tered into with that institution, did unlawfully, fraudulently, and deceitfully, for his own wicked lucre, on the 27th of November, 1813, deliver to the institution 297 quartern loaves, as and for ́good and wholesome bread, whereas, on the contrary, they were not such, but contained divers noxious and unwholesome ingredients not fit for the food of man.

The attorney-general stated the case on behalf of the prosecutors, by which it appeared that the Asylum then maintained and educated 1,200 children, male and female, of non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, of which institution the Duke of York is president. The defendant contracted to supply them with good household bread at three 9-32 per cent. under the assize price, from the 25th of December, 1812, for one year; with a provisio, that if any of the bread should be found of inferior quality, the quantity so found might be returned, other bread purchased at the market price elsewhere, and the contractor would pay for the same. It appeared from the evidence of the quarter-master of the institution, of the commandant (LieutenantColonel Williamson), and of seven of the children, (one of whom was a female), that the bread delivered by the defendant on Saturday, the day in question, was served out to the children on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday following, every child having the 20th part of a quartern loaf for its breakfast, broken into a mess of milk-porridge. The children found their bread so rough and dry to the taste, that the majority of theur rejected their breakfast, and complained to the commandant of

the badness of the bread, showing him lumps of alum of the size of a horse-bean, which they found sticking therein. The commandant caused have a dozen more of the loaves to be cut, and found them taste very sour; 83 which remained were ordered to be returned to the defendant, who did not continue to supply the Asylum longer than the expiration of his year. They had been obliged to purchase elsewhere several times before. The commandant took the piece of bread, with a lump of alum in it, which was produced in court, to the lord mayor, for whom the defendant said he did

not care. His lordship attended in court to identify it. The cook of the institution proved that the milk-porridge, on the morning in" question, was perfectly sweet and good. Mr. M'Gregor, surgeon to the Asylum, testified as to the unwholesomeness of alum in bread, particularly to children, some of whom were of the age of only five years. Its tendency was to produce nausea in the stomach, and constipation in the bowels.

Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant, contended, that the indictment charged him with knowing that this ingredient was in the bread, and with knowing that it was noxious, neither of which facts had been proved. The fact was, that the baking was intrusted to a foreman, and although the defendant might be civilly answerable for the acts of his servant, he was not criminally. He also contended, that alum was not noxious in the very small quantity in which it was used by the trade, and endeavoured to repel the prejudices under which they laboured. He had never known more than one

baker make a fortune by his business, and he was a biscuit baker. He admitted that under the act 37 Geo. 3, c. 98, the defendant was liable to a fine of 101. and other punishment for mixing alum with his bread.

-Goodeve, the defendant's foreman, proved that the custom of the trade was to mix half a pound of alum with a sack of flour, which made 82 quartern loaves of the weight of four pounds 5 oz. each. It was melted in a pan of water with which the dough was made, and caused the yeast to work quicker and the bread to look finer, and the loaves to separate without robbing each other. He could not account for the lumps of alum in the bread. He had been eleven years in the trade, and this was the general usage. Bread might be made without alum: it was his custom, as foreman, to buy the alum at the oilshops every day as he wanted it, and he brought it home concealed in a paper in his pocket; fourpence halfpenny paid for alum for a whole batch. For the last three months he had used a patent yeast, which supplied the place of alum. Raspings for dogs and pigs were made of the rejected bread. They bad put boiled potatoes into the bread for the Asylum when the yeast was bad. The bread had been returned ten or a dozen times during the year.

In answer to questions from Lord Ellenborough, the witness said he was ignorant of the composition of the patent yeast, but he thought there must be something like alum in it. He charged the defendant with the alum, not by name, but included it under the word expenses, which compre

hended besides, candles, wood, &c.

Dr. Birkbeck was called to prove the innoxiousness of such a quantity of alum; but being quaker, he could not be examined upon his affirmation in a criminal case, and he refused to be sworn.

Lord Ellenborough charged the jury that the defendant was dealing with noxious ingredients, and if he would do so, he must take especial care that the use of those ingredients was not overstepped, and the health of his Majesty's subjects endangered. He had no right to shelter himself under an unknown composition; but if it proved to be injurious, he was responsible, the same as a medical man who undertook to administer drugs, without a regard to their quantity and quality, or the nature of the human stomach, of all which he was bound to have a knowledge. As to the master being responsible for the acts of his servant, if he shut his eyes against a knowledge of those acts, he must take the consequences, criminal as well as civil; and one who deals in articles of food is bound so far to superintend his trade, as to prevent mischief to the public health.

