The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-01-15 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN'

COURT OF CHANCERY.—Wawass➢Aj.
Mr. Maws applied to the Court to grant its authority
to the solicitor of Sir O. Page Turner, now a lunatic, to
have access. to him at all convenient occasions. The ap•
plication was made in consequence of the solicitor's being
denied admission to the lunatic.
The LORD Caawcactoa ordered, that the solicitor should
have access to the lunatic without restriction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH—(Yastaariar )
(Before the Loan Cam JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
51.ANDIR.—BobtlegON v. WeDDows.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, who keeps a
school at Kirby Hill, in the valley of Ravenswortb, York-
shire, against the defendant, to recover damages for words
spoken concerning the way in which the plaintiff's school
•was conducted. It was alleged that great scandal had
been thrown upon him, and his character injured. The
Defendant pleaded, first, the general issue ; and secondly,
that the words spoken were true. The following were the
words: " The boys slept up in a cock loft; the roof is
open, and the weather comes in upon them as they lay in
bed; they have nothing to drink but soar milk and water."
schools said to Mr. Broomfield, who had a boy at the
, " If you have any regard for your child's life,you
will not let him stay an hour there ;in fact the boys are
half starved ; the bread they eat is made of bean flour, and
only fit for pigs. They are eaten up with itch and disease."
Mr. SCAILIATT addressed the Jury for the plaintiff, who,
he said, was obliged to vindicate his character. He con-
tended that it was a case in which the Jury ought to give
large damages. It appeared from the witnesses, that the
Defendant having two boys at the Plaintiffs school,
received a letter from one expressing his dissatisfaction.
He consequently went to Yorkshire, in October 1521, and,
being displeased brought away his boys. He did not speak
of the conduct of the school until five months after. when
be told • witness named Dale, that be had brought an
action agains Mr. Bulderon for the improper treatment of
Ms children. He further observed, that it was time to put
down these Yorkshire Schools, and it was his intention to
set up a Mr. Ray.' In consequence of the words spoken to
Mr. Broomfield, the latter sent for his children, but Mrs.
Broomfield, when she went to the school, did not see any
strong marks of improper conduct. It appeared from the
evidence of several medical men, that the boys bad a mune-
-one disease, but the character of it was described by some
to be doubtful.
' Mr. OuRNET, fir the defendant, undertook to justify the
words. and called several little boys, who had been taken
from the school in a state of cutaneous disease. These
boys also described the food to be bad, the drink sour,their
persons filthy, the bedding unhealthy and unclean.
Mr. ScAaLETT, in reply, contended that the plaintiff had
sustained treat injury by the defendant's statement. The
boys at this school were clothed, fed and educated for 201.
per annum, and the parents had no right to expect they
should redrive better treatment than they had at home.
He was ready to admit an eruption had appeared upon the
children, occasioned by bathing in August, but the plain-
tiff on that account was not to be ruined. The school was
well conducted. •
. The LORD Calla JUSTICE was of opinion that the whole
of the defendant's representation was not true. His Lord-
ship, however, left the Jury to determine that point. If
they should think it was substantially true they ought to
.find for the defendant. if they should be of opinion it
was spoken to injure the plaintiff, and that it was not true,
they would And for the plaintiff, with such damages as the
ease might demand.
• The Jary found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
One Hundred and Fifty Pounds.
- • Toole/ton P. MACIRONI.

