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

INI'F.Lt.IGEtiCE. AIr.S.COURT, DECEMEHR. it. Two:Ctlawcit.i.oit was occupied motions from the LORD CHAN well as some from his own ; but d any particular importance, Ox nmediat:lly concerned. (SHOP Or' BATH' AND ►ELLS AND OTHERS.. moved, that the • injunction in dissolved. A Mr. Highmore pre to the Rectory of Wausted, but prevedt the Bishop of Bath and at presentation, it being in the within his diocese. It now ap ighmore had waived his right of fr. Mitchell his claims to the Rec- Ise present application was made. MS BUNCH, DECEMBER KING V. ALLCORN. as indicted for perjury, commit the King against Guy the elder, Nthop, and Bridger. :ed, that these persons had been af Exchequer. for an alleged act to coast of Sussex. In such case*, the precise act or time of smng ified in the indictment, but it is illy; that the defendant has been smuggling within three years. A t y innocent, therefore, must come to meet the evidence that may be tim, and . if the fact is positively t must go against' him ; leaning edy than to prosecute the witness id.not state this with any view of the law, but merely for the par, at was the fact. If a man were be no inconvenience ; for he would ectly well ; but if he were inno ible for him to divine what sort of out to be necessary ; and it could useless expense to bring witnesses might prove to be perfectly ima mdeavoured to establish an al6l as red in the information, the prose usually did; immediately have re• It was true there was the same' tments for other offences ; but the re occasioned was not so great. inns that persons were hired every in cases of bankruptcy for a single kct a shilling, to swear to debts of or commissions, it might well be gratuity and good living neces iesses in prosecutions by the Crown, heir statements. On the trial of tt inldrivorn that he was assisting landing of some smuggled goods, aid Newhaven, at eleven o'clock at Wad and Newhaven there were slates, both strictly watched by the' Tiers: hnd Scarcely accessible for uld be p roved that Guy, the elder , all ni ghty 11 Miles off. Guy, thi; Mies offend it would be'provcd n •his uset'all night, and not at the I.didintiilace inqueston. BP; es Offi'dfiXit,woulil be proved tins! datance,':payisig Ili Addresses to whom,lof was, about to be married: be proVed, that the defendant, who F, was also at home ; so that here identity, hitt a most intentional and which had nearly ruined the un in the fbnner cause. witnesses were then produced, to the prosecutors.were not near the )ut were at home in their own houses, ant represented them to have been nsaction mentioned; and, secondly, lefendant himself was at the distance from the place in question, at the en he pretended to have seen the in the smugglers. t•GIMERAL addressed the Jury on Fondant. apologising for his soap ng that the Crown had felt it to be rd the defendant such means of de would afford him, which he could cure as a man in an humble station mood Attorney made such observe d most favourable to the defendant, it was possible for the witnesses for to bennstaken in the evidence they admitted, however, that hi was not o contradict them, and therefore he urrender his client into the hands of , ould pronounce such a verdict as the, n would witty:int. thout hesitation, pronounced the de- V. lIILLIAId IBRIVOILS. ther indictment for the like offend 7endant e who was another witnescOsi Crowe, in the Court of ExchectuerV I pritsec-ators:as in the last.case, with se same transaction. He positivelt occasion, that the two Goys and sent and assisting on Sunday evening, other, 1817, at Mill Tide Bridge, the. they were in their own houses at the iltt defendan; himself could not have, the transaction (if it really took place),' from the scene of action many miles, his WWII bed with sickness, at the very hush he described the affair to have ier of witnesses were'examined to sup unents of perjury, and thty proved 'co that this witness for the Crown had angle word of truth, but had acted; foul and wicked motives. who addressed the Jury for the defen isence of the Attorney-General, whose ns called hiin elsewhere, followed the ursued by his learned colleaue, and elendant to the verdict of the Jury, ac :hat his ciier.t was without defence tmediatcly found the defendant Guilty. hat both these miscreants are now in urges of felony, committed since the , ;ethics, imputed to thgm by their in', I tNeeefore they were eentitr.ded to their former custody, instead of being committed to the custody of the Marshal, as at first prayed by - the Counsel for the prosecution. Tug KIWI V. WILLIAM 801:7TIES. This was also an indictment against another per son of the same class and character, for foul and wicked perjury, in falsely swearing in the Court of Exchequer, on the 14th of May last, upon an infor mation filed by the Attorney-General against George Henty, Esq. for concealing certain smuggled spirits at a place called Ferrinrianesend, in the parish of Hingston, in the county of Sussex ; that the said [ George Henty, Esq. was personally concerned