Court Of Common Pleas, Th...
t JJrjwr~;. LIlleJ JUUCC BEST and a Vomntni .IiLrl, ) Mr. AVoLPrt S1 p in.,opened the pleadinRs. This was' On ac- tiont brought by the pIaint_-ff' to rccov&r Ill. 10.s. G6.frbm the defen- ant,lbr workand labordOne. Theelcfendant pleaded thegeiernd tt5ue. Mr. Sergeant PEI,L stated the case to tbejiry. From his state- rinent it appeared, that the plaintift is a surgeon, residilng in Caro. lit- street, Bedford-square, and that the defendant is a lady of a certain age, living withi her mot-her in Chalton..strect, Sorneis. towi Betwen the months; of Noveraber 1828, and Junie, 1824, the defendant was in ill health, and appelte o 1 paind fe'r1824 medical assistanre. In .,co,seqoence, he f tinied therpaith sunfdry ,draugbts esid meficdires; forwhich he was entitld, hc4erdidgto the, usual chaiges.of ha piotiession5 todemand 10 ls. Od. ofthe defen-~ dant. Why lhe rcsisted this demand,he coulddnot telt.: The LoJtD) CHIEF JtJSTICE.-Pcrhap!s Rhe hat not recovered, 2ad therefore shc thinks that the plaintiff ought nti to.tecover. (A' II . seyrgeant PELL. relied, that she led recovered, and th thatlis clientewasentitled torcoveraorned rencouldact tbe expcted to prove the idelivery t-f every pfccise'driug-ht and pill-box , btit be, wro itid rove that phyt,ichaitbi en frnislxedtojberin large u00ndt'iba;'- that she bad- adnlitted the deliv,ery of it,whenAb?ll ofit wa~spresent~d' to er, : hatsls- had,acknowledged hersel.ftoba,iidebctdetttheplaif- ri0 tile amniount of that bill and that on varioua o.ccionshe had Prarrised to payit. I'twas in consequence ofh ire efu l-.tb ,"edotiW these prormisest, that tdse preteint action was brouo --t irifdrii tb'ena The,deliverv of the v.,rfozos medicineLs wzas loroved-by-- the- P'aI-' tiS,s. servant.boy as was itiso a piromise by the defenadantlfo-i , tarount claLimed for th(~i. ' Itir.Set~.eanL ILDE-emindd hislearned' friend that th&O ;lin.' PrOe tat he huitif wa. lcened o pactseas- va:qiothecary by. the Apothecaries' Company, er else that he had practised as such previousl y to thie 5thi ot Auigust, 1815. speab ihscipof Mr. SgeantPuLT.Bald,thatbe wa prepared wieth such roof. ~'e~hiei~jd i, ~8l4 ~adpieAc~ie~l. once r .twlce 'for IA~,iP1isi-'fa~u he urgoas Copany~ authorizing the:pldintiff'. .50 act as surgeon, was t ien'u t. It*aS datetl1 -Aug.ust 6, 1ilII, 'A Mfr; Clommins wo then cldon hIs. spbptaiauv but -did not. bl ,euaafd heplaintiff, Ali:. Sergeant WitoE sstJ' rdited tat te' AdiTifiiUiut'b' onstuired. it ~vgs true- thit the plai~ifiai~7re~fiary. dmitted suige on - butt thisi atction was- brOuht bhirnto. ecovr niedicinles -flirni3hed to. s he defendant as t, potecay1and mot' tdr Adoy thing done .sY. hipsi as a stireur. Ns,:th~suttiste i55.Gep. [IL' cap.. .94, ,eectiaa 21 toatet tht p pesonshould, recover for 'any imedicines' furnished by hns,unles h ~irvedthathe as ir.aefising as an apotislcary an. or before thec 5th oAiga,85.or-,jrodciced a certificate of' his adiiission 'hlito thoir ber, 1'o'ith aster and WVardlen of the Apo.. theciries' omnpdny. Now, thexe was no evidcnce to,shiovi that, the '1plaintiff hnad-ractised .as an-apothlecary previously to the daY stated -I h ato aliment, and a surgeon's dliploina 'could. sot, anid did not ahho ine im io it.-ai'an aliothleary. :~ Se'ge~e-.PTs. mili'iitte? that there iv~ti eiidende.ta-otpt-the ,Tur, tat he laiiffhadt pridtige(I asi an apothecary on *.r 'hefore the s~' entinedinthe actof Parliamrent..' The'nrdChie' Jstfee':BEST was Qf' opinion that there was pao. eeileno d to th'paindtff'i $iiactice as an ,pilpthe6ary bif'ore 1815. The ce o Partamet to whiich refe!rence hadl been madJe tVas a most exceleOohe andw'a~Is bet-seuriy tat he putblic had agalnst igniirant persona actn asoohcre,wtot beinig duily quialifid.. A pdrson in -~assingtruhlfcod notfi to'know that %lurgeons did practise as apot hecariea; butt after that act they had no autlioity to do so. To I ractise a.,; apatheliaiies;, tiey muat be ox- amiiedby ive'pcsan, nnse Intl-ac, and imust obtain a certificatte tlrt h geartPL U itA that hiig client, though heL copid not recover-for the physic in this action, could recover for the phials, containing'it,which beizd been sent to the defendant. -The LoAnD Cstxix.7 jUSTice thought that li~ could not. if a,j -psjtt dhoso to). act. as'ain apothecary, conCrzry to