DIGESTED REPORT OF LAW PROCEEDINGS. COURT OF CHANCERY.
JERVIS V. CLAIIGES,EART.—Thi; was a petition by the infant plaintiffs, praying that their grandfather, Lord St. Vincent, and one Mrs. Getty, may be ordered to deliver up their (the infants) clothes, toys, Sec. The Lord' Chancellor had on a former occasion ordered the custody of the children to be committed to Sir Dudley Hill; but when Sir Dudley came to take them away, the Lord St. 'Vincent and his housekeeper refused to allow any of the clothes of the children to go with them. After some conversation, the Lord Chancellor ordered the clothes, hoops, toys, &c. to be delivered up to the petitioners. (Dec. 9.)
IN THE MATTER OF CHIPPING SUDBURY Senooe.—The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this case. The school was founded in the reign of Charles the First, for the purpose of teachitig, grammar to the children of the merchants of chipping Sudbury; but on the decease of the late Master, the Corporation of the town attempted to oblige the present Master to teach reading, writing, and arith- metic ; and on his refusing to do so, they brought an ejectment to turn him out of the possession of the schoolhouse and premises. The proceedings under the ejectment were restrained by the injunction of this Court, until the decision, of tine present question ; and the Lord Chancellor now decided that the Corporation had no power to alter the character of the school; and that they had actenl very inn- properly in attempting to turn the Master out of possession. (Dec. 9.) IN Tun Memo/ nee Tue HONOURABLE JERVIS JERVIS, a lunatic.—This appli- cation, which had been placed by order at the head of the paper for Friday, hav- ing been brought on in the absence of Sir Charles Wetherell, who is the leadiug counsel of the Honourable Maria Jervis, the learned gentleman came into Court in the course of the day, and complained of the want of courtesy which had been shown tin himself in bringing the case on in his absence. The Solicitor. General rose, and stated that the case had not been brought on by him. Sir Charles Wetherell—" I beg that I may tiot be interrupted." The Solicitor- General—" I only want to assure you that there has been no want of courtesy on any part." Sir Charles Wetherell—" I say again, Sir, that I must be heard, and will not be again interrupted." The Solicitor-General—" You shall not be again interrupted by me, Sir, I shall not be spoken to in such a manner by Sir Charles Wetherell, or any other man living." Sir Charles Wetherell (turning round to the Solicitor-General, and in a lower tone)—" Then, Sir, you have your remedy-4h= yOU have your 'remedy u you know we cannot settle that herew.
ROLLS COURT.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CORPORATION OF BERWICK ON TWEED.—This was an information at the relation of some of the inhabitants of Berwick, prayine" that the Court would declare that the revenues derived from certain lands in that neigh- bourhood should be declared applicable to the support of certain charities in that place. It appeared that the funds in question had been originally appropriated to charitable purposes, but suffered to lie in the coffers of the Corporation. The Corporation, however, first began to apply parts of the funds to their own pur- poses, and gradually usurped the whole. The Master of the Rolls now gave judgment upon the information, ordering au account against the Corporation of the rents received by them since 1823, and the application of the money for the benefit of the poor. His Honour also directed that the defendants should pay a considerable part of the costs. (Dec. 8.)
COURT OF KING'S BENCh,GUILDHALL.
KEDGLRY AND WIFE V. Hour.—The female plaintiff, formerly Ann Fairweather,
was in the defendant's service when she was about eighteen or nineteen years old. Site was a country girl, and had been engaged for 12/. a year. She received no wages for a considerable time, but the defendant occasionally paid for some arti- cles of dress which had been supplied to her' and. Ile DOW set off the money so advanced against her claim for the balance of her wages. Amongst the items of the set-off, were a silk dress, a reticule, and a lace cap, for which latter article the defendant had paid I/. 6s. Mr. Justice Bayley refused to allow these articles in the settletnent of the account. What was to become of a young woman irm this rank of life, if she were to be decked out in this finery, and let go for four- teen months without a farthing in her pocket. The defendant, wino stood in the place of a parent to the young woman, ougla not to have allowed her to incur these expenses, and could not now set them off in the account, although the plain- tiff was out of her minority. Some payments for necessaries were allowed, and the plaintiff had a verdict for 101.
