The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-11-25 00:00:00

potations. charged him with being one of the nieonest
and dirtiest muds-worms that ever crawled upon the
face of the earth, and added, that be was no gentle-
man, &r. The affidavit on which the motion was
made, stated, that since then 31r. Thackray had said
he had sent Sir Thomas a challenge, and that if he
did not give him a meeting be would post him.
The Court granted a rule to spew cause.
THE RING C. It out•.

Mr. tiort.nrur communicated to the Court, that in
this cafe the parties had consented to go before the
\laste•r.

IN Tint MAITRIt nr JonN RICH %RD PrtATT.

Mr. WI Lux moved fur a Habeas 'orpns to bring np
the body of this person, who was counnittatl by Com-
-5501..4.11er:: of liankrul:t, for not answering certain
questions touching assignment of his property to uue of
the creditors. The objection to the commitment a a•,
that the questiobs put to the bankrupt were fir the
purpose of extorting from him evidence of an act of
lia iih ruptcy.
The l'oußT, after hearing the questions complained
of, ritlel that they wu re such as might base been le-
g.tllr• put, and therefore refused the writ.

TUC ICING V. JANE CARLILIR.

This defeinirtit came up and pleaded Sot (Why to
the intwmation mentioned a few days since, and she
received notice tli.a she would be tried at the Sizti:ssa
after this Term.

COURT OF CONI NION FUR IS, \•)Y. ?S.

SORRA') WA: AND DiDElts r. ft NN AND tNol HER.

This was an action commenced under the folluning
circumstances ; Gilchrist and Co. of Liverpool, were
the siwners-of a ship called the Christopher, on board
of which they shipped a cargo fur Calcutta ; its;„ as
they were in want of money to a considerable amount,
they gave the hill of lading for that cargo to Messrs.
horradsiile and Co. of London, u lio thereupon ad-
vances! the sum of 60u11/. The cargo was consigned
to John Pennington and Co. of Calcutta. Three of
the plaintiffs carried on trade in London, under the
name of llorradaile anti Co. and in Calcutta under
the firm of Pentsington and Co. Pennington being only,
a partner in the latter house. A few slays af:er the
Christopher had sailed from Liverpool, Gilchrist and
Co. mortgageshher to the defendants. IN her arrival,
at Calcutta, it was discovered that it would be neves-•
sary to repair her, and, fur that parpose, Pennington
and Co. advanced the suns of ISHII/. with which they
debited and Co. out of the proceeds of the
outward cargo, they not being aware at any time that
any change of possession of the ship had taken place.
'I he Captain had received nu intimation of the change,
until his return to Liverpool, before which time Gil-
christ and Co. had become bankrupts. The plaintiffs:
then commenced this action for the amount of the re.'
pairs done to the ship, although they had debited Gil-
christ and Co. in their accounts, and the defence re-
lied on was, that that must be considered a payment
so as In preclude the plaintiff from recovering the
same sum against the defendants. At the trial of the
cause, Me. JustSce Park left it to the Jury to say, whe-
tber Pennington and Co. at Calcutta, Laving treWed I
Gilchrist anti Co. without knowledge of the cireum-!
stances which had transpired in England, might not ,
he considered as having dune so !...sy mistake. The
Jury thought they had, and accordingly found a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sergeant Lexs, on a former day in this Term,
had obtained a rte.e to thew cause why this verdict
should not be set aside, on the ground that Penning-,
ton and Co. having an election to debit either kiilchrirt •
and Co. or the defendants, had exercised their right
by selecting Gilchrist and Co.
Mr. Sergeant Vs' 611.1 X now sheaved cause, and in-
sisted that, as Pennington and Co. were wholly igno-
rant, that the defendants were the legal owners of the
ship at the time the slim was paid for her repairs, they
Mad by mistake debited Gilchrist and Co. and there-
fore that the legal owners w. re aloce liable, as the
transaction had been fur their benefit.

