Star. — London, England, 1815-01-26 00:00:00

NAPAI. lATILLIGSAICE. ••••••••••••1• rALmotmg, TANUAItY 23. cone in the Otince Netifchatel Atttericin pri r ratte r, of 19 guns 110 . IV men, 330 tons butthen.-.. Sailed the Dhke.OtUlt‘ packet, with a mail, for Lis. bon; the Hes* JniittWs, for Messina; and several ships for the Rivek s ...thePrinee, .Good Friends, and Swan, for FortsmOt!th - .4.ltriilit N.W. to N.E. PORT 0601111i1, JANUARY is. Arrived the Isabel*, TiharrsoN, froth the Downs, hound to the Meditetleigfah..g-fiailed his Majesty's shipsLLvrnrow. ahit . 4li*Abd Westward. —Wind Easterly. DEAL, *l4iitintitir jut Arrived his Majeity's . d*ltsitedielus; prom o ff the North Foreland.—Sailed his • Majesty's ship 1305t. 7 ;A y, for Portsmouth, for ordets and, the whole of the octward-bound Coasterstind celliett,te the West= tvArd.—Wind N;E:' ' • • HARVvipg, JANO,AR.Y.;i: Arrierd the Beasfoy.paCket, with a mall and pas seugers, from Holland.'—Wind.E. • • ~.:),;. 4 HAyACKI4UAIifyi Arrived the ftill!wiqg trait:Ohs'. f;ont . Bristol, bound to Portsmouth v!,-Xattliss..l6o,LtAlSC. 1.01/01; AbeGGE 458, %tow* liannah IS, Er uorr ; Lord Wellington 465, fifitnier.'s•Carils . • SS% HENDER9ON ; Prince William 552, Frltcks Freeling and Samuel packets, witlkinasliskshisteplorta l frem Waterford ; and Nelson, MsTriswa c fsnobilronghaP for Bristol. Also arrived the:ship Satiefattgoe, from . Dantzic, With timber for his Majesty's 136cklard at Pater, in this port.—Sailed, the . Earl of Leicester packet, with a mail and pasiengers, for;Waterford.; Thistle, WRIGHT, from Palermo, for Liverpool; and DILIGENCE revenue cutter, for a cruize. GRAVESEND, JANUARY U. Arrived the Rover, Marsh, from Antwerp; Perseverance, Roberts, front Dublin; Ant, Edwards, from Cork; Chancellor, Menton, from Rotterdam; Vrow lientiricher, Capping, from Flushing ; Better luck-still, Dobeter, and 'Frederick, Urquhart, from Kellen ; and the Commerce, Gregson, from Calais. Sailed the Hebe, Porter, for the Cape of Good Hope; Med way, (roves, for Tobago; Colonist, Brantford, for Barbadoes ; Thames, Storey, for Jamaica ; Quebec, Le Roche, for Demerara; Elizabeth, White, for Gibrakar; Fanny, Hardie, for Corte. The Canton, Arend', from Holland to China.—A ktter from the Captain, dated 9th of September, lat. S 6 S. long. 11 E. states, that they had encountered a severe plc two days before, which had much damaged the tipper works ; one man washed over board, and several wounded—they were repairing damages and puciping their voyage. ?Ile Susan, Dodd, and John, —, from Dieppe, are arrived. at Havre. The Daughter Alida, Dart, front Londnn to Ostend, put into Dunkirk Roads on the 9th instant ' very leaky, and was run on LhoTe the following day and nearly full of water—carg• landing. The Caroline, Ray, front Matta to Hatubursh, is arrived with a heavy average. • Almost every county; el . ' tY, and town of any conse quence in the kingdom. have either met, or are about to meet. to petition Parliament against the renewal of • .the Property Tax. It is Calctilated that those already sigocctwould,load three .Waggoni. • .A.,inceting el the inhabitants of Edmonton, was field at < otlay list tif,expre.ss their abhorrent to ~ _ty,Tax...Seeildvereisepope. 4).*.f4roiii langur " :..At a respectable meeting of.tlie inhabitants of the dresses. of TWiCkenham, In the county of Middlesex, • on Thursday se'nnight, a Petition against..the nuance„of the Incorae.Tax was agreed to be pre . Ai:l4dt° Parliament by the Members of th e County. _ A ntunexotts meeting of the inhabitants of the town . or Barnstaple and its neighbotrhoocl, was held on the •, 18th instant, the Mayor in the Chair, to petition Par :. Lament against the renewal of the Property Tax ; *hen a Petition was unanimously aigreed to, and di. zeeted to be presented by the Members for the , Borough, with a request that they will support the prayers of the same. A meeting of the county of Essex will be held on Monday next, at Chelmsford, to petition Parliament, against the continuance of the Property Tax. A very nuraerousineeting was held onWednesday st?Lnight, at the Shire House, Norwich, which was atterded by the High Sheriff of the County, the Earl of ALBEMARL/t o Sir It...BUXTON, Sir J. H. AITLEY, and Mr. Cotta, who all expressed themselves in strong terms against the renewal of the Property Tax. A Petition to that effect was drawn up, and