quests, and of John Holland, assistant officer in that court, and not on the statement of Fish alone. He (Mr. Baker) and his brother magistrates had delivered their opinion on the evidence before the charge of Fish was entered on the book.

Mr. Gurney, for the defendant, submitted, that the case was by no means proved by the evidence. The declaration stated, that the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and accused the plaintiff with having in his possession a 17. Bank of England note, knowing the same to be forged and counterfeited, and caused him to be committed, &c. The recital in the committal was no evidence against the defendant. The committal proceeded from the evidence, and the evidence by no means supported the allegations in this declaration. The charge of Fish was upon suspicion," which words had not found their way into the declaration. In support of this objection the learned counsel cited Tempest v. Chambers (1 Starkie); Lee v. Webb, (3 Esp. 165); and Bell v. Burne (13 East. 554).

On the other side Mr. Scarlett relied on Davis v. Noak, (1 Starkie, 377), in which lord Ellenborough said that the action did not depend on words only, but on acts done.

The Chief Justice said, that upon the authority of the last quotation there was no variance in the present case; but as there was some nicety in the objection, he would give the defendant's counsel leave to move to enter a nonsuit if he should think proper. Witnesses were then called by

the plaintiff to prove that the note was genuine.

Mr. Warren, who said he had been an engraver for 40 years, deposed, that he had paid particular attention to Bank-notes that he had engraved for local banks in different parts of the country, and that, with all the knowledge he had upon the subject, he believed this note to be a genuine note.

Mr. Le Maitre, a watchmaker, said, that from general observations he considered it a good note, and he should not have felt the least hesitation in taking it.

Mr. Haydon, an auctioneer, deposed, that he was in the habit of taking a great quantity of Bank-notes: he had paid particular attention to this subject for many years past, and was never deceived by a forged note except in one instance. He had no doubt, from the marks which he had been given to understand, in confidence, that the Bank relied upon, that this was a good note.

Mr. Gurney said, that the defendant was taken by surprise with respect to this evidence, and therefore no person was present on the part of the Bank to prove that the note was forged. He contended, that the defendant had not acted maliciously, but from the best and purest motives.

The Chief Justice said, the only question was, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to if the defendant had acted improperly. After the character that had been given of the plaintiff to the magistrates, the learned Judge thought, that it would have been a more prudent course not to have committed him. It was also

to

It came out from the plaintiff's witnesses, in speaking of the former commission, that Crowley's brother was the petitioning creditor and sole assignee, he claiming a debt of 1051. That he had possessed himself of property belonging to the bankrupt Crowley to the amount of 400l., and that the creditors under that commission had never received one penny, nor even had the solicitor's bill been paid.

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan addressed the Jury on the part of the defendants, stating this to be one of the most fraudulent cases that ever came before any court: he commented with great force and severity upon the evidence produced on the part of the plaintiff, and particularly on that of Crowley. He could not refrain from noticing, with some humour, that instead of a fancy dressmaker, Crowley should be called a fancy commission-maker, and said that he was a perfect Proteus, having been successively a milliner and fancy dress-maker, an auctioneer, a librarian, a merchant, dealing in every thing and any thing, a tavern-keeper and a wine-merchant. After showing the fraud of the pretended transfer from Crowley to the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant Vaughan told the Jury, he would give them the best evidence, for he would lay before them the evidence of the plaintiff herself.

Upon this, the proceedings under the present commission were produced, and the examinations of the plaintiff, on oath, before the Commissioners, contained in them, were read. A short extract is given as a speci

men, where she was asked as to the 2,000l.

Where did you obtain the money which you said you paid for the purchase?-I procured it from friends.

From whom-name them ?-I did not prepare myself for that question.

From whom did you receive it?-I must first obtain their permission before I mention their

names.

Did you borrow it from any person? Yes, Sir, I borrowed it.

Of whom?-I am sure I do not know the gentleman's name.

Where does he live?-That I do not know.

On one of these examinations the plaintiff was committed to Newgate for prevarication.

The plaintiff, in her examinations on her oath, states, that in 1814 she kept a school at Newcastle, in which she failed, and her goods were sold off and her creditors were paid a small composition, after which she came up to town, in October, 1814, a mere beggar; and thus situated, took the pretended transfer of the Queen's Arms tavern from Crowley, at 2,000l. She stated, on her oath, on being brought up from Newgate, in answer to a further inquiry as to where she got the money to pay Crowley, that she was recommended by a Mr. Davis to a Mr. Baruh, who lent her the money. But Baruh was put into the witness's box, and said that he never lent the plaintiff any money, nor ever saw her or knew her until he saw her in Newgate, after her examinations. Davis was also produced, who denied that plaintiff had ever

applied

applied to him to borrow money, nor did he borrow money for her, and particularly that he never applied to Baruh.

