Star. — London, England, 1818-11-12 00:00:00

LINES, • 4NSCEARED TO MR. RICHARD TURNER, or Sia CELSBILATJU DLICICINC MANUFACTORY, LONIX/N-110: Ur.mobed, and lane eath pendant sail, While - Commerce courts th' auspicious gale, The stately Vessel rides ; They come—the fas 'ring bi-...etc. play, And quickly o'er the azure way In gallant trim she glide.! And `airing thence her destinl Port, The shore, lo! busy crowds resort, And hail, with warm acclaim, The nearing Bark. these Sons of Trade.; Th' al:urir.g Mart is then dlsplaky'd That points to Wealth and Fame ! Bat chief o'er all, in quick demand, re.:nding still an eager hand, To taste and Judgment prone ; The stranger Tonsures Lucid views-- Ilia eye the far-fatted JZT pursues, And marks it for his own. The mead of gratitude, if due To hint, who gives the sombre hue Of life's dull scene, to shine With ornament, that charms the sight— Imparting splendour and delight. Teaura, that mewed is thine t Then since to thee the Nations owe Tr.. beaut'ons Jet, whose brilliant glow, Unrivaird shines in fame; Th' enduring record still of Times In ev'ry distant age and clime Shall promulgate thy name ! LAW LVTELLIGLYCE. counT OF CHANCERY. NO EMBER TILE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AT THE RELATION OF THE SIARQuis OF ELANGFoIio, v. lIIS GRA:.:E THE. DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he was instructed to Move the Court to grant an injunction for icstrain ing his Grace the Duke of Marlborough from pro ceeding to cut down the growing timber in Blenheim Park, or in any manner removing the ornamental and other timber in that district. The question was one of peculiar importance, as it involved the rights of a tenant entail ; and, under the present circum stances, he had no doubt the Court would grant the injunction. The property in question was by two Acts of Parliament in the 3d and 4th of Queen Anne given to the then Duke of Marlborough in conside ration of the very great services which that illustri ous warrior had rendered to the country. By the Sth of Queen Anne, the property in question was more secured to the Duke fur the benefit of himself and successors. and it was rendered incapable of being ever disposed of or put away. The Court would sec this by the section of the Act which he Was now going to read. The LORD CHANC.DLLOR conceived that it would I be better to defer reading any thing till the whole was fully argued on both sides. The question • in volved in this case was, one of considerable impor tance in every point of view, particularly as it would lead to a full discussion on the difference between a tenant entail and IC tenant for life. He remembered' loud Shrewsbury's case, which had a striking ana logy to the present one, and he thought it his duty now to grant the injunction on these terms, that the party who obtained it would give immediate notice to the other side, that it had been granted, in order that they might come torward and have the case fully argued without delay. He wished it to be per fectly understood, that this injunction was issued ge nerally, and included all the timber, both ornamental lind growing, but he gave it without prejudice tb any future application—lnjunction granted. • ...1 ; - . • A , 1 - .. 1 . I , • i 1 li. 1, I'l • 4 1 - 1 1 • I i I i i t' t i I( 1 A k i 3 1 I r ) 1 ) 1.4. , VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 'Ate Vice-Ctuoicet.z.on was occupied in hearing the arguments of Counsel in the case of the Attorney General v. the Corporation of Bristol. , The question at issue was respecting certain charitable bequests, and involved only dry points for argument, wholly uninteresting to a general reader. COURT OF KM'S BENCH, NOVEYLBER CARR V. CLARE.. SCAILT7T moved to set aside the nonsuit in this case. It was in action brought by the Plaintiff, a farmer; against the Defendant, to recover damages for the seduction of his daughter, and the loss he had sustained by being deprived of her services. The cause was tried before Mr. Baron Wood at the Nor thampton Assizes. It appeased, that the plaintiff's daughter had been placed as a servant in the family of a Mrs. Shaftoe, at Annandale. The plaintiff; in 1815, removed from Annandale to Bishops Auckland, but he requested of Mrs. Shaftoe that his daughter might retnain in her service, until he should be set tled and able to receive her. Two years after that request the young woman was seduced by the defen dant, who had married - the daughter of Mrs. Shaftoe. The Learned Judge at the trial directed a nonsuit, on the authority of deckinns in the cases of Pother gill v. Sparks, and Dean v. Field, in which it was aid down, that if a daughter were not in the service of het father, he