1828.] Noies for (he Month. '65 



destinely upon the Elephant and ridden him to Furnival's Inn knocking 

 down Temple-bar or the Court of Chancery in Lincoln's Inn or any 

 other public impediment instead of Mr. Goodman by the way ? or sup- 

 pose, instead of taking the loan of Mr. Freshfield's horse, he had hired a 

 coach, or a gig, and damaged various other vehicles by careless driving ; 

 surely, it would be too much to say, that Mr. Kennell should be at the 

 cost of setting these damages right again ? Between two courses of 

 wrong there was the best prima facie case for bringing the action 

 against Mr. Freshfield ; for it appears clearly, that Cockings had no 

 authority from Mr. Kennell to go on horseback to Furnival's Inn ; 

 while, for exercising the horse, that did the mischief (occasionally) there 

 was something very like a general retainer from Mr. Freshfield. If 

 Goodman had been killed now, for example, instead of hurt would not 

 the deodand have been put upon the horse." 



Altogether, however, it will be an exquisite point for the practice of 

 the present day, when barristers rise, at least five times out of every six, 

 to address themselves, not at all to the merits of the case, but to some 

 quibble or clerical error upon the face of the parchments that bring it 

 before the court. For, if there be any action in the case against any 

 person but the actual offender, Cockings, we profess ourselves quite 

 unable to determine where it lies. And there seems to be hope too of a 

 new point still, in the argument before the court above : for we see, 

 according to the evidence, it appears, that the horse was " running 

 away" at the time when the accident happened now, it may become 

 material to know, whether it was the horse that run away with Cockings, 

 or Cockings that run away with the horse ! Because, if Cockings ran 

 away with the horse, why then it was him who did the mischief, and 

 he would be the party answerable : but if it was the horse that ran away 

 with Cockings, would not Cockings have his remedy over another 

 action against Mr. Freshfield ! ! ! 



We announced, by some accident, in our notice of the " Annuals, 

 last month, tHat the price of " The Bijou," (edited by M. Frazer), was a 

 guinea. It appears that we were wrong in this statement, and our 

 readers, no doubt, have had to thank us for an agreeable surprise, when 

 they went with a sovereign to buy it, and were charged only twelve 

 shillings. We correct the mistake, without knowing by what delusion 

 it occurred : perhaps, instead of saying it was sold for a guinea, we 

 meant to say that it deserved to be. This would not be very far from 

 the truth as our criticism, delivered along with the error, evinces ; and 

 it makes a very pretty compliment to Mr. Pickering, the publisher (by 

 way of getting out of our scrape) into the bargain. 



Our friend Cobbett has got into some disgrace (we suspect, into more 

 than he cares for) about his scheme for having cheap labourers to work 

 his grounds at Barn Elms, and elsewhere. A letter in the Nottingham 

 Review, which he republishes in his Register, for the purpose of com- 

 menting upon it, has the best of the fight with him considerably : his 

 answer is (as all his angry papers are) amusing ; but it is no answer to 

 the charges stated against him. 



In fact, his whole scheme is a humbug : and too transparent a hum- 

 bug. No one doubts his right to hire labourers at the cheapest rate that 

 he can get them : but to hit upon a mode of getting labour particularly 

 cheap cheaper than it would be possible to get it, but for the excess of 



M.M. New Seiies. VoL.V. No. 25. K 



