like a proving against the separate estate of Lee; and afforded the most favourable complexion to the case contended for on the part of the defendant Robinson. This, however, was the only material circumstance upon which reliance could be placed; and in cases of this sort the law was, that both partners were liable, for money entrusted to one in the employ ment of both; and it was for the defendant to establish that this case came under the head of an exception to this general rule. The circumstance of the plaintiff's seeing only Mr. Lee on the subject of his business, was reconcileable with the practice of attorneys' offices, where the acquaintance and transactions might be individual and personal with one, and still the firm should be liable, unless it was plainly understood that the dealing was individual and exclusive. The communications of the other client of the defendants, Mr. Illingworth, were much separate from Mr. Robinson as the plaintiff's: but this was not the less the employment of both.

as

The Jury, after retiring for about an hour, came back to hear the evidence of Mr. Illingworth read again, when they again retired and in a short time returned with their verdict for the plaintiff,-damages 2,0001.

Holme, Clerk, v. Smith, D. D. The defendant is a Doctor of Divinity, and rector of Headley, in Hampshire. The plaintiff is a clergyman, and resided at the parsonage-house at Headley. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a penalty for nonresidence, under the 43rd Geo. III.

c. 84. and 53rd Geo. III. c. 149. The first Act enacts, that the rector shall reside on his rectory; and the latter provides, that if he cannot, or do not reside there, he shall keep a licensed curate to perform the duties of his church. It appeared, that though Dr. Smith kept no regular licensed curate, as he ought to do, under the latter Act, yet the plaintiff himself had actually resided there, and did the duties which he now came into court to complain were neglected; and the rector, though he had not so licensed the plaintiff as his curate, had actually nominated him as such to the bishop; but such nomination appeared to have been informal. Much animadversion was made by the defendant's counsel on the plaintiff's conduct in bringing this action, and the Learned Chief Justice, Sir Vicary Gibbs, made some observations of the same nature thereon, but observed, that, however im proper or unbecoming a Christian, a gentleman, and a neighbour, towards the defendant, yet the action must be treated in the same manner as others of the same kind, inasmuch as the plaintiff had a right to bring such action, the defendant not having complied with the before-mentioned statutes.

The annual value of the living, and the rector's absence from it, being proved, the Jury, under the direction of his Lordship, gave a verdict for 1701., one third of that value, after deduct ing out-goings, agreeably to the provisions of the act.

Meath Assizes, August, 1814. Thomas Burrowes, Esq. Plaintiff. The Inhabitants of the Barony

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 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 in 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 neighbourhood; 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

would not be at the loss, for he would to Trim, serve notice on go the church-wardens, and recover The the money of the county. witness earnestly requested of him to show the spot where the robbery was committed, and raise an alarm-this he declined doing. Witness also told him, he would collect his men, meet him at night, advised a party of dragoons to be got, and said, he would assist, with his men, in searching for the felons-Doyle, at this time, alleged there was but one robber -then said, he imagined there was but one, but there might be two: he examined Doyle's arms -there were no marks of a rope, nor did he see that the cord was cut-nor did he hear any outcry— nor did any other person, though many were on the demesne and near him, hear him cry out-he at last showed a spot, where he said he was robbed; but the grass shewed no marks of pressure. Doyle begged pardon, and said that was not the place, and led the witness to another place, and said, "this is the place where I was robbed," which was on the opposite side from the first place pointed out by him. The witness said, there were no marks of any person having been laid on the ground, nor were there any marks of the fir deal seeds on his great coat. The witness then proceeded with his workmen, to search the demesne for the robbers; he soon returned, and saw Doyle, who was complaining to the men who were thrashing in a barn, that he had been robbed. This barn was convenient to the spot where Doyle said he had been robbed.

Lord Norbury, in his charge,

POLICE.

Queen square, Sept. 20.-Came on the case, on a summons granted against the driver of the Hackney coach, No. 644, on the application of Mr. Wilkinson, by Mr. Fielding, in virtue of his construction of the Act, on Saturday last, namely, that a complaint for misbehaviour or abuse might be exhibited against a Hackney coachman even without a ticket.

Collier, the owner of the coach, stated, that on the day when Mr. W. was taken in his coach from the Old-Bailey to Islington he was very ill, and got a man to drive for him, forgetting, unfortunately, to give him some tickets.

Mr. Fielding, the magistrate, said, that the driver must attend; for he who drove was here the offender. It was a personal offence: it was the behaviour of the The driver that constituted it. person at the bar, however, might tell his brother coachmen (al

though the mere refusal of the ticket was only attended with the loss of the fare, there being no specific penalty for such refusal), that if omission to give the required tickets were accompanied by any abusive language or ill behaviour, the Magistrates still had the power of punishing such conduct by penalty, a power vested in them by the 9th Anne. The extraordinary construction that had been put on the new Act, that a Magistrate could not listen to any complaint whatsoever, except where a ticket should be produced astonished him beyond measure; but it showed that those who had put such construction on it had not read the act through. The misconception of the Act, which appeared to have spread far and wide, reminded him of what he had witnessed at Bow-street fifteen years ago. A hackney coach case under the 9th Anne was before the Magistrates, and the point in argument was, what was the meaning of "abusive language," for the Magistrates had read as far as "abusive language," and no farther; and after three hours of erudite and logical argument, the remainder of the clause was read, which explained all that had created debate and doubt, for the act said, "abusive language, or any other rude behaviour." So it was with this new Hackney Coach Act; for having read that the tickets to be given by the coachman must be produced before any complaint can be heard, the concluding part of the clause was quite overlooked, which said, that a complainant must produce "some one or more of the said notes or tickets which he shall have received, or might

and ought to have received by virtue of this Act." The law now stood thus: if a coachman should refuse that ticket which he might and ought to give on its being required, such bare refusal would only be followed by the loss of the fare; for without a ticket no one was bound to pay and if that refusal were accompanied with "abusive language, or any other rude behaviour," then the offence was punishable under the 9th Anne. He had not much respect for the Act, but its objects were attainable; and if every gentle mau in the country would act as Mr. Wilkinson had done, and put his shoulders to the work, the business would be completed in a week.

The case having been thus decided, it was ordered to stand over pro formá to give time for the appearance of the driver.

Detonating Balls.-Mr. John Cuthbert, of St. Martin's-lane, optician, was summoned on information, for exposing to sale, on the 26th October, certain fireworks called detonating balls.

Pace and Lavender, the officers, said that Mr. C. had a bill in his window announcing" chemical detonating balls, &c. to produce the report of a pistol without danger." Pace purchased a dozen for eighteen pence. Some of them were exploded at the Office, each emitting flame.

Mr. Cooper, chemist, of Drurylane, convicted on a former day of having sold detonating balls, admitted, on the part of Mr. Cuthbert, that they threw out a flash, but denied their containing fire. It was a flash similar to what was Y 2