Star. — London, England, 1809-11-10 00:00:00

T -- ": tbree months, lie would apply to Colonel Wardle tt, :rive her tfiit far. She..then stated to Mr. Glennie, eat in l...•;sAan three months she would have a book to irahlis'i, wh:ch would enable her to pay the slam to the extent of which site now wished to be accommo dated. In consequence of this convetsAtion, Mr. Glennie afterwards went to the plaintiff, who neither then. nor at any other time, said to him (Mr. Glen pie) :hat Colonel Wardle had become bound fir Mrs. Claike's furniture; on the contrary, he said that lie hid given her credit tor k, with the expectation that lie might get payment of a former debt which she Awed him. Mr. Glennie, in his affidavit, also swore to an observation of Mrs. Clarke's, on himself, Colo nel Wardle, and Others, having remarked, that they wished Mrs. Clarke would live in a smaller house, and one less extravagantly furnished What is it to Colonel Wardle wh It house or furniture I have ? He is not to pay la them!" The affidavit also bore, that Mr. Glennie was present at the trial of this cause, having been sobNen ted by the plaintiff, but that he was not examined ; that he well remembered the de fendant was anxious to have him examined for him defendant) and sent into Court for that purpose, but could not procure access to his Counsel. The Le.nned Judge begged it to be observed, that he and those who acted with Lim on this occasion, could not have inst: uctions to meet a case which no person could have contemplated. Lord ELLENPAROUGH-.- ,4 You heard what the wit ness said." Mr. Sentient Berr-41 I could not have supposed that any person would have believed them after what I did hear." Mr. Justice LE UMW. ••• 44 You took your chance of that." Mi. Serjeant 8riT....." I stated this for the pnrpose of shewing the materiality of the other evidence, ari sing from the plaintiff's answer in Chancery, and the affidavits now submittAl to the Clurt. If such a body of evidence were now before the Jury, could any man believe it possible that they should come to a conclu sion similar to that which they had formerly done in this c ise ?" The Learned Serjeant then referred to another affi davit, by Mr. Ilingworth, who stated, that on the apps cation of Major Dodd, he accepted of a bill for £3OO, payable in three months from the 27th of De. cember. At the time of giving the note he knew nothing of any dealings between the plaintiff and de fendant, nor of the inquiry before the House of Corn. rnons He .tlso read an affidavit by Joseph Bennett, cabtaet-maker, Tottenham-court•road, relative to a conversation between him and Daniel Wright since the verdict had been given in this cause, in which Daniel Wright had confessed that solteral articles, particularly of furniture for the seivantsti ronens, stpoli , •d while Mrs. Clarke lived with the Dole, of York, had afterwards been transferred to the new a l / 4 e: count, and charged Against Colonel Wardle as they thmt he was likely to be a better paymaster. Lord ELLusrsclaoccir said there was nothing of this at tl.e zri.ti. Mr. Serkant Bovs-r contended, that either one or -.!her of the I.laintiff's witnesses had sworn that ll lin;worth knew the whole of the buibiness. He held liis hand anozher affidavit, which went still further to prove the intimacy and connection between the plaiwitT and Mrs. Clarke. This was an affidavit by Mr. A'neckett, the attor ney, stating that he had been empl, , yed to Vic Mrs. Clarke, and that he had brought an ac ion against her on the 25th June, 1808, in which en the 30th of the same month Francis Wright, of Rathhone-place, upholsterer, and Daniel Wright of the same place, upholsterer, although this Gentleman had cn the trial denied that he had any connection r!th the business, were put in as special bail.. She aticrwrrds p! met! her coverture, and the plaintiff was nonsuit ed. Mr. Ellis, the attorney for the defendant, had examined and found that there were a great many actions against Mrs. Clarke, upwards of 30 in all, in every one of which she had been bailed by the plain tiff, had pleaded her coverture, and had thus imposed on her cresii..ors. Mr.J u st ice BAIL From the very circumstances you have mentioned, the plain , i:t• knew Mrs. Clarke to be in distress, and therefore it was not likely he should give her a edit." Mr. Serjeant Besr contended that it was quite as etnlikely that he should trust her with t'.:e loan of furni ture which was subject to be distrained on for the rent. Lord ELLENhOItUUGII..