Star. — London, England, 1818-06-12 00:00:00

a conflict, but he contended that there was not suffi cient evidence to chew that young Stanley was guilty. Mr. Gtiarav, in reply, insisted that the appear ance of intoxication was occasioned by the cruel beating the prosecutor had received from the two defendants. Lord ELNSOROVOR left the case LE on the ho evidence to the Jury, o found both the defendants Guilty. BURN V. CUXON. This was an action brought against the defendant for a nuisance. It appeared that the defendant was a goldbeater, living next door to Mr. Burn, who was continually disturbed by the noise and hammering. Mr. SCABLZTT stated the case to the Jury, after which several witnesses. were called, who deposed, that such was the effect of the hammering, that the glasses were continually shook on the table, that the furniture was also shook, and that it was extremely disagreeable to the plaintiff's family. A Juryman .—l t is useless to go further. Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—ReaIIy, Mr. Marryat, you might as well give up the case, unless you can bring contrary evidence. You see the common sense of the Jury makes them state that they are satisfied. It is clear that the plaintiff is much annoyed by this noise, and shaking. No earthly consideration could induce I me to live in such a situation, unless compelled by extreme poverty.: It is, in fact, depriving a man of all the comforts of life. The Jury may and for the plaintiff, with the smallest damages, as his object is merely to remove the evil. Mr. Scaatarr..—My Lord, I shall take a shilling damages, on the defendant agreeing to-remove the nuisance to the satisfaction of a person to be named by Mr. MeaeviT agreed to this arrangement, and a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff—Daniages ls. BOARD OF EXCISE, JUKE it. Yesterday the Commissioners sat, in their judicial Chamber, to hear and decide upon certain informa tions against several brewers residing in the metro polis, for using certain ingredients in making beer against the statute. 1 4 .., . • . i • . , r . 1 II 1 , i . 1 i • • 1 .1 1 i 1 1 I . 1 4' 1 I ~.• 1 • ). 0 1 1 , F \ i t ; 1 1 I i 1 ' q 1 . ' ilI ! i s, l 's , < S. . .. THE ICING U. LUKE LYONS. The defendant is a brewer, and was brought up, under an indictment, containing seven different counts, charging him with having made use of va rious deleterious drugs in his brewery, among which were capsicum, liquorice-roat, coriander seed, cop peras, orange powder, and Spanish liquorice. William Wells, an officer of the Excise, stated, that o s the 30th of July, 1817, he went, in company with Middleton, a publican, to the house of the de fendant. The residence of Mr. Lyons was in Dean a.reet, St. Paul's, Sha.iwell, and the brewhouse was in Bell-wharf, St. Paul's, Shadwell. Witness had a warrant with him to search for drugs. Between one and two o'clock on the day mentioned he saw the defendant, and told him he had information that there were drugs in the house, and that he had a warrant to search for them. The defendant said that he had no such thing in his house, and immediately left him. The defendant however presently returned, and said that witness should not search unless he fetched a constable. Witness refused to do this, and observed, that he was a constable in the day time, aid should not go after any one else. Mr. Lyons then went away, and Mrs. Lyons came up. Wit ness requested her to accompany him up stairs, but she also went away to fetch Mr. Lyons. The de f=dant returned, and after some conversation, he pushed by and went away. Witness then finding it of no use delaying, immediately went up stairs, and was followed by Mr. and Mrs. Lyons, and Mr. Lyons, jun. The defendant then said that witness should not search, unless he pointed out the parti cular room. The officer, however, persisted in search ing every room, and the defendant began locking several of them up. After going through many of the rooms, followed by Mr. and Mrs. Lyons, and Mr. Lyons, jun. witness went into a bed-room, which he believed was that of the defendant, and in a cup board near the fire-place, he found one pound of capsicum, two pounds of liquorice not ground, tlo pounds of coriander seed, one pound of copperas, eight pounds of orange powder, and a small quan tity of Spanish liquorice. The defendant imme diately said that he did not know how it was there ; but afterwards observed, that the drugs had been there ever since a fire which had