On the part of the defendants, evidence was also produced to support the present commission, which was established to the satisfaction of the Court.

The learned judge summed up the evidence in an able manner, stating that the case was pregnant with fraud, and that the examinations of the plaintiff were quite fearful.

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH.

MARCH 4.

Rennie v. Cropper.-This was an action to recover the sum of 2,000l. as compensation for expenses incurred by quarantine, demurrage, loss of time, and unloading and re-shipping the cargo of a vessel. It appeared, that the ship was chartered from Liverpool to New York and back, with liberty for the consignees to ship a cargo in return. The Captain was not bound to seek a cargo, but he was bound to carry one, if the consignees shipped it. They accordingly did ship a quantity of wool, which the Captain was told was American produce. He proceeded on the homeward voyage; but, on his arrival, it was found that the wool was Smyrna wool, and all ships from that place, at that time, were bound to perform quarantine. He then proceeded to Milford-haven, where he was detained 104 days in performing

quarantine, during which time he was obliged to unload the cargo, and expose it to the air. He was also subject to a demurrage of 15s. a-day, with other expenses consequent upon these proceedings. When he arrived at Liverpool, he demanded payment of his expenses, and of the money incurred by the delay. The charterers refused to pay more than the contract for the voyage, and therefore he brought the present action.

The question turned on this point-whether the Captain knew, or was informed, at the time of shipping the wool, that it was not American produce, but that of Smyrna, or any other foreign country, inasmuch as by the Navigation Acts of the Protectorate and of Charles II., called the Navigation Laws, no British ship, going to a foreign port, is warranted to bring back a cargo of any other country than that from which it is shipped.

The Chief Justice summed up the case and the evidence, to the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 2,000l.; costs 40s.

French v. Giles.-This was an action on the case to recover damages for a severe personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the neglect of the defendant, under the following circumstances:-

The plaintiff was a respectable anchor-smith and ship-chandler, resident at Wapping, and on the 2d of August last he hired of the defendant, who was a coachmaster, a landau for the day, in which he proceeded, with his wife and children and a servant, to Chislehurst,

Chislehurst, in Kent, to leave one of the children at school. On his return towards town, he took his seat on the box with the coachman, and at a short distance, a leather strap, which supported the box, suddenly broke in the loop, whereby they were violently thrown upon the road, and the plaintiff had two of his ribs broken, his arm fractured, and otherwise sustained great injury, which obliged him to be taken back to Chislehurst, where he remained five days under the care of a surgeon, whence he was conveyed to his house in town, where he was confined for two months before he could come downstairs. He therefore brought this action to recover compensation in damages.

It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, as soon as he heard of the accident, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, expressing concern for the injury he had sustained, and offering any reasonable compensation in his power, but the plaintiff preferred his action on the case.

The Chief Justice in summing up the evidence to the Jury, said that no person in the situation of the defendant, who let out carriages by the day, was bound to give a new coach; but he was bound to keep his carriages in good order, for the safety and accommodation of the persons hiring them. But it must be remembered, that although he might have exerted a reasonable vigilance, with a view to such safety, yet, sometimes, there were invisible flaws which escaped notice, and from which accidents might arise. If the jury were of opinion that the defendant had

not been guilty of any wilful negligence, but had used due caution, and had no knowledge of the defect, then they would find for the defendant; but if they entertained a contrary opinion, then they would find for the plaintiff.

The Jury retired for two hours, and, at six o'clock, when the chief-Justice had left the Court, they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 501.

HERTFORD ASSIZES, FRIDAY, MARCH 5.

James Head, aged 40, and Martha his wife, were indicted for having set fire to a barn in the occupation of John Overell, of Wakely, and burning thereby an immense quantity of corn, his property, on the 27th of August last.

Mr. Walford opened the case for the prosecution; but in the course of his statement it appeared that the male prisoner and his wife had alternately made declarations upon the subject of setting fire to the barn, and that the woman particularly had

avowed that she was the hand who did it, but that her husband was present when the act was committed. Upon this a long discussion took place, whether the woman, acting a guilty part in the presence of her husband, was not excused on the ground of coercion; the counsel for the prosecution arguing that the principle did not extend to the crime of arson, and the advocates on the other side contending that it did.

The Judge (Park, who also obtained

§