The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-12-15 00:00:00

1048 MW PN.TRIMARricz. • .

AMPOItTANT AND CURIOUS CAME; •
• (011011$111, DUBLIN uootet,to roar.)
On Thursday, the 21th alt. Mr. Clarke and Mr,. Litton,
of Counsel with Mr. John Hunter, One of the usarnmaptors.
erpur pugilist% champion, Langan, moved the Court of
Common Pleas, that an exonerator might be entered upon
rbe bail.pieeela the cause of Thomas Flynn against John
air. CI.AM Ilditod, that he moved upon the aliLlavit of
Mr. Hooter, which stated that Lord Norbury granted
• his fiat in this rase for the sum of 501., to hold the de-
*nasal Langan to special bail, for the alleged seduction
trod loss of services of the plaintiff's daughter; that Mr.
Hunter became one of the bail at bar in the action; that
In the sittings after last Hilary Term, the cause was 'tried
before Lord Newbury and a Common Jury, when there
was a verdict for the plaintiff Flynn. for 1001. with 'costs;
that the plaintiff mede op his judgment 'Wiest Halter Term,'
an 4 an execution was issued againstlhe person of Langan,
wbo was not, however, arrested under it; thartingan was
sebtelpsently arrested at the suit cif another creditor;
whereupon he petitioned the Insolvent flebtors' Court,
praying to be discharged from the demands of hts credi-
sore, and amongst the rest, from the demand of the plain-
tiff Flynn, who was regularly returned as a creditor for
the amonut of the damages and costs in this case, and
who bail been served with notice that Langan world be
brought up to be discharged, under the f nsolveat
Laws; that Langan was accordingly btonght up god
,discharged, as appeared by the adjudication of
the Insolvent Debtors' Court; that the plaintiff, in,
stead of opposing the discharge of Langan, brought an
a‘tion against the bail, who had not surrendered Langan
io their discharge. Mr. Clarke urged, that leasmuch as
the der-ndaut Lsngan was regularly discharged soder ,the
Insolvent Act, as to his person, froM the effect of the
jadgment• and execution in this ease, the bail wereentitled
to an exonerator on the bail•piece, and cited several law
anthoritier, to 'hew that the bail were not bound to sue,
r nder Langan under the circumstances.
Mr. WALLACg and Mr. ALLEN, for the plaintiff, con.
tended, that by the terms of the recogolgauce of bail, the
bail were bound to pay the damages and costs, or render
the body of the defendant to the Marshal of the Four
Courts it!a-shalses. Mr, Wallace also insisted, that as ,
this_ was an action of seduction, the defendant could not
have been di,charged by the Insolvent Debtors' Court It ni
the damages and costs in this case, until he should have
been in custady for two years.
Mr. Justice Wong termed to be of opinion with Mr.
'Wrillace upon the latter position.
Mr. Livros replied, and ably contended, that inasmuch
as the plaintiff, Flynn, did not think proper to oppose the
defendant. Lsngan's discharge under the Insolvent Act,
the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court could
Lot hare been aware if the ra'ure of the action ; and that
it wart the husitiess of the plaintiff, who was the on'y per.
,on who should have been interested in having Langan
remanded, to have informed that Court upon the subject, by
app•aringlin the usual way to oppose Iris discharge under the
ustilvent Act; hut as the plaintiff omitted to do so, the Ingot-
vent Debtor b' Court discharged Langan ; and its adjadiea•
tion uas final and conelasice.ml Langan was of coarse dim
.1 barged fruni the judgment and execution, and therefore
the bail were entitled to an exonerator upon the bail-piece,
and relied upon the authorities cited by Air. Clarke.
The Coeur declared that this case was as important as
it was novel, and would therefore take time to consider it
`ll-tore itsprononnced itsjudgrnent. Vpon the following day
(the last Bay of I'ero9the Court were ocanimansly of opinion
that theibarl in this ease were entitled to an exocerator
span the bill piece, and made %sorrier accordingly ; there.
by deriding that Langan ie nut to be surrendered, nor his
liable to thy payment of the damages and costs.