--66 You see he prevented that, by paying the rent." Mr. Serjeant BEST proceeded.—Their Lordships now saw, that, at the time the plaintiff's two witnesses swore the plaintiff would give Mrs. Choke no credit, he was paying various sums of money for her out of his own pocket. He was also giving her a character, recommending her as a person of good credit and re , putation, and w .►s even introducing her under false characters and false names ; to every person ',thorn she .referred to him for a reference as to her respectability • and credit. Could the Court, then, allow such a ver dict to staid, without giving the difendant an oppor tunity of bringing every fact necessary to a fair judg ment: on the merits of the case fully under the consi aeration of the Jury ?—Better that the statute of frauds .should at once be repealed, than that it should conti nue, subject to the artifices of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke. As he had now also sliewn so great an inti macy, and such improper conduct on the part of the plaintiff in his transactions with Mrs. Clarke, he was sure the Con:•t would not refuse him the opportunity of going once more before a Jury; part'cularly when it was seen from the plaintiff's answer is Chancery, :h!tt the furniture was charged in the plaintiff's own books, not to Colonel Wardle, not to Mrs. Clarke, but to MI s.Farquahar. The insurance of the furniture too, furnished a very strong feature in this case. It was extremely unnatural that Mr. Wright, it be bad . sold the farniture, and had sold it. too on the.credit •t Mr. Wardle, should have thought of insuring it at . all. l'au what most the Court think, what must the , Jury have thought, when informed that the insurance had been made in the name of Mrs. Farquahar ? Of this there was so evidence on the former trial, apt could the defendant ever have dreamt of the circum stance at the time. Lord ELLE:isottouoit—" I recollecLjt struck me at the time, that the circumstance of the Plaintiff's in sui ing the furniture savoured more of the character of a than a seller. That observation I stated t o •tb: Jury, and left them to consider what weight they siiinild.attach to it. The fact of the insurance, there t4.re, oat* beau :amidy before them." Mr. Scrjeant BOIT said, the Jury had net before a ffi davit of application ; second. that the injury to the them the fact of the insurance having been made in Corporation could not be of so serious a nature, even the name of Mrs. Farquahar. In all his own trans- tif the flaintiff chose to perfevere, as to call for the in actions with Mrs. Clarke the Plaintiff, that he might terposition of the Court during.tbe progress of an have his bills of sale, and every thing secure, took action at law. care that she should be Mrs. Farquahar. It was with After some observations from Sir A. Ptoorr, on others that he supported her as Mrs. Clarke, the mar- the other side, the CHANCELLOR decided, that the in ried woman, who was to pay her debts by pleading junction ought to be dissolved, the parties undertaking her covert-me. The present question was of some im- to try the question of right immediately, and the pnrtaace, even in point of value ; but, from other con- Plaintiff, Nichols, engaging to comply without delay sideratioiis, a more important cause, probably, had with the verdict, provided it should go against him, never taken place. subject, however, to the opinion of his Lordship. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, after consulting with the other Judges, said, the Court were much afraid that they might seem to violate the rules which they had laid down for their own governance in such cases, were they to send a case to the consideration qi the Jury a second time, where the party had originally a full opportunity of proving his ease, and chose to forego it. Ia this respect the Court felt a great difli. culty ; but at the same time, as the Plaintiff, from the evidence now laid before the Court, seemed more mixed with Mrs. Clarke than he appeared to be at the time of the former trial ; and as his conduct in some of those transactions seemed to wear a very bad complexion, it would be as well that the Learned Serjeant took a Rule to spew cause, when there would be an opportuni:y of cosidering the matter more at length. Rule granted. CRIM CON. EDWARD LOVEDEN LOVEDEN, ESQ. In THOMAS RAYMOND BARKER, ESQ. Mr. GARROW moved for a Rule to chew cause why the verdict in this case should not be set aside. He stated, that it was an action of damages brought by t,heTlaintiff against the Defendant, for holding cri minal conversation with his wife ; it was tried at the Sittings 'after last term, before Lord Ellenborough, in that Court, and the Jury gave a verdict for the defendant. [For a statement of this case see the STAR of July 4.] The Learned Counsel contended, that, from the facts given in evidence to the Jury, they ought to have gi''en a contrary verdict, from the acknowledgment and promise of the defendant to Warren Hastings, the plaintiff's butler, that if he would be silent to what had taken place, he would never come near the house again ; his being locked up in the room with Mrs. Loveden, and perceived by a servant trying to conceal himself, were all strong presumptions of his having held criminal conversation with the plaintiff'swife ; he therefore trusted that the Court would grant the role. Lord Et.LeNzoanucti observed, that he had left the facts to the decision of the Jury, and although there might be great cause for suspicion, yet they had after a long consultation, determined by their verdict, that there were no proofs sufficient of a criminal in tercom:se having taken place. It was not stated, that there was any new evidence that could be brought fiwbrard. There was no point of law in the ease that was doubtful ; he, therefore, saw no reason why the Verdict should be disturbed. The Court refused the Rule. 4101 , M1. COelitT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 9. WARD IN CHANCERY. Mr. RICHARDS stated, that Giles and Smith, the persons implicated, the former as principal, and thei latter as aiding in carrying off Miss Augusta Nichol.l son, a ward of Chancery, for the purpose of effecting a clandestine marriage, were now in Court. On the p rt of the friends of this young lady, he had now to submit, that such means should be adopted as would protect her in future from any similar attempt. Mr. &ICH appeared for the Defendants. Mr. Giles, he said, professed the greatest penitence for his offence, and was willing to submit to any terms the Court might think fit to impose. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he should consider of what wits requisite with this view, and mention it to m - mnv. • Mr. BLIGIT then read an affilavit of Smith, in which be professed, that, at the time, be was unite ignorant of this young lady being a ward of Court ; that he was fully convinces' of the impropriety of hi , conduct, and ready to answer any questions that might be put to him. He begged also to submit, in mitigation of punishment, that he had no other means of procuring support, but by his professional engage-, menu as a player. The Loan dIiANCELLOR observed, that all that 'he had heard only confirmed him the more as to the par ticular character of this case. This was, in short, the case of stealing a fortune through a woman, ard stealing a woman for the sake of her fortune. With regard to the clergyman who published the banns (this gentleman was present in his canonicals) he ought to know, that ignorance a the parties was no excuse. There was a notion among ckrgymen that they did nothing wrong, if the banns were handed up to item, in publishing them as a matter of course : but he had the autlwrity of his predecessors for say ing, that if a 'clergyman marry persons in this way who were not resident in his parish, he was liable to ecclesiastical and other censures. He knew it was said to be impossible to ascertain this in London : But this plea could not he beard in a Court of Jus tice ; for the Act has given