Mr. Sergeant Luis was heard in reply, when
The Covitv saiikthey were clearly of opinion, that
the plaintiffs were entitled to retain their verdict, on
the griittntis, that the defendants were the legal owners
of the vessel at the thue the repairs were -required,
and that Pennington and Co. had debited hiilchrist
and Co. under an entire ignorance of the change of
possession ; that the master of the ship could not
have hypothecated her at Calcutta ; and that she could '
nut have returned to this country, but fur the ad-
van..es m:t•:e by Pennington and
Rule discharged.
The Slarquess and Marchioness of Salisbury ap-
peared in person, and suffered a recovery at dal bar of
the Court.

SECONDARIES' COURT, CoLE3iBX-ITRZET, Nor. *

Dirt:* C.
This was' an action brought by the plaintiM a re-
spet.table innkeeper, against Mr. Dixon, the auc-
tioneer, of Barbican, upon a contract of sale of
horses between them, on which the plaintiff detuandeil
the sum of 3901. upon the ground of having performed
the whole contract. The defendant had allowed judg-
ment to go by default, and a Jury was imparlied to
assess damamages.
Mr. CIIITTT, for the plaintiff, called Macioce to
pro.--, that his client hail uerf.amed the terms of the
contract. It appeared front this evidenoe, that the
defendant had purchased several horses from the plain-
tiff, amongst which was a bay mare ; that all the ani-
mals were sound ; iltat sets of harness had also been
purchased, and stable utensils: and that every thing
named In the contract had been delivered, with the
exception of the utensils, which, Mr. Chitty adutitteti,
were not produred,berause there were none, observing
however, that in case of purchase, the utensils were
generally named. whether any were to he found or not.
The amount agreed upon by Mr. Muni fur the put-
chase was 3901. which be had. however. thought
proper to resist. The horses were not warranted.
Dlr. E trot tsar, fur the defendant, cross-examined
the plaintiff's witnesses, with a. View of proving, that
the bay mare hid been glandered at the time of the
parches.; that two of the sets of harness had not been
accepted by the defendant, in consequence of being
link for use ; and that no utensils had been delivered.
Upon these grounds his client claimed a tle Ctiou of
the difference between .411. which he kati d to
pay for the bay tuare, tid 3.. f.,r te,:is•lt the are had

It. a"►'. '{ ; MAtr.

INSOLVENT nEwroks. I OI'RT.—FRIPIT.
(Held at the Sessions House, Old Bailey.)

been subsequently sold for dog's meat to a knacker ;
a deduction of 9/. for the harness, whirl' was until for
use ; and he also demanded a deduction of 3!. or 4/.
for expenses incurred in sending backward and forward
for the hoses, which, he submitted, it was the duty
of the plaintiff to send to his premises.
The cross-examination made no change in the ap-
'moronic of the case.
Mr. ESPINASSK then addressed the Jury, and saiol,l
that the amount of the demand had been offered to thel
plaintiff, deducting the above-named sums, which he
could prove the plaintiff had no ground for deinanding.
The sum tendered was 3591. _ 1

Several witnesses were then called to pr.►ve that the
horse was glandered at the time of the sale; but it ap-
peared, that until nine days after the sale, no disease
yas discernible. One of the witnesses stated, that he
tendered the 3691. which was refused—that machine
horses were nut warranted, but that in all cases gian-
tiered hoses were invariably taken back. Ile said,
in cross-examination, that there certainly ►s-as a profit
upon the horses purchased from the plaintiff. Another
of the witnesses said, in cross-examination, that horses
might iu ii:ne days contract and arri►e to a bright in
disease. A third swore that such a thing was impos-
sible--that the glanders lay concealed for months be-
fore it broke out.