ordered to be presented to Parliament by Mr. Cote. The clamours against the Property-Tax are loud ;md gencral ; not only on account of its unequal ope lation, but the abuse and tyranny exercised in some quarters by the Surveyors, Collectors, &c. A Cor responeent in the West of England wishes to know 'whether Receivers, their Deputies, or Clerks, have powee by law to alter receipts given (or taxes nine :months after the payment ? His case was simply this: hi his absence his then partner paid his Property-Tax, -ind took a receipt. On going to pay the neat. bed year, a few days ago, he was told that he owed a balance of RS on the former payment, only 031 bei.tg at his credit. To prove that the money was paid he exhibited the receipt for £56. The Clerk, On locking at it, said, 4 4 Oh, I see how it is s there is a' mistake in the receipt. •It ought to be only for seSI, for that is all brat is at your credit in our b00k." . . So saying he drtw his pen through the rim and wrote in wcrd one!! To avoid law "expence, the poor man , submitted to the robbery. There are Two Prizes of £20,000 in the remains of the present small Lottery, and the whole of the' Capitals which: the Scheme originally contained (ex cept the tlO,OOO drawn the First Day) and the First flrawn Prize above ef2s To•smattow (the Second Day of Drawing) will be entitled to one of the Two Twenty Thousands, and the Ticket itself may be the other 820,000, so that the First-drawn Prize above £25, may actually be a 440,000 Prize. To prevent the impositions too frequentlyyract . ised by the Toll collectors at the different tollgates in the environs of the Metropolia, the Public should be in formed that the additional toll collected on Sundays, at the following gates, usually denominated the West. minster Sunday Toll, has ceased to exist, viz. s—The Marsh sate, Pimlico, Kensington bar, Hyde.park,Ty burn, hdgware-bar,Yorkshire-Stingo, Mary-la-bottne, the Farthing Pye-house, Tottenham•cciurt-road, the gate in the New-road near Battle•bridge, the Bell gate, and the one neat Cold-bath-o,lok • . COP AtrBLLIONICA • L'OURT OP C N 6-I" CERI;I:tA u t-TtIART 114: - • THlti ArrolittiltY•OßNßlLAl. V. Irns OORPORATioIF,OO ItArriNGs.-011.11101 Or cONTrAtrr. This was a Petitiodunder the late Act, 52d oFfh tog, for granting more speedy relief and recteisi the abuse of Public Charitable Institutions, by Petit lion, sanctioned by the ArroRmIt•OZRERAL, without the circuity or expense of bill and information. The Petition was supported by Mr. HART and Mr. BELL, who moved for an order t o commit to the fleet Prison, Mr. Millward, a Barrister, one of the Corporation, and aChief Officer thereof, for contempt of Court in resisting an order, requiring him to de. liver to, and lodge with a Master in Chancery, all books, writings, papers, and vouchers relating to or explanatory of the accounts constituting the matter of this suit, which he had in his custody, power, or pcscessi'cro, as a principal Officer of the Corporation, and as holding several of the charity lands in ques tion that were devised to divers Charities in the pa rish of Hastings, and others about it, in Kent, being ut of the dismembered Priory of Hastings and Rye, or one of them.- ' Ml. Miliward Claimed in his affidavit the part he held as a purchase for valuable consideration, arid). out any knowledge, as he believed, of any charitable claim by his late father, in the year 1775, after * Decree of this Coutt, for selling tHe same. Sir Sammy. RotettiTeAttrd lottetesotr opposed the motion, and Itis•Lerdihip ponponestiedgatent. AGAR w.•Tilit 11101111T I O - CASAA.GorINAGif. • k This was an applitation to the Court by the Plain- Agar, to cothmit certain of the e.ompany's ORicers to the Fleet Prison, for disobedience to the - Order of this Court, in setting out the line of Canal 'through the Plaintiff's estate. The CHANCZLLOR gated, that it appeared the Defendants had shewn ,the greatest asziety to comply with the terms of the Act of Parliament, and to conform to the order of this Court, and therefore dismissed the Plaintiff's botitit. SAIRFAIRT 2.S.TAIILITON W. BACKHOUSE. In this case the LORD CHANCELLOR gave his judg ment. Tarleton and Backhouse bad been in partner ship for several years, as West India Merchants, in Liverpool. In 1802 they dissolved partnership, but • until 1808 Mr. Backhouse continued to manage his own interests in the