The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-02-15 00:00:00

Cot 11T OF NINO'S BENCH, I'LL 1-1.

11117.ARS r. THE MARQVIS Or WORCEMITS.
This a•a! an ae•tion by a whip-maker, at tisford. to
recover .If. as :•d. for whips and other articles supplied
to the noble defendant, whits he was a student at the
University. 'lles defendant pleaded first, that he made
no pronmi►e to pay; and, second, ties Statute of Limita-
tions.

11r.licRN1T conducted the plaintiff'• case, and Mr.
W. H. Tat•Nron the def.•ndant s. _

It appeared that a precious hill, to the amount of 221.
Ilk. had heels 'dd to the plaintiff on %cement of the No
ble Ilargni•. Itut that the hill in question had been in-
curred in 11.110.11. The defendant had given I.is orders
to the plaintiff's son, hr whotts tl.e goods had been de-
livered. Evidence was given to take the ease out of the
Statute of Limitations. and there being no sultstantial
Defence bet or, the plaintiff bail a verdict for 41. 2s. 6d.

RING V. 1111110 P.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for
drawn itroi line's Lewis. accepted by him, and in-
ilerscil by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The defence set tip was mien,. and it appeared that
the plaintiff, in discounting 05.1411, gave the defend at
1781. in cash, and a set of Hoyden's &Minn of Shakes-
peare. which he trained at 1141., but the selling price of
%lAA was proved in evidence to be no more than 591.
The plaintiff was on this rt•idence 'mutinied.

THE C. rteLnen.
This was an indictment against the defem:ant foe an
assault upon a gentleman named I iongh.
Mr.SrAlltl.r.TT and Mr. A PRAPIAIN cominetell the plain-
tiff's ease, and Mr. Tyrrott the defendant's.
The case was this :—The prosecutor was iodging at
the /lath Hotel, Arlington-street, Piccadiar ; and on
the day mentioned in the indirtment. while he wan a:-
testi...illy his serrant in his dressing-room, and its the
Acta shaving, the defendant rushed into his room and
demanded his dog, which he insisted the prosecutor
bad. T'.e latter asked him what dog .? fu *hid'
the defendant replied, his doe, which he, the peosecti-
tor, hid stolen; that be had repeat.-illy asked hint
to 1411 kfis 'time dog; bet wwelg asKsiii,jus
dog to a dog-stealer. lit. railed him many nppAilintwas
names, and threatened that if hr did not itntnP*Ojely
restore his dnq, hr would piddle's. horsewhip him til the
street, and expose him to all his friends. Mr:Gough
insisted, that as he itself such insulting language; he
must quit the room. The defendant refused,
which the prosecutor laid down his rarer, and ins=
he must go out of the room. Mr. Fielder advattnell
wards him in a threatening manner; a she ensuril; g
mug containing water was broken, and blows wefestsx-
changed ; but it did not appear from the evidence +Oh
struck the first blow, and therefore,
Th e Jury, under the Learned Judge's directing:l4l4nd
the defendant—Not Utility.
SENTLILI d, fuctvot.n.
This was also an action fur an assault. It wag at-
!eget' to hare taken place on the Ist of September list.
Damages laid at .100 f.
• •

The defendant Pet up a curious plea. In adolitlote to
the general issue, he alleged that he and the plainlNlT
had entered into an agreetnedit to leek or sky-lark toge-
ther, which he explained by saying this was
.girlig
gentle blows with open hands. On one occasion he
dealt too hard a blow, and his antagonist, stung win)
4
enev at his superior address, had taken the opportm.it
of for; liging• lion into Court. The pliintiff in his re
cation denied this.

Thre ;Vie was about to proceed when his Lordship htL
terpo‘eit, and the parties consented to refer it to Mr.
Stariiie, the barrister.

KATT C. HOWARD.
This was an action to recover Mit which the plain-
tiff, a forcizner, had put into the handset the defend-
ant, an annuity-broker, so long ago as ISO 7. Plea, the
Statute of Limitation.
The plaintiff produced a receipt of a clerk et the de-
fendant for thr money, but it was not stamped. lie alas
1
failed at proving a remise to pay within six years.
On these grounds his Lordeisirdirected a nousuitr.

COURT OF COMMON NAAS, Pas. 146,av4

This !tying the Ant Nisi Prinav after Term, the
ChiefJustiee sat the greater part the day, and took
several undefended causes.
II A 1.2 r. matuttes.

This was an action to recover the anionnt of several
articles of female apparel, illegally detained by the de-
feadant.

The plaintiff, a governess, being in pursuit of a situa-
tion, applied to a friend of her's, noosed Astell, to know
where she might deposit her trunks, containing the sr
tides in question, in safety, foe mine time, until she was
suited according to her wishes. Asteil reentamended hoe
to place the trunk with his landlady, the wife of Onside.
fendant and the landlady committing to give the ammo-
'sedation; the trunks were aceisedinglv deposited in it
store-room of Ler house. knell hit the mean time irk
the lodgings, (mint- to 111inzirs9/.; and when the plains
tiff afterwards sent for her trunks,. Menzies reign* is
giro them, saying that he would lintels them viii ~tltr
paid this debt. 'rho facts woes proved, and the
Justice will, there was not a iadowof reason in law di
justify ti:t- det,tition of the trunks.
The. Jury gave their verdict instantly fur the &MK
Damage* 34M. ofe
esres e. VOSIUSS.
This was an lotion to recover the sum of 3/.
the amount of enactment alleged to he doe for otesipe,
engraving, and stationery.
An action for such a trilling sum deserves to he no-
ticed oulv because,ia was peculiarly unfortunate. The
plaintiff is a iii%•Atlitieliter# in Chancery-lane, the defend-
ant an attorney ofnslll4lll4itt. 1% was eilriElzult
filed against the 46111111111111 k b 40411•001, et die