Star. — London, England, 1818-12-04 00:00:00

• was given to the King's Counsel, ' and a fterwards fixed up in Court. COURT OF XING'S BENCH. DEC. t. V. 'RUC 6. This was an action upon the case to ivavearfianra ges against the defendant, for falsely, and without any probable cause, chargingthe plaintiff upon infor mation before Mr. !firm., a Bow-street Magistrate, with threatening " to do him (the plaintiff) some bodily harm ;" uponwhich thesaid Magistrate granted *warrant against the plaintiff, and thereupon the latter was brought before Mr. Hicks, another Magis trate, who dismissed the complaint. Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. The defendant had lodged in the plaintiff's house, and the latter having discovered something improper in the defendant's conduct, he was induced to get rid of him, as a lodger, and part with his wife. This oc curred in the month of April, and in the month of June following, the defendant having been told by somebodythat the plaintiff had threatened to do him some bodily harm, he applied at the Bow-street office, and upon his representation Mr. Bixnie, the Magis trate, granted a warrant, by virtue of which, the plaintiff was afterwards brought before Mr. Hicks, the then Sitting Magistrate, who dismissed the com plaint. For the ignominious and disgraceful incon venience to which the plaintiff had been put, the pre aeht actbn was brought. Ruthven, a police officer, produced the minute book, purporting to contain the charge preferred by the defendant. From this book it appeared that the defendant had stated " that he had heard (which he believed to be true) that the plaintiff bad threatened to do him some bodily harm, and holed just reason to fear that he would do so, plaintiff having threat ened to do for him, (informant)." Mr. Justice BATLEY interposed, and said that there was a fatal variance between what was stated in this book, and what was set out in the declaration. Mr. Gamier cited the case of Davies v. Knott, 1 Scarkie, 377. where it was holden to be sufficient to set out the substance oldie charge, without the very womb. Mr. Justice BAYLFT, however, distinguished this fvom the case cited, because here there w.is a substan tial variance. His Lordship thought it was a very ill r advised action, inasmuch• as the plaintiff could not have sustained much personal inconvenience, still less any injury to his character.—eNonsttited. TOR KING V. ROBERTS. This was an indictment against the defendant, for an assault upon a person named Harrison, on the 2citaa of May last.' From the evidence of the prosecutor, it appeared that he had been a bankrupt about two years since, the defendant being one of his creditors. On the day mentioned in the indictment, the latter overtook , him in the Strand, and violently pushed him on the shoulder. . He turned about to ask the reason of such treatment? but the defendant abused him in an offen sive manner; called him a rascal and swindler; seized him by the throat ; struck him on the breast ; and colteeted a numerous crowd about him ; and all this without any provocation on the part of the prosecutor. This statement was corroborated by the testimony of a witness named John PArker._ _ l'hare being n 0 defence offered, the Jury found the defendant Guilty. CAANNAN V. GOLDNIT AND This was an action to recover the swn of £4OO for work and labour done and performed by the plain tiff, as as accountant, at the instance of the defen dants, who were Members of a Committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the British Dock Com pany, the plaintiff cleat:hag to be paid, as per agree ment., at the rate of £lO per month, for 80 months. The defendants pleaded in abatement, that another person, who had been nominated a Member of the above-mentioned Committee, should have been joined in the action; and, secondly, that the plaintiff had subsequently agreed to take a reduced scale of de mand in satisfaction of his set vices. The first of these grounds of defence was answered by shriving that, , the Member of the Committee so nominated had de-, elined to act ; and the second, by :hewing, that thel subsequent agreement was made by the plaintiff upon' the condition of prompt payment, which had not been performed. Verdict for the plaintiff—Dainages four hundred pounds. