Star. — London, England, 1807-11-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 3. OIFR♦ RoUSI. On the motion of Mr. Haar, the hearing of the quetfion relative to the management of the Opera , Honk, which flood for the first day of next term, was ordered to Hand over till the firft Thdrfday in term. GAMBLING DE8T3.....-MILTNORT V. LAW ANb ASPY. In this cafe, an injuntlion was muved to reftrain Mrs. Law from certain proceedings at law, grounded . on two written notes, or acknowledgments paffed by the Plaintiff to her hufband, in his life time, for feve ral faros of 2501. and for 2601. which notes The found among her huiband's papers, and which the bad put in fuit, in her capacity of executrix to her deceafed hufband. The Plaintiff filed his bill for an injuntlion againft the proceedings at law, on the ground, that the notes were illegal and void, as gambling fecurities paffed by the Plaintiff to the De fendant's deceafed hufband, for monies loft at play, or rather as acknowledgments from the Plaintiff to the Defendant's hufband, for the balance of cath re maining in the Plaintiff's hands, as the holder of the bank at the game called Rouge a Aoir. There had been formerly a demurrer filed to the original bill filed in this caufe, and the demurrer was allowed on behalf of Mrs. Law, who could not be compelled to anfwer to the charges of keeping a gambling houfe, as , by admitting that fait, the might be &Nett to legal puuifltment. The bill flood now amended. Mr. Acmt argued for the Plaintiff, explaining the minutiz of the game ; but his Lordfhip obferved (ax ormerly on hearing the demurrer argued), that he till remained uninformed about the true nature of Rambling, but confidered that there was abundant smatter for a Jury to confider in this cafe, and he would, therefore, not prohibit that tribunal from -at certaining, by their verdict, the fans 'of the cafe.— I The injunaion was reflled. __ BOWLS V. HAYSAND °THUS. _ _ Sir SASIUEL ROMILLY, followed by Mr. HART on the fame fide, moved the Court this day on behalf of the Hon. Thomas fillies, now or late a prifoner in the King's Bench prison, for a continuance of an in junetion by him obtained againit the Defendants' proceedings at law in this cafe. The circumflances Rated were, that the Plaintiff being in great difirefs and embarraffinent about the year 1804, entered into a trail deed for railing divers rums of money, at the high and exorbitant intere( of paying, or caufing - to be paid, four times the (um borrowed upon the oc. currence of any one of the feveral contingencies in the deed contained. Thole three contingencies were the death, without iffue, of the Right Hon. Lord Strathmore, the Plaintiff's brother, on the Flai!ttiff's coming into poffeffion of Lord Strathmore's elates, which the Plaintiff is heir in tail male in remainder, or in the event of the death of the Plaintiff's brother, the Hon. George Bowes, without iffue, who was then in a dying (tate, for he died in December 1806, ten days only fubfequent to the tranfaaions, which grounds the prefent proceedings on Mr. Bowes' re• turn from the Ifle of Man in tRo6, whither he had retreated in Re+, owing to his pecuniary embarratr- Itsent, where he met with the Defendant, or rather with a Mr. Hill, who aged as agent or procurer of the money in quellion for the ufe of the Plaintiff.— The firm agreed to be advanced to the Plaintiff was only soolb which he had not however alually re *Wed, and he was to pay the fum..of aoool. upon my of the foregoing contingencies, one of which took place io ten days after the prefent Defendant had come into this contra& fur he was not at firfl a party to the croft deed. The Learned Countel Rat ed, that the Plaintiff was at that time heir in tail to Lord Strathmore's eftate of 30,0001. per annum ; to another eflate of ifi,oool, a year, and to a• third in Scotland of I 2.,0001. a year, of which tali the entail tould not be barred, and of cotnfe that tire rifque of thelender was not in reafonable or juft ptoporticm to' the tnormoui gain of four times the funs agreed to be advanced. Mr. RICOARDS, for the Defendant, argued that die prefent was a bargain depending on a contingency, which might never have happened, and which if it had not happened, his client mull have 101 l his 5001. in which cafe his Log &hip would never have heard of Mr. Bowes. The Plaintiff had received from the Defendant a good bill, which the learned Coun fel contended was the fame thing as if Mr. Bowes had had the money in his pocket. It was impoflible for the Court to tit fur the purpofe of weighing in fcaleb the value of chances and contingencies. It was not a fair