could not sustain an action for loss of her services. Mr. Searlett submitted, that this case differed from Fothergill v. Sparks. The daugh ter in that case was more than '2l years of age, and Lord Mansfield held • that she wets released from her father's controul. In Dean and Field, although the daughter was under age, she•had declared her deter mination not to return to her father after the seduc tion. In the present case it was understood expressly, that the daughter was to return to her father. He contended on all the points that the plaintiff was en titled to support the action. Chief Justice Aanorr said, that the law was well laid down, when it was determined, that a parent could not bring an action for the seduction of his daughter, in the character of a parent. He must do it in the character of a master. In the present case, the daughter was not in the service of her father, but in that of Mrs. Shaftoe, who alone was entitled to bring an action.—The Court refused to disturb the nonsuit. PIZ/ISOM V. WILL A N--(CA RR lER s.) This was an action against a carrier, for the loss of some cloth. The Jury gave a verdict for the plain tiff to the amount of twenty per cent. on the value of the cloth, though it had not been entered at \VA , lan's Mr. ScAntrrT now moved to set aside the ver dict, oit the ground.of the construction to'he put . on datend.int's notice, which was, that he i'vould not be aii.,werabic to a zrealci amount than 54 uadess gobs were entered and paid for accordingly ; not would he pay more than 51. for any damage done to parcels of less than 281 b. weight: nor more than 20 per cent, for any damage done to any parcel above that weight, unless entered and paid for accordingly. The case of Tate v. Willan, (2 East), which turned on a notice like the present, was deckled in Mr. Milan's favour, the Court having held that the notice formed a part of the contract, and that it ought to have been stated in the declaration. In Clarke v. Gray, (6 East), in deed, the Court came to a contrary decision on the same point, holding that the carrier's connect was only to liquidate any damages that might* be sus tained.—Mr. Willan, who thought it very hard that he should suffer by the alteration of the law within so few years, especially where his own case had es tablished that law, insisted that Mr. Scarlett should move to sef aside the verdict in the present instance, relying on the former case. The COURT said they should introduce still greater uncertainty, if they were not to abide by Clarke and Gray, which had been decided after two arguments, and un great deliberation.—Rule refused. BL:LICELY v. Lonn-4GVA RANTER) The defendant had given a guarantee for his son, in the following terms--.. , Gentlemen, as you hesitate to make an assurance for my son, under an appre hension that he may become a bankrupt and you be losers, being desirous for the interest of my son, I agree to guarantee you, should he become a bank rupt, to pay any loss you may incur by him." The son afterwards committed an act of bankruptcy, by being imprisoned more thaietwo months for a debt Atmore than 1001. but no commission having ever issued against him, the plaintiffs in the present action were nonsuited, on the ground that the defendant's son had never been a bankrupt within the meaning of the guarantee. Mr. Topptso now sought to set aside the nonsuit, on the ground that the son had been strictly a bank rupt, within the terms of the statute 21 James, c. 19. s. '2. and the evident meaning, of the guarantee was to indemnify the plaintiff. against any loss by the in 'solvency or bankruptcy of the defendant's son. He 4;Ontended, that the effect of the guarantee could not .dtpead on the suing out of a commission against the :defendant's son; for, a commission might have been out, as happened sometimes, though the bankrupt was fully solvent, and able to pay 20s. in the pound ; in which ease,. the guarantor could not have been called ; and, in the present instance, though no corn tisiision had issued , the son bad been strictly a bank rupt within the terms 21 James; c. 19. Chief Justice Asaorr observed, that the declara tion averred that the son had become a bankrupt which he thought ivas not the case millets a docket had been struck against him. if the guaratee were to be taken as an instenment of a larger construction, as a guarantee against the inability or insolvency Of the ofefendent's son, the declaration should have con. tained a count to that effect. He Was far from saying that the guarantee would hive borne any such coo struetion. The son might have been sent to prism; and yet have been perfectly solvent; but the Court would not throw out the least hint that the guarantee would bear,any other construction than that which had been put upon it at die trial. They did not assert that it would not, but by no means that it would.