The jury found the defendant guilty.

Mortimer v. Robinson. This was an action brought by a captain in the army, now serving under Lord Wellington, against Messrs. Robinson and Lee, who were, till the 1st of August, 1812, partners, as attorneys, in Lincoln'sInn, where the defendant Robinson still practises alone with credit and reputation; but the defeudant Lee having become insolvent,

com

of Lower Moyfenragh, in the County of Meath, Defendants.Mr. Grattan stated the declaration. It was brought upon an original writ of the Court of King's bench; it stated, that Thomas Burrowes, who sued as well for the King as for himself, plained, that certain malefactors to him, and also to Humphrey Doyle, the servant of the said Burrowes, unknown, on the 28th day of October, 1813, at Dangan, in the parish of Laracer, within the Barony of Moyfeuragh, in the County of Meath, did assault and rob the said Doyle to the amount of 749/. 15s. 7 d. the property of the said Burrowes; that said Doyle, immediately after said robbery, did make hue and cry as directed by statute, but nevertheless the said defendants have not yet made any amends to the said Burrowes, for the said robbery ; nor have apprehended the bodies of the aforesaid felons, nor the body of any of them; nor have they hitherto answered for the bodies of any of them, or the body of either of them; but have permitted the said offenders and felons to escape, in contempt of the King, to the great damage of said Burrowes, &c.; and the damages were laid at 1,000.

Mr. Jebb stated, that the question to be tried was of the highest importance to the public. The

lands of Dangan were situate within the Barony of Moyfenragh, and had been demised by Col. Burrowes to Roger O'Connor, Esq. the now proprietor, whose rent was payable half-yearly, and was usually received by Mr. Gregory, an attorney, and the Colonel's agent-bat owing to tardy

payments, Mr. G. was under the necessity of resorting to legal process. In October, 1813, the last May rent being in arrear, Mr. G. received a note from Mr. O'Connor, informing him that if he went to Dangan, the rent would be paid: but it not being convenient for Mr. G. to leave Dublin, he wrote to Mr. Humphrey Doyle, of Trim, to whom he sent a receipt, requesting him to receive the rent from Mr. O'Connor, amounting to 750%.

Mr. Doyle applied to Mr. O'Connor, who appointed a particular day for payment. Mr. Doyle on the day appointed, accordingly went to Dangan.

Humphrey Doyle was examined. On the day appointed for paying the rent he went to Dangan, between eleven and twelve o'clock, where Mr. O'Connor resided: a man met him at the gate, who informed him he was waiting, by Mr. O'Connor's orders, to take his horse, and directed him to the place where he would meet his master. He accordingly went to à house at a distance from the high road-it was the garden house-here he met Mr. O'Connor. They sat down, and Mr. O'Connor desired his son Roderick to go for the stocking. Roderick went, and soon returned with a stocking, in which were banknotes. Roderick delivered the stocking to his father, who then desired him to go about his business; and the witness only remained with the elder O'Connor. After some conversation, O'Connor paid him the rent, amounting to 750%., and he gave him Gregory's receipt. He asked for pen and ink to mark the notes; Mr.

O'Connor said he had no such thing. He then made a memorandum of the amount with a pencil, and put it, with the notes rolled up, in a handkerchief, and put the handkerchief into his coat pocket. He had not gone more than a few perches from the house where he received the rent, leading to the avenue where he had left his horse, when a person he did not know ran from behind a bush; his face was masked with a piece of cloth. He threw him down by a violent push, which made him trip. A second person came up. They tied him with They tied him with cords by the wrists and the feet, and left him in a faint. When he recovered, he found he was tied to a tree; by much labour he contrived to get one hand into his waistcoat pocket, where he found a pen-knife, with which he cut the cord that tied his hands and legs, and also extricated himself from the tree to which he had been tied-his wrists were blackened with the cord-the whole of the money and the handkerchief were taken from him, but he knew not either of the persons who robbed him. On recovering, he returned to the garden-house, where he met Mrs. Smith, who gave him a drink of water; and

מן

a short time Mr. O'Connor came up, to whom he told his story, as he had now related it. Mr. O'Connor seemed much surprised at the relation, and said he believed there were robbers on the demesne; two strange fellows had been lurking since Monday; he offered to bring his workmen from the barn, and search the neigh bourhood; the witness said it was useless; O'Connor said, that on a VOL. LVI.

search the money might be found hid, perhaps in the thatch of some cabin; he replied, they are not to be found now; witness got his horse, and, being very weak, rode home to Trim: in the course of the day he made an affidavit of the robbery before the Rev. William Elliot, a justice of the peace for the county of Meath.