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 3. BAYN6Ii o. GI AND COX. This action was brought by the Ercuter of Lieu. tenant-Colonel Baynes, of the Artillery, against the defendants, who had been the Agents through whom . he had received his pay, for the sum of 1.:134 14s. 4d. In 1806 the pay of subalterns and Officers in the Ar tillery had been increased in the same proportion as it had previously been increased in the Line; but all . Adjutants and Paymasters who held two Commis sions were not to receive any increase of pay. This order was dated the 27th of August, 1806. Oa the 19th of September following Lieutenant-Colonel Baynes was appointed Assistant Deputy-Adjutant.. General. He regularly continued. notwithstarding4 to receive the increased pay of a Lieutenant-Colonel from the defendants, his pay as Assistant Deputy.. Adjutant-General being received through another Agent. The defendants were in the practice of re ceiving £1.5,000 a month from the Board of Ordnance; and they gave account of the several payments. In 1816 there was a communication from the Board of Ordnance to the defendants, intimating that they were resolved to enforce the order respecting Officers holding two Commissions, as it was rigidly enforced in the Line. Of this increase of pay the SUM now claimed was due to Lieutenant-Colonel Baynes, at the time of his death. The defence urged was, be sides several legal ebjeedons, that they ad a right tt withhold what the Board of Ordnance could re cover from them. By the direction of the COURT, the Jury found a - verdict for the ptaintif to the amount claimed ; it being reserved for Mr. fierjeftnt Ormow to move the Court to have a nonsuit entered, on several points of ANSLEY AND C 0... DALRYMPLE AND OTHERS. This was an action b.ought for the recovery of £55, for koods sold and delivered, and it excited considerable interest from the contradictory state ments of the evidence, as well as front the high rank cf one of the parties. The plaintiffs are linen-dra pers, in Bond-street, and the defendant is the sister of Sir William Manners. It will be recollected that some rears since this Lady was mmried, according to tha laws of Eagland, to' a Colonel Dalrymple, who, by a subsequent decision, was declared to have been previously married, in Scotland, to a Miss Gor don ; this decision, being founded upon the *WS of that country, according to which, if a mass pastas a pro. mise of marriage, in or to prevail upon a female to consent to that whislf~ morally deemed a con summation, she is, from soils promise, to be regardedl as his legal wife. Through that law the marriage of the present defendant with Colonel Dalrymple was pronounced by Sir Wm. Scott to be null and void. The grounds of defence set up were, the Statute of Limitations, and secondly, the plea of coverturt. It appeared from the planers evidence, that within the years 1809, 1810, and 1811, during which the defendant had cohabited with Col. Dalrymple, she had ordered the goods for which the present ac tion was brought—that she had frequently called at and sent to the shop of the plaintiffs, and acknow ledged herself in their debt in the year 1813—that the credit was given to her alone. In order to sub stantiate this allegation, the books of the plaintiffs were produced, in which Mrs.Dalrymple was charged with the articles specified in the bill, which formed the present demand, and from which it also appeared that some of those articles were sent to the defendant, after her marriage with Colonel Dalrymple had been declared null and void. The Counsel for the defendant maintained that the plaintiffs gave credit not to this Lady but to the per son who lived with her while he appeared in that character in which he was generally received, mutely, as her husband : and further, that if any df the gnods alluded to had been delivered subsequent to the sen tence as to the nullity of the marriage, such delivery was only in consequence of the continuation of the orders given by Colonel Dalrymple. On the part of the defendant a deed was adduced, by which Colonel Dalrymple, after his marriage with her was declared null and void, had conveyed to her the lease of the house, which during cohabitation they had occupied, in Portman-square, together with the furniture which it contained, in consideration of a sum of money paid him by the late Duke of St. Alban's, who was the brother-in-law of the defen dant It was sworn, that the articles mentioned in the plaintiffs demand, and which were included in the schedule of the furniture conveyed by this