MARZETTI V. WILLIAMS ANL/ OrneRs..—.The defendants are the well-knowit
bankers of Birchin Lane. The plaintiff is a wine-merchant, and a ship and insu- rance broker ; and the action was brought to recover damages fertile injury which inc had sustained in his character, in consequence of the defendants having re- fused to honour a check which he drew upon them for 87/.7s. 6d. at a time when they had funds et' his in their possession to the amount of 89/. odd. It ap-
peared by the evidence, that inn the evening of the 17th December, last year, the defendants had in their hands a balance in favour of the plaintiff to the amount of 69s. 19s. 6d. at eleven o'clock next morning, a 40/. Bank of England note was paid in to his credit, tnaking the whole balance on the 18th, 109/. lits. fill. In the course of the day, two checks.were drawn by the plaintiff, one for 20/. (which was honoured, and left a balance of 891. in his favour), and another for 87/. odds, which was presented and reelect' at ten minutes before three o'clock, on the ground that there were no assets of Mr. Marzetti's in the defendants' hands. Mr. Justice James Parke observed—" In this case, the money was paid inn at elevene and the check presented at three; and the question for time Jury will be, whether there was a reasonable time to allow of an entry being made in the ledger. The Jury found for the plaintiff, with nominal dannages,—fin di tig that the time allowed was sufficient, bunt that the defendants had not been actuated by malice. Tine Judge, in his charge to the Jury, said that the action was singular, being of a kind which he had never seen before. (Dec. 8.) WRIGHT V. GIICBS. —In this action, Mr. Charles 'Wright, an attorney, sought to recover damages for defamatory words spoken of him by the defendant. A wit- ness was called, who proved that the defendant bad said that the plaintiff had sworn falsely on a trial at law, and that he was a swindler and a blackleg. One of the witnesses said that the plaintiff called on him (the witness) to know what Ian- ,guage the defendant had used. The witness said that the defendant had called plaintitfa blackleeeand the witness added at the same time, "you are a blackleg, for you wear ha stockings." Verdict for the plaintiff—damages one shilling. (Dec. 11)
but you know you have your remedy." The Solicitor-General—" If you think Sir, that I am to he treated in such a manner, you will find yourself much mistaken. If you have any thing to say to me, you will find me ready." Sir Charles We- therell—" Sir, you have your remedy." After some more conversation, the Lord Chancellor interposed, and said that Sir Charles Wetherell had proceeded upon a misrepresentation, as the Solicitor-General had had nothing to do with bringing on the application, and was not even in Court when it was made. His Lordship also expressed a hope that no further notice may on either side be taken of what had just occurred. (Dec. 11.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LAW V. GRIMLEY.—This was an action for work and labour. The only point worth notice in the case was an objection made to the admissibility of a receipt, which u-as drawn up in the following words—" Received in full of all 1. have done." If was contended, that ties being a receipt in full, ought to have been drawn upon a ten shilling stamp. 'rite Lord Chief Justice overruled the objec- tion, on the ground that the receipt only professed to be a receipt ilt full of all Llemandefor work door, and could not affect any other demand which the party may have, as for money lent, or the like. The receipt was therefore adinitted as evidence. (Dec. 5.) IsIooReoese v. LAvv.n.—This was an action of assault. The plaintiff is an officer in the army, and the defendant the chief mate of a ship called the Medina, in which the plaintiff-was returning front Bombay to England, when the assault was committed. The origin of the dispute was involved. in obscurity, but it was sworn that a scuffle took place between the parties, in which the plaintiff bad two of his teeth knocked out. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffi- damages 100/. (Dec. 9.)
EOARD OF EXCISE.
COLOURING Rum.—John Henry Fisher, a licensed victualler, of Tooley Street, in the Borough, was charged with having in his possession a quart of such colour- in stuff as is used in the adulteration of beer. The defeedant alleged, that he had lately had a puncheon of rum containing 100 gallons ; and that the nun being very strong„ he had added 60 gallons of water to it, to reduce it to a saleable strength; but as t his dilution had made it too pale, Inc used the colouring matter, to bring back its former complexion. Tine Commissioners fined the defendant 5/. (D cc. 5.) esneoil MoST...,, late a snuff and tobacco dealer at St. George's Circus, Southwark, was charged with adulterating a quantity of snuff. It appeared that the defend- ant let his shop inn May last to a person named Bushby, who on examinine the stock found twenty-one pounds. of snuff for which there was no permit. 'This excess appeared oil investigation to have been produced by tine defendant mixing lampblack with the snuff. He was fined 501. (Dec. 5.)
On the same day, a young man named John Duggan was fined 20/. for selling goods by auction at a house in Leicester Square without giving notice to the Commissioners,
Previous page