them seven days to find out the parties, and requires the parties to &t whereive a no tice both of the parish and the house they lived respectively, and what was there to, do but to repair to the house or houses, and ascertain the fact ? But perhaps a practice so general among clergymen, was excusable in an individual ; and be was sure this clergyman, whom he knew to be respectable, did not mean any ill : but when he recollected the extreme difficulty which Lord Thurlow felt in not committing Dr. Markham, when Rector of Whitechapel, on an occasion of this kind, he thought it not unneces sary at least to state the law on the subject. He re collected one case, where the Rector said he had im posed the strongest charge to make inquiry on the Curate, the Curate on the Clerk, and the glerk on the maid-servant, and of course betwixt them all no enquiry was ever made. Let Mr. Smith petition the Court, and Giles too, if he thinks proper. NICHOLS V. THE SCOTS CORPORATION. The Scots Corporation had some time ago obtained an injunction to restrain Mr. Nichols from building a wall beyond a certain height, on the ground that it would become a nuisance, and obstruct the light of their house in Crane-court, Fleet-street. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. 9. LORD LEICESTER v. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE MORN- ING HERALD. Mr. Serjeant MANLY moved the Court for a rule to shew cause why a new trial should hot be had in the action brought by the Earl of Leicester against the Proprietors of that Paper.—Rule granted. Sir S. Rositus, on the part of Nichols, now moved that tWnjunction should be di ssolOed for tw•o reasons: first, ddi it had not been drawn tip according to the P.MTHS. On the 33 instant, at Cor! , ./ Castle, Curnberlan tl.oly Henry Howard, Esq. of a On the Stir ultimo, at Palley, Berks, the L a d y of S'a Bowyer, Hart. of a claugtrer. At Brighton, on the lit the Hon. Mr- daughter. Sunday se'nnir . ht, the lady cf Dr. Whiur , ll, r f Bloomsbury, M. D. of it son. R ja). At Alverstoke Church, (sr) file ”0:11 ult. Mr. Crtwa,i, suryttei of his Majesty's sh p Lavinia, to Miss liarlit Id, eldest of Robert Hai field, Esj. of Entcwor; h. At Weymouth, on the 4th ins.ant, Lituccaant ierets, to NU , s F. Pratten. Ac St. fildwell's Church, Eretcr, ::peic", Est of Jordan' Sontersetslaire, to France=, third daughter ut the late Rev. /itch! deacon Andrew. At Edinbur, h, on the (Ph Instant, Win. Horne, Esq. Tounr..7 of Stircoke, advocate, to Miss di Ridclell, c.!aagliter of the deceased John Riddell, Esq. mercli.i.: i in (.14,,g0w. DIP.D. On the 30th of St remlier ta'st, at Ta!avera, CPpra't Fryrn, Adjutant of the Ist battalion of the Coltistrtam '_ivards. At Haslar Hospital, Mr. Jahn Martin, (I) Purser of his Ma. ksty's ship Repulse. j Friday se'nnight, W'alter Bedford, Esq. late Clerk of the CV elt of the Victualling Oftice at Plymouth. At Paclajos, on the aOth September lust, Captain CharlesD Sillery, of the Royal Artillery. At Woolwich, abed 102, W. Arderson, Esq. who had beat up. wards of hU years . on the Royal Tr.tio At tillery. The Rev. lingo Wm. Jones, of Choinhant place, 'Surrey. Friday last, ?Or. Fowler Bean, apothecary, Can:bowel'. At sea, on his passage home on the :411 of August, Mr.J.trei Tulloh, surgeon of the lion. L ast Incta Company's ship friday hut, at Wickham, Hants, Mrs. Lute Wactoa, sister of the late celebrated Dr. Warton, aged Its rari. On the 30th ult. at Flushing, of the complaint which has bes t , so fatal to the British troops . in Walcheren;*Lielitellailt Gera-d Fitzgerald. of his Majesty's utli Regiment. At Gloucester, Mr. Anerevf.„ flt Starmor:., surgeon, zFed Gg I - HUH Nr.a. ER AT LONDON 4Rit)GE 0-1410111CONk ..... 