— The word bankrupt had a technical meaning ; liahi lity to become a bankrupt was one thing ; actually being a bankrupt was another.—Rule refused. NEWMAN C. BENNETT. This was in action against a music-master of Chi chester for hiving beaten the plaintiff, one of his scho lars, because the boy, a chorister of the Ca th edral, had gone to sing at a catch-club, notwithstanding evress orders to the contrary. The plaintiff had a verdict far £5, which Mr. Gtnt- NET now sought to set aside, because the Learned Judge who presided at the trial had refused evidence, that it was asual to forbid the choristers of other ca thedrals to sing at catch-clubs, and to chastise them when they were disobedient in that respect ; as also that catch-singing disqualified them for singing ca thedral'rnusic. The Cover concurred in thinking that this evidence would have been too gene, al, and refused to disturb the verdict. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 11. YOUNG V. CADRAY AND OTHERS. In this case the rule was made absolute for grant ing a 'new trial under the following circumstances: The plaintiff as the representative of the . legatees of the testator, brought an action against the defendant land others, executors, for £367, being the balance of the testator's property in their hands, and the Jury found a verdict to that amount. But included in this verdict was the sum of £167, which was re turned in the schedule presented to the Ecclesiastical Court, as the amount of recoverable debts due to the estate of the testator. For this sum of £167, the Counsel contended, that the estate of the executors was not liable, as the debts referred to were not re covered, and therefore, that the verdict was con- F trary to law. WRIGHT V. DOWNTS.‘ Mr. Serjear.t VAUGHAN moved for a rule to spew cause why a new trial should not he granted in this cause, which was tried at the last Assizes for Leices tershire. The plaintiff, who is a butcher, had his son apprenticed to the defendant, who is a surgeon, for five years, giving him a premium of £5O, the latter covenanting to board and lodge the boy, as well as to instruct him in his profession. About the close of two years, however, the defendant dismis sed the boy for refusing, as he alleged, to carry let ters to the post-office, and for some other reason, which the defendant declined to state. Soon after this dismissal, the plaintiff had his son bound to another surgeon, paying no-premium, but covenant ing to board and lodge his son during his appren ticeship. On the termination of this apprenticeship, the plaintiff brought his action against the defendant for the expense of the board and lodging, and the Jury returned a verdict fdr £2OO. The ground upon which he moved for the rule, the Learned Counsel stated, was that the damages were excesssive, and that the defendant would be ruined if their payment were enforced. Hence he hoped that the Court would accede to his motion, and that a new trial would be granted. • The Cutee JUSTICZ, before whom the cause was tried, observed that he had evidence upon his notes that the plaintiff could not boas's! and lodge his son for less than £lO or C. 40 a-year. Therefore he consi dered the damages moderate, ana that the result of another referer.ce to a Jury would be to have larger ivtages awarded. On this then, as well as on other he could not accede to the motion. 0 The other Judges concurring in this opinion, the rule was refused. WEDB V. WALLINC.TON AND OTUERI. In this case, in which Messrs Serjeant BEST and LENS appeared against the r ule, and Messrs. Serjeants COPLEY and Huttocit in favour, the object was to set aside an award by Mr. Adam, as arbitrator ; but, after some discussion, the result was, that the case was referred back to Mr. Adam, in order to hear farther evidence. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Serjeant LENS expressed a wish to know whether any evidence had been tendered by the complainant Mr. Webb, which the arbitrator refused to hear, or what farther evidence Webb now meant to tender? To this no answer was made. Mr. ADAM declared that Mr. Webb expressed to him his decided resolution not to meet the other par ties (Wallington and Brice) before him ; for he wished that meeting to take place, his only object being to thoroughly investigate the case before he decided ; and he assured the Court that a good deal of what had been stated by Counsel on the part of Mr. Webb, was inconsistent with the facts. The Judges, upon reviewing the affidavits on both sides, bore testimony to the correctness of Mr. Adam ; and the CUM! JUSTICE observed, that an arbitrator was in all cases entitled to call in accomptants, or other persons, for the purpose of giving him infor mation to guide his judgment upon the merits of the case, without consulting either party, those parties having no right to interfere with his consideration of those merits, but in the statement of facts. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOV. to. IMITATIVE TEA. Mr. Commos SERSEANT moved for a Rule to show cause why a verdict given against a man named Mallins, for having imitative tea in his possession, should not be set aside. He made this motion on the ground, that the defendant was not, in point of fact, a licensed dealer in tea, it having appeared in his license " that he had two rooms on a ground floor, where he was licensed to roast coffee," and that he was merely alloired to " keep tea, chocolate, and coffee in these rooms." This being the case, there was a particular Act of Parliament which made a person who had tea for sale in his possession without a license, liable to a certain penalty, which, however, did not amount to more than half the penalty inflic ted on a licensed dealer who was proved to have imi tative tea in his possession. He contended, therefore, that if defendant was to be prosecuted at all, he ought to be prosecuted for having tea in his posses sion without a license, and not as a dealer for having imitative tea in his possession, as in point of fact he was not a licensed dealer. The Learned Serjeant went at great length into the subject, and cited seve ral ease‘ in support of his argument. The Court, however, decided that the defendant was clearly entitled to have tea for sale in his pos session, and therefore be had been justly fined for. ha‘ring used a sort of poisonous drug in its place , which he wished to impose on his customers as real tea. If the defendant had been prosecuted for hav ing had tea in his possession without a licente, he would have had a good defence in the very words of that licence.—Rule refused. COURT OF REQUESTS, NOVEMBER al. A Coach-master was this day summoned before the Court, by a Gentleman residing at lbbotson's Hotel, for an over-charge of Ss. for the carriage of a portmanteau by one of his coaches, from Dover to London, which, though weighin g . less than 6 01bs. was cha rged !Albs. The actual weight of the port manteau having been ascertained on its delivery, the , Gentleman to whom it belonged went to the coach office five times, and gave him eight days to rectify the error; but as the clerk then refused to return. any part of the over-charge, he was brought before the Court, who, having beard the case, issued an or der to the Coach-master to return the over-charge claimed; and in case of non-pa} ment in a few days, an execution will issue against his goods and chattels. COURT OF ARCHES, NOVEMBER 11. ANDREWS V. LINTON. This was an appeal from a Decree pronounced by The Consistory Court of Sarum, on the 16th of May, 1818, in a suit instituted by the Rev. H. Linton, D.D. Vicar, of Dinton, in Wilts against John An drews, a farmer of the same parish,l2y reason of sub traction of tithes. The Judge before whom that cause (Linton v. Andrews) was heard, had decided that the sum of £18.85.113. should be paid by the defendant (Andrews), together with all costs. It was now prayed that such sentence might be reversed. It ap peared from the libel, that the original suit was in stituted at Salisbury in 1815. The tithes in question were of three species ; and were claimed of crops of hay, and seed, and of the agistment or pasturage of calves and large numbers of sheep. • For some of the tithes a compensation was offered by the appellant, but rejected. In the answers of the appellant to the libel, the tithe of grass Was stated to have been duly tut, set out, and reserved ; but it %vac, permitted to rot on the ground, without being carried away. The Counsel for the appellant observed, that it was proved in evidence that the tithes bad been properly set out for the vicar, and it lie had not taken them away within a proper time, there could surely no claim be made on his party, for them, or for their value ; that with resrect to such of them were not payable in kind, greater sums had Leen pad into Court than the higher amounts at which they had been rued in the schedule. Dr. ARNOLD, for the respondent, was of opinion that the merits of this case lay in a very small cum pass : it had been proved, indeed, that the tithe of grass had been set out ; but had it, as staied in the libel, been duly set out? had that act been pertbrm ed in a ftill and proper manner ? or wit; the oath of the appellant to be considered as sufficient evidence of that fact ? Now it did• not appear that due notice had been given to the parson or lessee of the tithes. On reviewing the whole of the case, the Court pro. incunced for the appellant, decreeing that he should pay Ell. 10s. 7d. and no more, as the amount of the, tithes in question, (discharging him from t he:pay ment of the Et, 18s:ld. inducted is the sentence now reversed), and 'adjudging £lO no:tinc expen.sanor, in the Court below, to the respondent. Each party to pay his own costs from the time that the compcnsa , ton was tendered. POI Bow-mniert.