concern, which bad not• been completely made up. His Lordship enumerated a number of bills, cross-bills; and answers to them, which had been put in by both parties, with much mutual recrimination. It appeared, however, that, after the dissolution of partnership - between Tarleton and Backhouse, in 1802, Tarleton got into treaty with one Postlethwaite to have the share in the con cern which Mr. Backhouse had possessed ; but, as that Gentleman stated, he was thwarted in his inten tions of getting a final settlement of his share in the concern by the perverseness of Tarleton, who, as his Lordship observed, had shewn at least a great deal of intrigue in the business. In 1808 Mr. Backhouse consented to take £40,000 for his share in the con cern, which was secured to him by a deed, and some bonds of Tarleton':. The object of Tarleton had been to get these bonds and the deed set aside, on the ground of their having been unduly and fraudu lently obtained, because Mr. Backhouse had kept up a private correspondence with the agents abroad for the -concern, by which lie obtained an improper knowledge of the situation of the firm, which Mr. Tazleton could not know of. In answer to this, Mr. Backhouse had stated, that be was obliged to keep up this private communication, in order to secure his own interests; stnd that, if there were any harm in it, Mr. Tarleton had done•the same. His Lordship said, that on' the most deliberate and attentive view he could give this case, there were two points for his consideration, whether he should offer Tarleton an issue to try at Lancaster whether the deed and bonds of 1808 were obtained from him unduly and fraudu. lently ? and if he (Tarleton) refused to accept of that issue, he would then give his final decision on the case. For this purpose he should give Tarleton a week to consider, whether he would accept of the issue or not. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 24. DYOTT V. DUNN. The Defendant, who was held to bail, under a Judge's order, for £1.500, made an application to justify bail to that amount, in osder to be discharged. Mr. ABBOTT objected to it under the peculiar cir cumstances of this case. The action was for Crim. Con. and the defendant was held to bail under the order of a Judge for £l5OO. The cause was, how ever, tried since that time, and the Jury had found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages £15,000. The judgment, it is true, was not yet signed, and there. tore, strictly speaking, the defendant was in custody only in tame frrocut until the fourth day of this term, when he might be charged in execution ; so that un til Frida_y be might be liberated on finding bail ; but he submitted to the discretion of the Court, that they could not now let him go at large upon giving bad for £l5OO, when there was a verdict found to the :Mount of i 115,000. The Court said, this was a novel case, but they thought that as aJury had estimated the damages at 4115,000, it was a guide for. the discretion of the Court, and that, therefore, they should require the bail to be in that amount. The bail being called, could not justify in that amount. Mr. TOPPING afterwards moved for a new trial in the cause, grounded ,on several affidavits, in which the Defendant stated , that being in custody ? be could' not procure the attendance of several material wit nesses, and therefore the cause was taken as an un defeaded cause:' The affidavits of other permits also disclosed several material facts for the Defendant, particularly that the Plaintiff- and his wife lived in a state of separation. The Court granted a Rule Nisi, and added, that as there were now some grounds to question the pro priety of the Verdict, if a new trial should be grant. ed, st ought no longer to stand as the measure of the bail to be required, and therefore the Defendant in that cue should be allowed to justify bail to £l5OO only JANUAR! 