The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-12-08 00:00:00

MILTON IX OAKS.

The Plain Off, a well-koowtt stable-keeper at the.
west end of the town, brought his action against
Capt. Oaks, of the list Regiment of Life Guards, to
recover 2651. paid to that Officor for two bay geld•
lugs, warranted sound at the time of the sale. The
Defendant baying two valuable horses at Knights.
bridge Barracks, the Plaintiff expressed a desire to
purchase them, and obtained bosh for 2651. The
horses were sold nest day to a Gentleman of large
fortune, named Fermer, for 3001.; but before Mr.-
Fermer completed the contract he took them to the
Veterinary College, where they were pronounced un-
sound. The fetlock joint of one was enlarged, and
the animal went lame.

Mr. Sewell, Mr. Coleman, end several other Ve•
terinary Surgeons proved that the horses must have
been unsound prior to the warrsoty.
On the part of the Defendant, Major Keely and
all the Officers of the Ist Regiment of Life Guards,
proved that the horses had been under their inspec,
tion op to the time of sale to Milton, and that they
were sound. The Jury hnd to consider whether the
horse had been injured after be was delivered to Air.
Farmer.

Captain Gough. of the Dragoon Guardf, stated
that he saw Mr. Farmer riding of of the horses eio-
leutly in the Park.

Mr. Termer, on the contrary, deposed that be rode
him moderately.

The Jury found a verdict for the IMetidant.

OLD BAILEY.

MONDAY. Dic. 7.