The ostler gare his evidence in the following man-
ner I thought first it was only a bit of a cold, bat
I soon saw she had a Amuck vadtr. She was what trc
calla a proper jollier ; she'd a hit oja riot at her nose,
hut I saw she rat very well, and drialetd terry well."
'I he SzcoN natty, in summing up, said, it was one of
the most improbable things in the world that Mr.
Dibbin would try to impose upon Mr. Dixon, or that
Mr. Dixon, who knew what horses were so wail,
would suffer himself to be imposed upon. Even if
theiv had been disease, he did not know that the de-
f. 'Want would be entitled to a deduction, fur it had
been proved that he profited by the bargain, And it
would be rather unreasonable to throw hark the ob-
jectionable part of the bargain upon the p•aintiti,
after having been a source of advantage. Tire plain-
tiff had fulfilled his contract, with the exception of
that part which regarded Cm utensils, 1. r which the
Jury would wake some allowance.
Verdict for the plaintiff---4W1., deducting 4/. It's.
fur t!,e utensils.

Sophia Wisdom, a lady who was dressed in rather
a II rAldiag at ylr, appeared before the Court for the pur-
pose of obtaining her discharge, but was ',mimed on
tem grounds; first, that she had shout twelve
ago taken the benefit of the Act ; and, secondly, that
since her discharge. she contracted debts to a consider-
able amount.

These facts being proved in evidence, the Court was
of opinion, that these debts must have been incurred
either through extravagance or fraud ; and that in
either case she co4l not be discharged under the Act,
unless three-fourths of the creditors in number And
value should consent to the saute. She was therefore
remanded to prison, with an admonition to be more
honest in future.
A person of the name of Harris was next opposed,
on the ground of kis having incurred a debt, without
having any. reasonable expectation of paying the same
it appeared that the insolvent had justified bail iam an
action brought against another person, and sworn that
hr was worth 19001. sifter all his debts were paid ; he
was not opposed at the time by the plaintiff in the ac-
tion, and his bail was admitted. The defendant in the
action did not appear to satisfy the plaintiff's demand,
and this insolvent as one of his bail was fixed with the
debt. It was therefore contended, that be having
made a false representation of his property on that oa-
casion, could nut be entitled to his discharge.
• The Conxissioseas were of opinion, that this was
not a case which came within the meaning of that van
of the Act which precluded persons who should incur
debts, without the means or prospect of payment,
Loin having the benefit of the same. The prisoner,
at the time he became bail for the other party, might
have supposed that the party was able to pay the debt,
although he did not himself possess property to the
amount he had sworn to; and therefore it was not in-
curring a debt without a reasonable expectation of
paying the same. If the plaintiff in the action had
opposed his bail at the time he offered it, it would have
been a fortunate circumstance for him ;.but not having
done so, he could not now detain him in prison.—He
was discharged.
Henry Nathan,- a Jew, who bad followed the trade
of a dealer is cattle, was opposed by air. ANDREW S
on the ground of fraud. This man had been irofore
the Court on a former day, and opposed by Mr.
Barry on the ground of his having committed a gross
fraud. The act charged against him was, that he had
obtained a quantity of cattle on credit ; that home-
diately after the cattle got into his possession, he sold
them for -lOW., the whole of which, sum he imme-
diately after lent to another Jew named Levi. lie
was put into prison for the value of the cattle, and
when he applied for his discharge, he put down Levi
iu WI schedule as debtor to him in time above sum.

Mr. Itattav now appeared as Counsel for the Insol-
vent, and when the opposing Counsel expressed sur-
prise at this circumstance, Mr. Barry observed, that
it was not an unusual thing :or a Counsel to be em-
ployed as the advocate of a person whom he had, on a
loniser occasion, opposed; but he thought it necessary
to inform the Court, that although he had in this in-
stance changed sides, he had not changed his senti-
ments; for he had to inform the Court, that Levi, to
whom his client bad lent the 4001., was now reatly to
give up that sum to the insiilvent's creditors: lie
would pay down one half, and give good security fur
the remainder.
After the conversation, the Court acquiesced is this
proposal, and the insolvent was remanded until the
22d of December, in order to afford hitn anupportu-
nity of completing this arrangement.
CONTEMPT OP COURT.

1:t THE MATTER or JOHN III'GHES.
This wu a rule obtaiied by Mr. litany, calling
apon the above mentioned John Hughes, to show•
cause why be should not be committed, and otherwise
dealt with according to law, for haring practised as