Mr. Games opened the cue. The defendant, a
lawrigaer, had Come,to tide aawarry wawa time. blase to
raiselieffieers fee the purpose gttOtitmanding tfoops in
Spain. The plaintiff was a eats,- eqeipage Waster in
Long Acre. The defendant hid ordered some eantp
!ages of him to the amount of 1441. 18s. 64., for which he
was to give his bill endorsed by a Mr. Smith, tailor, in
the•seighbourbood. The equipages were made, delivered
in the front shop, and part of them taken away; hot
Smith refined to endorse the bill. The remainder of the
goods still lay in the shop, at the defendant's order. In
these circumstances the action wasbronght for 1441. 185.6)
- Richard Seymour, in the employ of the plaintiff, stated
the order of Maelrone, and the promise of George Smith.
tailor, Leicester square, to endorse the bill. He approved
of all the articles, and took arrays carpet bag and t4rpaniin
cover. Plaintiff drew the bill, and witness went with it to
Smith, who said it was not a fair question to aak where the
defendant lived, but lie woo.d give him the bill.
• Cross examined by Mr. ScAßLlTT.—Plaintiff would not
pot the order in hand without security. What he took
with him was worth between two and three pounds. He
did not say that he wanted the equipage to take with him
to Spain. He never complained that it would be useless
for him because so long delayed. Defendant was arrested
at Ramsgate, and pisid 111. to the Sheriff's Officer as pay.
merit, and costs of the goods actually received. Plaintiff,
otter inquiring of those to whom reference had been given,
said that he would not trust defendant ?
Hamlets Thompson, sister of the plaintiff, proved the
refusal of Smith to endorse.
Mr. SCARLSTT addressed the Jory. Col. klaeirone would
be found to have been hardly dealt with. The answer
of the persons referred to had been, that they would trait
Col. Macironeto any amount. and had iruseed him ; and
that be atwiys acted most honorably. The truth was
this : the credit was given to the defendant alone. Plaintiff
proposed the acceptance of Smith ; and himself asked it;
the defendant declining to nuke the request. The learned
Gentleman then detailed the facts, which he would piece.
The goods were hot ready, and never delivered. The
special counts of front shop delivery were an after•thought.
After the defendant bad actually sailed, an Officer bad
been seat after him to arrest him.' He was arrested, and
brought ashore.
FORMAN—Were the goods delivered?
Mr. ScAilLiTT—No. Gantlemeo ; they &rein his shop to
this day. He proceeded theolto make several poioted
enithadversions on plaintiff's cAndeet.
The bill drawn by the plaifitit and"a no* a the same
dos,' Nov. 4, 1822, addressed to the defendant. at No. 21.
Ileathaampton Row, ware weed. Ts DOW Mtge the doubt
whether Smith would endorse.
George Smith stated that the plaiotirs serves% milled upon
him in October, and asked whether Coleus& Meeirone was
worthy of credit. Whams said he had paid him large sum,
and that be would give him credit to anj amount. At another
time Seymour asked in platatirs name. whether witness would
become security ' • witness said he was Weed to do any thing
fdr Colonel Maelroce. He afterwards presented a paper for
witweeelo sign, promising to endorse* Mit; witness refused,
beemile Colonel Maellooma• did not alit idat to do it; witness
in-a comurestion with plaintiff. said-ka *Gehl not endorse the
bill for fear its circulation might Ware. ids ; plaintif said it

„.., .
they the•Colonet bed-sailed, and by wttai ettp. Viten. gm
the name of the ship, and referred-lAm to the broker for fur-
ther information.—Hesaid he made inquiry inotder to knbw
whether he was in time to ship the goods. and said if he could
not by that vessel, be would by the first vessel he could,
but he thought he would be in time for the Good Faleonrr,
in which the defendant sailed ; he said he would then come for
the bill.