BANK FORGERIES.
John nye, aged 21, was arraigned fur I:tiering forged notes,
44 diehsl,o he forge.., To this charge be pleaded Nut
the piece to be an originellomposition. . an UseLosalotr-Jsity comer sago Caere. Ale sons
pot to the bar.
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the Defendant, submitted air. ser-
jrallt BOtANQI:IT addressed the Jury. Ile had no
three objections to the Plaintiff's right to recover :--• doubt they were perfectly acquainted with the'verdie %solids
had betegiven no Saturday,i .ii the eases of Williams wird-Cott•
Ist, He had not proved the declaration, which called nor. where a Jury had. on their solemn oaths, declared, they
this sheet of music a book. whereat the alleged piracy could not place any confidence whatever in theevideuee a (Jo.
was only the piracy of a single leaf of the book pub- derwood. It might be proper for him to state in them that it by
ninzeahnLfti.tvliodwrutede, that because
ibineteluose a
emrattihtealbe.cilnit participesic cri-
li shed by the Plaintiff, which consisted of a set of be
'country dances: 'U, That this action' could not have questionably was most justly to be suspected, hut wtineenecnialt:
ftlirtsineddi b‘ indite,. respez;table and credible witnes-es, it was en-
reference to the manuscript publication of ibis piece,
of which there had been 3 or 4000 roOn's sold in that iiiirderwoocZ netit wt..). rat ii y4t liiirfd iateYl theef and clohansaegqiiii: riiiiitel y evidence
acquitted of
form, because the Copp-right Act did not cootem. the Prisoners. He had too much respect for the clioracte of an
Fnglish Jury to find fault for a single moment with their see.
plate any thing hut printed works; and 3d, That diet, slid in the preomttcasa he Was satistlA..ifter due .4 11 .It
the Plaintiff could not set himself up as the author, tins wWs his Learned Friends who assisted him, that he' i
baudli nut
-
tthe arias of confirming the testimony of Underwood. and
having distinctly annoonced the piece as thewroduc-
thheerme
eniriehbriffiehles
eint,heis duly to decline
los.ulfderaiitegdnonlyhtevidenlidv on
tiros of a person named Reeve, and recorded it its such
prose of the mot ises from which tie *acted, because ahei dida silipoi
at Stsliouers' Hall, by which record he waseacloded.
Mr. SCA it LETT answered the first objection, by say. thud( it wield he proper io occupy theirtime in going over the
same grounds as had a ready keen gone over on *Saturday. The
ing, that Lord Ellenboroogh had recently held, that Jur, iherrfare would, asamatterof course, acquit the Prisoner.
even a sheet of a work was a' book within the mean. N crdict-,sot Guilty.
This Prisoner is the young man alluded to by UndervrooJ in
ing of the Copyright Act. the trial of Williams on Saturday, as the person who bad Oar i
Mr. • Justice BAYLEY said he would lint step the doted him to Williams for the purpose of purchasing forg..d.
Notes.i..... In; ;most of sbe Papers his name was stared to be Getty,
cause upon this objection, but would reserve the
Dye. Ile is an extuemely good-looking young
point for the opinion a the Court. As to the other mwa—n,eiaingd.the.ihowed respectfutly to the Court and Jury oil being
objections, it appeared to him that they were not discharged. . ~..
"il liewari, 23, was indicted for uttering att. note,
tenable, because, as to the second, it would have k wtistall it forged:llol6k*ea
rd
reference only to the duration of the copyright ; and Mr. Ifuts.Asro opeiird the pleadi::gs.
as to the third, a person might still be the author of -Mr. Serjenus- itos.ANquer addressed the Jury. and stated,
, ilneiet, titirozeetheheeirrenstwenor:ledhbee‘rhs about)t tofdetiiiil before them
a publication, and be entitled to protection as such, toeTt7,74g:WZ::
even though he had sent it into the world by a false vier the Prisoner. ‘ He would prolvartiliel notee
to'
'fond the po.sibility.uf doubt.
name.
IX! following)" ;Messes were then called fur the proseca-
Mr. CAMPBELL then went to ttie Jury, and pro- _
posed three grounds of defence, first, that use Plain. Elitabeth MlPherson, first Witness, resides in 74. Miswrite-
:hetet, where
.ohne;rebhusbalsoid ish a
hhosier. On the 2.5t1s of last No.
tiff was not the author Of the piece io question—
second, that the (lance published by the Defendant , and asked rior somealworstte; seloitiNlibeo: geillitlnesiaststewl'eatt
1 mime ut ‘.2.. opals, and lie agreed to take two pair. and offered a
was not a piracy of the Plaintiff's work, ioasmech as
it materially differed from it, particularly es to the Litittei:fVerlitinoategut,oofazeforsethne,wh.erLsohookedboat %lunette,
-danilog figure accompanying the music—and, third, Newisant to ask the opinion of M;r. Frost, nor nestr dYootr neigh.r ,
tiiif OW Plaintiff in all events could not ve sustain. to hour ; the ulhopo:no did not Mink it apical' one, but she does not '
tilaseshwotwe.heat4rhie'risonehre teaadrditthfirso.mAhsiksedinashitmer wil‘e re
tlitleesstook
edlttly injury, the Defendant not havi et # old more. did
than tvve espies of supposed piracy. 1 nut like hie to take the change. Sent the boy to another shop to
whilst the boy was gone, the Prisoner said,
Mr. Wilson, a professor of music, gave it es his see if it Ica.' gf""I ;
, ibis is depsiqing asestrangely.4 He weal away and said he
opinion, that this piece was not orightaVitsitemirch would return in Iwo &Gates. The bdy came hack in about
es it was composed of bars of irgeilet. litany other live-ratiotei; tie udicer (OM enure in soon after. Witness
rhaorledSthbeekiheint
tae note,
was brought hack (*the
country dances, vie.—Lore's in thine Ryes—The ' being shown it now, she ideini.
Tracellers—The Irish Washermonsan-.-Alorgan tie.tt. The nutiher is 79.'115; tbere were two names on the
fie. The
bPeriteafkletyr;srbt back, us brbad run away.
Rattler, &e. &c. lie admitted, however, that so
far as the combination of these scraps went the piece witness 1 said. Ih 5 _ _arena questionsaatuyinglhelir,tana putt diati not
was original. But otherwise be would stet admit its dear leilderlbt tee ''.--c."
Mr. Karen WOOD examined the Prisoner minutely relative
originality. to the identity of Melere.
Another musical man gm the same sort dissidence. The PORE:MAN irf the J lay.- When the bey brought you hare
Mr. Payne, a musician, proved', that shout two ha reportlo from btr, Frost shot the ante was had, did he deliver
t iii,iirloud a tone of voice that the Prisoner mignt hear w hat
C
years since he sold a manuscript copy cif aptain ;tu
Wyke to the Defendant, which he had composed Witness-I don't know whether the Prisoner did or not hear
hils:ribsount
eir thi‘nykt) he
tlett,have heard him.
from having heard it Played by other musicians. lieme the
never heard that the Plaintiff was the author of it.— note, and a'sk nu- if Lily. objection kdliod not
1:
second shop to astertain if it was good, and did 1 not soy at
This sate took piaci before the Plaintiff's- work ap.
muse time that you certainly tad& send it ?
of the Jury, that is a point
peered In print.
tlit.eiess-laranYteN!,o,,yo_ou
Gdietactflen
George Peachy, thesbefendant's sitopmeo, proved
very material for you toismoin*lnd.
Vl hen lie told hit
tidbit hp's master had, to tits belief, sold no more than
Charles Newnsio. the shop-boy. was next examined, and
, corroborated the evidence of the In.t witness.
rid Copies of the piracy. There Were nOW Iro
„, , „
Cowes in his inarleeit liosseraiont tm,l be had nit mistress the note wits a bad one he dill not speak iota low Paul
;brunght Mem with him:. of yoke, hut he does not know whether the Prisoner might bare
beard him say so or opt
" 'Mr. Whittaker, a professor of music, was then I ThcF athe soaamA at ory.-We rvottest, my Lord, that all
if ; the witnesses both for and agaiost the Prisoner way be ordered
ieltleti for the Plaintiff, and be swore diati,omly that
the Plaintiff's' work was a perfect Original, in its4"l't °l.fu?"."-f his vias delle•
l
Jots I. rost tides nest door to Pro7.ecutria Tins shop b
Cottibittatione of parts of old triellik• . sbirsredbim a Mut which he dm eht' suspicious'-
-n tt a one, ilk
'Mr. SCARLETT made 1111 irlimti htithrs to 0„., sabichlehoriw 'detrained. He went to her shop and raid, ta•
"'Y hearing of the Prisoner, that
he hoped fee tied not eaten the
Jury, in reply. ' 1
,a4or, hs it was a forged one. The hay was not it: the .11 { t,his
Mr. Justice BATLEY samited •:.
• Ateskte ' - •
ceve for tae dine. 'Prisoner mild he had the fromit/ste• • ."a
'•Jory,*.eho immediataittOuutt'l futioi„,, D 5.:,,,, i *ate led went 1,2 s his ow ti *OP. Vase be& ill it tett, ittlitillirti
. 1. "," I and.fiued hit. Bkrry in• ihe• shop. Prisoner was tat the op'
'lift--DamaGer O. 1 r watt side of the way, and seemed coming from k bocksetTeri

r{..'

~~ '~