6 NOVEMBER 1830, Page 11

DIGESTED REPORT OF LAW PROCEEDINGS. COURT OF CHANCERY. COLLINS v.

PRICE.—The Solicitor-General, applied on Thursday last, to the Lord Chancellor, that this cause might be reheard. The Master

of the Rolls, who had decided it in the absence of one of the parties, refused to restore the cause. It was stated, in affidavit, that the Soli- citor was unable to attend the hearing, having been run over by a car- riage, on his way to the Court. His Lordship granted the application.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

DE MONTEST v. SAUNDERS AND ANOTHER.—This action, which was tried in the Court of King's Bench, was brought against the defendants, Messrs. James Fergusson Saunders and Alexander Saunders, as acceptors of a bill of 6001. The bill was drawn at the Mauritius on Saunders, brothers, and Co., by Messrs. William Septimus Saunders, and Joel Jacob Wilde, made payable to Ragier de la Gane, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff, a merchant residing in Paris. The defendants, under a plea in abatement, gave evidence that the house of Saunders and Wihe

At the Mauritius, and that of the defendants who waded on business in Leadenhall Street, London, in the name of Saunders., brothers, and Co. was but one firm, and that they had traded in partnership together since 1826. In reply, aMetter written by one of the defendants in the name of the firm was read, wherein the defendants had expressed their surprise that the bill had not been taken up by the drawers,—who, they said, had always met engagements of the kind ; and at the same time they stated that they were precluded, by a suspension of their payments, from taking up the bill. The firm of Saunders, brothers, and Co. had, it appeared, obtained a letter of licence from their creditors. Lord Tenterden said, that if the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to think that there was not in the firm any other partner but the two defendants, and he took the bill on their credit, the verdict should be for the plain- tiff; but if they thought he was aware, or had reason to suppose, that the defendants did not alone constitute the firm, they were entitled to the verdict. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 633/. 15s. the amount of principal and interest. (Oct. 30.)

POILE AND ANOTHER V. LAMB.—On the same day was also tried an action against the late Sheriff of Sussex to recover the proceeds of a ' sale of the effects of John Poile, a bankrupt, which had been levied un- der an execution at the suit of the creditor of Poile. The action was brought on the ground that Poile had committed an act of bankruptcy prior to the execution issuing ; but the question turned on the trading. 'Witnesses were called to prove that the bankrupt, who carried on the business of a farmer, was also a butcher, and sold flour. It did not ap- pear, however, that he sold any other meat than mutton, and that prin- cipally to his labourers, to whom he gave it instead of wages. The bankrupt was accustomed to pay other creditors in the same way. Lord Tenterden explained to the Jury, that, as a farmer merely, Poile was not subject to the bankrupt law ; and the question therefore was, whe- ther he had carried on the business of a butcher, distinct from that of farming, or as subsidiary to it. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant, negativing the fact of trading. (Oct. 30.) BERRY V. Nienons.—This was a case of libel. The alleged libel was contained in a critique on a work written by the prosecutor, which appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine. The mischief, it seems, lay in the following passage:— "The prospectus (which we insert for want of a titlepage) informs us that the Genealogies are by William Berry, late and for fifteen years registering clerk in the College of Arms, London ; but with what astonishment will our readers learn that there is not, and never has been, such a situation or office belonging to the College of Arms as 'registering clerk,' and that no person of the name of William Berry has ever been a member of that College, from Its incorporation by Richard the Third up to the present hour ? And that the author or compiler of the work be- fore us was a writing clerk in the private employ of Mr. Harrison, and afterwards of Mr. Bigland, members of the College and registers of the corporation, at the ordinary salary usually given to writing clerks • and that the common clerk of a herald and register of the College of Arms has the vanity to cull himself 'registering clerk in the College of Arms.' The word late,' which this compiler prefixes to his title of registering clerk, is also used with corresponding impropriety, since we be- lieve that his services were dispensed with, even as a clerk, so far back as the year 1809," Some witnesses were examined for the prosecutor ; but they failed to prove that he ever had been "registering clerk," or that any such office ever existed:' The Judge summed up in favour of the defendant, and the Jury instantly returned a verdict in his favour. The only feature in the action was a trial of strength between the moderation of Mr. Brougham and the logic of the Attorney-General, in which it would be difficult to determine which obtained the victory.