asked witness to see the bill : be cer-
tainly did net ask whether it was endorsed by Smith. It was
shewn to him.—The last time witness saw the Colonel was
either on the 6th, 7th, or Bth of November; he saw the plain-
tiff a day or two after.
An office copy of the affidavit of the plaintiff, upon which th e
defendant was arrested was put in. It was dated thr gth Nov
1889, and stated that the defendant was justly indebted up.
wards of 1411.
Hannah Thompson was recalled for the plaintiff.--Smith
called on the 6th, and said he would not indorse the
bill
Thompson remonstrated, and said he had executed the order
on the faith of his security.
Mr. SCARLETT, upon this, contended that the last witness
was mistaken in the date. This was clear from the note bf the
4thNov.ito theCelonel, doubting whether Smith would endorse,
and from the form of the bill, which was drawn bylbe
and to be accepted by the defendant.
Mr. GAZELER addressed the Jury upon the evidence.—He
contended that the testimony of Seymour the foreman of Mr.
Thomson, was unshaken.---The defendant had called on the
morning of the 6th, and taken away the articles in evidence,
end promised to return with the bill to take the rest.—
Why had he never returned from the 6th to the Sib, when he
sailed t
The Loan ICE'', 'terries summed up at length. it was for
the Jury to say Whether the conversation with Leine respecting
the shipping of goods was only a pretence in order to learn
where the defendant was, as had been suggested by the Coun-
sel for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff-14U. lbs. Sd.
Mr. ScAnbryr applied then to have the verdict only entered
on the special counts.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE said there was evidence of de-
livery.
Oue of the Jury said they were clearly of opinion that when
the goods should be ready, theeontract was completed, andthe
bill endorsed to be delivered.
The verdict was taken generally.
COVENT GARDEN THEATRE.

- -- -
While the Jury were deliberating, the LORD Cntat JusTtce
remarked, that he observed a cause in the paper, Brandon a.
Harris, suggested whether it would not be better to refer it.—
He threw out this now, as those in attendance might depart, If
it should be acceded to.
Mr. Scramarr, for the plaintiff, had no objection.
Mr. OURNST, for the defendant, was anxious for discussion,
but would attend to his Lordship's suggestion.
LORD Catee JUSTICE.—It is better for all parties.
BRANDON V. BARRIS.
A Special Jury was sworn and immediately4lirected to finds
verdict for the plaintiff for IM. subject to a reference. .
The crowd which had been exceedingly great, was reduced
to its ordinary extent upon this termination of the theatrical
question.

OLD BAlLEY.—(YesTettom)

James Kerr and Thomas Kerr. labourers, were indicted
the former for buralariously entering the dwelling house of
Robert Austin, in Westminster, in December last. and stealing'
therefrom a watch r the latter for receiving the same, kcowiug
it to have been stolen.
Mary Austin, the prosecutor's wife, stated. that the pri-
soners, in the absence of ber husband, came to her end invited
her oat to partake of some drink with them in a reinbiutering
public house ; that while there James Kerr went otti4 awl was
absent for eight minutes, and that when she retornedhome the
Watch (a silver one) and seals were miselog.— She then went
back, end charged James Kerr with stealing the watch. He
denied all knowledge of it. She and her husband occupied a
room in the house as lodgers. They* were other lodgers.—
The landlord resided in another Mese. She left the key In her
owe nom door. The street door was always ajar.
I. Past:Ars, who was Commie for the prisoners, put It to
the Court, whether this roes was toipweeneidseed 4 siwellirgy
house. As. nre-,
Me. Heron ilut.Locx considered in the libresetive.
The witness was then closely creed by kfr. PRUE.*
mrs:—She aided any intimacy with the prisoners. and said she
never went by the name of Pasey.---She never gave the pri-
soner any thing to`/pledge for het.
A pawnbroker's clerk stated that be took In the witch es
the 114th of December last, from James Kerr, the prilasner.—
He produced the watch, and said he advanced Id. na. up it.
Gilmore, an officer, stated that he took James Kerr
into custody, and took from Thomas Kerr, the other prisoner,
a seal dod pawnbroker's duplicate for, a watch. He produced
both those.
Robert Austin a soldier. and husband to the first air
near, swore that the watch and sesta produced by the two
last witnesses were his property.
The following witnesses were then called for the poi-
soners :
Roger Jones, a watchtower, stated that be knew Mrs..
Austin two years ago in Moist*. She then lived with a.
watchman named Posey, and *eat by his name.
Mrs. Austin was again called, and swore that what the,
last witness said was false.
Walker was called to character. He knew Thomas-
Kerr, who had been in his employment far two years, and
had an excellent character for honesty. ire often saw. Mrs.:
Austin take both the Kerrs to drink.
Cherry, a boot and shoe maker, said he knew.
James Kerr for two years, and he bad i good character for•
honesty and industry. He knew Mrs. Austin for two
years and a half. She lived in Chelsea with a man named
Posey, and was called by his name. Of this be was quite
ore.
Sarah Moreden swore she knew Mrs. Austin who bad
spent many eveniags with ber at het Wile's house.,
She was then Mrs. Posey.
Mr. Baron BULLOCK " Are you sure you know She
woman ? look at her again."
Witness—" Mrs. Austin, do you not knew me ?"
Mts. Austin—'• No, I don't know yon at all."
Witness again repeated that she knew ber well. and
that she lived in Chelsea, and was known Mrs. Paul.
Other witnesses gave the prisoners a geed character, and
added that they saw Mrs. Austin take the prisoners to
drink at Knightsbridge, and gave one of them something
like a watch.
Mr. Baron Htttioce then pat the ease to the Joey, whoa
immediate', 'acquitted both the prisoners.
The soldier was allowed 16 take laisaiketch sad seals. bet,
it was iasie.isd to the wide that eke ht yet be indicted
for perjury.
TOUTXIVb DieltATief.
Edward Barton, a lad, ealy lb year; of age, was put to
the bar, on an indictment chartist him with stealing it
Bank of itsogland note for 904 the property et Charles
Young, flat Sinister at `Law. The prisoner was the
brother of Mr. Yount's clerk, who. is consequence of indis-
position, was unable to attend to his deities at chambers,
and had consequently placed his brother, (the prisoner), in
his place. when be availed himself of the opportunity of
committing the felony. Ike facts were fully proved,
and the trafertunate youth was footed Guilty, but re'
_ _