law, -and to deliver 15hials in coiissquence oflich choice, he was of opinioin that lie coald not reaover -for themn. -If-the lai' directed thatt a pemsn shiould not do a cettalti thing, " It. would' riot allow him to recover tor any thing whiich. he- might .have done-iR his endeavours to perform thet wbich the law prohiibited. The plaintifi'wmascting in deliance ~of the law ini practising as an apothiecary tvlthouiWa c-ertificate; he couldi not, thieref'ore, haVe the mnelancholy satisfictloti of even re- coveting for t-he bottles whiclh hie had furnished to the defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited. In ordering himi to be called, ttite- LORtD CacarF JUSTCE!g observetdl that he ouight to say ta h pzesent was a hard case, as the plaintiff' appeared to be a erson of skill, having been regularlyadmitted ofthe Royal College ofurgeons. TWALLACE V. WOODlOATE. Mr. STEERS 0 hetedthe pleadings. This wasan action of trover to recover t'ie vale of three horses, beloniging to the plaintiff, which the defendant had taken, andi had wrongf'ully converted to his ewn use. 'f'he. defendant pleaded the genaehal issue, "1 not guilty,". and upon that point. issue was joined: Mir. Sergeanit VAUGUA-w stated the cae to the jury. The plain. tiff in this action wag a gentleman of respectablitv, who bore His Mlajesty's comumission; and the defendant was a dealer, in horsies, residling at the west end of the town ; and thie question whicli they were that day emnpanelled to clecide was, whethier three horses whiZh the defendantlhad ijeized -mere the property of Captain Wallace at the' time when the seizture anid conversion of them was effected. The facts of the 'caose lay withini aevery narrow compass. In Mlay last CaPtain Wullace. wvas residing in Half Mlont-street. The de- fenidant, who kept a livery-stable in) that neighibourhioodi, Itaving heard thut Captain Wallace was looking out for korses, introduced himself to thjat gentleusan in erder to recommnend to him certain geld- .ings which were theni standing in hiis stables. A negotiation toak 'place between thetin, anid after a short tinme an agreemient Was con- chided, by whichi Capratin Wallace undertook to purchase the horses. 'ie a?eementi, he believed, was that Captain Wallace ahould pay dowvn a small sum at the time ef the sale, anid slhould give the re- mainder of the price in his acceptances at threeimonths, or some othecr distanit date. The money, was accordingly paid, and the bills drawn by the ~efendaiit were regulurly accepted by the plainitiff. Oni their beinig placed in his hands, thie defenfdant gave the plaintiffs rece'ipt, its which hie acknowledged that he lied received from him for one bay gelding ' and anoether dark bay gelding, two bills for 751. each- one dated t1'e Bth of' May, 1 824, payable thiree months' after date, and the other. daLted the 29thi of' Al ay, 1824, payable Four mionths' after date Tite horses were thea deliv,ered aver to, the plaintiff', and tlie property of'them regularly v-ested In him. He allowed thiem, however, to remain at livery in the defendant's stables, whiere they wore treaed ots all occasions by the defendant as the plaintiff'a borses; indleed, he had made out a bill to the plaicititfffor thieir kcep, in which there was a specific charge of 111. or 121. for 69 nights' keep of the bay gelding; so that here was decisive evidence that the defedant had slEpt, for 69 nights in perfect content over the bargain whiclt had transferred fromn him the property of these horses. Be- fore the bills becamne dlue, the defenidant for somne cause or other, wi-shedl to have his horses back again, andi in point of fact did obtain them' back by a tnost impludent and unjustifiable stratagem. The hQrscs had been remnoved from the defendant's stables, to those of a dealer called Foyster, living Eiear the New-road. Thie def'end- alit went to this personi with two police-officers, and told hiim that asi he had Sir R. Biriiie's axuthority to seize the horses whichi stood ther inCapainWallce' nae, ie rusted that lie would permit themto b gien u. Th hoses ereaccordingly surrendered. Theplantif'n hasig o' he ranactonapmfied 'to Sir-R. Birnie to kow n wat retxt uchan rde ashad been e-xecuted by the defedan ha ben isuedagansthisproperty. Sir R. Birnie in- formd hm tht h hsdissed n suh rder,and