25, COI AND °TUBBS. ASSIONBE3IIO. W. SWAN* This was an action brought by the plaintiffs. as ail) signees of J. Swan and Co. bankrupts, against:the defendant, brother to elle of the bankrupts, to re. cover t 1,990, money paid by the bankrupts for the hoof the decedent t on a acoount of a failure of eri. deote i on the trial, the.ptaintift was non-suiteci. Mr. PARK now applied in set Aid the nonsuit, or to have a new trial, on the grounds that there was Wilenee to a certain extent, which ought to have Oa, to the Jury. One• of the bankrupts, T. Swan .was called and examined; but, although he at his bid examination before the Comthissinners proved the debt of his brother to the amount of selo9o, yet when called on as an evidence at the trial, he could prove nothing. A gentleman named *Lane, wts how ever called, who proved that a bill accepted by W. Swan, and made payable at the house of the bank rupts for £3OO, had been presented by and paid to him; and Mr. PARK now contended, that this was evidence which, as far as it *went, ought to have been submitted to the Jury.—The Court granted the rule to chew cause. • MOIER V. THRNOYAL EXCHANGE COMPANY. Mr. TOPPING applied to the Court for H rule to show cause, wily the nonsuit in this case should not he set aside, and a new trial granted. It was an Action on a policy of insurance on ship and cargo, dated . in 1811, at and from Memel ; lost or not lost, free of seizure in the post of lading, warranted to debar: OR or before the 15th of September. The vessel com pleted hetlading on the 9th, and having obtained all her papetsi weighesl on that day. fith a fair wind, Ind .proceeded to sail; but before she got out the *ind chimged, and she was detained at the mouth of the %arbour tilt itfter the. 15th. The ship was after wards lost, and the plaindffstrought an action to re dover on the policy. 'Lord Ellenborough, howevvr, 'held at die trial, that the terra; of the policy had not been complied *hies they had' mit departed before the 15th, and therefore the plaintiff was nonsuited. - .Mr. TOPPING now - stihinitted to the Court, that, in fact, a departure had taken place. The vessel hav ing completed all-her business, obtained all her pa pers, and proceeded to sail on the 9th inst. although delayed by contraq winds before she was out of the harbour. Lord ELLENSOROUGH observed, if the word in stead of &earl had been :ail, no doubt cou • ld have been entertained that the vessel had proceeded to sail is time, but here she had not departed. Mr. Toeeixo submitted,- that there being no word ' ism in die policy, but only to depart the moment she broke ground, she had commenced her departure. Mr. Justice Le BLANC—" Then you must contend, that break:mg srouitd and departure are one and theta= thing." Mr.Toeettio—si My Lord, I mean to say, that having got in our lading, obtained all our papers, completed.our business, and having nothing more to dO at Memel, 'the moment we weighed anchor was the moment of departure." taord Et.t.exatutovoit- , - 44 'Phis is rather a question of grammatical construction than of law. Sallie:, would have commenced the moment the anchor was weighed, but depart,* must mean quitting the port." Mr. TOPPING still contended, that in tins case a de parture had taken place ; there were several other questions pending on similar policies. Lord ELLE:IEOEOMR ..•` 44 The Underwriters say, you shall depart by such a day, and then we will be liableior all risks."—Mr. Justice Ls BLANC-66 You Imast be from the port of Memel by such a day." Lord ELLENDOROUGH-1( I think you brought all your forces into the field at the time of the tri d. If you had your rule you would get nothing by it." Rule rtfuscd. . COWRY V. BARRER. This was an action on a policy of insurance tried before Lord ELLessoitouoit, at Gandhi:ll—verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. RICHARDSON now applied for . a rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered. The action had been brought to re cover back the premium paid on a polic-y on goods from the River Plate to this country, and the only question in reserve was, whether the voyage was a legal voyage ? It appeared that the vessel had sailed in. February without any licence from the South Sea Company, which circumstance would have rendered the voyage illegal, bin in July following a licence was applied for, and obtained from the South Sea Com pany, which licence was to be applied to the vessel in question, and to have a retrospective operation. In the interim, however, between the sailing of the ves sel in February, and obtaining , the licence in July, she had been lost, and the question was, whether the licence so obtained after she WAS lost could legalize the voyage ? as otherwise, the voyage being illegal, the assured could have no tight to recover hick the premium. At the time of the trial, Lord Ellenbo