deed, were not by any means under-rated. The nest evidence was that of a female, who stated that she entered into the service of Colonel Dalrym-, ple and the defendant, in the year 1809, when her master and mistress lived together as man and wife, which they were so called and considered by every body, according to the knowledge of witness. She cdr, that when the servants of the plaintiffs e s d, ed as they frequently did, for the payment of their bills, they always demanded payment from Col. Dalrymple, whom alone they appeared to regard as responsible them. On the cross-examination how ever of this witness, she acknowledged that she had heard her mistress say that she would pay the plain tiffs what sbe owed them. The Counsel for the plaintiffs, in his reply, ob. served, that the first ground of defence to this action, namely, that of the Statute of Limitation, was set aside by the evidence of the defendant's acknowledg ment of the debt in ISIS. He !repelled the insinua tion that an S had been inserted in his clients books, since the debt was contracted, with a view to impose upon the Court; appealing to the consideration of the Jury, whether it was possible that such respect• able tradesmen would so far commit their character for the comparatively trifling sum of £5.5. It was admitted on all hands, that the goods bad been actu ally, delivered for the payment of which this action was brought, while it was not even pretended that his clients were ever paid for them. It was proved that his clients gave the credit to the defendant alone, who could not plead coverture, because it appeared she was not legally married, and on tilos? grounds he confidently anticipated a verdict for the plaintiffs. The Jury, after a charge from the Learned Judge, found a verdict for the plaintiffs to the full amount of their demand, with cost-. OLD DAAEY SESSIONS. The Sessions commenced yesterday, according to adjournment, before Mr. Baron WOOD and Mr. Jus tice Hot ROYD. John Corderoy and George Wood were indicted for burglaxiously breaking and entering the house of T. Morley, and stealing therein property to the amount of thirty-five„pounds. • I Thomas Morley livei in Harley-square, Hortok He was a dealer in paintings. On the 28th of Octo ber last his house was broken into. About eight o'clock in the morning he discovered that his house had been broken open. The window-shutter, he eh., served, had been cut, and the sash opened. He rnis. sed a parcel of music books, a mirror, nine paintings„ a pair of lustres, a fender, a set of cruets, a quanoty. of plate, a time-piece, and wearing apparel, all amounting to the sum of £95. About three o'clock on the night of the 27th the dogs in the house made a grnt barking, but witness did not get up, as the dogs frequently barked withosat mom A pawnbroker, living in Tabernacle-walk, City road, proved, that on the evening of the 29th he ob tained information of the robbery. On the same evening Corderoy brought a picture to pledge, saying he wanted four or five shillings for it. Witness stooped down to'pick up the printed bill, giving in. formation of the robbery, which had fallen on the ground, and as soon as the prisoner saw it he ran away. Corderoy was pursued, and in about a quay. I ter of an hour he was brought back to the shop. H. was searched, and in the lining of his pantaloons two duplicates were found, which corresponded whit other parts of the property described in the bin.— There were several other duplicates of old dates found upon him. Another pawbroker proved, that loon after the robbery the other prisoner, Wood, pledged some tures and other articles which were stolen from the prosecutor's house. An officer belonging to one of the Police Offices, proved the apprehend►ng of Wood. In the lodgings of the prisoners were found several articles which had been stolen from the prosecutor's house. Oned the shutters of the prosecutor's house was bored with a gimblet, and a piece had been taken out. The Jury, after a short consideration, found both prisoners Guilty. Robert Pauper was indicted for burglariously. breaking and entering the dwelling house of Robert Newham, and stealing therein six silver forks, value free pounds. It appeared upon the examination of the prosecu cntor, that he was a silversmith, residing in Sloane street, Chelsea. While he was sitting writing in his shop, one evening in the middle of October, he heard the crash of a pane of glass ; he at first thought it had been done wantonly by some boys ; —but, on running to-the door, he heard the cry of—" Slop thief !" The prisoner was brought up to,the door, by a person of the name of Yapp. George Yapp, a shoemaker, stated, that on the evening in question he was near Mr. Newnhanis shop, and heard the crash of glass ; he then saw the prisoner run across the road ; it was quite dark at the time ; he pursued the prisoner and caught him. Immediately upon laying hold of him he fell down, god witness fell on the top of him ; he then took the irks from his hand, and brought the prisoner back lip the prosecutor. It was proved that the forks were hanging up at the window of the prosecutor before they were taken, and a hand must have been put in to take them. It was observed by the Court to the Jury, that if the Gentlemen thought that the forks had fallen into the street by breaking the glass, and then picked up by the prisoner, then the capital charge of burglary would be done away with.—The Jury returned a verdict—Guilty. John Pecrrkes was indicted for burglariously break ing and entering the dwelling house of D. Page, and stealing two silver spoons. The facts were clearly proved against the prisoner, but the Jury hesitated for a considerable time before they pronounced the verdict. Mr. Baron Woou asked, whether he could clear up any doubt which might exist in their minds ? One of th.e Jurymen observed, that there was no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, but the Jury considered the conduct of the prosecutor reprehen sible in leaving the spoons in the kitchen window as a temptation. Mr. Baron WOOD.—That can have nothing to do with the verdict : 1 do not see any impropriety in the conduct of the prosecutor. A man has a right to leave spoons in his own kitchen. The Jury found a verdict—Guilty. George Mason was indicted for stealing a horse, value 11/. and a bridle and etddle, value 21. the pro pert° of James Starkie. . The prosecutor, who is a chymist i living in the Strand, had in October last a horse, which he wished to dispose of. He sent it -to two places to be sold, bat not bringing the expected price, it was bought in for himself. :Some sheet-throe after A man named Smith came to himorniksaidhellad a purchaser for the horse. Prosecutor said he was willing to dispose of it if he got a fair price. Smith came a second time, in. company with the prisoner, and said he (the prisoner) was the man who wished to buy the horse. Prisoner offered 10/. for it, but prosecutor said he would not take less than 111. This price prisener consented to give, provided he was allowed a trial for three days, as htewished to 'hew it to his father, who lived in the country. He then tendered him a bill of exchange for 2CI. which prosecutor not being satisfied with, objected to. Prisoner immediately re ferred him to Mr. Sell, who lives! near ; at the same time he asked for the loan.of the bridle and saddle. Prosecutor ordered his servant to put them• on the horse, and told the prisoner to go round to the stable. Then, without mentioning where he was going, he went to Mr. Kell, who advised him not to accept the bill. He came back, intending to return it, bat found tat the prisoner had taken the horse 'from the servant,. and rode off, The bill was drawn at two months,' from the 21st of September, and was •accepted by -.person named Purcell, but was not endorsed.—ln his cross.examination prosecutor ad. milted that the bill had never been presented for ac ceptance. It became 'due on the 24th of November. Payment was tendered before that time, but this was after the prisoner was in custody. The bridle and saddle were also returned after the prisoner was in , custody.—The servant of the prosecutor stated that he delivered the horse to the prisoner, who told him that he had agreed with his master. John liardwicke, a butcher, proved that he bought the horse from ;he prisoner, a day or two after Mr. Starkie had parted with it. The price he gave was 61. Witness had known the prisoner for three years. The prosecution has ing closed, Mr. RZYNOLDS, for the prisoner, submitted to the. Court, that the evidence did not amount to the proof of a felony, though it might perhaps he construed into a fraud. There was he maintained, a conditional sale—that was, a sale which was to be considered b:nding on both parties, provided the prisoner ap proved of the horse at the end of three days. -The