was nothing
to show an implied contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
Mt. Sergeant VAUGHAN contended, that in the absence
of all proof. to the contrary, it was reasonable to infer,
that the young gentleman had gone to his father at tlll
+ 'cation, and, therefore, the father must be conscious of the
treniection, as he must have seen the clothes.
• Mr. Justice BCRROVOR said, that as yet there was no
roof to dhow that the young gentleman had a father 1,
et all.
Mr. Sergeant VAUollaN.—l'll prove that fact imme.
diately.
A gentleman named Moffatt then identified a letter as
being in the hand writing of the defendant. It was in
answer to au application for payment made by the plain-
tiff's solicitor,—and it denied that the defendant had any
knowledge wha'ever of tile transaction in question. It
aim went oa to say, that tlio.e who allowed boys under
15 years of age to " accumulate bills," deserved to loss
the money.
Mr. Sergeant Pam . addreved the Juryfor the defendant.
and said, that his client had resisted the claim purely
upon principle, and not train any consideration as to We
es Mat, were it even ninth greater than the paltry sum
of six pounds. He asked the Jug, whether they were
prepared to believe for a moment, that a gentleman of
Colonel 'fulunash's rank in life, would send his eon to
Woolwich, without furnishing him with every article
that was' necessary fur him as a cadet:? The reason why
he refused to pay this bill was, because the plaintiff had
famished the young gentleman with clothes, contrary
to the express regulation of the Academy. The Learned
Serg -ant observed Viet if tradesmen were sanctioned
it this systtet of giving credit to young lads, it would
lied to the worst cocseqnencee. The facility of obtaining
utedit would plunge headless young persons into ruin and
dissipation.

Mr. Justice Buattovan, in charging the Jury, said that i
the defendant was quite right in resisting this demand.
l'he principle of not allowing young lads to get into debt
was observed not only at Woolwich, but 1133 at Oxford
and Cambridge.
The Learned JUDOS then called the attention of the
Jury to the facts of the case, and said, that there was no
evidence whatever to show that the father was conscious
of the transaction, or that there was any thing like an
implied contract between the parties.
The tailor was uonsuited.
r
PREROGATIVE COURT.--WIDNISDAY.
SELLS (BE THEIR GUARD'S%) V. SELLS.
This case has been previously before the Court, and ably ar-
gued. by the Learned Doctors at both sides.
This morning Dr. LVSHINGTON replied.
SirJonsi Nicnou. observed, before the Learned Counsel
had proceeded far, that he would save him the trouble of
further proceeding, as he was quite satisfied. He then pro-
ceeded to aive his judgment. The deceased, he said, died in
1521, leaving • widow and one child, and possessed of pro-
perty to the amount of 4,0001. or 5,0001.; he was married in
lard, but shortly after the birth of the first child, they se-
parated, and have not cohabited together since; in 1807,
deceased formed an illicit Intercourse with a woman. named
Elizabeth Clarke; she gave up her business, and entirely
went to lice with him, having by him, at the time of his death
four children, the eldest fourteen years of age, and the young.
est ten; during their intercourse they lived together as legally
married, and therefore it was highly probable, he would at
his death have made some testamentary act in their favour;
deceased had been a wire worker in Fore-street, but becoming
extremely corpulent, and in consequence very indolent, he
gave up business, and went to reside at Waltham Abbey,
in
1821. On several occasions he came to town, and when he did
so,lhe used tp lodge at the house of one of his old neighbours, a
chresemonger, in Fore Street. In the month of November.
he so came to town in company with Mrs. Clarke, and in
his hearing she expressed to Mrs. Swinburn, the person to
whose house they came, that Mr. Sells had come to town
to make his will. On this thy he did not do so, having
business at Somerset House which occupied the morning;
but on the following day the will was prepared by Mrs.
Clarke, which was in a most informal state ; it began by
disposing of the property, expressing it as his last will and
testament, and leaving Elizabeth Clarke all his personal
property, of whatever nature or kind soccer; all his debts,
funded property, plate, linen, &c. Ste. to her disposal, for the
maintenance of his four children. He also left her his bills
and rents for the maintenance of such children; the will is
sign d by the testator, and regularly attested by three
witness's; but the will is written upon a slip of paper,
such as is used for receipts or drafts, and is written on both
sides. If deceased knew and approved of this paper, it
cannot be considered as any fraud or contrivance. 'rise
experience of this Court, continued the learned Judge,
teaches us that persons do frame their wills in a whimsical
and singular manner. Extreme eccentricity does sometimes
occur where no suspicion whatever arises; the paper,
however, now propounded is found in the deceased's
pocket book, and is dated at a time which he was in full
possession of his faculties, and by being found in his
pocket bask. where he had kept it since it was made,
rendered the probability very strong that he intended it
as hie last will, and wanted no further evidence to sup.
port it. This was a prima facie presumption, be intended
it as his will; looking, however, at this woman (Mrs
Clarke) the Court is not much surprised at what site may
say; she has been living in open adultery with this man;
else is not taken in an unguarded manner, but by a regular
compact, breaks up her business, and lives with him ; and
then, to crown all, gives out that she is married by a Ca-
tholic clergyman ; the Court, under these circumstances,
could not believe her on her oath ; but there were four
other witnesses, whose evidence is material to the validity
of the will ; the evidence is not in the least impeached, nor
does it appear that circumstances have been mentioned be-
tween them, or that their evidence was preconcerted. The
Learned Judge then went into a general statement of the
evid nce, and finally gave hie opinion that the testator
lintended that the pap-r put in should operate as his will,
and the Court decreed accordingly.

