tered into with that institution, did pnlawfully, 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, where as, on the contrary, they were not such, but contained divers noxious and unwholesome ingredients not fit for the food of man. the badness of the bread, shewing him lumps of alum of the size of a horse-bean, which they found sticking therein. The commandant caused half a dozen more of the loaves to be cut, and found them taste very scur: 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. The attorney-general stated the case on behalf of the prosecutors, by which it appeared that the Asylum then maintained and educated 1200 children, male and female, of nou-commissic ed officers and private soldiers, of which institution the Duke of York is president. The defendant contracted to supply them with good house hold bread at three 9-32 per cent. under the assize price, from the 25th of December, 1812, for one year; with a proviso, 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 Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant, quarter-master of the institution, contended, that the indictment of the commandant (Lieutenant- charged him with knowing that Colonel Williamson), and of se- this ingredient was in the bread, ven of the children, (one of whom and with knowing that it was was a female), that the bread de- noxious, neither which facts had livered by the defendant on Sa- been proved. The fact was, that turday, the day in question, was the baking was intrusted to a served out to the children on Sun- foreman, and although the defenday, Monday, and Tuesday fol- dant might be civilly answerable lowing, every child having the for the acts of his servant, he was 20th part of a quartern loaf for not criminally. He also contendits breakfast, broken into a mess of ed that alum was not noxious in milk-porridge. The children found the very small quantity in which their bread so rough and dry to it was used by the trade, and enthe taste, that the majority of deavoured to repel the prejudices them rejected their breakfast, and under which they laboured. He complained to the commandant of had never known more than one baker 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 10l. 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 had 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 a 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 attornies, in Lincoln'sInn, where the defendant Robinson still practises alone with credit and reputation; but the defendant Lee having become insolvent, and 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 2000l. 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 attornies 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 attornies, and had receipts for payments to them in the year 1808, on their joint account. In 1811 he applied to them to lay out 2000l. 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, saveral times on that business, generally seeing Mr. Lee. The plaintiff being ordered abroad to 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. On 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 2000). 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 infor mation was correct, and how much he was to expect. This, Lord Ellenborough admitted, did look 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 employment 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 reconcilable with the practice of attornies' 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 as much separate from Mr. Robinson as the plaintiff's but this was not the less the employment of both. 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 2,000l. 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 norresidence, under the 43d Geo. III. c. 84. and 53d 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, be 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 animad version 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 improper 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 170l., onethird of that value, after deducting out-goings, agreeably to the provisions of the act. Meath Assizes, August, 1814.Thomas Burrowes, Esq. Plaintiff. -The Inhabitants of the Barony of 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'sbench. It stated, that Thomas Burrowes, who sued as well for the King as for himself, complained, that certain malefactors to him, and also to Humphry 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 Moyfenragh, in the county of Meath, did assault and rob the said Doyle to the amount of 7491. 158. 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 1000l. 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--but 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 750l. 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 a house at a distance from the high road-it was the garden house-here he met Mr. Ŏ'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 750l., and he gave him Gregory's receipt. He asked for pen and ink to mark the notes; Mr. O'Connor |