way of viewing the cafe, to take it now af ter the continpeney had occurred; it ought to be vientd as if George Bowes were flill alive, likely to matey and have children. The tranfaaion might teem monk= now, but it was not fo at the time it tovk place. The Lotto CHANCILL'iIt was of opinion, if the argument of Mr. Richards was good for any thing, that it amounted to this, that where there was a contingency, the Court fhould not interfere, not merely in a cafe where the fccurity taken was four times the amount of the advance, but were it even four hundred times as much. The praCtice of the Coutt,however, had been differept. He was of opi nion a very enormous advantage had been taken in this cafe, and, therefore, continued the injunction till the tank fhould be heard. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 3. ' SMITH V SCOTT. .. This is the long depending caufe of the Welt In. du Dock Company. When it was called on, it ap- Peared that only three of tht Special jurymen were IL) attendance, on which the ATTORNEY GENERAL. declined praying a taro, as it was a caufe of fuch im taenfeimportance, both to the Company and to the Some idea may be formed of the magnitude of there concerns, by what has been already (tailored ill the courfe the legal proceedings we have had keafion to detail in our paper. A thort time lince •e gave the particulars of an at lion for lighterage Oki per hogihead, charged in certain cafes of (hip root. The refult was againft that great commer cial indication, and we are informed, that it would mike a difference in their annual receipt to the ea- I tent of 350,0001. HANNAM V. HURRY. After this caufe had been opened at fome length, by agreement between the panics, a verdift was taken for pool. and the quantum of datnages was re ferred to the Foreman of the Jury. , WILSON W. THE LONDON ASSURVICE CAMPANT. 'chic cauk was .dbferred, on account of not having a fufficient attendance of Special jurymen. RUCKUS AN ' D LUSNINGTONS D. JOHN AND ABRAHAM •TKINII. The Plaintiffs are merchants, at No. 29. Mincing lane ; the Defendants are merchants, at No. 1, Wal brook. The former are owners of the fnip Clio, and the latter of the. Anna Maria Catharina, both in the Wen India trade. The ATTORNEY GENERAL flared, that this action was brought for the damage done to the Clio, the haying been run foul of by the Defendants' fhip.— They were both deilined to the Weft Indies, and, having failed from the Downr, h a d reac h e d Portf mouth, where the Captains had both of them receiv ed. inftruCtions from the Commodore, under whore convoy they were to proceed. Th e y afterwards went to Torbay, and the accident on which this fuit was founded, occurred as they were leaving that harbour. The whole caufe would turn upon the fad, whether the Captain of the Defendants had faithfully Were ed the failing inarudions he hid received ? if he had acted confillently with them, the Defendants were not liable ; if ntherwife, they mull be refponfible.— The part of the inftrudions to which the Learned Counfel referred, he would take the liberty of Rat ing : to guard againfl the danger of (hips falling on board each other, it was ordered that the (hip on the (larboard tack fhould keep the wind, and that the (tip on the larboard tack (hould bear up. (Models of two :(hips were produced, to affill in explaining the refpedive fituation of the veffels.) The Clio was on the (larboard tack, and the other on the contrary tack, both of them croffing to oppo ate fides of the bay. In this pofition, it was the dirty of the condudors n 1 the Clio to keep the wind, and of the Anna Maria Catharine to bear up. The latter did not corform to the inftruftions, notwith 'landing the whole crew of the Clio, excepting the man at the wheel, called nut from the forecaftle to warn the crew of the other veffel to bear up. The eonfequence of the negl e ct wa s , th at t h e l ar b oar d I bow of the Clio was driven in, and damage was done to the veffel in other refpefts. Never was a plainer cafe (late& and the only queftion the Jury had to decide was, if the Defendants under fuch cit.