happened some time back. In another room witness found a sack, con taining between two and three bushels of dry bay loaves, such as Spanish liquorice is usually packed n? in, and out of this sack he picked two or three vexes of Spanish liquorice. The defendant said, "Itis a pity to take such small things as these. It will be the ruin of myself and my family." He added, ig 1 think it may be amicably settled without going to the Board." In the brewhouse witness found two kilderkins, containing about l 4 gallons of colouring ; it was placed under a vat in the store celiac Joseph Middleton, who accompanied the last wit ness, corroborated his statement, and produced the drugs. Not more than half a pound of liquorice juice was found. - Charles Angus, a chymist, was next called to prove the qualities and effect of the drugs. The liquorice powder, he said, was used as a substitute for malt ; it had more saccharine matter in it, and was much cheaper. The orange-powder was also wed as a substitute for malt, and was intended particularly to give a flavour and a colouring to the beer—it had nothing pernicious in it. The capsicum produced a heating effect, similar to cayenne ; the coriander seed was used for the purpose of keeping the beer up, to prevent its turning grey or sour; the copperas had the effect of shewing off bad beer to advantage, and to preserve it from turning sour, but would not supply the place of malt, having none of its spirit. Mr. Coverdale Lyons was called by the defendant. He was son to the defendant, and had assisted his fa ther in business for four or ive years. He recollected that on the sth of June, 1815, a fire happened in the neighbourhood, and was so near to two chymists and druggists shops, that they were obliged to move their goods, and some of them came into the brew house. The fire was next door to his father's house, and much confusion was occasioned ; the house was in consequence much linjured, and rendered uninha bitable for two years. After the fire there were a t many goods on his father's premises, and among . ai.em he partaularly remarked a bag containing some powders, and those produced were similar to them. The bag had remained two years and a half in the fireplace of a room on tke premises, and about three weeks before the seizure the drugs himself into the cupboard in his own bed-room. They were removed because the other room was cleared. Being examined by the Commissioners, witness said that there were no other drugs in the bag but those produced, and they were sometimes used in breweries. He had been told to destvoy the bag and drugs, and it was his own neglect that he had not done so. He had never used any of the drugs in his life, nor did he know the names of them. On his oath he never used a drag of any kind. If the drugs now pro duced were deuce which had been taken from his pre mises, they were the same as.those which came from the fire. In the very room in which the drugs re mained exposed to public view in the fire-place for two years and a half, Mr. Lawrie, an excise of f icer, came to hang some bells, and might have examined them if he had pleased. William Taylor, formerly a collecting clerk in the employment of the defendant, proved that he had seen some paper parcels lying about the room in question. The defendant was ordered to pay the fines of £2O upon the first count, £2OO upon the third, and £2OO upon the seventh count in the indictment. THL RING V. RICHARD BOWMAN'. The defendant was also a brewer, living in Wap ping-street, Wapping, and was charged with having in has possession a drug which was called multum, and a quantity of copperas. The articles were produced by Thomas Gates, an Bruise officer, who had, after a search, found them on the defendant's premises. Charles Angus, a chymist, proved that the multum was an extract of quassia : it was both sweet and bit ter, and answered the purpose of both malt and hops : it contained nothing deleterious. The copperas was a green copperas, and was a poisonous drug, some-, times used as a vomit: it was used in breweries to make a good brown head to the beer. An ounce of it Would be sufficient for a butt, such was its power ful effect. Mr. Legs, on the part of the defendant, represented that he had nine children to support, and recom k mended him to the mercy of the Court. One of the Commissioners inquired what age the children were, and gave as a reason for asking that question, that a person who had been convicted of an offence against the Excise Laws, had stated that he hr.d 14 children, and in consequence received a milder punishment: it afterwards appeared, that this was nothiag but a fabrication, and the person being asked how he could tell such an untruth, replied, " Why, I had 14 children, but a providential sickness carried them all off." Ever since that time, he had been care ful in believing such representations. The defendant asserted that his children were all alive and healthy.