COURT OP EXCHEQUER. DUBLIN, Dec.lo.
l'everday,' the rase of Dunn against Alderman Tyndall,
otne d the Coroner of the City of Dublin, and others,
,cane on to be tried bef.tre the Lord Chief Baron. It wt.;
- an aril:3n forfulae imprironment. Verdict for the plaintiff,
damages, and costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—(Savuaroay.)
---.4110"-- •
MARTIN, ITONC, AND OTHCRV, V. DRAW.
Mr. Nerjeant VAUGHAN stated that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff:, who were eminent hankers, to •
recover a sum of seven guineas from the defendant, a law
stationer, residing in Portugal Street, Lincoln's Inn. The
' plaintiffs would rot have brought an action for a small
:tun like this, had it not involved the character of one of
their 'Jerks. The transactions out of which this cause bad
arisen irer thew:—On the ISth of July last the defendant
presented a cheek, drawn by Edward liaise and Son, on
the plaintiffs, for 41. 45., at their banking house. The
clerk, who was at•that moment acting as cashier, mistook
these • figrres for I 11. • I Is., on account of the manner in
hich they were made.; he therefore asked in what way the
defendant would have it paid; to which he was anseered,
In coda ; he then counted out that sum, and the defendant
put it in his pocket. Soon afterwards the mistake seas dis-
covered by the clerk looking over therbeck, and observing
that the figures wire improperly made, and that the sum
of :s F. Dr pounds four shillings' were written in word: at
full length, In ti -e body of the net.. When the cashier,
for whom this clerk had been acting, came back to the
banking house. -the cleric communicated to him the
cnms'anres, and on the cash book and the checks that had
been paid being compared, a deficiency of seven guineas
teas discovered. • The clerk as soon as the banking house
closail for the day, called on the defendant, and haying
mentioned the mistake, requested him to refer to his cash
account, for the purpose of seeing what money he bad
.teccrived in the course of the day, when the defentla.nt
replied be could' not, as he had turned ont all the cash
from his pocket into a box, and had paid the account into a
-hanker's. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs trete
tar/veiled to bring, the present action, in order to clear
she character of their clerk, who had been confidentially
}Lied by them for the last six years.
• Win, Cole—l am a clerk in plaintiffs' bankintrdiouse,
the business of which is carried on at Lombard S reed.
4 have keen in their employment six
years; at the time of
paying this money I officiated as cashier; there are two
cashiers In our house, sae of them was in the country.
-the other was at his dinner; in his absence I acted as
a-sillier; while he was out that check was presented at our
doubter: Mr. Drew presented it ; I did not then know hius:
looked at the figure. (Tae check was then handed to
the Juay ; the figures were made in such a manner as to
have all the ippearaore of having been intended for II
instead 9f 4.), I read it for II guineas, looking at the
figures in the earner; I asked the tierce:hint in what way
he would take it. Since one pound n Ars have been dis-
eentinned,it has not been the practice in bankingdsouses to
isk that q testi on on checks of less than, 51. bring presented;
lie saki, in gold:* I then paid him eleven sovereigns, and
eleVen shillings is titter; he took it and went away. I
have 'sitAt• a distinct treollection *of the subject as to be
aide to swear positively to these farts. la our house,
when geld is paid 'toe cheeks, we pat them on the fila till
three or four of them ore paid; when the whole amount is
tr.ken and put into the cash. book ; it is the business of
the cashier -to do this; we mark the amount on the ontside,
and the person who keeps the cash book looks over it, and
then enters it. The check did not remain en the tile more
than ten minutes. I then took it elf the file for the purpose
of making a total, and I then discovered it was for four
guineas only, instead of eleven. At three o'clock the
other cashier /Aliened from dinner. I then inquired of
tlitit-reelleace of liaise and Soc, the drawers of the check:

:4, A. litick

-..- •
Ilawn' tbibe and .four in* to ay intnl
& liate a banking ee, and ha then tot's! me where Mr. Drew
lived. We talented nor cash .aceoani about six at
I. theiadhisa.thi ash sated glinena abort. I went In Me.]
Drew Its'soon as the banking.hoqm was shot., L sate the
olivine's there. Mr: Drew is a stationer. I hiked fdr
and be came out. I 'reinembered him to be the saw.'
to whom I had paid money Lb the morning. 1 told
him that in paving the check on Hike and Son, I bad;
paid him him eleven. gisineae instead of four. He said be
bad received the rileht amount. rtold him to look into his
pocket and lie would then find 'Wen guineas more than he
could account for. He said it wig of no use, for when be
Mlle home he. had turned out his pockets into a cash box,
the amount of which had
:hen afterwath paid into his,
bankers.
Cross examined.—l have livek with the plaintiffs six
years. I lived before that with Messrs. Brookes. bankers.
Mr. Drew admitted he had been it our house in the morn.
ing. He said lie had been paid with four sovereigns, a
half.erOwn, one shilling and sixpence. He offered to go
before the Lord Mayor and make an affidavit to that effect.
My deficiency on that day was only seven guineas. 1 never
said it was twenty pounds. I read the check for eleven
guineas ; it was about a quarter after two when the
check was presented; it was broad day light, on the Itith
of Jnly. The words " four pounds four shillings" are
written very legibly. 4 never said that any body else
bad taken the money. I told Mr. Drew on leaving hind,
that ft was a very unpleasant business ; that it lay between
us, and that if he had not this money it must lave been.
left on the counter.

By the JUDGC-1 paid hint the whole of the motiey.
eleven guineas; and, therefore, if be bad only four gui•
ne', he must have selected them from the rest.