rough was of opinion, the licence so obtained did not legalize the voyage, but at the same time he reserved the point, and Mr. RICHARDSON having noticed seve ral cases, where a different doctrine was held, the Court granted the rule GIB YON e. MEM. This was an action brought by the Plaintiff (a single woman) against the Defendant, for a breach of covenant. A verdict had been taken for Plaintiff. Mr. HEATH now moved an Arrest of Judgment. The facts of the case were as follow. The plaintiff, it appeared, had cohabited with the defendant for several years; and he had-occasionally had various sums of money of her. At length it was agreed, as some disagreements had arisen between them, that, should they separate, the defendant should pay into the hands of a third person the sums of money he had received from the plaintiff, and also allow her an annuity of £3O per annum, so long as she con tinued unmarried, or refrained from cohabiting with one Daniel Gardener, or any other man ; the plain tiff was still unmarried, and no proof was adduced at the trial that she had cohabited with any man ; yet the defendant refused to pay her annuity; and, for the arrears due, an action was brought, and the Jury gave her a verdict. Mr. HEATH now moved an Arrest of Judgment, on the grounds that this agree ment was illegal on two grounds; 'first, inasmuch as it is to keep her living with the defendant in state of concubinage; and, secondly, inasmuch as it pre vented her forming matrimonial engagements, which both policy, law, and morality required should be as much promoted as possible. The COURT, however, disposed of the first point ,immediately, and obser v ed, that instead of this agree ment' operating to keep the plaintiff living in a state of concubinage with the defendant, it had a contrary effect, inasmuch 'as it provided her with the means of living if she chose to quit him; and with respect to the second it s it no more operated against her forming Matrimonial connections, than di I m marriage settlements and wills, in iithich it was phi_ vided that widows and others, if they married, 5h , , , d.1 cease to enjoy those advantages, which, under such wills an settlements, if they continued single, they would enjoy. Yet those wills and settlements had never been objected to as illegal. Application refused. COURT OF COMMON Pt.EAS , JANUARY 25. Rim In•KNIGHT. A rule to spew cause why an attachment should not issue against a Mr. Knight, 14 contempt of Court. Mr. Knight had been s !hymned to give ev- deuce on a trial (Home .. Dr..9!nitli) tried at the Hampshire Assizes, but chd not awful. In support of the Rule, affidavits were produced to chew that Knight was served with the subi :lACC eight days prior to the Assizeri that he refused to go without proper conveyance; that a &I note Was tendered him after. wards, but he still refulied; that on the night pre vious to the commencement of the Atsizcs £3 watt left in his house, yet he remained at Lome. The di;. tance from his place of residence to Winchester, the Assize.town, is 24 miles. In answer to this, it WAS alledged, that Knight lived in a cross-country, where he had no means of conveyance s that it was impossible, from his ad vanced age, to walk that distance ; and that he had no wish to disobey the order of the Court. The Coma, after hearing the arguments on both sides, thought, under the circumstances disclosed, there was not sufficient ta attach criminality upon the defendant. If Mr. Home had incurred any d.im,:tgz. by the absence of the defendant's testimony, the sta tute of Elizabeth provided 'di' by an action of d.e mage ; to that remedy he might ,therefore apply. Rule discharged. HURD V. CIRDLESTONF. . This was a question under the Annuity Act, whe ther any part of the consideration money under which the Annuity was granted, had been returned? The clause in the Act which vitiates the Annuity, ex pressly provides, that if any part shall be retained or returned, then the Annuity is vol.!. The pLtintiff is an attorney, and there was a small charge in his hill for preparing the deeds. This, it %t as contended, as he was purchaser of the Annuit:, was a retention of part of the money. Several Wes were cited in sup port of this proposition, in which decisions w;:a4 given in favour of the gran:ors under such circum stances. The COURT however observed, that the Jury befur whom the action was tried, found that the charge alluded to was made inadve:zently, and cmsequen!ly the objection did not come within the meaning of the Act.