The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-12-13 00:00:00

TOR lIVXI OP OCOrnill. O. LOW [TT.

This was an action brought byatbe noble plaintiff
owner of Covent-garden market, fur the purpose of re-
covering the sum of PM. claimed to be due in respect of
certain b.i.kets of strawberries and gooseberries, sold
by the defendant in the raid market. The defendant
pleaded a tender of 4d. which he alleged to be the while.
sum itue.
The plaintiff's ease was conducted by Mr. Session,
Mr. Gaselee, Mr. Liitledale, mid Mr. Adam, and the de-
fenilant's by Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Gurney, Mr. Goshen&
and Mr. Rime's-all. The trial lasted the whale day, and
upwards of forty witnesses were examined. Tile sole
question in the case was, whether the plaintiff was en-
title.l toll take toll, at so mods for each ba.ket, or only
the sum of 4d. upon every cart load of strawberries or
gooseberries brought to market.
The Jury, under the learned Judge's directions, found
their verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, Six-pence.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DE. 11.

rLrws w ft•eWAT.

This was an action brytic by the plaintiff against
the defendant on a prourfUsory note fur 241 10s. pur-
porting to he the acceptance of the defendant, and dated
August, Int% The circumstances of the case were of
a very novel kind.
Th, first witness called on the part of the plaintiff
was a person named F.dwards, the drawer of the note.
He silted, that so far back as 'he year 1779 he was the
proprietor of two houses in Watling-street, where he
then resided, and was a dealer in smalls, a species of
powder used by paper tllltufacturers. He and the de-
fendant Medway bad various! thins together. Wit-
ness wan in the habit of lending him money, and cc-
consmodating him with bills, u a security fur which
the defendant Ica Mtn blank acceptances to be filled up
as occasion might require. The defendant in 1779, or
1700, give witness six act eptanees of this kind, the note
on which Plans* now sought to recover 291. 10s. bring
our 01 them. Witness positively swore that he saw the
note now produced signed Is) Railway in 1779. Wit.
11/1111C after a lapse of so many years (30 or 40), filled it
up, and passed it to a person named Thomas Johnson,
for what consideration it slid not appear, and from him
it dot into the hands of Plume, ant present plaintiff.—
Witness said, that be lately carried on business, that
was to say, had a toanting-hoax, in the upper part of
No. 13, Sweeting's-lane. 'lb defendant still owed him
. .

Mr. Serjeant Pst.t., on the part of the defantioult, said.
that if the jtlatntill could recover on suib ab intrariapt
as Ow, the property of no matt in the country could
safe for a mouicat. Here was a note said to ha ardeptpl
forty or nearly iffy years hark. and fined sop wir po
late as August, tell. It was not pretended that the
transactions between the witness Edwards and the der
fend., tits Railway continued longer than five or six year*
after this, together with other blank acceptaacts, were
said to have been given. That would being their MY
nectron down to 17n3 or 17t16. From that peeled it wet
not conleivied that they had any dealings together.
Was it likely then, that seat h a claim as this would be
allowed to remain dormant so long? He most say, that
the whole transaction bore on the face of it a most dis-
losieA appearance. It was impossible that the :mute of
the acceptor could has e been signed so far back as 1771
or 1; tO. Nu difference was distingnishable between
that and the other manuscript parts of the note. They
all appeared to have been written at the same time.
r,
oe transaction did not merely appear to be oishisnett;
for be should call witnesses to prove that it um so in
reality, if any doubt remained on the minds of the Jary
after the manner in which that witness. Edwards, bad
given his evidence. It would be must just and proper
to prosecute some of the parties in this transaction for
their dishonest and shameful conduct. There were suf.
&lent ground for prosecution, and he was determined'
that the matter should not rest here, though he would
not now saye:4.lo nhich of the parties be should in-
stitute proc This was not the first ethos
brought against his client under exactly similar circum-
stances, and if the note was forthcoming, he pledged
himself that they oho were concerned in this Lam at-
tempt should hear more about it.
Mr. Serjeant VAI'GWIN said, that the note should be
forthenwing, if necessary.
After a few observations from the Chief Justice, who
said, that to all appearance, the ureptot's name and
the other parts of the note were written at the same time,
the plsintilf was non-suited.

SECONDARY'S OFFICE. Coal
WILLIAM! 1' REID.

A Jury was impanurlled ts -
damages in this
case, jociument haring been permitted to gn by default.
Mr. PoLkoce wits tor the plaintiff whom he described
as a respect.ltile Stozk-bruher in the lily, of must peace-
able disposition. The defendant was also a person of
estimation amongst his friends, and had considerable
wealth to recommend him to the notice of society, but
kis temper had been rendered impetuous and turbulent,
in consequence of being accestonied to arbitrary coo- 1
troul over a large portiun et Ids fellow creatures in the
West Indies. It itnesses were called. They proved that
the plaintiff, whn had been fur some time upon friendly
tenus with the defendant, was one evening sitting at
tea with other tientlemen, w lion the defendant entered
the room ; and being asked to join the company, rats at.:
the plaintiff, mid without the least provocation, strucL•
him violently in the face. The defendant was pardoned 1
by the plaietiff, who humanely made allowances for the i
' former habits of his assailant ; but, unfortunately, the,
contrition of the defendant was net Listing. Ibres
months afterwards. under circumstances of groat agree. 1
ration, he attacked the plaintiff, and beat him dreaulally
about the face.
.hr. A mum, for the defendant, spoke in mitigation of
elsimiges, Ile snbinitted that as the bail, demanded Fy
the Lord thief Justice, amounted to no more that SOL
the Jury might properly measure the damages by that
l sum.
1 The Fecondary, in summing np, stated, that the assault
was the more aggravated. as a former %Meace had been
hiegiven, and said the Jnry ought to mark their sense
lof the defendant's condowt, Ly.mmessing the damages in
?melt a manner, as to give the plaintiff fall Ix; isfactioa.
The Jeri asonwed the d •niages at 1501. 'llk Court
, of Newel, is to be moven for a new trial upon the
ground at CICCS.IIIO damages.

I