—The Court sentenced the defen dant to pay a fine of £2OO. THE KENO V. CROWN DANB!E. The charge against this defendant, also a brewer, was for having in his possession 71bs. of molasses. William Skinner, an Officer of Excise, stated, that on the 28th of October, 1817, he went to the pre• miser of the defendant, situated in Crosby -row, Snow's-fields, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen. On his road there he saw a boy of the name of Abra ham Gregory, servant to the defendant, go into the shop of Mr. Walter, a grocer in Blackman-stree., in the Borough , and bring out a can of molasses. Wit ness followed him, but he contrived to get into the Ibrew-house, and shut the door before witness came up, owing to a halfpenny hatch which stopped him. This he had done twice before. Witness rang the bell, and knocked at the door, but to no purpose; and as he was endeavouring to get over the palings, one of the men belonging to the brew-house cried out, 14, Take care of the dogs." Witness, however, ultimately obtained admittance, and after some con tention got possessipn of the can of molasses, which he found locked up in a cupboard. The defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of £2O. THE ZINO V. THOMAS EVAN& The charge against this defendant wag, that he had in his possession 47 barrels of stale unpalatable beer. Mr. Evans is entered on the books of the Ex cise as a brewer : his residence is No. 89, Guilford sticet, and his storehouse is situated in Maid-lane, Southwark. On the 11th of March last, John Wil son, an Excise Officer, went to the store-house, and found 47 casks containing 43} barrels of sour un wholesome beer. It subsequently appeared, that this beer was pur chased at the sale of Mr. Newman, a bankrupt brewer, by the defendant, in February last, and Mr., Laws, on the part of Mr. Evans, proved that that Gentleman was now a cooper, and was in the habit of employing a great number of workmen in the trade. lie also endeavoured to shew that the . beer was bought bonafide by the defendant at the sale, for the use of the workmen he employed. These hard working men were not contented, he observed, in this hot weather, with common beer—they liked some thing sharp, and as he had heard it emphatically called, " cut-throat beer." This was the sort of stuff for their palates, and he had little doubt but that it vas as good as Champagne to them. Several samples of the beer were produced, all of them of a different colour, and filled with sediment. A fine of £3O was ordered to be paid by tie de• fendant. CONSISTORY COURT, JUNE SULLIVAN, GUARDIAN OF SULLIVAN, AGAINST OLD ACRE, OTHERWISE OLDAKER, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF SULLIVAN. . Sir WILLIAM Soorr.--This suit was instituted by the Right Honourable John Sullivan, for the par pose of annulling the marriage of his son, John Au gustus Sullivan, with Maria Oldacre, Which took place under the following circumstances :—Mr. Sul livan, jun. having left Eton school, was placed by his father at Riching's Lodge, under the care of a private tutor, who was to prepare him for the Uni versity. In the year 1815, he began to hunt with the Berkeley hounds, which have made a considerable noise in the country, and which were under the di rection of Mr. Thomas Oldacee, and consequently Mr. Sullivan, jun. often visited at his house, where he lived in a style and with a hospitality far superior to that of huntsmen in general. Hence an acquain tance commenced between Mr. Sullivan, jun. and Miss Oldacre, which soon ripened into intimacy.