The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-12-20 00:00:00

res.ikt

-lOW- • ..
COMM OF Cligielltir, Ni. At . .
WARTLAIT 0. TUIRTLAST.
Mr. HART applied to the Girt this day to mike eV
a Bill which had been filed against the Mika's., Kr.
(harp Wartlaby, by hie mother, Mrs. Ann Wettish'',
on the ground that she had not been eapable,at she
time stated, to conduct her .agairt. • la support of tie
application a very consWernble partial of documentary
evidence was adduced, aid several allideilts, one of
which contained near forty folio Ace* get
After hearing Mr. HART and •Ilir.llas&ii re
`length, the Lome enancaLien•resi at fear e‘e ,
...,. .
On rising to leave the beech, i *in. dietlree ,„_ithe
bad been waiting for •an opiiiirtuni*rieett itistmipt
rfe
. the Counsel, -and putting up tyro papers;itl in the t
of moving the Coed, itairlOvillyonitirdsltip p
..
to bear me' address yeti en this petition: The ei I:ii.
,stance of course excited attentiOn' load tierVik
eIIAWCRLI.OR, 1011*.arisrest sarpriiki, iii!il, " N at;
[• present," aid Mt St Court. • • • '
' • .'') - COVIir.OIOIIINO'S BENCH, Dac. 'l9.
Nth& iffer Term akrilaildhall. !"
• •

KNIGHT AO WRICINTaatt.
This was an oasis by the Plaintiffs, who are Sa-
ckers, to recover 484/, tbo amount' of their MI, for
prosecuting the indicant's& preferred by the Parishion-
ers of Betbaal-green spins Mr. Merceron. The par-
denten of this prosecution have repeatedly Wee be-
fore the public. The Defeadant was constituted liable
on the ground that he bad given the Plaintiffs instruc-
tions to act.

The defence was, that • the Defendant was not the
proper person to look to for payment; bat itappeared
he was Chairman at.the meeting which voted the reso-
lutions for prosecuting Mr. Merceron. and the Joey,
ander the direction of- the Chief Jestice, found a ver-
dict for the Plaintiffs. for the amount of their bill. •
Till 11150 r. •itbttLlTsAT.
This was an indictment stodnit Simon MlMllieray,
for refusing to take wpowhiMielf the office of 'mined-
man for the ward of Watbrook.
Notice of his election wis proved wpon the Defetedisit.
Mr. Pot.Locu stated that Mr. Mliillivray's • Wesel
hod arisen from his below compelled to .enshatklbr
America. .
The Loss Cunt Justion tbought that Adak fact
might have bad ite weight with the Proem:Mrs, bat it
could sot be take■ as as answer to the indictment-•

Mr. Pot.uocu said thatiMr, M'Oillivrar was ene?tof
two gentlemen who traded 'to Canada. It was neces-
sary to the conduct of the basieess of the firm, that
one of the parties should make an unseal ttli to Ame-
rica ; and Mr. M'Oillivray's partner, at the, time of
Mr. M'Oillivray's elsctien, was actually yet*lng the,
office of Churchwarden.
The LORD Cuts,' JUSTICI said that 111% TolloeleC
argument might bay. egret in another place r• bat*
could not, in law, excuse the refusal of his ellivit.

The Jury found the tiefeedent—Getity.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dar. W

Wins. before Chief Awake DALLAS, mad allipasiell Joy. 4
• .! 44 i; 10, t.'
ROBINSON V. ORAR.O . I; .; •
This was an action broight tip gees ;of a
bankrupt named Hawley, to recover 491.1.,pa ,* the,
defendant by the bankrupt under extrawdisiwi Aird
„
cumslances.
The father of the defendant, Miss Gray. wee pt man
of property, carrying on business as a contectionev at
Maidstone. .In 1819 he came to Stoke Newington,
where he died, leaving his property to his wife and
only child, the defendant, who was described * be a
person of weak miad- She then went with ker
they to carry on business in the Commercial-road. and
the wife of Hawley, who bad known Miss o.ray from
infancy, applied to her for a loan of 4001. The de-,
fendant advanced the money to Halley, whole • June
1820, repaid it. and took a receipt. What be be-
came a bankrupt, the CommissiOners lookiatt with a
suspicious eye at the transaction, exanSined the de-.
Sndont, who gave answers which increased tbelr
doubts. In order to decide the question they direiNt4
tlqi 'action, and the Juiy bad to try whether thiii j
of 400/. belonged to the defendant, or whether It was
not pat into her hands by fraud and conspiracy for
the purpose of defrauding the creditors. She ac-
counted fur hatlig the money in her possession by
stating, that her father on his death bed gave her
6001. with a solemn request that she would not litany
person know she had money.
On the part of the plaintiff several witnesses were
called with the intent of proving that Mr. Gray at his
death was sot in a condition to give his daughter 6001.;
.bat. it appeared there was no donba-of his being a
ilea of property. The bankroll' Halley and his
Wife were examined for the defendant, and both proved
JO the most distinct terms the loan and repayment of
Obi money.
' The Jary, ander all the circumstances, loonta
diet for the defendant.