- comnances were anfwerable ? The veffel which bore up in fuch cafes went out of her courfe, and loft a little of her way ; and, on the contrary, that which kept the wind, preferved her diredion uninterrupted ly. It was neceffary, therefore, that tome rule fhould be prefcribed by which mariners fhould know with certaiwy which veffel was entitled to retain the be nefit a the wind. The Learned Counfel could form tome idea of the defence intended, becaufe a few witneffes of the Defendants had been examined upon interrogatories, and he had teen the proceedings un der the commiflion. One of thole witneffes had laid that the fhip Anna Maria Catharine was working out of Torbay, and that the miffed flays, although every exertion was ufed to put her about, and being thus ungovernable, this veffel did not run foul of the Clio, but the Clio ran foul of the Anna Maria Ca tharina. All his witneffes would agree that the (hip of his clients was on the (larboard tack, and that of the Defendants on the larboard tack. He fhould proceed to the proof, and t nno doubt would re l it main on the minds of the Ju . Captain John Fergufon ' who commanded the Clio, Paid, that be failed in March, rBo6, bound for Tobago; under convoy of the Cerberns, Captain Salon, from whom he received his failinginftrultions. lie law We:Defendants' (hip at half a mile diftanee, as they were leaving Torbay. He hailed her, as the bore down upon him, but no attention was paid to him ; and the corircquence was, that (he ran aboard 1 of him,- and his larboard bow was (love in.—Johnfnn and Dennis, two mariners, depofed to the fame effect. The failing infirtglions were produced, and being read in evidedce, appeared to be conformable to the natement of the Attorney General. Mr. PARK Paid, that if a verdi9 (hould be given for the Plaintiffs, the Gentlemen of the Jury would be (pared the trouble of afcertaining the damage, as the parties had agreed that it fhould be fettled out of Court. He admitted the intlruftions, but contended that the accident ayofe from a caufe which the Cap fain of the Dsfendants' (hip could not controul, his veffel having miffed nays, and, in confequenee, be come ungovernable. It was a Dutch veal, and therefore not fo manageable as (hips built t Britith docks. On account of her awkward conarnetion, it was neceffary that (he fhould make an additional tack, to extricate herfelf from the harbour, which, by 1 the infpcBion of the map, would appear to be of difficult exit, in proportion to its convenience and fecurity in other relpeds. Capt. Lindley, of the Anna Maria Catharina, de poled, that his Mate having lung out that there was a (hip on his lee, he came round and hallooed to the Clio feveral times, " Ship a-hoy, put your helm down." Twelve men were on deck. He Paid to his people, "that man mutt certainly fee I am not ma nageable, and he will not put his helm down." Being crofs-examined by the Artniesv GENERAL, he Paid, that he had miffed nays, and that the Clio came to him, and bore down upon him in that fitua lion. At firft he put his helm down in flays. and when the had (tern way, he put her helm up. When he was preffed as to the caufe of the accident, there was Come incontinency between his teftimony in Court, and the contents of a letter he had written on the fubjed. Paton, the Mate, and Neal Spragg, a mariner, were next examined ; and after a thort ohfervation of the CsiFF Jurrics, a verdict was found for the Plain tiffs, the quantum of damages to be determined by Mr. Bolland. EP BURDEN V. THE CORPORATION OP THE •SHBY DE LA ZOUCH CANAL. The ATTORNEY GENERAL fisted, that this was an 1 anion for money lent upon interefi, to the amount of 56001. for the ufe of the Corporation. He Paid, that under a particular Alt, the Proptietors were enabled to borrow money on terms which neither in dividuals nor Corporations could do without the Le. giflative fanflion. A flatute of 34 Geo. 111. em powered them to raife, by fubfcription, for (hares in this Canal, 150,0001. and further on loan, at legal interefi, upon mortgage or other wife, 5003001. The Aft pointed out the nature of the ficurity, and fupplied the copy of the form of deed to be given ip fuch cafes. The mortgage was to hare a !hare of the toll, without any preference with refpea to the time of the mortgage. The ordinary fituation WAS, that each mortgagee had a itrefetence according to the priority of the date of his mortgage. The Plain tiff was no mortgagee ; he brought his affirm for a common debt, and the learned Counfel would Rate the circumaances under which the advance was mAde. The affairs of the Company were under the management of a gentleman named Wilks, who was partner in a banking honfe. The Plaintiff happening to haVe a bill for 56801. upon the 'firm, Mr. Wilk , propofed, that if he hatino other employment for the money, the Plaintiff should advance it to this Canal Company ; to which the latter acceded, our the con dition that he (hould have the money returned in 3o months, should he give fix months notice prior to the expiration of that term. Mr. Wilks atented to the propofal, and not only the Committee of the Canal Company, but the General Affembly of Proprietors' concurred