—Rule refused. The C11:Ele ILsricz afterwards sat at Nisi Prius. DONNILLLY V. lIANNAII. This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for £3oa at two months date, accepted by the defendant. Evi dence was called to prove the acceptance of tke defendant. Mr. Serjeant BFST, for the defendant, contended that this was a most impudent action, and he would 'state the facts of the case. Donnelly, the plaintiff; .who is an attorney in Ireland, was over in this coon. try, and in the month of April, tall, requested the defendant to accommodate him with his acceptance for £3OO at two mouths, and 1 :e would lodge with l'im as security a bill for the same sum, on a Mr. Curzon, which became :lue some few days prior to the one which he agreed to accept.. The defendant, to accommodate him, accepted the bill, made it payable at his Bankers', Messrs. Hammersly's, in Pall Mall, at which house Mr. Curzon's. bill was also made payable. The latter bill was dishonoured, and a Mr. Hudson, the drawer, on being required to pay it, said it was a gross and usurious transaction, for that he had given Donnelly £3O for the discount. To prove this he called Mr. Hudson, who, on being shewn Ciwznn's bill, stated, that Donnelly was engaged in law transac tions for him in Ireland. That he gave him the bill to discount, and that he did discount it for him ; first deducting £3O for discount, paying him the remain der in Bank-notes ; that the bill WAS left with the vie fendant in exchange for his acceptance ; that he con sidered it, however, as good as a Bank-note, Mr. Curzon being disappointed of money, which he would shortly receive to the amount of £170,000. On his cross.examination he said, Mr. Curzon was in France when the bill became due: that he' had never been arrested on the bill, but had been inform ed of its dishonour frcm the defendant; that he did not pass it over 'to Donnelly after Mr. Hannam's name was on it; that Dannelly took it on the repre sentation of Mr. Houlditch, the coacbmaker, who told'him that Mr. Curzon's name was good for £lOOO. The CUIEF JUSTICE was of opinion this testimosy destroyed 'or cut up the considerations. It appeared that Hannam took the bill in perfect ignorance of the transaction between Hudson and the plaintiff. That he supposed it a good bill, and paid it to his bankers under that supposititin. Mr. Serjeant LENS contended, that some suspicion attached to the evidence of Hudson. The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that if he chose to address the Jury on that point he might: Mr. Serjeant LENS declined, and chose rather to be nonsuited.—Plaintiff nonsuited. The following is said to be a copy of the Letter of General EICELMAhS to King JOACHIM (MURAIa : Sum—Since unfortunate circuinstatices have separat me from your Majesty, I have not been indifferent to arty thing t: may relate to you. I avail myself then, of the opportunity a- forded by M. A— to bare the honour to lay at the feet of your Majesty all the sentiments I owe you. Permit me to express to your Majesty the joy whim my fa mily and myself felt at hearing that the affairs of Naples were happily terminated according to the interests and wishes of your Majesty. No one, believe me, Sire, experienced, with respect to tile fate of your fine kisigdom, more lively uneasiness than I uiJ ; but, thanks to the heroic firmness and attitude of so great a Wag, Europe is force.: to recognise you. If affairs had not taken so favourable a turn for your Majest y, It would have been easy, with so fine an army as your s, to the Crown to be respected, which you ewe entirely to your h gla talents and virtues. Besides, thousands of brave officers, trougut up in your Majesty's school, and under your rye, would haw hastened at your call to offer you thew emu—they would have thought themselves paying a tribute to the gratitude and adintra don they feel for your Majesty. For myself, Sire, who possess all these sentiments in a higher degree, I shall unite with them incessant wishes for the glory and bopping. of your Majesty's myna family. I Intreat you, Site, to accept the homage, as well as the tender veneration with which I shall remain to the end of my life, Your Majesty's most faithful and devoted servant, /SXCBLAIIANS.