44 minutes aittr 4 Aftenwou 6 mil:. -.es after - 5 ' CHALLENG' . MESSRS. CURRIE and Co. ttrreops, late in Majesty's Service, challenge the k world to prove single instance where their Mttlic:r.e and method af caretaire failed of the desired effect. The pr. cdce of many years in tu:t particular branch of their profession has not given rise tu unsoccessful case. . . . . , They continue to direct their studies to the treatment ane Cl'Te of Venereal Complaints, and that derangement of the sy , triz, which is the csusequence of the pernicious and wasteful eff.sts habit long and most unhappily purqued by the youths of both scv . t.: in the one it will be found to be the unfailing source or nee ; the other have its ravages fatally developed eitena-,by a 2.5_ creasing state of debility, which, if not timely remedieil s tee;ilica: ra ' in impotence. These are its remote and ultimate eircrs',w line co I-, sumptions,loss of muscular power, and various inns ts r usually characterise the earlier sza,gt , s of this solitary vice. 01 it •-• sons languishing, under the disorders incident to such a hahit, their treatment Is simple and has never proved nosutceqsftd, iu tts course of a long, laborious, and much et:tended practice. it t!.e most obstinate and complicated cases Of venereal infectioh, such q.s obstructions ist the urethra, spongy excrescences, hard n • tnours, callous ulcers, eruptions, seminal weakness, glgets, as alta STRICTURES, '*ether recent or of long duration, and which have baPIA the skli/ of other Practitioners ; are by their present improved plan of treatment, effectually and permanently cured, withrelt the patient suffering the excruciating pain and alarming hemnerlif.ge wl,;ch often follows the application of the lunar caustic. In the course of 20 years extensive practice in this metropolis, numerous cast; of Strictures have been and are daily under their care, the total eradication of .which are effected by a safe, certain, and exrede tious mode of practice, superior to any other yet adoi.ted. weakness, relaxation, and debility proceeding from this cornpiaiet, is. apeedslytessoseed, and the patient restored to sound and vi gorous health. But where the de/a.•.:ty has for yeers existed, a -proper perseverance in their restorative remedies, after the Stric ture has been destroyed, is indispensably reqrisite to revive the slumbering sparks of life , and to reanimate the Const!tution. Several Noblemen and Gentlemen, or the first respectability. have been under the care of Messrs. Conic and Co. for 'the re moval of complaints of the Urethra, Strictures, &c. and, bevies received a radical and permanent cure, request that refvrerces may be made to them as satisfactory evidences of the decide...l4u periority of Messrs. Currie and Co.'s plan of treatment. Mae) , of these Gentlemen have had Strictures from ten to twenty ye. and had been under the care of Messrs. Home and and other surgeons of equal eminence, who attempted the by the application of the lunar caustic, without success. Messrs. Currie amid Co. may be consulted by either sex with the greatest delicacy, secrecy, and honour, at their house, No. IG7, Hatton-Garden. l'atients in the country are requested to seas' the particulars of their case, age, and general habit of living. &; inclosing a remittance for advice and medicines, when the san - .e will be given or sent to any part of the kingdom. To ensure that secrecy so essential to their undertaking, tie post7ge of Letters may be added to the account for medicine,. with June,lBo9-107, Hatton Garden. TO THOMAS TAYLOR, ESQ. No. 9, NEW BRIDGE-STREET, LONDON. HONOURED sic, IBEG leave to inform you, that ever since the year 1790,1 had been afflicted with the I.ues Venerea ; wilieh;frott its obstinately resisting every course at medicine prescribe.: Oy the most eminent of the faculty betre, and undergoing several. severe courses of salivation, and twice discharged from the Hospital, with little relief, would appear to be of the most inveterate nature. la the spring of last year my disorder had got to such a head, as ne:trly to put a period to my existence. I had a large ulcer on the crown of my head, one on each arm, and my !eta were broken out in a frightful manner; Lly right was dreadfully painful, and had been in a stare of ulceration for the last seven years; my left had also two nod-s upon it, was very much discoloure!, and gave me such excruciatii:g pain, particularly when warm in LAI, :as nearly to deprive me of rest ; in this lamentable .:ate, I was re commended by Mr. J. Thompson, (who received so great a ,!..re by them here,) to take your Leake's Patent Pins, which I hqati to do on the 2tith