in Joe king up the said spirits in one of his barns. Mr. DaNalAtl, with whom was Mr. ADOLPMUS, for the prosecution, stated the case in a powerful and eloquent address to the Jury. It appeared that Mr. Henty is a gentleman of cha racter and fortune, residing at Ferrinrlane-end, in the county of Sussex, and is partner in a banking house at Arundel, and had been subjected to.the pro ceedings in question in the Court of Exchequer, through the malice and w:ckedness of the defendant, and another man named Slater, who was the sub ject of the indictment which follows s—ln the Court of Exchequer these persons positively swore, that on the morning of 4th April, Good Friday, between ire and six o'clock, they saw Mr Henty lock up in one of his barns a great number of half ankers of foreign Ispirits, which had been landed the night before on the beech, by a party of smugglers. The perjury was assigned upon this statement, which the indict ment charged to be founded in wilful and corropt falsehood. - Mr. G. V. DowttNo, who took down the defer= dent's evidence in short-hand in the Court of Ere. • chequer, read his•notes. 7 The evidence of no less than 'hineteen persons was then given to support the assignments of perjury, from which it appeared that on the morning of the 4th of April, 1817, Mr. Henty rose at five ()clock, for the purpose of going to one of his farms, • • four miles distance from his honM, at Ferring-lane= end, to give WOW instructions togs farming people, as he was going into Nortitamptonstite upon some business, which would require his absence from honk several days ; that he accordingly set off with his son, in a glg, about half-past five, direct' from his house— dispatched his business at Offu l lh a a ol ti l i, the farm in question--took his place in a coach—came to town, and went mm Northamptonsliins, whence k. did not return for a week : that, in point of fict, not smuggling transaction whatever took place at Fess ring-lane-end on the morning of the .4th of Apnl but that in the evening of that day some smuggling' transactions did take place sex miles distance front 'his house, on the coast of Sussex, at which, however, he was not present; and could not be, as he was at that time in London. That informations had been Sled against a number of persona spppOsed to be con: , cerned in.tbis last menacing& affair, . many of whom had compromised for mitigated penalties; although; in fact, they were innocent of any share in the trans. action. In short, the whole of the evidence went to 'establish the perfect innocence of Mr. Ilenty, and to Show that the proceedings instituted against him in the Exchequer were founded in the foulest perjury. ' . Mr. RAINS did not even attempt to address the Jury on the part of the defendant, confessing that the evidence en the part of the prosecution was irresistible. itbe Jury instantly found, the defendant Guilty,•,, , Tag KING 1:1110R01 SLATER. 'This was an indictment against another of the per lured witnesses examined in support of the inform*. tibn against Mr. Henty. The same evidence was examined as in the• last case, to which-was super added the fact, that the defendant had given theta's& [information against Mr. Henty front motives of but *td malignant revenge. H Mr. RAIN/ also resigned' this defendant to the bands of the Jury, who immediately found the de, Pendant Guilty. Both defendants were ordered to be committed to the custody of the Marshal. The Court sat till a very late hourin the evening. COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER M. Before Chief Justice Dast.ss. &RAY v. MAINZ. _ _ _ The Plaintiff, a hmse-dealer, brought this action against the Defendant. a Student of Law in the Temple, to recover the sum of £55 as the price of a horse sold to the defendant, and 00 as the expenses' of farriery and feeding of the horse for several months after it had been returned by the defendant. There .were five other counts in the declaration, one for the recovery of a spm of £lO as a compensation for the use of the horse on returning him in good order and condition, or otherwise would keep the said horse, paying the sum of £53 for same ; 2d, for not work ing the said gelding in a careful, reasonable, and proper manner ; Sd, for horses sold and delivered 4th, for horses bargained and sold ; and sth, for the keep and stabling of said horses. The circumstances of the case were these :—The defendant had been recommended by a Gentleman of the name of Hol .• royd,. to Hodgkinson, a stable• keeper in the neigh: bourhood of Bloomsbury-square, as a person likely to kirnish him with a good horse, and on application to Hodgkinson, he replied, that a friend of his, the plaintiff in this action, had such a one as he thought would suit,' and he would have it brought to his , stables for defendant's approbation, who , accomcia. by Hodgkinson, drove it in a gig as far as Wel Veterinary College, to be examined by the Professor there, who pronounced it to be a sound horse. On returning from the College, Mr. Mayne called on his friend, Mr.Valpy, to obtain his opinion of the horse ; and Hodgkinson being asked whether the horse would bear to be driven to Worthing (a distance of about 53 miles)? answered, 1, Yes. that he would do St in a single day easily ;" and in every other respect strongly recommended the horse to defendant, inso much that Mr. Valpy wok him to be the proprietor of the horse ; this, however, Hodgkinson denied.