with it. Mr. Burdon, not obtaining his money according to the engagement, brought his aaion againft the members of the Company, to whom he paid it, and, under his Lordfhip's diredlion, was nonfuited. Notwithllanding thefe engagements, both of the Committee and of the General Affembly, he was told that his fpecial conditions were of no value, and that he mutt come in pan pale with the tett of the creditors. A doubt might arife, if an aaion of debt could be fupported againfl a Corpora tion. if a Corporation be indebted for money re ceived, that in Tome legal way it could he recover ed, there could be no doubt. By the Aft to which he had referred, the Company was empowered to give a particular form of fecurity, but the money not being advanced, in this inßance, on thefo terms, it was a dry, unqualified debt, for which it mull be refponfible. The receipt was now read by Mr. Lowria, dated the t tth of November, 1802. which was in there words-44 Received of Alexander Burden, Efq. the fum of Five Thoufand Six Hundred Pounds on ac• count of the Corporation of the Alhby de la Zouch Corporation, for which the Committee promife to the General Altembly to give him a fecurity on snort gage of the toll, with any optional advantage agreea ble to an order on their books this day, and to be paid five per cent. intereti, until fuch fecurity be given." Mr. Mammock and Mr. Pinnock, Clerks to the Inflitution, Rated, that the money had been received, and about 30001. had been repaid. After much interlocutory matter, with the content of Mr. Gaaaow, Counfel for the Corporation, it was determined that a verdift Otould be taken for 26031. and intereft, that goof. thould be repaid in three months, and that the remainder lhould be dif charged by inßalments at one and two years. tHOMPSON V. WITHINGTON. Mr. GARROW Bated the Plaintiff's cafe. He was a merchant, who having purchafed large quantities of Surat cotton, had entrufted them to the care of the Defendant, who was a broker at Manchefler, to fell for him, for the belt price that could be obtained. On the 26th of November, t Bos, an offer was made to one Hughes, who was the defendant's clerk and confidential agent, for all the cottons then in his, warehoufe, belonging to the plaintiff, at the price of t4d. per pound. This offer was made by a Mr. Ro berts, and it was by him agreed that it fhould be immediately tranfmitted to the plaintiff, and if he returned an anfwer by the Monday, the. 28th being on Wednefday, it was to be a bargain. This offer the defendant neglefted to fend to the plaintiff, al. though he wrote a letter to the plaintiff on the aill, informing hint that cottons were falling, that he had offered belt cottons at 16d. per pound on credit, but could get no buyers, and that his Surats might pro bably produce about 131 d. or t4d: per pound. Had the defendant made the communication as he ought to here done, the plaintiff . would have accepted it, and fold his cotton. But on the Friday or Saturday after, Mr. Roberts learning that Withington had not fent the order, refufed to complete the contraft, al- though he Paid, if there had been time to have re• ceived an anfwer by Monday, he Would have felt himfelf bound by his c'ontrae. On the sth of De• cember the Plaintiff having heard fomething of the offer, wrote, expreffing hir furprife at its not being communicated, and fuppofed that no fuch offer could have been made. He then ordered the defendant to fell for the bell price he could get, and he fold at I id. per pound. The plaintiff now brought his action for the difference between I id. per pound and 14d. per pound, for which the cottons might have been fold, and alto for :861. the balance of an account of tales.—This cafe being proved, The ATTORNLY GHNERAL, for the defendant, con• tended, that Roberts might if he chofe have been off his bargain, and that at !tall it mull be inferred, from the plaintiff delaying till the sth of December to an• fwer what price he would fell his cottons for, that he would not have fold at 14d. by the 24th or 25th of November. Lord ELLIMBOROUGH left the queftion to the Jury, to fay, firll, whether Hughes was agent of the Defendant fo as to bind him ? and next, whether the Plaintiff would have doled with the offer if it had been fent ? It appeared to have been owing to Hughes's mif• take that the offer was not tranfmitted. There was 911. paid into Court ; and the Jury gave a yerdiet for 3571. 