that whioever had re- p esencdtha h e had donie so, ha4 made a mestl scandalous and un- warrantable use of hiis namhe. Subsequent proceedings had taken place before the magistrates, frons which he was-able to anticipate the' de'. fence which would that day be made to this action. The defendant had become douibttul as to the solvency of Ca ptain Wallace aboutt twvo months; before the bills became due, andI lie thoeughit that the best way of guardingp himt-elf against ainy possible loss was by re- gaining possession of the horses liebhad siold. Hils liordship wvoulit tell them that the defenidant, having once sold and delivered thie horses to die plItintiff badl parted with the propertv, and even thiough the bills were bad, had no right to reclaimtr it in the manner he bedt done. The law lhad provided rmeans for tlle recovery of dishonioured billsi; and it wasI not for it.dividuals to take the law Into their own hands antI obtain for thiemselves other redress from that whItch the law heel up- Pointedl. It was thie duty of a personi who had goods to Sell, to in- quire i*o'the solvency of the purchaser, before he parted withi them, and not to pasrt with- them Incautiously, and thien to regrain theist by force or stratagemn. Captain Wallace, he again repeatted, was a isax Of respectability, nior haid the defendant found any means of proving thiat he was not'; for some time after this purchase liad been con- cluded, the defendant had, witli the utmost confidence, recommend- ed him as a'suitable tenant for one of the Atlpha cottapeso. Th'le LoRD CeesEs' J u STIC E.-I aUppoce that contidencelias been justified by thep T.aent ofthosebills? Air. Sergeant VAlUGHrArc.-WVhether the bills hiave been paid or laot, makes no difference in miy case ; and I therefore submit ta the jury, tlmt nmy client is entitled to recover Of' the defendant t'he 1501., which waS the stipulated price of the horses. Mlr. Sergeant TADDY, who was for the det'endaait, said that thle two bills were in court, and in poinit of fact were not worth mart, thani their valuie a-s waste paper. Mr. Sergeanit V7AUo stAg thlen proceeded to substantiate his case by evidetice. Williain Fovster, examined by- M'r. CsrrTT'r.-T am a at~ble.. keeper in Ihighi-street, Atlarylebone. Two bay gelgings were brouight "I ray stables on July 23, 1824, byea person whomn I believe, but I do niot know to be a servant of Captain WVallace. They were brought to nit on the morning of the 2Bd to bait, and were token away on the morning of the 24th. On thAt day Alir. WVoodgate came for the horses, and took them away, telling mne that he had been swindled out of them. Two men camne to tao, the next miorning, sand I told themn that the defendant had takeis the twvo horses away, and why he said that he haaidone so. Cross-examined by Mlr. Sergeant TADDY.-1 did know Captain Wallace somne 14 or 15 years ago. He then lived in the Alpha Cot.. tagesi. I know nothing at all of him now. I itave hiad tio transac- tions latelY witlh hitn, and do not wish to have any. (A laugh.) Thomas, Booker ,examnined by Mlr. Sergeanlt VAUGHAN....I am a poalice officer. I salw the defendant at thie police-office, fligh-street, Mllarylebone. I had Served on him a summons to appear there on a charge of feloniously stealing two horses from Captain Wallace. Thie magistrates heard the charge, but refused to interfere. Alr. Wodae said, in my hearing, that he had obtained 3 horses out of 4, bt hed neVer tOld me from whom, or where, or when. I do not recollectAMr. W'aodgate making any representation to the magis- trates; but he might have done so whilst I was out of the room. Ill the course of the examination of this witness, Mlr. Serge-ant VAUIJGFA- put some leading questionAs to him. The LoRo CKeEr JUSTIsCE observed, that thouigh in any other case lie should not have objectd' to the qluestion's which had been put Iby his learned brother,' he mnust ini this request hini to7 adhere to the scrict-rules of evidence. The action, from the defence setupti, must be of the utmost importance to the plaintiff, if hie re'ally did hord, as It wvas stated, a commission in, His, Majesty's service. Mir. Sergeant TADDY Said he had no occasion to cross-examine the-witness. W. 'Hloiroyd, examuined by Mr. CHSTTY.-! know Mfr. Wood. 