The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-11 00:00:00

PMT M. SUM AND OTIIIOIII.

This was an action of trespass brought by Mr. Pitt
against the defendants, Skew, the broker, his assist.
ants, and the assignees of the baakrupt, Adams, who
were the parties prosecuting Mr. Pitt in the former
case. The evidence was the same in substance as be-
fore, so fir as regarded the plaintiffs right, and the
trespass committed by the defendants in continuing.
beyond the time allowed by law, on the plaintiffs
premises; and the defendants having taken certaie
fistnres scheduled to the plaintiff in his lease. The
Jury foetid a verdict for the plaintiff for 41. las. fur
taking goods mentioned in the schedule.

STIIINET P. PP: TER MOORE, lESQ. M.P.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re•
corer 9511!. the amount of his demand for stereotyp-
ing an edition of Shake'prare fur Drury-lane Theatre.
Mr. Sc.timerr W 3! fur the plaintiff, and Mr. tiea•
xer for the defendant.

The material question in the cause was, whether
Mr. Moore was personally liable in this action, upon
which footing it was brought, or whether he ought
to have been joined with the Committee of Ma-
nagement for the affairs of the Theatre, on whose ac-
count the work was alleged to hare been done.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions,
found a verdict for the defendant.

TUIMAN

iloalole the amount for which they were bound °Tel
betire.

PERJURY.
WILLIAM GEOROIt WILMOT.

The defendant was then put upon his trial on an
indictment fur wilful and corrupt perjury. The in-
dictment charged that, on the 29th of November,
1!t19, the def•ndant scent before henry Moreton Dyer,
Esq at the Public-office, Marlborough-street, and, on
his oath. charged Elizabeth Haze, his servant, with
feloniously stealing a shoe-horn, a pair of silk-stock-
ings, and other articles, his property ; whereas, in
truth and in fact, the articles enumerated were nut his
property.
Air. ALLAY opened the case. The motive alleged
against the defendant for the false charge complained
of, was to deprive the prosecutrix of wages u hick were
owing to her by hint : mu It stress was laid upon al-
leged vexatious delays on the part of the defendant,
and the defendants in the other case, by giving a great
number of notices of trial without appearing in con-
sequence thereof, thereby putting the prosecntrix to'
enormous expense.
Witnesses were then called to prove the facts charged
in the indictment.

Mr. Crawoon addressed the Court and Jury for the
defendant, and urged that the latter must be satisfied
that the defendant, wilfully, knowingly, and without
any reasonable ur probable ground, laid an informa-
tion against the proreentrix for a robbery •; if he was
merely mistaken in supposing that the property in
question was his own, that would not be sufficient to
justify a verdict of guilty. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to call several witnesses on the part of the
defendant, whose testit ttttt went to prove that there'
acre grounds of suspicion against the prusecutrix.
Amongst gib was Mr. Want, one of the defendants
in the 6;l44lffease.
The Juryifter a few minutes' deliberation, found
the defenilJnt guilty. Judgment was nut pro-
pounced.

31r. Want, who is a surgeon, carrying on business
in Clarendon-square, Somers-town, u•as then taken
into custody, and not being prepared with un 4.-
jectionable hail, was cot 1111 l itted to the noose of Cor-
rection.

The case occupied the Conrt from ten in the morn-
in' till half-past seven in the evening-.
The prosecutrix is all interesting youna woman,
and is sisret.in-law to Captain Ilauttigardt, by whom
she has been 'modified in this effort to vindicate het
character from the imputations which had been cast
upon it.