— Plaintiff afterwards called on defendant, when the latter refused to purchase the horse unless a fair trial was allowed, which plaintiff at first refused, but .afterwards stated, "that if defendant disi not like the horse, be would take him again , and deal with bile upon liberal terms." Defendant at the time expressly stated that he wished to drive the horse toWorthing ! ' and plaintiff said that he would perform the journey very well in one day. The day after this conversa tion, defendant, accompanied - by his groom, went to plaintig's stables for the horse. Mr. Brown, the foremaa, at.first effused. to let the horse go without' portent, which Meade= refused until he had tried film the journey to Worthing. .It was then demand- I ed by the foreman, thatdefendant should pay £IQ if 'he returned the horse on the Tuesday following on. the score of not liking him. This the defendant ob. ! jetted to as too much, and the foreman replied— ' " Then I shall keye that for ory master and you to settle between you." Upon this defendant. took the hot se, and early next morning put him into.his gig, accompanied by Mr. Valpy, and his groom on an- , other horse, and drove down to Epsom to breakfast, the horse was well taken care of in the stable of a friend, and in the evening driven on to Dorking, a distance of seven miles farther. The next morning by day-break, defendant drove towards Worthing, dividing the distance into three stages, breakfasting himself and feeding die horse on the road. Defen dant remained two days at Worthing, during which the horse was in stables and well taken care of.. He then drove homeward as far as Horsham, a distance of 20 miles, where he stopped for the night. The next morning he drove to Ewell, 20 miles farther, to breakfast, giving the horse hay and water on the road ; the horse had not shewn himself at all distresssed at that time; but at Ewell the horse was found to • off his feed, and a swelling was discovered in his throat. Defendant then consulted with Mr. Valpy, his groom, and the ostler of the Inn (who had been twelve years a farrier and veterinary surgeon in the Artily, and constantly accustomed to horses), as to dye propriety of driving him farther that day, who gave at astheir opinion that the horse would perform dile rose of the journey quite well. At first he ran as usual, but soon became so overpowered that he was More than two-hours doing the last seven miles..- 1 Defendant, - finding the horse not to answer the de sctiption he had received of him as a workinf horse, returned him to plaintiff, offering to submit it to in- So , different •ns to say what compensation ought to be made plaintiff. The latter, however, brought thins . to recover the value of the ani mal and his keep.—The defence set up was, that a deceit had been practised by plaintiff, the horse not being fit to' undertake a journey at the time he was stated so by plaintiff, and therefore defendant was riot liable. The defendant's groom was first called for the defence, but having serionsty injured his ancle by. , the upsetting of a carriage a few days since, was pre vented, by excessive pain occasioned by walking into Court, from giving his evidence with any degree of precision ; he, however, proved the nature of the contract bet ween plaintiff and defendant, and con tosdicted the plaintiff's witness,. Brown. . :Dir. Valpy, who accompanied defendant in his I"stated, that the day they left town the horse was to travel hifownpace, about eight miles per hour, to Epsom, but that during the rest. of the jour ney he had not been driven more than. six or seven milei per hour;' that he was regularly taken care of diiring the whole of the journey. At Ewell he was fdand to be ill, but the ostler and defendant's groom said he might be driven on to town without injury. On leaving Ewell, the horse did six miles easily in the first hour, and then knocked up ; he seemed so much distressed that it took them two hours to gothe rest of the journey, about seven miles. A small - horse which the servant rode, performed the whole of this journey very easily, and was quite fresh. •He heard fiodgkiqson recommend the horse strongly to defen dant. and say that it was capable of performing the 1510ney in a single day. Dist had Said to him *Worthing that the horse bad Lot a cold upon him. Mr. Coleman , the Veterinary Surgeon, was called for the plaintiff in the early part of the case: He had' Seen the horse • previous tb the journey; it was a' made-up horse, viz. a fat horse, and incapable of any active exertion ; that it was .not capable of perform ire* journey to Worthing, 0., indeed, of being driten at all ; a horse in such high condition could &it be worked hard Without producing