SHERIFF'S COURT, COURT, COLMAN STREET.
Before the SCCO7ldary, Mr. CowNORIDGE.

LAINCK t. nARItIS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. PHILLIPS, for the plaintiff, stated that this was an
action in which the plaintiff complained of assault and
false imprisonment. The defendants had suffered judg-
ment to go by default, and the present Jury were as-
sembled to assess damages. The learned Counsel then
proceeded at considerable length to state the case to the
Jury. His client, Mr. Lainge, was a gentleman of great
respectability, the master of a merchant vessel, called the
Porcupine. The defendants were Captain Harris, of his
Majesty's frigate the Hussar, and his first lieutenant. lit
Septeinb-r last, the Porcupine was lying in the Tagus, off
Lisbon, where the defendant's ship was stationed. Whilst
the Porcupine was in this situation, several of her men
were tempted to enter on board the men of war who were
lying 'count, or they deserted. One of these men went
on board Captain Harris's ship, and on doing so demanded
a certain sum for wage!, which he said were due to him.
There being some dispute on this subject, Captain Lainge
refused to pay his demand, desiring that the matter
should be referred to the British Consul to settle. Instead
of this course being taken, however, on the 13th of Sept. last.
about 3 o'clock in the morning, the frigate's barge, with
the Lieutenant, who wars joint defendant with Captain
Harris, and an armed crew of twenty men, came alongside
of the Porcupine, and the Lieutenant and several men
came on board, and delivered Captain Harris's orders to
Captain Lainge, for his going on board the Hussar, in-
stantly. With this peremptory order Captain. Lainge,
feeling that Captain Harris had no authority to issne it,
refused to comply, and retreated to his cabin, determining
not to compromise the rights of those of the same class as
himself. by eohintarily submitting to aneraer so issued by
any officer of his Majesty's'navy, whoever be might be.
The Lieutenant then addressing his men who bad come on
board with him, end using the same insulting tone as ap-
plied to Captain Lainge, desired them to go down and
bring that man up. They accordingly went down to the
Captain's cabin, and he, being obliged to submit to so
superior a force, came up, protesting at, the same time
agairst being understood as submitting voluatarily, and
got over the ship's side into his own heat,.being directed
so to do. The Lieutenant and his men got into the barge,aod
took Capt. Lainge's boat in tow, and in this degrading man-
net he was towed throngh a ficetof 200 tail, to the Hussar,
Capt. Harris's ship. He would prove in evidence that itwas im-
possible a tui•re cruel course than this could hove been adopted
tower is Capt. Lainge, a gentleman, a man of honour, and
an individual well known in the city of London, and
highly respected by all who knew him. The Jury would
hear from the witnesses whom lie would call, that for an
individual to be towed through a fleet, at the stern of a
man of war's boat, was most disgraceful. It was a situation'
in which only those were placed who were accused of the
most degrading grimes, such as theft or desertion, and who
were going to receive piini,liment for such offences. In this
state, hog ever, was Capt. Lainge taken through the dent
to the defendant's ship ; here be was taken on board, and
that with such roughness, that his ancle was violently
sprained, and he received so severe an injury as to confine
him to his cabin, and deprive him of the use of his foot
for five weeks. He was detained in this stabs for up-
wards of two hours, and then a message was sent to his 1
ship for some of -is own crew to come to the frigate and',
take bins back to biiown vessel. For this ass molt and de.
tention it WAS, that ,lie Jars, were now to give Mr. Lainge
a remuneration, and should he make out the east as stated
in his instroctiuns,he trusted the Jnry would give to his
client ample damages, and prove to thes commanders of
ships of war, that individuals commanding trailing vessels'
b" li• r ghts which were not to be invaded -by- them with
6

