Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-03-09

Communications are heaped upon Mr.. Clay
from all quarters and from all parties Even the
Van Buren, partizan, the most jealous aud envl-
Gus of the species, is compelled to join IN the
praises which issue FROM the lips OF whole Peo-
pie. He hates the man, and yet more. the deed;
but, for the sake of policy. must conform to the
universal temper, and suppress the fires which
rage in his bosom. So particularly glorious has
been Mr.. Clay's conduct. that his worst enemies
have been coerced to consummate his views while
they secretly abhorred them, and to unite in the
praises of man whom Of all others they hate and
fear {. ,st.
The friends Of Henry Clay and his renown,
could not entertain better wish than that he
should now die, when his name Ellis the trumpet
of fame, and lest peradyeuture something may
hereafter occur to diminish its iustre.
Rich. Wing.
LiaJilifu of Bailees "A case of some impor.
lance to those who may be intrustei with property
ior safe.keeping, was lately decided in the
Court of Common Pleas. The piaintlff, John
O'Mara. on his arrival abnut a year ago frum Ire
land, requested the defendant, Michael J Ton
hey, an inkeeper a, the corner of Barclay and
West streets. to take care of his money, (about
SeOO,) which he declined; but the wife of the de.
fendant, in his absence, consented to receive II,
of which the defendant afterwards had knowledge
The wife died abuut six months ago, and there
upon the defendant removed the money from the
place where it had been formerly kept,& put 1t into
a trunk i'm his bedroom. Suon afterwards the
house was reported to have been rubbed, and the
robbery was imputed to Dennis Loughin, the
= bar keeper and brother in law Of the defendant,
who Immediately absconded. The defendant
asserted that 500 we're taken from The house BY
the robber on the lst uf September, and it was
proved that on the ID. he issued hand bills, offer
Ing reward of 800 for his apprehension. and
went in pursuit of the thief to Luns.lsland, but
could not fad him. 1t was also proved that the
defendant assigned as a reason for not wishing Ia
receive the money. that he had been robbed be.
FORE and that he exhibited marks OF great anxiety
when informed that the bar-keeper had ab>con-
dpd, and had ascertalned that the money was
missing.
The Court charged the jury that the first qnes
ton for them tn decide vas whether the defend
an, had used the munev; that if his wife had re
cevcd II with his assent, there could be no doubt
of the defendants liability, as he must be respon-
,be, not her; that taking The money in trust
with his know ledge and pr,ity, makes him &C.
c0untabe: q vile cannot be trustee for any
other than her husband. and he must be respon-
sbe fur such trusteeship; that they were bound
TO take the same care of the money as il II were
their own; that il was alleged tobr stolen, aud
that the inquiry was, whether the money was
kept in safe place. and was safely deposited;
whether the trust was received by the VIE with
the husbands privtv and consent. IL satisfied
that il was not stnlen, and was received by the
| husbands consent and privi'y. and was not TAX.
en- proper care Of, the plaintiff was entitled To re-
cover
Under this charge the jury retired. and on
their return gave verdict IN favor ct the PLAIN
TIFF for The whole amount of hi, demand OCOn-
nor for plaintiff A. Talmadge for defendant.
". T. Com.