'cate. I ec rversed wvith him respecting the horses he had sold to )lrlt Wallace. I hod one of' them in my stablesi. i1r. W1oodgate called upon mesao inquire whether I hadr-not got a horse of hisi. I said that I bad riot, but I had one of Air. Wallace's. He told me thatMr.Walacehadgot enthores romhitn without paying tor th"s: hre ofthe li ha ~o bak, ndhe tTusted tha' I would. giveup he 'ouih.I tld un hatI souldl not; and I did nat giveit u to im o hisdemad atthashoc.I gave it up after. ward. NohIngwas aid ome boutany Il of'exchiange by Siir. A1.'Lewis, examnined-by Mr. Sergeant VA1I)OIc AN.-I atn attor- ney for tlse plaintiff'. I had occasion to see the defendant when he was before the magistrates. These papers (lookinig at some shown himl were shoown to the defendant. I asked hitn if they were his hand-writing; he replied they were. I asked himn if the receipt for the two bills of exchange was in lisLhand-writiing; he said it was. Owsthat occatf0fithedefendant' roduced two bills. Mir. &,rgeant VAUG,HAN calfed on tte other side, pursuant to a notice wbich had been served upon the defendant. IMSr. Sergeant TADDY then produced the bills. T They were h3aaed to the witsess who lohksed at them, and said tbat. they were the bills,piduce.Lby.thz tdnilant on the 4thi of'A Li ,usti, when he was before thle magisrafs%. Ope of them becamrec due oan thi 2d- of Oct., and the otler on-the ltlof August. Itwas a fort- night before that titne that the'lionscs 'bd been seized. The de- fernlait said befWoe die magils'attes that he did -not consider thC. bills god, and thathehua thetefgreoiedtsthor,es; The two bills were then-' t itnant rend. -The bills appeared to liore been -endorsed tiy the, lfendant,, but ,the endorsement wac struck alt Th3?isnesa contitued.-. saw a bill for- the kee of-the horses producedi'Thc plitihtiF'was 'charged 70L for it by the defendant. , oheiU .wslis,e re'ad . it contained tlhe ftems mentioned by the leart,qi44ei~eant-.tj h3is'opening specch. 'l'hie rheck for the '201.. was produced by1ssr. Wallace before the SAagistrates, and irU 'Woalga3te! abkno .eaed that it had beh 'paid, 'He salds that the. onc,y paid' on it did not *reate-to these horses, but to another-horse. 8om5ething was spl351fi alSfu? a'bi11 for 871. Ss. Defendafit admitted ila r 1je' ad r e s haI s w ets re stw n Ci s l ae intiff , on an C apta i i 'C*os53examirned a r JeSeygeadt TADDY,-I took the oAth Tn ttile New Testam-ent ; t ha~ve always been of thte Christian peuua-, 4ion - his'is not miy acetion ; I know that Captain WVallace Is in the: King) 1 riech prifson, Thatnorice-(looking aton6jprodtuced)is written. bymiy cler4, .0up wa's ezved pt-eh irtifendtirtT by t .dn V .2 heard i-ddl~iia: ziabctrats the nigitraee ni-h-ad~,ecu lulCatonnadetO~ltei sraies the !ti chageof, 1e ~um~on lr~bt dfedan'sappearance-e hreo-e6T~ niaiseate reitrd :o jn'ree-Thedefevidanctaid,tiiht sold-th hores,(huking'Captain %Wifae to bEdo-itittd resonbiity.. t;hatl-batt3 slince repreented (Mldis-da &t~ qust th reers, cait ite billst would niot bie paid; n lehd theecre tuenh beo, easin-iIA power i-recyr-~c'~h horses Th alfenl ausid, tha9t e had bee-tin lld.utKseg horses,uttlo ot. of' soime othcrsby thef plglnhtl-i heaCp. lLe"ejid. thaW l~ejad;.. ti t luno*n Uiitasn'V6 ae-,eoi dayiipxevloas to tliat aplieation.. Air. Gill*,-ia-wlr~rwri~ ~John.stritet, 4)lerkeucil, Iseni hiim to,me;- lw tath rlde to th'cKink s Bench. prigony hst,teral; ls.dIWcharge of'his bail:' Re.cbcamined.-r1r.- Wallace was tllarie tilf Mir. Woodgate got hiim arres9ted as ..he was -goihig to attend the ifldOl5rateB on, the gum'. mons. 11 made a formal dem'and of the horses before tfidfctonwwaa brouight. Thiat IS the demiand.I I .I, A receipt of-thie defendant fur a bill of 67L',- drmwn on a Captain -Darbet, wvas here put In and read, as wa.'ialSo .the.receipt1'or the two bills of x6haige alludled to In the openiing Seecth. by M1t. 1ergeaht It was also provedi that a forcual clenianhi of these hiorses:had been madelei,beretdie institutioni of the proesen sgtlt.' M1r.'SergeAnt TAnDYE- (addreshing thdloi Lrd Chie std).l there, mv Lord, a uficient-conversian pr-oved ? The I~onD CrnEa'E JUSTICE. I wlsh jhete 'was not';'for flniver PIr.