inflammation. A. horse taken from thehands of a dealer was not fit ,for work ; these persons, when they have horses for stale, • keep them quiet and fatten them up ; by this means the animal lost its strength from want of ex ercise, and when it came at once to be put to what in other instances might be called ordinary work, the unusual action caused an increase of circulation. by which means there was a greater determination of blood to the lungs than they would receive, and this caused inflammation in the neck, by which the animals frequently died in a few days. A horse so ' 'taken from a dealer should be plrysicked and gradu ally brought down before he was put to regular work. It was the custom in the Artillery to walk horses so bought for more than a week before they were allowed to trot, and so bring them on gently. This Gentleman being again called after the de fendant's evidence had been gone through, said that the horse was sound at the time the defendant shewed him at the College, but, he was in the above-men tioned state, and the exercise he received was fully adequate to produce the - diseased state in which he was. It was evidently occasioned by excessive driving. The horse ought not to have been driven on to town after the discovery of his illness at Ewell. . : pins? Jusrica.—There cannot be a doubt that the horse was injured by excessive driving. No horse in thi h Condition could bear tube driven seven or eight 4:Pti.hrr under a burning sun ; .besides, from well it was manifest violence to the poor animal to iire him in the state in which he was ; accordingly ' yeti find he only craided along a great part of the way. His Lordship did not Sum up, but-a verdict was re tforded for the plaintiff—:-Damages £75. i DUBAI/MR 10.31UCILLAND O. !BARON. This was an action to recover £B9, funeralex penses. It appeared, that Charles Chinner, a coal merchant, well known in the Coal-market, had passed thrOugh life with reputation, and falling into poverty in.his old age, the coal-merchants generously made 'a subscription, for the purpose of buying an annuity., mid making him comfortable .so long a% life should law. There was no provision made for his funeral. Under these circumstances, be did not live until the gland so raised was expended; but when he diedthere was in the hands of the plaintiff £l4, and I:68 in the bands of the defenillit. Bath were liable to render an account of the balance to the subscribers. Strick iland, who had been . aetive in procuring support for . Chinner, undertook to see him buried. He was anions to see him decently interred. With this hu mane intention, he applied to Fearon, at his house ROST Hornsey, and Fearon appeased to consent to the, proposal of a decent funeral, by saying, " there is mousey enmesh be bury hi4like a gentlemabosad . plat a stone over his grave. 'he plaintiff accord paid for the interment, and erected a tahletleith the rollOwitiginietiptfon: -i - • . .. sacred to tbl.l44inorr bCMt. CIO; Chl6 h e ' 11.8.4111;1 Parish, Coal-merchant, who departed this life the 4th of April t - , ISIS, aged 79. His latter dits.dere wade' erawfortab3g by the . liberality of the Geo:lamas f the Coal-market." I . • • _ The expense thus incurred the plaintiff sought NI. recover out of the fund in the possession of defendant. The defence was ; . that the subscribers *.were not willing to apply the money to the funeral, and tkat the defendant was not personally liable to pay part of the charge. . The. Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—ta- Oages OS, in addition to the £l4 in his hands, sisking in all 4:59. • Dec Emma 11.—GRANT v. carrels. Tins was an action for die recovery of £59, being the alleged value of a mooriog-aachor and chainiold by the defendant. From the statement of Counsel, it appeared, that the plaintiff. who was the owner of the ship Sarah, had that ship with . its furniture sold by auction at Lloyd's Coffee-house, in the month of May last, • .and. to the defendant, who was present at this auttioN the . mooring-anchor and chain alluded to were knocked ;down, 'because he we. the highest bidder,. 'those articles being sold at the rate of 7 17s..per cwt.. Ibis evidence was supported by the evidence of Woolcomb, the auctioneer, who deposed, that no Jpa: captions whatever wee:practised at the tile, war ,seits fairly, conducted 'according to legal and regular utism. On cross-eiamination, the witniss stated, `'* the defendant had nansmitte4leiB ohi m, - whick was deClared by Mt: auks!, at whose wharf tLe. *several ankles belonging to the Sarah were placid 'after the sail, to be fully equivalent to the mooring isichor and chain:under consideration: • • On the part of the defendant, it was stated by Counsel that the defendant had, previous to the auc tion,'gone on board the Sarah; order tb examine the mooring-anchor and chain, bin that he could not see' them, because-they were covered by the ballast.. • Two ship-breakers deposed, that the mooring- Inchor and chain were not worth more than the sum .Which Mr. Christal had stated, these articles beint ,covered with