Mtn . ; in the course of a fortnight I he:TA to receive benefit—it: little m o.e than a month the ulcers oa my head and arms wer. sound!! healed—soon octet, the sore* on my leg healed also: lettemg, however, considerable discobuta• two in the skin, and pain in the bone of the - left, which, by the blessing of God, and a little longer perseverance in your invaka ble Medicine, subsided ; the nodes dispersing, the skin regaimag itsnatural hue, and the nocturnal pains gradualiy the became, by your libt-ral advice and medicine, perfecty free from my former complaints—have recovered my fortrer spirits aid strength, and am become folly and fat, in which streaariag tea tinned many months to the rstonishrnent of all who knew r.L. I am at a loss in what terms to express my gratitude, but beg yea for the good of other suffering mortals, to make this my cast as public as possible, as I shall on every occasion—in so doing you will greatly oblige, Sir, your grateful obedient very humbie sera. ram, ALEX. MURliElt• Swan's Close, High-street, Edinburgh. Last Tuesday the body of a man of decent rppear- i Prepared and soli by the sole Proprietor, Thomas Taylor, ance was found drowned at Wapping Old Stairs, and Member of the Royal College of Surgeons in London, at his house, was taken on shore for a Coroner's &quest. I No. 9, New Bridgot3treet ; where, after a constant residence for more than 40 years, in a practice particularly directed to the Tuesday morning, as a woman was going along Wych-street, a dray, which was passing at the time, Cure of Venereal Complaints, and those incidental to the Parts of Generation, with that inviolable secrecy which most drove her with great force against a window; which of his profession should always obsrve in such CMS, he fat was broken to pieces. She was very much cut by the ters himself, the advice and assistance he grxtuitfitisly a3ad' (*lass and otherwise bruised. misters to persons taking this Medicine, will be esteemed,by 4 OA * eerning Public, as an advantage seldom attained and void of a ll Tuesday night a soldier belonging to the guard at ambiguity. Covent-gardon theatre struck several persons with hilt They are also sold by his appointment. at tha Perfumer's, N' musket, and the enraged mob would have shewn him 93, St. Alban's-street, Pall Mall ; the Toy-shop, No len, no mercy, if his Serjeant had not taken him away to ford-street • Mr. Disborough's, No. 7, nearly 11* posite the Monument ; and by one p e rson in every considerable answer for his conduct. town in England, &c. in boxes only t!s. ski. each, sea:cd up wilb Wednesday morning, as an elderly man was cros- full and plain directions, whereby persons of either sex may acre sing High -street, in the Borough, he slipped down, themselves with ease and s e c rec y. when the fore and hind wheels of a loaded waggon LONDON: Printed and publi,hei by LEVEL KENT, k:A L went over his body ; he was conveyed to St. Tk-- teebury-Place, Lambeth, at the STAR-Oretet, No. 1, Car-:7 mas's Hospital, iu a dying state. I street. Published also at the STAR 0 I'FIC • 1 erlple 8.. r. DUFF V. BENNETT. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD moved for a rule to show cause why the bail bond in this action should not be cancelled, and all further proceedings staid, on the ground that the defendant had been unjustly arrested. : The Learned Serjeant stated, in support of his mo tion, that the defendant., who lived at Norton Court, - near Faversham, ,in the county of Kent, had a com , Mission of bankrupt taken out against him in the [year 1803, and that he had, unfortunately for him self, employed the plaintiff', who is an attorney, to get the commission superseded in the Court of Chan cery. That it having been discovered, during the pro gress of the suit, that the assignees under the commission had damn £I7OW from Mr. Bennett's property more than was sufficient to pay all his creditors their full demands, the Lord Chancellor ordered that sum to be returned him, which was accordingly done. That at various times the present plaintiff had borrowed con siderable sums of money from him, amounting to more than a thousand pounds. That the defendant being indebted to. Messrs. Slade Add Son, in the way of business, he drew a bill on the plaintiff at two months, in their favour, for £55, and which was re gularly accepted by the plaintiff ; but on the 25th of April, the latter tent Mr. Bennett the following letter: " Dear Bennett 4 am very unwell, and have my troubles and anxieties very many. Slade will accept your draft at one month for the £55, so accept one dated sat Monday. on Hams and Co. and I will sign it and give it him.