- Sergeant TAwnY then addressed the jory for the defendant. His learned friend lhad commenced hits se ech by' telling themn thlat the plaintiff' heldi a commission'under. His Majegttkr he--wasA,n struct~ed to say that.the plaintiff' did not. His learned friend had likewise toldt them that the defendant en0tdtainred-susplcions.tbae'the bills which he had received finos the plaintiff' would -not be. paid- and he was Instructed to say that 'those Ausidonasdid formerly ouirst,- and at thec -present tmoment were ripened ito certainty. It svr( trind that his client had kept thlese bills I bu they were worth nothing, and -at thie close of the trial they should bat the plaintiff's serVice. Indeed, so uuietly worthless were they, thtthe defendlat was au- thorized in say ing before thie ma ~istrates thtwhich he(Mlr.Sergeant Teddy) shtould this day proveMr~at thee' had been given tohbim with nloother view thanto swindle-him ouitof' his horses, Hewouldpvo. duce such evidenee as would convince the mnost unbelievink--mind,_ that Captain WVallace. if Captatin he was to be- calledl, hid' acted lie a Swindler in this transaction: and -if he established that point to their satisfaston there wras an end at once to hiis right to a verdic. fie, would lilcewlie prove thec extistence of a sperial agreement, *biidh of itself wag a sufficient answer to the pre.. sient acliodl. HeI would shiow thiat thie defendant, having received information which led hitm Lo believe that the bilis which he had rec. ceive(l wvould never be paid, went to the plasintiff', withi anolther per. sion of the namne of Elmore, who had-galnied'an Insight into, his cbs. racter by practical expexienceof it. Thatpoersn would inform thema thiat a special agreement was matde betweet the plaintiff and the de- fend(ant, that the horses should not be' rensovedl from the care and custody of the defendant till the bills were paid, buit-that the plaintiff' should, in the interim, have the righit to use them dairing the dry for hiis own purposes. Aniother witness would inform them, that thie plainitiff hiad fraudulently contrived to remove the horses from the defendant's stable, under the pretext thjat he wanted to land one of thiem- to a frienid till the next Mlonday, and that he wanited the ottlser to draw from thea city a cabriolet whiceh Pse had bought there. N4v he contenided, thiat the special lien, -which had been createdI by trlW agreemenit entered into by the parties, to this suit, had - nor- been destroyed by the plaintiff's; getting theae borses fraudulently inito hisg own possession. If the horses had got out of his possession into the posse4sion of a thiird party, it migist be doubtful how far the defendant's lien on thems miglit hed; - but against the plaintiff himself there eouild be nio doubt that it was' perfectly unimpaired, and thiat it atutached to the horses whierever they were to be found. Besdes, the plaintiff had iscurred a bill for thteir keep which hail not yet been paid. He therefore had is lien upon dihem on that account. Tfie LORD CRIEP JUSrTICE.-" I know that ani innikeeper has a lieni on hiorses committed to his care ; beit I doubt much whether a livery stable-keeper has.- Has there been any decision upon the point ? - llr.-Sergeant -VAUGOUAN replied that there had. -It had been determ-ined that though an innkeeper hrd a lIen upon horses for- their keep, a livery stabsle-.keeper has not, unless there was a sipecial agreement to thjat purpose made between himn and his-customer. His leaTned brothier haRd hiimself argued- the p9int. 1Mr. Srrgeantt TADDY hiad forgotten the point at tIme momnent ; but it was immaterial, as4 line c-ould prove such special agreement to hiave taken plaue. He Eshould, howvever, put the case uipon higher groundsi: he saidl that the plaintiff's conduct was bottomed in fraud froin the commencemenit; and if they sliDulil be of opinion that at the timne when he gave these bills he had neithier mecans nor Iintention to pay them, the bills were from the commnencement, as they werg now, not worth a dolt, and the defendant miust hiave their. verdlict. His learned friend had said that the plaintiff wAs a man of highi character, where was the proof of it ? The LORD CItrrFs JUSTrscE.