servant had been told to saddle the horse, and the prisoner was directed to go round to the stable; but' the prosecutor never said a word to him, which could imply an objection to his taking it away. He did not say " Stop here until I consult Mr. Kell, to whom you referred me." No, on the contrary, after telling the servant to saddle the horse, and directing the prisoner round to the static, he went off, without intimating where he was going to, in any manner which could lead him (prisoner) to believe that he had an objection to taking the horse off. Mr. Mtate, for tke prosecution, contended, that no contract had been made. The prosecutor had given no order to his servant to deliver the horse, and the servant could not partwith it without permission. Mr, it LYNOLDS did pot conceive that there was evi dence of a felony to go to the Jury, if they believed what was sworn. The prisoner in his defence, denied any fraudulent intention, and asserted, that he had the leave of the prosecutor to take the horse away. He called several witnesses, who had kaown him for a long time, and who gave him an excellent character. Mr. Justice HOLROYD, in summing up the evi dence, dwelt upon the circumstance of the prisoner having sold the horse for little more than half what he had agreed to give for it, and that too within the time allowed him for its trial, when he might have returned it if he pleased, and got back his 291. The Jury, after consulting together for about three minutes, returned a verdict of—Not Guilty. Last night twenty-five male convicts, who were convicted at the last Old Bailey Sessions, were re moved from Newgate to the Husks at Sheerness, pre paratory to their being,sent to Dotany Bajr, . MA WOW Hovsr..--2 Guard of one of the upon an information f his possession certain to be imported into thi to the information, and into possessi3n undc A fellow -servant of hi wich and Colchester, to take charge of a parci don, and on his arrival On reaching the Spreai street, he gave it to - carry it, as directed, Dog-row, Bethnal-green. orders, but as Mr. Lee, fused to keep it, !woo whom he received it ; it to his own house, went to bed. He had was knocked up by two and Joseph Smithers, his premises, for the pi Bandana handkerchief custody. lam.tii got asked him if he had description which the , the affirmative, and g: his presence, and fool value of £9. Inman pr ell the content.; of the oSserving that this W: case, the Custom How ed that his Lordship them ; they had only upon th:.. information 1 full penalty was three perty seized, and amot his Lordship to rnitir his Lordship immediat Inman as immediately CUILIMAI.II.—A seal land, charged Calherir of £5O. The Magistral the charge of felony b• but he might relate hi said, that he had just , been paid a considerab) With this he meant to also meant that his • ' They slept together with his money, he stogy On Thursday morning knowing his wife alone ed her to give it up. vying all knowledge of give her in custody. " " norance of the money. had been searched ? gative, 5.n Officer was lock-up room, and do i soner was again led foi ing in his hand 1542, wl Sailor' jumped forward, said, that, notwithstat his wife, and take her gistrate said, she wa , . and recommended him his money. Jack bowed, and departed. John Willia.ns was fr defrauding a number posing on them a qui scribed as 4 4 genuine spi nothing but dirty water. long a sort of wholesale taken, three unstamped were found upon him, signature of J. Hall, one was genuine. An Mr( discover, if possible, how ‘Vottsuip-sTmawr.—, were brought to dill 01 Forged Dank of Englat, the Bank atterded, and dared to be a forgery: committed to N-mgate EXECUTMN OF Mtn tnnate and guihy worn: crimes on the scaffold. gate, Dablin, on Saturt for the iniquities of her 'ons : she met her fate ivt, •of people who witnessed Sheriff Woof) appeared Immediately on her cot with her hand'to the m address them; she then her de;ire, he requested hats, and join in prayer Sheriff then stated, that the Corporal now in ei murder of Margaret Fli she was turned off, and order to give a greater the execution of this vrreti exposed during the more out in a state of preparai Nov. 26, at Blackheath, the lion. Company's ►hip Warren Sunday se'nnight, at Catdown Eisdy of A. B. Branch, Esq. daughter. Wm. Weatherby, Esq of r-ehrer of the Rev. J. Wednesday, at his house in formerly of Lisbon. Noy. 2.5, Ceor„ iana Susan, Hirt. Netherby. - , f I . . ' I I - c .