would ._. .... -..
scit go Leto eireelation • bat Idtaese ritfaseti. because and the trotertUeate lm treaty,
.goats way tonna bat Ti
defendant had sot requested. 'Afterdefeodeat hod left London cemmvaded to mercy on account of his forms, good
on thoStltof.listontheri witness tolled !moon plaintiff for the dhatacter.
mate of the _ pecion who was to shin ColestelMaelrona'sgoollo; aimilingaMilliaMinG ,
he save •• Kr. Lillie, fli: tgorl-Aie-rtisl.7:-.. , •
LONDON SESSIONS.--Wsossmie.
efeepettaminad—fleyeier lolled it 0140Z..thaplotattlf :
enimaralllmm .
Aid nerremeashme that betatt neeeptea :111-tab into 1
tett
'3,441. hieseeeelt, ;101thelle Wet bankrupt' hid fit elartlidettisaip-• : 2lidOir Sue 3?, the skint of °Roof Mosso. Whitbread's
tap row, apeedegralleisteastereeyr addreeml • • Aiayi, was indicted for a wastes sod iisogerons assault
Cerm:itailliigitElakeerteeefiseted plaintiff. minim epee -wit. visa John Giogkonin, .at ~
awl
am his
aellea 41110,10.0.4440116.10110 ameefaaterer, for, the :defeat& lini linnike dine-
. . . .
bars ergot'; .11ltblo:Afr.,Avideirialtietillet Obi._he NAPO/. l ot uniuldi of , t • :Lean in a light
seal ; plitivaut Its mai VAIN 11•111404.6"°,1".6"tatt, aid his' child Weta loipi * ' •
OA ro'llitirroft.' . a _ og it gip
.I.lbott
;Melts Lags* remmehered Colonel fdacironi leaviiii tioo4ll,_,le 4011.0T__48, •(' the street' irli-4,1 'Street ill,
that bliFirilb.htut. sfth tostrostioos 19 give' it tb plaintiff alt Itranws•ft • 09E0111 •Psaff b•orp, am is, be drove
.. , ~ ,
boon no Sr abeam mars* *boils Which ill had-ordered eraty' l Sir S. illte• "WIMP itroiUM4ifrilf soon oriole,
/Ana balippevi ; the hi& greaneeepted•Wee desk' by the *ben lite •defrndant, the d ' .it . ' 'dry, Mee
llotbnol: plaintitcalled en witness Milo Image whop:. ''pined to regain bilismilliithitiit it t *3O Mr and-
I
• ,