-..That point hian been settled .somte time, I believe;. you need not dliscuss it now, brother Taddy. Mvr. .Sergeanmt TADDY thanked his lordship for the observation and proceeded to contend, that if' the jury were convinced of any o thes in-eiherthattheplantil cnteplaed rraud wh~en he gav te dfedan te to ill fr 71.eac, tatthere had betn a apcia ageemnt ot o rnsoe te hrse frm te defendant's cusodytIl thse ill wee sriaed,orthat there had been a special lientixdonthe orss fr tieitkee,-rey must return-a verdict for The learned sergeanit then proceeded to cal witnesses to prove his case. Before the examniiation of them commenced, Mir. Sergeant Osesr.ow asked hais lordship whether he would pro. ceed farther thea this cauise. Ilis reason for asking wast, ihat he was eVngaged In the next cause and should have eight or nine witnesses to-exaTmine. Trie cause rAmlted tona drain. Thze Lomni CHtEF JUSTICE.-Will it take mruch tilm.e, hrothlq onslow ? Mir. Sergeant Oxsrsow replied, that.it was probablethat it would. The LORn CHtrE JUSTItCE.-Then we will pUt It off till to. morrow. Ve hav%e already got one dirty job before us. William El more, examined by Mr. Sergeant TADiOY.-1 amn a livery.stable-kceper. I have kniown the plaintiff for some years; but I have hail no transactions wittihimor the last fourteen or fifice'mA? In consequence of a transaction which I myself had withi the plainitiff, I miade a comamunication- to the defendant an&- in consequence of that communication the defendant wenit to Captain Wallace in the mionth of Juno or July last. I went with hini to the Captain's liouse; but I do not recollect on whtat d7ayf thie inontlm. C-aptain WVallace lives in Halfmioon-strett, PI=cailY. - dlid not go into the roomn where Captain Wallsce was, as I thought it probable that lie would not see mne. I went-, however, into his house, and was in such a positlon as to hear part of the converszation whichi took place between him andl the defendant. They were both- in a great pasision during part of ttime time, and talked very loud. In thAt portioni of the conversation which I heard, Nv ja e was remonrtrating with the plaintiff on his conduct and was tell- ing himn that he was but a poorunian, that he trusted the- bills were ooid, and Shunt he shiould eventually get patid for his korses. IVVallace said in reply, that shine bills were as good as any in England, andi that lie was himself' good at any moment for 10 0001. Wood- gate still doubted hiim, on which Wallace said, '"Votire stecured enough-thebhorses shall remain with you-I will not tak-e them awey from your statbles till the bills arye paid." After- remnain. ing half an hour longer in the Captain's housg, we came away under the impression thmar the htorses were niot to go till the-bills were paid. M'r. Sergeant VAUGYrAm.-..Don't tell us of your impressions, Sir. Was tbere any siuch specific agreement ? Witness.-.There wasi.AWoodgate sid tohim during theconver- sation, that he would keep his horiees, aimd give Wallace his bills back. Wallace objected to that. He said thaLt the bills would be paid-that they were asi good as the Bank of Englaud ( ag) and tio on. I heaTd nothing said about the keep the boraes.uh) Croas.extmained. byAMr. Sergeant VAst G5A.-111ems horse-dealer. I have not been unfortUnate, except so liar as making several bad debts. I have lost in the course of my businessr large sums of money -a good deal by this very Captain Wall1ace; I have also gaitned large siums by somne transactions. As we were golimg to Captain Wallace's, I toldM'oodgate that it wasmostprobable that ttie Captain would not see me. Wlhen we got there, I did not see the Captain. He was in his dressing-room above stairs. I was In a front room below. Thte sound generally asce&dn, ana does not descend: I heard distinctly what pissed between Woodgate and the plaintiffi in the dressingz-room. I cannot swear to tIme exact expressions made use of by Captain Wallace. I only swtear to my Impressions. Thaere wast, however, onie expression of Wallaces which I heard, and to whichi I will swear. Irwas this, "1Stiikeme dead, if I take thehoases away." I hecard the conversation distinctly, because they talked loudily, and were In a passion. I do n6t meAn to ony that I heard eve-ry word which parsedL betweern themn. One of the bills was en- dorsed over to me. I did not Bee Capntaii Wallace duiring any part of the conversation, Thave had no traneascuon orconuvesation wvith hinti for the last 14 or 1.5yearn; and yet I have -sworntbat it wai he who was conversingg with the defendsant. I have heard him con- versing with other people niore than onice in the lalit two years. I am not suffilenlerty acquainted withi the Captain's voic. to swear thftt- he Qwas thei-nfan with whioin 1ootlg4te conversed. I. do not know what the -rnui 'ber of the house -was to which I went with WAoodgate. I only kn6ri that it rwas - in Half Meoon-streetm -1 cannot say of my owni knowledge that it was at his house. Re-examsined.