Sir James Scarlett, in addressing the Jury for the defence, observed, that his learned friend had favoured them in his opening with a learned dissertation on heraldry ; and, as was not to be wondered at, when they considered his learned friend's versatile and great talent, he had also favoured them with along dissertation on the art of reviewing. He had said that a reviewer had no right to treat even his own work tenderly. It was not so, however, with the moderns, for he, Sir J. Scarlett, had seen in some very clever articles published quarterly—he did not mean the periodical of that name, but published quarterly, in which some of the articles had been ascribed— Mr. Brougham (interrupting)—" Falsely ascribed, falsely, falsely ! " Sir J. Scarlett—" Which had been ascribed to the writers of the articles which they professed to review." Mr. Brougham—" Falsely—by liars—by liars !" Sir J. Scarlett—Did not mean to say that his learned friend was a reviewer, but he had said "falsely," and it appeared by that expression that he must know something of it. (Nov. 1.) 11Ex v. JONES.—The Court of King's Bench was on Wednesday oc- cupied with this case, involving points of great importance to medical men. The prosecution was instituted by the Commissioners under the Act of Parliament passed in elate Session for the protection of lunatics, and to prevent the confinement of persons of sound mind under pretence of lunacy. The act provides that the patient shall be visited by the two medical men who give the certificate, separately, and that any medical man granting a certificate without having visited the patient should be guilty of a misdemeanour. The defendant, who has for many years car- ried on a respectable practice in Mount Street, Grosvenor Square, had signed a certificate without seeing the patient. He had been induced to do so on the representation of his partner, Mr. Sheldon, that the subject was a fit one, Mr. Sheldon being the other medical man who signed the certificate. The patient was in consequence confined, until the Com- missioners, perceiving an apparent sanity, investigated her case, and finding that she was only subject to fits of insanity when in a state of drunkenness, released her. In the course of the investigation the irre- gularity of the certificate was discovered. It appearing that the defen- dant had acted in ignorance of the Act of Parliament, the object of the present prosecution was principally to make its provisions, and the conse- quences of its violation, more generally known. The case was ultimately disposed of by a nominal verdict of guilty, subject to a case for the opinion of the Court above, on an objection taken by Mr. Brougham to the terms of the indictment, which charged the defendant with having "knowingly and with intention to deceive " granted the certificate, no. evidence on that point having been given to sustain the allegation. Many medical- men of eminence were in attendance to speak to the high professional and personal character of the defendant. (Nov. 3.) Cotter OF COMMON PLEAS.

HUGHES V. NETTLEFORD.—This action was brought to recover da- mages for the loss which the plaintiff had incurred by the wrongful enforcement of the payment of a bill of exchange. The bill having beg held by one Anthony Cleasby, who died, it came into the hands of his

widow. By the defendant's persuasion, she was induced to endorse it

over to him, to obtain payment of the amount ; and notwithstanding the right of the widow to the administration of her husband's effects was

disputed in the ecclesiastical courts, he enforced the payment. Mrs.

Cleasby having failed to establish her claim to the administration, the proper administrator arrested the plaintiff for the amount of the bill, and

he was put to 201. costs. The defendant alleged that he acted upon a mis. taken view of the widow's right, and that, having paid into court the money he had received, he ought not to be liable for any loss of the plaintiff. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 701.

HAWLEY V. SERJEANT.—ThiS action was brought to recover the amount of several expensive articles of jewellery, furnished by the late

Mr. Hawley, the jeweller (whose administrator the plaintiff was), to the defendant, the son of a soap and candle manufacturer. The sale and delivery of the goods being proved, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, for the defen- dant, stated that his client was a young foolish lad, who had formed a con- nexion with certain females ; and being entitled to a few hundred pounds under his father's will, purchased the articles in question upon credit.