---Yesterday Islington, who en S un d ay l ost infant sister had been taken out chaise, attended before Mr. H: Magistrates, accompanied by a stances which are already heft that they had found a witness Pant, which is only a year and a It MU left near the Asylum, it peered to Me man a singular ci to follow the thief, who, In tit shop, where he had a Pass of the liquor-shop, end had a full and from his description, them Mr. Horsley's. The thief :eft towards London-bridge. where Mr. Horsley was so much affect ease; and Mrs. Horslef being ii lid of the consequences. The clearly 'elated by his friend, se the seduction of the sersmm-gir dug the child ; there was no do been induced to take the childri restricted from telly( them near it; whereas she had bee" crossing the Shepherd and Se chaise with both her hands, api She had not taken any precaute bed no other clothe, but then suspected that the went to a ho near the Asylum. Her pars!' friends, bad not heard any thin she had been murdered or ha , l not state their reason for thinki should go to she Police-office in formation, and they intended t Office for the Home Departme: Under Secretary of State. The Magistrate. appointed to the house of ill-fame in Mead's• bring the parties who keep the' The Officer. soon alter retort clue which could lead them to t Thomas Doltsir*, a decent charged with defrauding Mr. 31 street, Covent-Earley, of silk amount of £4 Rs. Mr. Munn mums, where the prisoner Irdg his selection, desired Mr. tilttni The hosier went home and got received, and told him to wai from the next room, but he de the change of the note aho. 1 the same evening, in company he had given part of the money U.non-Hatt.—Mr. Horsley 011 ice with an application Carter, the witneskwho toll the child, represents him as ver high, between 30 and 40 years dark curly hair, round face, r blue coat, with yellow buttons, notched leather under the strini or angle boots. Ills appearance Mr. Horsley expressed his si• being also concerned with the the child, he having been in ti girl when she was out with the and having been seen in her cos The Ilagirtrate signed warn the servant, Stevens, and the in they were delivered to Glennor to use hie best exertions for the Mae tacseocatt.sratrr.— Yves old, named Jahn DedAli, was h charged as a rogue and vagahan night the prisoner was found s:i Man and Still, o.th:4 . d-street, ; were assembled round.l•ini, son, who really thna!Alt be WV: far assistance to convey him ti Beadles went to the spot, and fe Thinking wi.h the rest, that gently from the ground, and on either aide. When half vra , gave a spring, tnocknd both hi" peat agility Awards Caveudisi was overtaken, and although o desperate a resistanee, that itll violently; in the struggle his conveyed with dialculty to the as belonging to a rang of beggar town, and have of late been the He was committed. I HA troy. GA anrv.--Toterctal years of age, residing in FOI.OOII a warrant against an old man, tempting to riolatt her person ! Elizabeth Holbrooke, thi with the two children beloi Canonbury-lane, Islington,. on the Birmingham coach, that place. The girl say brothel, the man who inv ter's, told her his friend that he would marry her ; ham coach, promising to f above place, however, she had been deceived, and rt she knows nothing furthc chaise near the Asylum, would take them home. 818 A few days since, at Sidney-1 Major-General lialkatt, of a d Monday, in the Cathedral Pr the Rey. John Hirt, of a son. MAR Thurday, Major Reid, of younrest dAughter of John At Hatfield, in Yorkshire, or lenn, Baronet, of Morvaren, Fridq, at his father's house,' pert Falsest.% R.N. aged 32, se ..ett, of Heppington, Esq._ . Saturday, In Chatham Dock. of the Royal Navy, and Inn of Lately, at Modhury, Mr. C apothecary. had been shot few yards of his house, when and expired immediately. PRICE OF STO< Bank stock Reduced 77f; Cons. 77j 78i 77f 78{ per CA. 860 4 per Ct.96f 95ff Navy 1061 if Lg. Ans. 20 1.164 COAL PA An Ships at Market. Shit's Tfit Newcastle SI 24 Sunder!. nd MAILS 9 •11. R. MI _Dublin 0 I Waterford 0 . Guerrsey and Jersey 0 is Ilottand ye- 0 Flanders 1 C HIGH WATEItat LO IX )Icrning Afternoon • LONDON; Primp) m d ilzze,