rust, and not at ail trust worthy, if not 'totally unserviceable. In support of this testimony, it link from the chain was adduced in Court, which appeared fUlly to justify the evidence. The Counsel for the plaintiff endeavoured to make :out, that as the sale by auction was regularly con ducted, and as there had been no warranty whatever 0f the articles-alluded to, his client was entitled recover that sum, which, if the defendant was not impelled to pay, an action would, in his opinion, lie against the auctioneer. The Ca= JUSTICE in summing up, observed that there were many cases in which it would not be equitable . to allow all that the - law would give, and the present appeared to him a ease of this nature. It would not Surely be fair that the defendant should lie obliged to pay three times more than the articles in question were worth, while k appeared that he was not afforded an opportunity, as he required, of els e mining those articles previous to their sale. To the Jury, however, it belonged to decide, whether the de fendant should pay the whole of the plaintiff's de 'wed or whether the sum in the hands of the aux , was suffieient remuneration for such 'articles *bs . forosed the ground of the plaintiff's demand.. The Jury,• after a few imernesits deliberaticra, re terfred a verdict for the 'defendant, and the Chief Justice declared it to be a very proper decision. ' An important Constitutional question recently oc 'curred' at Chatham, by an attempt to subject Ser. jearit Xing, or the East India Company's recniiting service, 'to a Military Cann-Martial: ` The opinion or Counsel has been taken on it, which is, that, by every maxim of law, and on every constitution al ground, King is not amenable to Martjal Law. LORD RANELAGH AND Mn. Anot.rstus.—We authorized to inform the Public, that the statement given in our Paper of Thursday last, of the ciettnn stances attending an interview between his Lordshi and Mr. Ana:trims on the 2a instant, at the latter' Chambers, in the Temple, is, in a very important particular, a misrepresentation of what passed; it was, as our Readers must haze seen, entirely founded on the information given before the Grand Jury, is, of course, open to explanation or contradiction en the other side. The Public will therefore suspene their decision till the time of trial. Friday being the Anniversary of the Institnl of the Royal Academy, the annual distribution of minms took place. The venerable PReSIDRST being unable to attend through indisposition, Mr. Sues took the chair, • delivered the following medals in the presence of General Assembly of Academicians, and of the dents, viz.— To Mr. &evens, for the best copy ht the painting school, ase_portak otSir J. Reynolds Sy Lineorif—the Silver Dfeciil. To the same Gentleman, for the but drawing from life—the Silver Maid.' ltit Mr. Smith, for the best model of a figure from life—the ofe4d. H6-Seasini. for the best drawing of a statue, (the ' Muor), accompanied by drawings u large al na, of a ryd haedi, and feet, dome after models to the A --my—.dte . sri al gr 4. o . Mont, for the best model of a statue—Silver 11E41 To Mr: sty, Mr. Shea in the name dam President, expnro. add the high approbation of the Academicians of his copy from 110Vissis CenTimugh this Gentletnan was, by the rules of the Academy, incapable of receiving Me dal for efsepieture, yet the Academicians wished this publit teddsnowy of c h air prowl Of his industry and abilities so bettotuideeedlit tattivie to that honour. Mr, SRI& at the commencement, "clinked the lamented absence of the venerable PeestrreNt and at the ccmclusimS, desired a short, e 1 0 ,,; and appropriate addagetto.the Sttidents, particular' impressing upon titp j ll seiessii- ever to keep in the noblest and most aim and end t fart. extension of virtue and isimality. Ter Jaws.--The.frce Government of Neufchatel has just issued an Ordinance, by which all Jews prohibited from settling in that City. Such as ale t. niched with good passports may travel through iti ; but without making any stay in it ; but with respect to the Jews actually established there • th e ir. axe dered to leave the State before the Isrsl day of. next. Every Jew who transgresses this Ordinance, to be arrested, delivered over to the Pa( demned to pay the expense incurred by his arms% and escorted beyond the frontiers, with a proisibimea I ioscarto tutus to Nouhissookooiier join of awrift - wr~' I. • • a 1 r . Iz t • • "t • g • ! • a •••' atl „ , f•.• , • • re . • • of -,* • • ' • ar Id, Le. . td 1 • • b r tie.% ios t I, • 11 g lot rty, ich • iki )n- Per ,to • 1 1 lie not • • hat be tad ITC nid ries was the de- de- hief • oc- Ser. ling nitro by anal !. a rent • rant- • !ship ay.'s rtant I ; it nded , and ction peed kr, ion 'Pre rt - ttend and , )f the t ! t I I, front 0 1 ' _ • tae rer—the I a GI:, .• I head, No SI. • ME4al• rapnro.. y from • Wes of • pic . ture, • /air ap. &Went • ed for 1 ••t▪ uetit, :ularlT IFICW, tr, the Echawi' vs Gle I • Iv fur- • .espeet, ' . • Ise o • _ f . Mai • • ance. Is eca- libiesan ✓itt pn- s l / 1 1r • . . •