• L 1 to, PRICE OF STI Bk. Stock Reduced 781 771 78 Cons. 79 761.1 S per Ct.BB 87f 4 per Ct. 96951 96• Navy 1081 it HIC:11 WAWA, at LOX . Wining Aftetnrha • - --__ LONDONi Priried d pettgish,xl by Lott, Kb rhkoi flue, Tenl)ll.ll.u. minutes after p i h e— pa Pfi t o c r i r cc, ni:Cs---;:emdcc'eseraitradloicter2rfdub.orCankcesri4idytE.,earaanterngyiae,Ydst.li'estri'7:llH.,.ainio:l4.edrandchlesfe:. ded f l nc.l hje z i : . * .a l .., :: ,. ' , .. , .. wil : ' lj rid said that the goods haj* k o c . der the following c irca. . tis, the coachman het wet ,. a . 'al there to see it safilv del'. . a ticket-porter, with ord, 3 „ 4e 7n. arte i r 'be p ,n; o n et ,t er thef , p sti ... : . . si . 0 40 / 0 aught it . ..46C. to 111113. W.. ;. will I" ; Inman in ror.selnenceun Clause e, and immediately af• d not been there ki.7. t t .fo rt OD wo Custom House f.:;: ls , And also , who claimed P..: . i :. , TEA .: .I) y:i n i a ti s u lo fve p' t r u t ee spol' wh ic h g o ti l i t c t s rfie e l ide ld t te d ch'el his armit,st' their'plihe a r .s ' c a e ioi n c i. h ey p a c ket Ic e t i , s d 0ep ." 1 .. i ieh in" : tcit. e . 7e n e .4 it7,. .... '2 1 1 .:, :. :r . e :ra :. : l,h z . - . 1 IF E . ....__ . . ruilit o c . g e r T . Cris r7 : o : d3 : l l ley read to him. lie me,l4 Noy i and therein banda n a silk tc 1. .csoso parcel.--On the L. 1 5 MAlch i E was a very (lark ...7..t , larr.tf I did not imp : , e sac Kruse . i .,% `" lot ga te s te v u h ty i e di c dt h i dtr t oo h , To e ee times tlie value of ti e ~ e a hy n al d ih7l: s t s d-hh i! kir 7ch tt stulll a m: ll :P icsd .l.'2. -71 " t 1, i:Gfi: ly paid. seaman, of the ,ante of '. , lft ' i ' ii. , rine, his wife, wi:h r o bbi ng '• 6'T rate WC., that he could net!: -- Jon I b is y s a to m ry a . n . a ri r l a e i;. ,.. t u h r i. f ...z ir a is - t. :2c.:41.: : returned from asroad ...id • wig el rable sum at Srtr. - 1. to an home to In :.. ~. ~ wife should so i 1- .. .. • Tbr C; ,but not wishing to Jun . , Li i , towed it at night under his ig he found it was gone, HE to could be the thief, he er.u.: She, however, i misted is pa w of it, and he was comix re. , The prisoner repeated 1.,r i ' Roy ~ The Magi.trate asked if and being answered in tie i t .„ D u i , as ordered to take her into 7. Dal i is. In a few moments the ';:e gal orth, in tears, dz. - , Officer hi, which he found upon her. ' m, B e: rd, recognired the not. , , a tesvidi anding, he would take t.ne in. Cr rto see her friends. The N ior-' lll l. . is unworthy of such kinds: t 7 ,7 rn to be ,:ceded in the ca:e. T. : t 'ed, took his Kitty by the ILL CUIC4 fully committed, charged v.. TRE of carriers and others., by i Mt antity of liquid, which he FR' perm oil," but whidi pre: E.: oar Cr. He appeared to have is ...i,sc de dealer in the ani , le. V.h. uke.s, hi Brighton Union 13-ink N Ira st` and le b earing also thiene i .for. ol i ner 7 rte of t vestigation is going f orss:.: , l ir my w he became possessed cfti baba -Trim Clarker and Was. D'. st r Office, charged with uuci • f y , and Notes. The Inspector vista nd fully proved the note p y. The prisoners were fti' r. ! tbr trial. sum Goer RY Ait T H CRTON.—This urf , T 1 ran has at length expiated I. She was cleaned at ." YEN rday. She eviried contriti yew a past life, which were num. L. 6 kith firmness. The concon b tha sed her death was imma d m , d with hat on the platfo kr, 1 oming out, she made a ,-.; wen multitude, as if she meal:: ire tn spoke to the Sheriff, alit . ~„ stl the people to take off I l i r.her - for the unhappy culprit. T. Lv_ e . it she wished him to sal , C.. . ;„--,; custody was a party to 1 . 1 Inn hirmd. After a few memo. net I died without a struggle. Pn er appearance of sonnuratF retched woman, her coffins . si i .rning, and the rope was hu. td ..... ation for the a - vfal ceremor. LilliTIIS. the Lady of C:tvtin T..:.•::: , .rr, of nal ten Hastings, of a daughter. 4 0 Woven Hoare, near Pirr....:01, . 1 1 ,:n ce I. Captain In the R,....t N a :, o f tee tke ARRIED. Pr' ka I Newmarket, to Mzry Arne. rel., na, M.A. rector of Suave!? La Ini D I E D. we: in 31ontart-square, Thos. Italie' , trig I n, fourth 'laughter of Sir J. G e ope. kl roc KS YESTERDAY. 4 I Long .inns. 214 3-16 f:1 India Roads t; 83 pr. is: r : Exch. Bills 18 20 Oran. 1 i pr. di n Gins. for Ac. 79,4 ani Lottery Ticketsl:l9 15s. Ott I - pi DON RILIDGR TO.3IOHROft • c - 0 minutes after s bf