Ite-examined.—The words "four pounds four shillings"
were written in the body of the check, but when I paid it
I only looked at the figures. Ido not recollect That Mr.
Drew said he could not babe received Mere than four
guineas, for he had only that Single sum of money- in• his
pocket when he returned home:
Mr. William Stringer.—l was a cashier in the plaintiffs'
house on the day in question: I pointed out Mr. Hideo to
the last witness. The busineei is conducted in Osmond,
d scribed.
The check was then read:
Mr. Edward liaise proved that the check bad lien given
on the day in puestien to the defendant.
Cross-examined.-:—The defendant is a ►ery respectable
man, and of a respectable fanny.
Mr. Justice Buititounu regretted that the defendant,
had not at once satisfied the clerk of the mistake which
had happened, by producing his cash-book for the day,
which would instantly have prevented the present invesl
ligation. The Jury would say on the whole of the
circumstances, whether they thought the clerk could have
by mistake counted out the I I guineas on the counter.
part of which had been afterwards left there and taken
by somebody else, in which case they would find for the
defendant; or whether they thought the defendant had
fraudalently put the money in his pocket, in which case
th it verdict must be fur the plaintiffs.
The Jury retired fer a short, time; and on their return
delivered their verdict, by their foreman, in the fulloaing
terms :—" At the same time that we pronounce a verdict
for the defendant, we wish it to be understood that we
impute no corrupt inteetiun whatever to the clerk."

ESSEX WINTER AI.NIZES—CosTINuED.

TIIK KING P. TIIOSISS wILLISSI WARD, ESQ.
This was an indictment against the defendant tor a libel
pablished of and concerning Peter Wright. EN. of list.
field Priory, in this county. This case excited considerable
interest in the county.
Mr. lixox conducted the case on the part of the prose-
cution ; and Mr. Hawn:Rica and Mr. DowLiso the
defence.

The case was in substance this:—The prosecutor is a
gentleman of fortune, who, in ISIS was an unsuccessful
candidate as a representative in Pas fitment for the borough
of Colchester. The defendant Is a lieutenant io the
Royal Artillery. The prosecutor and the defendant's
father are brothers, the latter being the elder grandsons
of Mr. John Wright, former proprietor of Hatfield
Priory estate, of considerable value, in this county. In
early life the defendant's father was the favourite grand.
son of Mr. John Wright, sad was expected to be the heir
of his large possessione. He went to India, and after a
long absence, he returned to England, and found that his
grandfather had died, leaving Mr. Peter LuarJ, the prose-
Moe, heir, by will, to all his property. The prosecutor,
upon the death of his grandfather, assumed the name of
Wright, and has ever since been in possession of his
grandfather's estate. This unexpected reverse in the
fortunes of the defendant's father produced considerable
dissatisfaction ; bat the prosecutor allowed the
defendant's father to remain for a considerable time in
possession of one of the family mentions rent free, and
had let to him • large farm considerably below its
value, upon an agreement tte a lease, which did not
appear to have been executed. The prosecutor's
family and that of the defendant's father grew up, and
in consequence of mutual misunderstandings, great dis-
seosions appeared to have prevailed. The defendant am
sent to India as a cadet, and became a Lieut •nant in the
Royal artillery. Whilst at the Mauritius in 1820; he
heard of some alleged indignities offered by the prosecutor
to his father, and in the heat of filial indignation at the
manner in which he believed the prosecutor to have
behaved towards Isis parent, wrote an intemperate letter to
the prosecutor, reproaching bins with cruelty and persecu-
tion towards his father, alluded to the unfavourable &atm-
sition of the grandfather's property, by which a younger
brother was placed in affluence whilst the elder was kept
in comparative penury, and insinuate I that unfair nomans
had been adopted to influenk the grandfather• la .the
disposition of his .property. This letter had been read by
the prosecutor to several of his friends. Upon the return
of the defendant to England, in March, 1822, he *rote a
respectful letter to the prosecutor, apologiaiog for that
which he had written from the Mauritius. and expressing
his regret in dutiful language, for the intemperance into
which he had been betrayed; and asked forgiveness for
the youthful heat he had shewn in the cause of his father;
being sensible, upon reflection, whatever Narks his
father might have received, still he haul exceeded the
bounds of discretion. The prosecutor took no notice of
this letter. Previously to the defendant's going to the
East Indies, he had lef► in the pot4ession of the prosecutor's
eldest son, a pointer dog, upon condition that if he
returned and the dog was alive, it should be restored, and if
dead, another dog was to he given in its stead. No answer
haring been given to the letter last mentioned, the de-,
fendant wrote to the prosecutor's son, in cold hot civil
t•rins, requesting that the dog, which he nu lerstnod was
alive, might be returned. This repeat nes treated with
silent .contempt ; uren which the cieentheat wrote a letter
to the prosecutor, stating the breach of his son's promise,
and reqoesting his interference for the peaceable restoration
of the dog. In this letter were contained some angry iat-
putstions respecting the conduct of the prosecutor's son,
in keeping the dog after the solemn engagement abate
I referred to. This letter received no answer; hut the pro-
f aerator immediately indicted the defendant for the first,
, third, and fourth letters above mentioned ; the first was
I alleged to be libellous of the prosecutor, aid the third and
s fourth were charged as intending.to provoke the prosecutor
sod his son to fight a fill.] nulls the defendant. The ale.
&Want had been teased from his Fed, %Rhone' any pre
s vious notice, and taken into custo Iv for the purpose o'
f pleading to the indictment, and having pleaded and bring
...admitted to bail, the sate was now brought to trial. Mr.

io