— Mr. Sullivan, sen. seems to have been totally igno rant of this intimacy, being disabled by his public functions from paying minute attention to his do mestic concerns. He therefore transferred the care of his son to a private tutor; so that, whatever the habits of the young man might be, /muck eguis at nibusgue, but not custode remoto. The Misses Sulli van once accompanied their brother to the house, and the tutor was often there ; yet Mr. Sullivan, sen. never heard of the intimacy which existed, either from son, daughter, or tutor. The banns were pub lished in two churches, by the names of John Au gustus Sullivan and Maria Holmes Oldacre, and the marriage was solemnized in the parish church of St. Olave, Southwark ; Mr. Sullivan, jun. being nearly 18, and Miss Oldacre neatly 21 years of age. It is impossible to doubt hut that Mr. Sullivan, sen. on hearing the event, felt and expressed the deepest sur prise and regret; and,there is nothing remarkable in his subsequent reconcilement, whilst he considered the marriage irreversible. Mr. Sullivan having re ceived farther advice commenced proceedings against Mr. Oldacre as the want-al guardian of his daughter, then a minor, and afterwards against the daughter, when she had attained her majority. The facts as stated in the plea are but little controverted ; there fore, there is no necessity for me to go into the evi dence in support of them. Mr. Sullivan was totally ignorant of the transaction, and his want of consent is necessarily implied, for consent must be either precedent to or cotemporary with the marriage.— One point I lament much, that Mr. Sullivan, sen. should unfortunately have put an interrogatory, which in some degree reflects on the character of Miss Oldacre; and I consider that I am but dis charging a debt of justice when I declare, that there is not in this evidence a single word that can in the slightest degree impeach her character. Her father and mother both discouraged the young man's atten- 1 tion. She was at first under an engagement to marry a young man in her own situation in life, which affords a strong presumption in favour of the correctness of her conduct ; and the letter of Mr. Sullivan to his father, although it may in some degree be tinctured with passion, yet bears strong testimony of her virtue and good qualities.— It is much to be lamented that Mr. Butler, the tutor, has not been examined, as he would have had it in his power to have done her justice, and at the same time have relieved his own conduct from charges of gross inattentica. Much more has been said with re erect to disparity of age than I am inclined to give attention to. It has been argued, that a ycung woman understands manomvring, and tricks, and tactics suf ficient to deceive a youth who was three years her junior; hut I must recollect that the young man has gone through Eton school ; and, if I may judge from his letters, certainly does exhibit a reater maturity of intellect than usually falls to thelot of that age., Disparity of circumstances is a more serious objec tion ; but we well know that the passion which leads' to marriage is very apt to overleap distinctions of that nature. Laying such considerations aside, I shall proceed directly to the case. At first, I sup posed it was to be argued as a conspiracy to draw this young person into marriage, and the parents of the young woman were pointed out as the conductors of it. It is very natural to them to endeavour to pro mote what they consider as the advancement of their daughter in life, and if that is done es ithout fraad, it is too much to call upon the Court to pronounce it a conspiracy.. Persons who are nut interested sometimes take a pleasure in promoting the union of others, and many follow the occupation from a there love of the practice. When it is followed up by fraud for the purpose of entrapping the unwary, it is pos sible that the validity of the marriage may be af fected; but if a young man of large fortune and noble birth should be induced to marry a person be neath himself, after due publication of banns, no thing can relieve him from chains which, though forged by others, have been fastened by himself. If ten times the number of fraudulent circumstances had been shewn, without undue publication of bans, the Court could not have entertained this suit. I have already observed upon the slightness of the frauds which are charged in the libel. The daughter is not at all implicated in them. Artifices and 'mit representations ate charged, amounting almost to spells and w:tclicraft, but not one witness is able to explain them. The consent of Mr. Sullivan, jun. is perfectly voluntary. A pretty strong distortion of facts has been used to prove this a conspiracy. Mr. Oldacre desires his daughter not to ride out with Mr. Sullivan. Mrs. Oldacre desires Mr. Sullivan to ab stain from writing love-letters to her daughter. This is called not only simulation, but stimulation. What