SECONDARY'S OFFICE, C9I•BMAN•

JOHNSON V. JOHNSON AND aPLLHR.
This was an action for a breach of covenant. The
defendant had suffered judgment to go by default, and
.the question for the Jury was the amount of damages.
Serjeant BULLOCK stated the plaintifrs calm; by which
it appeared that in the year 1814 the plaintiff entered
into tits tee trade, in partnevskip. oitk
,the defendants
mid the brothel. of Mr. Holler, who had since died, un-
der the firm of Holler, Jammu. sad Holler. In the
month-of May, 1815, a deal, was entered, into and exe-
cuted by all the parties, by which the partnership was
dissolved, and the amount of capital in the trade be-
longing to the trade was declared to be 6,528; the
payment of 6.0781. of which, it was agreed should
be secured to the plaintiff, which wet' tiesserelingly
dose. and, the money since paid. and the balance' of
6001. was to remain is the bands of the defeadants
as a security against the eventual failure of any debts
due to Le firm which bad beep taken as good iit esti.-
matiOg the capital. If was also cove,eille by the
deed, that y any of the debts dame!, Va 41.4 there-
tote left out of the estimateof capital ilitlelLbe re-
:colored, the•plaintiff 'should be enpftla),to,lttollropor-
tion of the, money, received on acalltir of apiee debts.
rei44 And Wyse further covenanted, that Act 'pa of
ascert'alnil/4 the state •f 'those accountio.' e Plaintiff
shoeld have access to the bool6, 11110.:.: ' . 10.11.1,:efl
,Bur the breach of tbie curl:met - eni i • ter - af,
;he defendant, the 'priskat isctiiiihriiii •blVellit.4:-,

t
N'% Nrl

The plaintjff having eitia it remittable time for the
collection of the debts, 'ilt;led fee the Ittepection
orilteloaki to enable b . escoitaii the* ono Ile
was to receive; bat' though he repeated thiiippliea-
lion time.aftee tins% and year after year, it was *Whys
refused by the deleadant, and bevies at length.ceat
yelled to bring the present natio*. without, however,
having any other object is vi than merely to inspect
„,,„6
the book'', to which he was ea by tit‘dsaile• a
which was necessary Nascertain .state of Avows
in which he was isseeasted. „
Mr. Edward theater, the plaintiff's attor4lproveti
the defendants' ref to allow the pitied/ to Lisped
the books to which the deed referrek,
kip
partner Mr. Helftlddressell the Jo fpi ihe defendants;
he said thla was the first A of one part,
bringing in action at law a t anothet ea any
transaction respecting the partite •.' If- Ale plain-
tiff bad any cause of complaint, hie proper Weently
was by.filing a bill in equity, when the iospectio9 Of
the Woke, under the Master's cuntroul, would be or'-.
dered..• 1* fact, it was already offered by the defend-
ants, in a bill they bad filed to obtain en injunction
in this Elise. The feet was, the defendants had int-
prudonstif kept the accounts of the new partner-
ship ii' tkit same books that leontained the accounts
of; tbet which was dissolved; and it would be
bjgbly.iae;pedient that those accounts should beet-
foetal to thaplaintiff, who was their competitor in trade.
The Jury consulted a short time, and returned *
verdict—Datnsges 3001.

A 1141611
aIWO - _ll-2-attr