Doyle, in his cross-examination, stated, that he was not servant to any person-that he was a coroner in Meath, and Postmaster in Trim ; that the robbers tied him to a laurel tree; that he was not gagged, and did not cry out lustily: that he fainted for fifteen minutes; he extricated himself by contriv ing to get his hand into his pocket, from which he took a knife, and cut the ropes.

"

Mr. McNally, for the defend❤ ants, said, he had seen but one record of a similar nature, which had been tried in the county of Waterford; but, in England, such actions were frequently brought. He made several observations on the improbability of the transaction, and the interest which Doyle, the witness, had, as to character and to pecuniary objects, in ob taining a verdict for Plaintiff.

Roger O'Connor being sworn, stated, that Doyle took down the amount of the notes with a pencil, folded them in a handkerchief, with the penciled memorandum, and put them into his pocket, said he was in a hurry, having to settle the account of a Mr. Bathuert's auction; after paying the rent, he walked with him some length, then went a contrary way, and in about ten minutes heard Doyle say he was robbed. Doyle said it was no affair of his; he Y

and taken the benefit of an insolvent act, had suffered judgment to this action by default. The object of the action was to recover from the defendant Robinson the sum of 2,000l. which the plaintiff had deposited in the hands of Mr. Lee, for the purchase of an annuity, the defendants being jointly his solicitors; and the question was, whether this was such a joint employment and entrusting of Messrs. Robinson and Lee as warranted the plaintiff to claim the money of Mr. Robinson, as the solvent partner. On the part of the defendant, it was contended, that as this sum was received by Mr. Lee as his own personal account, and embezzled by him, the plaintiff had no right to call upon Mr. Robinson for it; but Mr. Park, for the plaintiff, quoted the case of Willett v. Chambers, Cowper 814, in which it was held, where of two attorneys or conveyancers, one of the partners gave a separate receipt for a sum of money, still the other was liable for it. It was proved in evidence, that the plaintiff employed the defendants as his joint attorneys, and had receipts for payments to them in the year 1808, on their joint account. In 1811 he applied to them to lay out 2,000l. in the purchase of an annuity, and saw Mr. Lee, who told him he knew of a client, Mr. Illingworth, who wanted to grant such an annuity upon two houses, the title-deeds of which were lying on his table. Mr. Illingworth also proved that he had such a wish, and that he called at the office of his solicitors, Messrs. Robinson and Lee, several times on that business, generally seeing Mr. Lee. The plaintiff being ordered abroad to

On

Sicily with his regiment, directed Mr. Timbrell, the purchaser of an estate of his in Wiltshire, to pay the sum in question over to Mr. Lee; and that defendant wrote to Mr. Timbrell to pay the money into the hands of his bankers, Messrs. Child and Co. to his private account. This Mr. Timbrell accordingly did, knowing nobody in the transaction but Mr. Lee. The receipt of the sum was accordingly entered by the bankers to the private account of Mr. Lee, Messrs. Robinson and Lee having a joint account with the same bankers. The plaintiff's letters to Mr. Lee on this business were addressed to him only, and not to Messrs. Robinson and Lee. the 15th of September, 1813, the partnership being dissolved, the plaintiff, on his return to England, wrote to the defendant Lee, directed No. 19, Lambeth Road, within the rules of the King's Bench Prison, where he then was, to ask him if he could prove by any means whether Mr. Robinson was concerned in the purchase of his annuity as well as himself, and whether the receipt of the 2,0001. was entered in the partnership books. This, Lord Ellenborough observed, looked as if the plaintiff began to feel the hazard of his case, about which he was anxious to obtain all the proof in his power. On the 14th of October, 1813, he wrote to Mr. Robinson, intimating that Mr. Lee had told him there was a sum due to him from the partnership concern, which might go towards paying Lee's debt to the plaintiff: he would be glad to know whether this information was correct, and how much he was to expect. This, Lord Ellenborough admitted, did look