The defendant's mother learned nothing of:the transaction, till applica-

tion was made for payment ; and upon inquiry, she then further ascer- tained her son had been inveigled into a disgraceful marriage. The learned Sergeant added, that when the defendant purchased these costly ornaments, he was in the habit of going about with his mother's cart, like any other apprentice, to collect fat, &c., for the melting-house. It could not therefore be said that they were necessary to his station in life; and being under age at the time the contract was made, the action could not be maintained. The defendant's infancy at the time of pur-

chase being proved, Mr. Sergeant Bompass stated, that the defendant had obtained credit from Mr. Hawley, by representing he was about to be married to alady of fortune, and that to secure his conquest it was necessary that he should present her with some articles of jewellery corresponding with her superior situation of life. The defendant being within a few months of coming of age, Mr. Hawley supposed him to be much older than he really was, and BELIEVED HIS STORY. The moment he learned his repre- sentations were untrue, be acquainted the mother with the whole trans- action. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. (Oct. 30.) LEVY V. ARBUTHNOT AND OTHERS.—The Court of Common Pleas was occupied the whole of Monday with the trial of this action. It was

brought on a policy of insurance effected on goods contained in the show-room of the plaintiff, who was a broker, carrying on business in the New Cut, Lambeth. The defendants were some of the Directors of the Palladium Insurance Office. The policy was effected for 5001., and the plaintiff claimed as for a total loss. The only question was, whether, at the time the loss happened, the show.room in question contained goods to the amount of 5001. or not. A great number of witnesses gave evidence as to the quantity and value of the goods with which they had supplied the plaintiff; and some of them swore, to their belief, that his stock was worth from 1,5001. to 1,7001. It appeared, however, that the plaintiff had occupied two houses opening into each other; and that other parts of these houses, besides the- store-room•in question, had contained goods; and the defendants' counsel therefore directed their efforts to show that a very large proportion of the goods consumed by the fire had been deposited in other parts of the two houses, and were not in the

store-room when the fire happened. The various details of the pur- chases made by the plaintiff from different tradesmen, of the manner in which his goods were stowed in his show-room, and of the sales he had effected, occupied a great portion of the day. The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff—damages, five hundred pounds. (Nov. 1.) FLINT V. PIKE.—This was an action for libel. Iii 1823, the plaintiff, an attorney, had brought an action, for a Mr. Redfern, against a Mr.

Smith for waste, at the Stafford Assizes, and a verdict was given for the

defendant. A new trial was granted, however, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff for fifty pounds, which likewise was brought before the Court, and the cause was at length referred. On the occasion of the first trial, an account was given of it in a newspaper, called The Derby Reporter, in which it was stated that Mr. Sergeant Vaughan, then of counsel for the defendant, was very jocular at the plaintiff's expense ; and some parts of his speech were reported, but no part of the speech. of Mr. Clarke, of counsel for the plaintiff in that cause, was given. Mr. Campbell, for the plaintiff, observed, that this was an ex poste and garbled report, and that Mr. Flint felt it due to himself to bring the matter before a Court of Justice, not for the sake of damages, but for the vindication of his character.

The proprietorship and publication of the newspaper being proved, Mr. Denman, for the defendant, admitted that he could not make out his plea of justification ; but he contended, that the plaintiff's character had sustained no injury, and that his object was the costs. One of the plaintiff's own witnesses had admitted, that, as far as he could recollect,

the observations reported were made ; and as to a complete report of every thing that passed in the course of a trial, it was a thing that he had never seen, even from those who professed to give it verbatim. Lord Tenterden said that the plaintiff was, in law, entitled to the verdict, and the only question for the Jury was the amount of damages. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing. (Nov. 1.)