The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

COIJItT Or MG'S BENCII,Dec. 23.

THE ZING d. DAHER.

This was an irdictrnent against the defendant fen
ruhance, in carrying away and converting to his own
use, the sell of a certain public highway, called Unions
street. in the parish of Stepney.
Mr. MARRYATT, and Mr. Comet, conducted the pro-
secution ; and the Common •SitnatanT, and Mr. Palma,
or defence.
The !dare in question, which formed a sere of cut de
sae. 11,id 1p en dedicated by the respective owners of the
adjacent land., to each other, and to lithe public. The
romi led to a Jewish burying•ground, and to the lands of
the defendant, utio was a bricktnaker. It was alledged
by Mr. Alexander, the Hebrew printer, and prosecutor
on this occasion, that the defendant had dug up the soil
ratite road, and carted it away for the/purpose of mak-
ing bricks and thereby almost destroyed at as a road.
This was denied by I witnesses, who proved that
the defendant had merely removed mud, and emptied
the water out of holes in the road, and filled the same
with hard materials, and had done every thing in his
power to improve the road, and make it passable.
The case went to the Jury under the directions of the
Learned Judge, and they immediately found the defend.
ant Not Guilty.
FIVIWICIL O. 111011TIAM.
This was an action by a pyrotechnical artist, to re.
cover a sum of fifty guineas for work and labour dose
and performed for the defendant at his request, in pre-
paring fireworks in Hyde Park, on the occasion of
Lis Majesty's Coronation. The defendant pleaded
the general issue, non assumpsit, and paid 111. H/s. into
Court. •

Mr. OUMIET and Mr. THISSIOtit were for the plain-
titf, and Mr. SCARLET'S' and Mr. A at far the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff case,
rested his first, upon an agreement
enteredinto with him by the defendant, whereby the
latter promised to pay him fifty guineas for his services
on the occasion in question. it appeared that Sir Wm.
Congreve had employed the defendant, a pyrotechnic of
some celebrity, to get up the fireworks which were ex-
hihited in Hyde Park. on the Coronation evening. To
assist him in the work, the defendant employed several
other artists in the same business, and among them was
the plaintiff. It appnred that the plaintiff was ern-
vloyed to assist in the work in question four days, viz.
Monday,Tnesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, each
day's work cotnmencing every morning at two o'clock,
and ending at nine at night. The materials for the fire.
works were supplied from the Ordnance. After the
work was done, the plaintiff applied to the defendant
to ice for the payment of his demand, being fifty guineas,
and the defendant promised on each occasion to pay
tl•at sum as soon as he himself was paid for his labour.
The defendant's demand upon the government was
four hundred and fifty pounds, but he was only paid
three hundred and fifty. occasion,
when OD a subsequent
when the plaintiff required payment of his bill accord-
ing to the contract, the defendant repudiated the agree-
ment, and said that if any such engagement had been
entered into, it was made by his son, with nbom he had
nothing tatlo, but he offered ten guineas in liquidation
of the demand, which the plaintiff infused, and this ac-
tion was brought. S I artists in fire-works were
called to prove that the plaintiff's demand was fair and
r .asonable, considering the occasion %hen his services
were engaged, the extra labour be was obliged to em-
ploy, and the sacrifice made of other business in order
to devote himself entirely to this particular purpose.
Some of the witnesses were of opinion that fifty
guineas was not too much; others thought that two
guineas a day would be sufficient, and a third class
stated that five shillings a day was the ordinary rate of
wages paid for servicesof this description, hut they all
concurred in stating that much would depend upon the
sacrifice which the plaintiff might be obliged to make
of other business on time occasion is question.
The defence set up was, first, that the defendant had
entered into no agreement, as contended for by the
plaintiff; that oa the contrary, he was employed merely
as alabourer, without any skill or scientific knowledge
in the mystery of pyrotechny, and, second, that the sum
paid into Court was an ample remuneration for his la-
bour on the occasion.
The defendant's son was called, and he positively de-
nied that any agreement was entered into for a specific
sous, but said on the contrary, that the plaintiff, who was
merely the commander of a powder boat, was employed as a
labourer, to be paid so mach as his services were worth
Several other witnesses were of opinion that, upon the
vantum mernit, the sum paid into Court was an site-
qusie remuneration to the plaintiff.
The Lotto Cuter J 1582101 left two questions to the
Jury—first, whether there had been any agreement en-
tered into to pay the plaintiff fi:ty guineas, and if not,
second, whether the money paid into Court was as
notch as the plaintiff deserved for the work and labour
performed.
The Jury found for the defendant.
FROLICK V. CRAWYORD.

This was an action by a fashionable tailor to recover
the amount of his bill, being about thirty pounds, for
clothes delivered to the defendant's order. The de-
fendant pleaded, first, the general issue, and second, that
he was an infant under the age of twenty-one, at the
time the debt was contracted.
The CoMMoN Sea AAA A and Mr. ABRAHAM were for
the plaintiff; and Mr. ADAM and Mr. CHITTY were fur
tt.e defendant.
It appeared that the debt in question was incurred by
the defendant in the space of four months, when he was
of the age of sixteen and a half, and whilst he was a
student in Hertford College. One item in the account
was for a cloak, which the defendant ordered fur a
ymng woman whets lie was pleased to call his sister,
,riding at N 0.32, London-street. With the exception
of the latter article, it was contended that these were no-
ies suitable to the defendant's condition in life
and for which he was liable, notwithstanding his in-
fancy.
The defence set up was, that the articles in question
were not necessaries, inasmuch as the defendant's fa-
ther, a respectable gentleman, had supplied him during
the same year in which this debt was incurred, with every
revisite artit le of clothing, and that his tailor's bill
during the same year amounted to sixty pounds, and
consequently, that the defendant could not be liable.
The defendant had no separate fortune of his own, and
had since gone to India. The facts were proved by Ike
father.
In reply it was insisted, that as the goods sold to the
defendant were suitable to his conthtion in life, the
plaintiff was entimlrml to recover.
The LORD Cute? JUSTIVK left the case to the Jury,
nnder ill its cireunistances. upon the issue, whether
Or's. were ies imitable to time defendant's con.
dition in life, suggesting to them the wisdom of that law
whieh protects infants from their :own extravagance,
rendering them liable only w here the credit was given
• for necessaries suitable to the condition in life of the
party.
The Jury found their verdict for the defendant.
lip Cuter Reties said he thought the v. relict of
the Jury was highly creditable to them in their persona I
character. considering that some of them might t..ossiblv
be of the same trade with the plaintiff. The business of
these long and arduous Sittings being now roiled, lie
thought the Jury were entitled to the grateful thanks
of their country for the punctuality and diligence with
%Lich they lad discharged their duties.