19s. 4.d. thereby charging the Defendant with the lots on the cottons. ILAINFNIAN ♦ND MITCALT FORILISTIR. The ATTORSRT Gansaat. Rated this cafe. The Plaintiffs were merchants, having correfpondetts at It. Peteriburgh, and having a conlgnment of tallow, ortlered the Defendant to fell so calks of boil foip tallow, at 631. per calk, to be paid for by a bill at three months, to be renewed again for three months further —. He fold the tallow to a Mr. Taylor, at 631. and fent the Plaintiffs a (ale note, in the terms before Rated. When he fent the fame to Taylor, he returned It, and refufed to take it on the terms of re newing the bill, although he wonld purchaft it at fix months credit out and out. Forrefter altered his book to this Wed, but ne glerited to give notice to the Plaintiffs. When the information or rived of the fkipment, they fent notice to Taylor, who refufed to complete the purcbak ; and when the tallow arrived, Taylor re futed to accept it, never having received a tale-note from Forref ter, and not being bound by the fuppofed contra& The Plain tiffs, relying upon the tale note delivered by Forreltor, brought an salon, in which he, the Defendant, was a vritnefs, and upon his evidence they were non tuned. ' The Plaintiff now brought his action to recover the ids upon the refale of the tallow, aced alfo the coils of the adian. Mr. PARR, for the Defendant, admitted that he mull pay the Ids upon the refale of the goods, but as to the colts of the adtion • the attorney had gone on In the fuit without inquiring of Forrefter the nature of his evidence till a day before the trial, and therefore ought not to have the colt. Lord liaask soutoucat, C. J. thought that the Plaintiffs bad a right to rely upon the f.de-note and to fuppok that the Defendant would confirm it upon his evidence. The Jury found a verrtidt for the Plaintiff, the amount of which was to be fettled by Mr. fsorrowdale. This was the latt of the caufes, sad the Court ad. jourued till the Term. OLD BilLEr. Yerlerday 31 priGmers were tried, 18 of whom were convilicd of felony, vi?.. J Campbell. for fleeing a quarr.r of a pork, the property of j. Jordan; E. Palmer, for Reeling a pair of fpur4 the property of K. Dinsfdale; F. Matthews, for Itealing a wa - ch, the property of H. Threader—fined is. and difchsrged ; Sufannah Cook, alas Davi., for Realing two linen (hefts, theproper: y of George Angell ; R. Williams. for flealing fix linen handkerchiefs, the property of J. Palmer; J. Welton, for Reeling Sts in penny pikes and half pence. the property of Edward Evans; Elia Willisms,ali.is John • km. for ftcalittg a great coat, ti-e property of W. Palmer; Mary Lambert, for ftealing two tea fpoons. and other article, the pro perty of J Winfield J. Baptifto, for (telling two jackets and two epaulets, the properel of M. Solonscia R. Guppy, for Reeling fix pair of ilockings, and other articles, ibe property of M R. Rowe. T. White, for flealing a carpet and a hearth rug, the goods of S. Marr. Sarah Holmes, for healing fame wearing apparel, the privily of G. Smith. Mary Hatubleton, for Reeling a quart pot. the property of T. Shelton, and a pint pot. the property of I'. Chamberlain. T. Smith, for Ruling two bulhels of potatoes and a fact of chaff, the property of J. Etheridge. J Norris, for fte,ling a piece of linen and a piece of cotton. the property of H. Markham—fined ts. and difeharged. M. Kalteifon, for ftealing a plane, the proptrty of W.y.ritharn. Sarah Earle, for fteating - a duck, - the Propertiof W. Matters. Ann Bray was indided for healing a flyer watch, from a Mrs. Cawthorne. It appeared by the evi dence, that the had taken the watch, and pledged it, but afterwards informed the profecutrix where it . was, ideated it, and gave it to her ; the prorecutrix promifing not to profecute, if the gave back the watch. As the prifoner did not deny the fa& the Jury found her guilty of fleAling, but under the value of forty fhillings. The RICORDER expreffed furrow that the prifoner bad been profecuted after relinring the watch, and the promife which had been made her. He ordered her to be fined a (billing and difcharged. And 13 were acquitted, among whom were G. FeHam and T. Shipssaa, who were indiBed, the former for Realing, and the latter for receiving, (even boxes of candles, and other goods, the property of the late J. Dawkins. Feltham was the apprentice of Mr. Dawkins, and fo much in his confidence, that he had left him a legacy of 4001. in his will, which was reduced to 401. after the difcovery of the 101 l of thefe goods. Shipman, the other prifoner, was bro- ther to a female fervant of Mr. Dawkins, and had accefs to the premifes by calling to vifit ltis filler.