language were the parents to hold ? What conduct were they to pursue ? Where was the delusion? He was aware of her age and condition, and of his fa ther's ignorance. All the declarations arc on his side. He himself writes the bans, and delivers them at both churches. There are no advances on her part, but a mere return of affection. The concealment from the father is an act of clandestinity on the part of the son. The silence of her parents is no act of clandestinity, unless you prove a previous obligation to communicate; but the law requires ro such thing. The whole fraud, then, is resolved into a non-com municaLion of the fact to Mr. Sullivan, sen. The case is then reduced to the simple question of the publication of bans. The Marriage Act requires, Ist, That bans should be three times published in the parish-church where the parties dwell ; 2d, That they shall indicate the true names and residences of the parties; but these are required under different cir cumstances. A false description of residence will be a mere inspesfiineetsins impeditimem, whereas false names will operate as the impedimentum dirimens. The true names of illegitimate children are difficult to be ascertained. It is usual to give them the name of their mother. In general, where there is a name of baptism and a surname, these are to be used, un less a name be assumed afterwards by which they are better known. In the case of Mather against hey, the Lady, from a frolic and romantic jocularity, would be married by the name of Wright: the Court held that the publication operatad as a fraud, and pronounced against the marriage. It can neither en courage dangerous levity, or destroy marriages by a pedantic strictness; partial variations arise from va rious causes, and with different effects ; sometimes of one letter only, as Dobbyns for Dobbyn ; sometimes of more, as Widowcraft for Meadowcraft : at others, the omission of a name, as in Puget and Tomkins ; and again the addition of a name, as in the case of Refer against Hefer, Tree against Quin, Dobbyn against Cornick. These may arise from fraud, but they may also arise from error or accident; but where the variation does not so disfigure the name as to de stroy identity, it is open to explanation. If that re- fern to causes perfectly innocent, the Cow 'cide that there is no fraud. If it is let , then general evidence will decide the poit must first shew that thete is fire! ,l planation, before you can go it .to tab stances of fraud. If there is no false of bans, no evidence of other frauds can' The falsehood of the publication is the sei that, and every thing is proved without I cannot think the name of Holmes insert via Oldacre is sufficier.t to destroy her id ( explanation offered is, that she was bora mother's marriage, whose maiden name tr Her parents desired it might be iasel e d as a measure of caution. This is a re , solutioi. of the fact. She was a not have had occasion to have execz...ez instrument, and the general use cf have brought up unpleasant: recorsettl; : mily. Nothing whatever is opposed t 2 nation. One circumstance is to my rat , and it could not be used in fraud. 11 - : concealed, not 3laris Oldacre, t..ut Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan, sea. did person was in existence, and therrio , e been deceived. if fraud had beta have nestled in that part of the cate. Puget, and all the cases, the uanse of t.. been disfigured. This name was au.% purpose of snaking assurance daub am convinced that this is tic view of the law compels me to take—that tl.e k marriage cannot be untied by the law. I fore to prossounce, that Maria Hclites the lawful wife of John Augustus Sli! he is bound to take her home and aeat jogai affection. WESTMINSTF.R SI:SEIC;F. THE KIN° v. rrivcozs. This prosecution was instituted by of the parish of St. James, agninst for having, on the 18th of Mara ; viee: one of their watchmen, in St. Jam ct.s-...: After hearing the various witne.tes, was Mr. Peter - Walker, the Jury retr., of Guilty. The 6eurt sentenced the Defendart ti to the King of la and to be impr.sone paid. A check was itnmediately gi:•ea for and the Defendant left the Court. Charles Lawson, a broker, residing in Covent-Garden, was put to the br.r, on meats, the first filed by the parish ef Et.. for a violent assault on Thomas Can: Watchman; and the second, for crea:in, disturbance at his house, anti Wm. Radcliffe, Proprietor of the Three T. said parish.