• He required my name as a se corky, and that I pay the interest. lam the last man who would do an ignoble or dishonourable act, but as matters staid, we ought to stand on our defence, in case of accidents, (observe the advice of the attorney to his client, said Serjeant Shepherd) therefore write the bill on an inferior stamp; if it be discovered, I can plead ignorance for us both ; If kbe not, and we should be called on hastily to pay without the means, then we can do as sve please. You see lam acting in this carefully, but very contrarf to my principles.—MayGon bless you" That the defendant had since applied to the Lord Chancellor to order the plaintiff to give in his ac ' counts to be taxed by the Master, that they might come to a settlement of accounts, as he was diss.stis,- fied with him as his Solicitor : That the Lord Chan ' cellor granted the object of the defendant's application on the sth of August last, and when the defendant came to London do the subject of this reference to the Master, the plaintiff had him arrested for 4'50 and ~upwards on the Bth, being only three days after the date of the Chancellor's order. The foregoing facts were contained in an affidavit - made by.the defendant, and Serjeant Shepherd stated, that he had a number of other afsda4its, the contents of which he was cer tain would induce their Lordships to grant the object of his motion, but he would save them the trouble of hearing them, knowing that their Lordships would n t countenance a cause under such circumstances before them, as the subject was already before the Lord Chancellor in the plantiff's account.—Rule gr4nted. Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.—" Is the plaintiff an At torney of this Court ? Serjeant SHEPUEItD." Yes." Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.—" Does he live in town?" Serjeant SHEPHERD.—" He lives in 'fhavies Inn." Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.--" We will see what the plaintiff will say to the letter and the other matters." GOODALL V. OGLE. Serjeant COCKLE moved for a new trial in this ac tion, which had been brought by the plaintiff, who' had been High Admiral to Christophe, Emperor of Hayti, against the Underwriters of the ship Lord Bathurst, whereon it was alledged, that the Captain and crew had committed baratry on a voyage from St. Domingo tO England. The Learned Serjeant said, that baratry had not been proved at the trial, i 'as the ship had deviated several times from the in. 'tended voyage. In the first place the ship was not seaworthy, in:l...much as she had not a sufficient quan tity of provisions on board when she sailed. Being afterwards taken into the island of Bermuda by one of his Majesty's ships, a Mr. Grogan, who he was informed was the plaintiff's agent, disposed of part of the cargo, and then the ship sailed to Baltimore in America, which he believed to be her original desti. nation, when the Captain died, and where she took in a fresh c:rgo and came to England. A long affidavit of the Captain of a merchant ship was read, stating the conversations which he had with Mr. Gro gun and the Captain of the Bermuda, which tended to prove, that Grogan was supercargo of the ship. It was not known that this Captain was in town when the trial was had, or he would have given the con. tents of his ailidavit in evidence.—Rule to chew cause granted. - 4771 :.;7i:• r,r~ . 1 11 I on! Os' of Oay Oa Oa A' an be IN street TO 1 A sluts c soost hum! boom mime in l'a coast don, of et, Wha AV At C Cp. A Coon ernl Clos L . 1 . 1 RL4 are this TA pets aryl At; a 'Til fro Es do 01 i. fit *cc to 4 • I 1 s 1 1 a 1 *• le re • - • 7 al I Ot WW I be RN st roc .....—. hum! bancol Coon Crnl Vem •rw Vil frn Es de ~ 1 ~'iY • NIT . TH