— He there formed an intimacy with Feltham ; and Blake, another fervant of Mr. Dawkins, milling the goods, acquainted the family ; and a fearch•warrant being obtained, they were found at Shipman's lodg ings. Mr. CURWOOD, in Rating the cafe for the protects- Lion, acknowledged the with• of the profecutors was only to punifh Shipman, whom they conceived the moft guilty; but that, in order to convia him as the receiver, it was neceffary to prove that the good. had been nolen. The chief evidence againft Feltham was a confla ble, who heard him fay, in convet flog with the other prifoner at Marlborough-flreet, •, Shipman, it is you that have brought me to this fituation ;" to which the other replied, " I had no intereft in it ; it was all for your intereft." Mr. Fielder, the profecutot's attorney, (wore that the prifoner Feitham confeffed to him that he took the goods; but did not appear pet feElly lure whether any promife had been made to him to tr.dtice him to fuch a confelllon. The RECORDS& obferved, that it did not bear againft Shipman as a receiver. The goods being found in his poireffion was, prima facie, evidence of his hav ing ftolen them, but it was not evidence of any thing elk. As to confeffions deduced from cnnverfations overheard, he gave very little credit to them, efpeci ally when coming from Police Officers. Adding or fuppreffing a fingle word, might alter the whole fenfe ; and when they only heard part of a conver ration, they might not have beard what was molt material. What Feltham Paid to the attorney could be no evidence againft him. If the pro(ecutors had indiCted Shipman for ftealing the goods, their being found in his poffeffion would have made it necelfary for him to prove bow he came by them.—Not The ♦iolent norm of wind and rain, which hap pened about three o'clock yenerday morning, has been produeive of much injury on the Thames. A large lighter and a barge lying off Milibank broke from their moorings, and drifting towards the Ferry, Rove feveral wherries. A (mall pleafure boat alio got adrift and went on chore below Batterfea, where Ihe now lies full of water. Several accidents occurred to the Rage coaches coming to town, the pelting norm being fa boiflerous, that the coachmen could not drive their horfes. A pauper, who had taken filcher in a dilapidated fhed near the cow-yard, at Iflington, being compelled to run out, the roof fal. ling in, fell into a pit made for brewers' grains, where he remained, dreadfully hi uifed, till the watch, being alarmed, went to his affiflance. He now lies dangeroufly ill. - - - - Holten) Muarisa.—A molt defperate and daring robber her . , for forge time paR, infeft.ed the country round Havant, Cbichel• ter, and Arundel • be Is fuppefed *.o have collected co n fid era bl e property. as be has broken open a number of boufes, as well as robbed all defcriptions of paffengers, at all hours of the day, as well as night ; his condia was fo alarming, that the Inhabitants of the above towns and neighbourhood were in the greaten dread. On Friday, about two o'clock, the villain Bopped a Gentleman en borkbark. near Arundel, who having a good horfc, put fpurs to him androde off with all poffible (peed ; the robber dlfcbarged a piitol, which, however, providentially miffed him. On Sunday morning, about eleven o'clock. he Rapped and robbed Mr Rhodes of Chicheiter, between Arundel and Midhurft. In eonfequence of this daring robbery being made known, a number of gcntkmen, and others,of that part of the country, went in different diredions, armed, in purfult of the robber ;--among them were Mr Poynts, of Cowdray Park, near Mirlhurft, and Mr. George Sarjeant, fon of Mr. Sarjeant, of Lavington. There gentlemen bad not proceeded far from Lavington when they eb ferved a man, anfwering the defcriptlon of the robber, and they fuppofed he was making towar'i h•:gn, to rob them ; they, ac cordingly, put themfelves into a Itate of defence, by (hewing their piftols ; the man went it.tr• a wood clofc by, and the gentlemen putfued him. Mr. Sarjeant called on him to furrender ; but to refuftd, and made ore of the moil horrid oaths and threats. M' Sarjeant ordered him to furrender again, or he would !hoot I An , He flill refufed, and Mr. Sarjeant prefmted a pittol at Mfrs, but at the fame time defired tht man to furrender. as he cos- jd no; tear the thought of taking the life of a fellow creature ; at thi in . Rant the man difeharged a piital at him, and killed hire, on the fpot. The villain immediately threw off his floes, hat and great coat, leather cafe, ufed by dragoons to guard the Iw •• 4 1 ,i ft ba c carbines, and made his elcape from !sir. Poyritz It . of 4, was OPP e he concealed himfelf in the wood. The villain is fuppofed to be a native of Oraf de fated from the navy and fcvcral regimens. . haul , spa bas