-s-This case, as proved by the was one of peculiar hardship against Mr. who, by the conduct of the prisoner, had hi ruined, having been taken on a Jndge's vt: confined 4.8 hours, in consequence of wiri turned out of his house by the Brer-ers. fendant had also indicted the Clerkenwell Sessions, and brought an ac them, in the Court of King's Bench, at (to neither of which he appeared) in order vent the prosecution being proceeded ia. The Prisoner called several witnesses to charge ; but they wholly failed ; and after genious defence by Mr. Attv, the Jury 1 guilty on both indictrnents, and the Court him to three months' imprisonment on each term to commence at the expiration of the Williams Wall and IVinter were foe of assaulting, on the 15th of March, Sul man, a man of colour, and one Lithe B Duke of Gloucester's Regiment of Guard tenced to pay a fine of ll's. 4d. each, in r of the Prosecutor having commenced against them in the Court of King's Dear: • MARLSOROUGH-sntnr.—Yesterday Joh was finally examined, and committed to Nei, take his trial for the murder of Jane Rogers. was the fourth time the aLove urhappy tic placed at the bar of this Office. His apparaact truly ghastly, very much agitated, and he so violently, as to be compelled to den with both his hands against the desk. The asked the prisoner if he had any thing to answered, /Co ; but for the great ind..lgcs.ce ness, and humanity of his Wo.-ship owar begged he would accept his grateu:tl - .Jnk , was then taken from the bar, in the =.7r. and dejected state of mind. BIRTH& Wcdnedq, in Great cet. the Eght Amelia Sophia Drummood. a daughter . Tuesday, at the Vicarage, East-ham, Din, the Rev, C. IL Rowlatt, of a daughter. May 16, at Tain, the Lady of Dr. lictnedv, Jana s, at Rozel, Isle of Jersey, the Lady cf P. FL Req. et a gm MARRIED, Thursday, at Kendngton,eaptadta Emmy, of 0 , meat, to Lucy, eldest daughter of the lase Captain Keynsham, near Bath. April lit, at Hulce in the Forest, Czytzin Fi Graham, of the Queen's Bays, to ULM James, dar late AV. James, Esq. of Liverpool. At Barbadoes, Lieutenant-Colonel S. H. F. eth Regiment, to Elisabeth, daughter of W. lltur Bruce Vale. _ June 4, at Edinburgh, Alexander D..vidson, Taxes, to Helen, seccod daughter of the late Mr Writer in Edinburgh. DIED. At Mavis Bank-house, ant Edinburgh, James, of lieutenant-Colonel Charles S.fiirigor, 70th Regi At Bombay, on the 10th of Jar.uary, in Ler 2t n 8 Eliza, the eldest dat.ghter of G. 11 Tyudaies Lac. Inn-fields. Tuesday, in London, after an Muss of a few hce E. Ralph, late of Maidstone, Kent. On the 4th inst. at lsleworth, aged $7, Lady Tarfadaa of the late Sir William Twysden, Bart. June 7, at Cambridge, Captain Herbert &lan, regiment of foot, son of Cul. Ratan, of Batch, Some; M Thurso, on the slat uh. Mrs. Margaret Lehi Mr. George Putman, Malin' Magistrate of that tete Nov. 1, at I lazarabaugh, in Bengal, attar thing daughters, one of whom only survives her, the Las: ; nant Charles Rogers, of the Ithantgur battalion. May 1, at Pulrosie, in Sutherland, Mrs. Duncan aged 74; and en the 17th, Mr. Duncan M'Gregor, that_ pint, aged 78. This venerable couple lived togs May SI. at Montrose, Dr. James Rost, ylaytteiuu HIGH WATER at LOWDON BRIDGE Meaning - 43 minutes Mumma • - 15 LONDON a Printed and publishe4 by Place, Teaopk-Dar. -~--••• nut int 1 in tte • .her & Q t. e bt tect::s. l t it, rbet i . • :. , • nud be 1t7.1:1'. T 4 ra WIC! it 'ma sic:,-r tt 19 th e L... tr . ! natzr i d :4! nii,•4 • ▪ rt-r• • n: is : ••J ; 11 j: r - • 1 :••• e. 'as 4 Vat zase knot • I tar::: ... 6 „ A £.1.: 0 (4 1 •L; ote at , on • .3,1 ;c . . 4 ; :e'• to Fr t- e ed tree al r the daterr.-Irze, • p 1 ttec • , Atte. rpbeil, mo a rio: ;7 Tins tz e ri:.-.esen, le. P.a.!c11.. Ibeenr.:.' warera: ; ::.l te • Thar. Ts, bet . .: a cton rder to Fr, to trbet era inv. u.• found in • seattima el, the e l i t t . e fcreoet. foond rig eat CIO !dt, sze set- cciec=ce St d an ;;- - ka att. Joh Due dm )44 NcirsM a • rThe h e enzi sit to nuance am top trerSed Re rive slipport " te 11.agura eo crieet he I, Igcs.ce. teas t.rn.1 7 4 .. a d nks. Dna= 7!: Ur:ripil Ze ht MT. Lei be Lady One I t.N. of t Es tPt Ft. LemFrara le w t L F G4 ::: 73a : 1C211 % . "11:111:1 1 1 o i Lb" 1)4 tsi aw ,s 'alurts7. Eec - t d. 13 1 gri Air. G. Fear, fir GO I, the 0:7 er Lift:lAM. :11 ar, 'ratiS LauCt.l. 10 - 41'S, the Ite Norden, as cc, ct Ott 1.1 sontersenEn. Leith, sat! tutVD. is :asunrclarlic b ,d24 i i t wo;ka..x l a i .R:i t ßGlite m orei : cow.. 7 .l... co atter • 1 ICarli Picks' •