--.The transactionsi I have had wlth Captain WVal- lace are such as tomake me remember him. Wheniwe went to the house in lalf Mloon-street, WVoadgate asked If Captain Wallace was at home and thie servant girl answered that he was. Though I aid notsiee t'h Captain, I heard Woodgate, In ihe coteri of the quarrel- between him and the p son with whomn he was speaking, frequently umddreea him by the naZe of Captain Wallace A paper which had been acknowledged by Mfr. Lewis as docu- ment servedl on the defendant by bis- directions,- was then put in and read. it gave the defendant notIce not to- settle -te- action WiLh the plasln?iff without communicating with himt as he claimed a lien on the debt and costs as the plaintiff's atterney;, ' ' Mr. Sergeant TADDY.-YOU see, gentlemen, what ioret of a man the plaintifr is. His own attorney dare not trust him. -This im my case; fior I do not think it necessary to carry it any further. , Mfr. Sergeant VAUGHAN- had commenced bis -Tcoly to thejusy, ansI war commenting with great severity on the lestimony-glren'bv. the sndaking eavesdropper, as he denoeirinated the witties Elmore, when- The LoRD CsIEnr JUSTICE interrupted him, to remind MJr. Sergeant 'Taddy that he had not,proved a part -of the case hec bad opened-namely, the,fraudilent pl*text under which the horses bmad been removed from the defendant's cuslody,. -. Mlr. Sergeant TADDY expressed his oblixation to his Lordship for reminding him of the omission, and Wlletd the following witneseato- supply it. The learhcd Counsel theii exsabmined the tohlowsng2witnesses John Fisitider. -;a` a plumber, I keep nmy bore:at-cheudethnc a - ant's livery.stablos. One day that i -went, for nimy"lfdr6 I beard whilst it 4was sadidling, a-convertarton between Cap 6itPWnilli the defendant. It was some-time in-he -month'afl buit4i" cilf_ not mention the exaet day. I heard the Captaiii i64Pthat b 4bld' not take :awa4y the horses until Ar. Wo6dte' wai -paid ' Uplain Wt.l7ace was standing at that timeby the tomnission'stabTe,- - Crbss-exinii-Ih .I ndver baw Caitfiin "Iallaee eithet-before or, since that time. '' 'Re-ex,ammsed4.-I heard the defendant calling the pereon with whoh$k.f,i1'n ef7 conersing CAptWii 'WsLhlaee-' f1ie hiortexs w)slch'ellission -sis mitdi were biy hofrses. By'tho U^t WlsessC ^ sima~Wlace aRid thiit ?seould Dot take away the horses till Mr. Wootigate was paid, did he say for 'What, for keep"or how ?-He did not, Thomas Date.-I stm in the service of the defendant this year, cohirtbk pliav e ai nouttheuvobits agew Ttehorsi weren ii& rohgli ,Sack.l [d,otiiot.kno~whwethe?r thcibiII for their liverg.has beecrauid rtSe -eantiVairtspoianrlee for. the plaintiff, andt conen 1iisLanone oftcdfn whicgS ,!:' be et up hlinnsf t tia 'actioni 'eund be nvailahTh ' In thel rat.'pa'e,.with regardtb'tlie ligR. 'This . *Was to depend, either uponl an agreemnent sub.sequents to hes,aic, that thes hots,jes4renot Oake removedtfillthe bills.svcrepaid, ornupon a zpccial agrcigte h that tlichorses te to. be detainetd by the-defend- t(tundil hewas satisfied ftrtheir keep. Ii, eithercasehtemust say that tihe ,greenment had been ptoved Wiy. the moatloose and indefinite kind of testimony.An eaves-droppiig h !rseXdaler,ivho hnd snaled into Cap. tan Wallace'sfhoase,liadbeen calle o provethe fist nndn sparting pluniblef had sworn tlat he hal gceiidentatlv licard the latter, as he was walting to hldyi luitf haose eaddled. Coutd they brelieve either of these witneses ? HcleAiight, not iltt even sinpposing that they did, their story formed no defe6ne in law. A hen could only con. tinue so long as the party Who had it iL.ntinued in possession of tce pr6pres to wls It attached.. When the partSy had giVC up passes. djon of thd idrty`tlE lien ceased and he had no title whatev&r w reclf%im it. Now the defendant h?a cicarly parted with thisproperty of his own accord; and th6iefore on no account could he be entitled to seize itagain to covea-any c3aim