impunity. The learned Counsel then proceeded to call hie'
witnesses.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury in mitigation of da
mages. He complained that the Counsel for the plaintiff
had introduced a variety of circumstances in his address to
the Jury which he had wholly failed to establish by
I evidence. He had talked of seamen having deserted from
the merchant's vessel, and of their being harbonred on
board the King's ship, when it was perfectly well known
that the King had a right to the services of every individual
on beard a merchant's ship. The seamen were guilty of
no desertion, therefore, in going on hoard a,King's ship.
but they were actually performing a duty. The mate of
the merchant's vessel bad been proved to be in Court ; he
was, no doubt, the person hest acquainted with the whole
transaction; and yet the Counsel for the plaintiff had not
ventured to call him. It was the invariable practice.. for
the masters of merchant vessels to pay the men who went
on board King's ships their arrears, and Captain Harris, in
demanding these arrears, and the bedding and other
articles belonging to these men, bad done no more than
his duty. Every topic of aggravation which had been
urged by his Learned Friend bad failed. So far fro:n
proving the hostile force, which lie had described
in his address to the Jury, he could not get a wit•
ness to swear to so much as a single cutlass.—
It appeared that Mr. Lainge' when invited to go on
hoard the Hussar, bad answered in a very rude and iosolent
manner ; and thoogh he was undoubtedly towed behind
the man-of-war's boat, he was carried straight from one
vessel to the other, without any of the disgraceful circum-
stances which his Learned Friend had attempted to ;wore.
He might have taken some of his own men with bins if he
had thought fit ; and as to the mode of sending him hack,
it wad the readiest (Ind most expeditious which could be
adopted. Captain Harris was an officer whose high and
honourable character rood above the reach of any imputa-
tion which could be cast upon it; his unimpeachable be-
haviour in peace, no less than his gallant conduct in war,
had been established on a late occasion by a full Conti ofi
his compeers. His only error, if error it could be called,
on the occasion, which had formed the subject of this action,
was, that he had felt not wisely, but too well for the care of
a British seaman ; he was satisfied, under all the circum.
stances, that the Jury would consider this a case which
' called for the most moderate damages.
The SECONDARY recapitulated the evidence, and charged
the Jury to separate what had been merely stated to them
by the Counsel, front that which had been actually proved.
' It was not true that the seamen had deserted, for Captain
' Harris might, by law, have taken them by force. It did
not appear by any evidence how the plaintiff had became
' lame. The circumstance of the Mate not having been
called as a witness was material, for they might reasonably
conclude, from the suppression of his testimony, that, if
he had been called, something would have come out to
palliate the conduct of the defendants. Under all the
circumstances, they would give such moderate damages, as
prudence and the justness of the case required.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
of 1001. damages.

OLD BAILEY.--(VssTgaDAT.)
—.,.m,...-..

