Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-11-19T00:00:00

4 >U- fiL-L--I-AA.L imov-4i tor tne Judgment of the Court on this detendant.the catan of a merchant-vessel,forrefusjng to bring howme tbur .scamen, whom he had taken to the Northt Ame. ricani settlerments. 2Ur. BrIo5GHAM, for the defendant, requested that the case might stand over, until an affidavit in mitigation could be obtained. vThe COURT acceded to the learned counsel's request, and ordered the case to stand over. . THE KING V. HENRY FOSTER. This defendant was the third who has been brought to justice for a share in a riot of a very outrageous nature at Deal. The mob in that place had seized two persons who hlad given evidence, or were supposed to have given evidence, of some smuggling transactions- tarred and feathered one of them, and paraded him in that condition through the streets. Two of the parties have been successivelytried, andl eceived judgment befere; this defendant was convkted at the last assizes for Kent; and these are all out of 15 prasectuted who have been yet convicted. Alr. ADOLPHTus, for the defendant, admitted that the oheince waq of a very serious nature, but urged that it was committed long ago, and that the defendant had struggled in the interibn to maintsin a large family by lhonest industry. T'e COURT adverting to the fact that the defendznt bad been al- ready six monutis in custody on one hand, and to the aggravated na- ture of his ofrence on the otber, sentenced hiril to be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Mllaidstone for nine months, and to give security for good behaviour, himself iri01., and two sureties in 101. each, tbr five years. Several other cases of assauVFs on revenue-oflicera were then suc-. ees,ively brought before the Court by the ATToRNEY G:ENE5tAL, the details ot which were without interest. FOX V. DODD. The LORD CHIEF JuSTICE, as the Coutt were about to rise, previous to the sitting of NVsiPprin-, said-T here was a case of "Fox v. Podd," recently argued befere us, which I think it right to men- tion. It was an action on a contract purnorting to be mnade for the purchase of lands, which the plaintiff ad bought of an attorney named Elsam; aud the question for our opinion was, wha; estate Elmam took under a wvill by which this property was devised to himn ,nd wvhether certain recoveties alleged to be auifered by him barieZ the retaindera over. At the close ef she aflruiment a eisRcion stose in the mind of one of my learned brotbers that the vrho e was not a& bo60 jde tratDsactiOn, and weerequired to see the recoveries before'we gave jutdgment. This requisition produced S. discovery that there in trutith, no recovery at all, but that the wihlole WaBacontrivance to nbtain the opinion of the Court as to the estate which Air. Elasam took under the will. The ffect of this proceeding rijght have beea to obtain a judgment 7ending to prejudice the rights of payties inx remainder during- their absence ; andais we think sudh a proceeding ought not to lass wrhelly without notice, let a rule be drawn- up.re quiring Mr. Klsam to attend the Court on thisday week. - The Conat -then rose, and the Loin CHrisF JUSIi CE st sat ATVin Friu:.~ SAWHAM V. MtAHON. This was arn acdon of covenant on a deed, whereby the defendant assigned to the plaintiff the Mi3arqdis of Granby public.bouse in Cha ndos.atreet, Covent-garden, in aomsideratlon--of 570L, and cove- nanted not himself tO keep any public-house within aq4alter of a mile, during the continuance of the term. The deed contiloed a. tiirtier stipulation, that m cgtse of any breach of the covenant, 2WL ehottlllbe taken as mite ascertained and liquidated damages forfha breech. The defend7ant,however, wfhile the least was still existig, and wbile the plaintifcontirucd to occupy the Marquis of Grenby, took a pamblic.hoatse called the Crown2 in Itong-acre, which was proved to be thstee poles end two yards within a qgarter of a msfle6f theMarquisofGraflby, by adineisuremtient of ihe paeerment usedfor foot passengers. TRhe case lhaving been thus proved, Air. GURrNEY submited that, according to the ternms of the deed, the damages had been absolutely fixed, and that the etipulation wai not merely in the nature of a penalty. The LoRD CUrES JTJSTICE was of the same opinioaX ezoeciall5 as from the nature of the covenant it was scarcely poasibse tossee:r trsin the damage resulting from its violation. The Jery ae'ordingly found a -.eidict for the plalntifft>. rages 200- IVES V. BOXALL. i his was an action for assault and battery, to which the gtenera issueand a jatification were pleaded. The plaintiff was the son of the preprietor of coaches traveDling between M.aelng and Londoa.and the aefendant the owner of an o-positioe coach. on the day of the I assault, however, Pdir. Boxall took his seat by the side of Mr. Ives, on his box, and w;ent ith him as s passenger to Raling. Drisng !the journej,some discussion occurred on the merits of their aespectare hreres; and on their arrival,when the coach drove into thegyard, Mr. Boxall remonstrated on the tefusal of Ir. Ivesto drive hm to his own res idence. *Vhile the were taiOsin6, the defendant struck the orse was moveed by th'e blow o- not, w2s left in doubt The two witnessea for the plaintiff agreed that r,o prOvochtien forthe blow was given. Air. PRILULPS, for the defendant, abandoned the justification, and addre-sed the jiury in mi'igatiI of damages. Thejury found a verdic for theDplaintiff-I:>am2ges 51. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEST.MINSTER. Nov. 18. rr,lsE KING V. CHRISTOPI?EItSON.