hch he might fancy hIimsclf to have upon fi. With rc.are to thc fetad which had been so un- S6aringly attributed to his client, no proof whnfeoer had been given of it. They had not shawn a single Instance iti aihikl one of his billsi bad1 been dishotioured, er prodaced proof of a sirgle judg- ment having been entered, or execution issued against him. If there was anv fraud in the case. it wan on the part of the defence, F'or wltat had been proved against the defendant ? Thsath liadseized the plgitutiff's horses, arrested his persort in oider to p-evaht his proecuting his cliii to them before a tna istrate,y atd retained bhs bills,. after endorsing one of them over to that in. genuous *itncss Einiore, ofl whom he would arty nothing more at praseht than that he had gKleen his evidence in a minner worthy of a honsedealer. In coneltision, he contended thtat a verdiet mtEt be given'to his cli6nt, as all theev?dence which pressed against him vas that of Elmore, to which he was cdttdin that none of them wmould give the slightest credit,. if. he had told so ihprobable a storg as he had done in a case of trimial joitice. The LonD Cit [Er JUSTICx told the jury that nothinig could be clearer than thie law which related to cases like the present. In ge- neral; if a moan sold goods te another, and parted with the possessio- of theis, he could not recover them back if the price were not paid to hitn; indeed, he could recover nothing except the price, since hlis interest in tIlem was entirely gone. But if it could be shown tbitat the tiine of maling tile contract the purchaser knews that the paper in wlichi he was paying for, them was not worth one farthing, and that he gave it with , the express intent of cheating the sellier, then the property in the gonds did not depart from the seller by his giving up the paessiaon of them, and he had a right to pursue theni wherever he could find them. Now lie was of opinion that the evi- dence was slight to su port the first ground of defence,-.-uamely, that there had been fraud in the commencement of this purchase; for from any thing whichl had appeared iii the course of thie trial. the pGrson callinig hinself Captaini Wallace might haYe given the bills to tl'e defendant, honestly beliering that he should be able tehonour thenm when due, though he rhighit be ultimately prevented from so doing. Tqhere wvas, however, another ground of dcfence,-that the horses were not to be removed fromn the (lefendant's stables, but were to stand there at livery. Now, tiough an innkeeper had a lien upon the horse for its keep, a livery-stable.keeper had not, withiout an ex-, press agreemtent to that effect between him4elf and his. cu- tomer. It would. be for- them to say whether there had been any such agreement in this instance: if there had, he waas ol opinion that the defendant had a right to recover possession of them, supposing that the plaintifF had fraudulently with- drawn them from the possession of the defendant to defeat his lien. The learnied Judge hiere read the evidence of the witness Fiander ; and then told the jury that if they were of opinrion, upon suchi evi- dence, that a special agreement had been made between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the latter should have a lien on the horses for their keep, the defendant bad done right in seizing theni. Un- dosbiedly, if the plaintiff, on taking away the horses on the pre- tencez alleged by the witness Dale, had sold thenm to a third pnrty, the defendant's lien would have been gone; but the plaintiff had not so sold thern they were still in his possession * and therefore the derendant's lien was in -full existence. If the plaintiff's servset got %os%ession of the horses by representinig that his master wanted them for a ride, and. would return them immediately, the retaining posses. aion of them affer that object was effected was a frau. ; and as tie law would not allow any man to derive a benefit from his own fraud. their verdict ought to be for the defendant. le ivould now leave themn to form theirown judgment on the case, beinc quite sure that they would come to such a concltision as would satisfy the interests of justice. 'rhe Jury, without a moment's hesitation, retarned a verdict for sh. tAf.C -l COURT O9',COM 1MON PLEAS. TuURSDAY. DEC. 2. . - 3 5TEED v_ Tzvuy-. - . '