(Before Mr. COMMON SEROg ANT and a Middlesex Jury.)
Thomas Picton, aged 20, was indicted for stealing thirty
turkeys and divers other fowls, the property of Mr.
Archibald Prris, of Beech Hill, near Barnet.
John Upwell deposed, that he was bailiff to theproseeu• ,
tor—the prisoner IA as a labourer—there was a great deal of
poultry on the farm —they were all safely put up the even-
ing preceding the robbery—in consequence of something
he heard front a watchman, witness put a saddle on a
horse, and rode off toward-4 Southgate—heard of a cart
which be traced to Shoreditch, where he lo't all trace of it
—witness returned and made a search in another direction,
and fell in with the prisantr, whom he charged with the
robbery—his clothes were dirty with clay, the s..me soil as
is near the ben roost—prisoner acknowledged that he knew
who had let the fowls, &c. out—the marks on the prisoner's
breeches corresponded with the indentation on the ground
in his master's yard—the poultry were found, but they were
all dead.
Samuel Langley deposed that be was a constable—
went by direction, and found the turkeys in a park—there
were about 30 ; they were hid in a sack—the prisoner was in
custody before this—the turkeys were taken to Mr. Paris,
and they were owned—the prisoner told witness he spent
his evening at the Crown, at Southgate, the night of the
robbery, and left about Ft o'clock and went to bed. Two
servants of Mr. Paris proved his right in the property
stolen. Charles Turner proved the prisoner to be within
sae mile of Beech Hill on the night of the robbery. Win.
Olidwin knew knew prisoner at the bar—on the 22d of
Nov. he saw the prisoner at a public house at East Barnet,
about half a mile from Enfield, he asked Frost whether he
could have his horse and cart ? The reply was, " It is
gore out"—prisoner then went away. An officer stated
that he went to the house, but found nothing there—ob-
served some marks afterwards—took prisoner to a brook
near his house—saw the footsteps of one person, and fea-
thers scattered about all the way to the ben house —knows
they were turkeys' feathers—went of erwards into Ilex's
park in the evening and found some turkeys and docks
covered over with a sack, there were also some snares which
corresponded with one toned in the prisoner's pocket--one
of the turkeys weighed 1810 s—in witness's opinion the
snares were used to catch the turkeys. The prisoner denied
the robbery. Two witnesses gave him a good character.
The mother tendered herself to speak to facts, but the pri-
soner declined calling her.
The COMMON SERGEANT, in his address to the Jury, said
that was extraordinary that neither Mr. Paris. nor the person
who had the care of the fowls, attended to prove his property
in the poultry stolen. The Jury would therefore judge from
the evidence whether they were the prosecutor's fowls, and, if
so, whether the prisoner stole them. One thing, however, had
not been proved, namely that the prisoner had the property in
his possession.—lrerdict —Not Guilty.
John Nolan, who had been out on bail, was then put to the
Bar, charged with the offence imputed to the last prisoner, its
is his brother.
Mr. Law informed the Jury that he should withdraw the pro-
secution.
The COMMON fter a She learned Compel

.AGRANT observed than s—
had acted wisely—for he had carefully looked through the dr
positions, and he had strong doubts, from the first, of their war-
ranting a conviction.—Verdict—Not Gnitty.
Andre" Conway was Indicted for Wilfaily and maliciously
cutting Margaret King, with intent to do her some grievous
bodily harm.
The prosecntrix was called upon by her recognizances, but

did not appear.
The RECORDea ordered her recognigances to be estreated.
Two witnesses were then examined, who stated that they
found the prosecutrix with a wound on her arm, but they could
not say by whom It had been inflicted.
No other evidence being produced, the Jury found a verdict
of Not Guilty.
Wm. Cumming. a butcher's boy; aged 16, was eap;tally in-
dicted for rohbiag his master of a trunk, contaluing.ave sove-
reigns, a silver watch, and various articles of wearing apparel,
and other property. The prisoner absconded with the trunk
from his rooster's house in Wheeler-street, Spitalfields, end
was taken into custody a few days afterwards, when the trunk
and some of the property were found in his posteselon.
The Jury fcund him Guilty, but recommended him to mercy
on the ground of his youth, and previous good character. The
prosecutor joined in the recommendation.
Before the 'COMMON SERGEANT ands London luty.
CornelinS Lawlor, Stephen Quick, Stephen Couchman, and
Edward ethaekell, were indicted for a libel In the John Dail
newspaper upon John William Duna. '
Toe prosecutor was called and did not appear.—ht the
absence of all evidence, therefore, the jurtfound a verdict of
, acquittal.
The London eases being all disposed of at S o'clock, the
Common Sergeant dlscharge4l tlae'Lonntin Jary.