Star. — London, England, 1818-11-17 00:00:00

r .. ' the mean time, stood now that he conceived it to be the less necessary to detail all the circumstances, as the proceedings and documents were published on the other side. _ Mr. &rjeanr Con.ay.—Not by us. Mr. Serjeant TADDY.--I mean only that they were published, not by us, for we possessed not the do cuments. Mr. Justice Panc.--I have it entered in my note book thus, Rule granted, with the special view of a mutual compromise. Cum Jusrica.--.The only question is the amount of the damages, £4,000. The law says, if a man cannot pay in his purse he must pay in his person. If, however, a misrepresentation had been given of the defendant's wealth, which misled the Jury, that might he a g ood reason for a new trial. There was ;in a ffi davit by a certain person, he should say no more at present of him, which declared his property to be £2OO a-year in land. He had no doubt that it was a gross case dh the part of the defendant. M(. Set)eant TADDY agreed to take his rule on the defendants affidavit. • 000DCITILD V. COCURAN. This case was tried before a Jury. The Chief Jus tice presided. The plaintiff is a glass-merchant in London. The defendant is Master of the James and Archibald, a regular trader from the Dumbarton .Glass Company to London. The plaintiff had last year received 30 crates of crown•glass, a considera ble part of which was in a damaged state. All the glass on board belonging to others was quite safe. 'fly: action was brought to recover the damages, which was afterwards agreed to be 1.10 from the Ma :ter; on the ground that the damage was owing to Lis negligence, in having iron pigs iiistead of sand for ballast. Several witnesses were called on both sides, but their evidence was beside the case. No evidence was offered of the manner of stowage; pig wai proved to be as common as sand in that trade; no evidence whatever of negligence oil the part of the Master was offered.—Verdict for the de li:ad:int. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOVEMBER 6. LEWES V. MuRGAti. After the motions of the day had been gone through, %lr. Rot:nelson (late tile plaintiff's Solicitor) r o s y t o claim their Lordships' indulgence, in allowing him to Make a few observations on the statement of this cause in the Newspapers of Saturday last, whereby it appeared that Sir Watkin . had attributed to the neg ligence of his Solicitors, (Messrs. ltoutledge and ]tardy) an attachment having issued against him for not sooner putting in his answer to the defendant's interrogatories. Mr. Baron Gannow.s--This Court has nothing to do with Newspaper reports; we cannot interfere. Mr. Baron Gaittotm..--We can listen to no appli cation which does not come before us on aflidavit. Mr. ROUTLEDGE.—I am ready to prove to your Lordships that no negligence or blame is attributa ble to myself or partner, and therefore willingly SC crie to your Lordehip's proposition. 'Barons GRAHAM and G.ARROW.—The Court has nothing to do with the statements in Newspapers ; your only redress is by an action for calumny. :Mr. ROUTLEDGE.—My Lords, I have no vindictive feeling to gratify ; my sole object is to:correct any irripuzations on our profeasional character, in the winds of your Lordships and the public. DEROGATIVE COLIIT, NO7EMBER it. DAVIES v. I'ArtDOZZ. • This was a question on thz adinis;ion of an alleea ;ion in the above - suit. It appeared that Mary Da vie;, the deceased testatrix, had executed a will, bear- Lig date the 10th of August, 1317, in which she ap pu!nted het cousin, Margaret Davies, spinster, her ado executrix. It appeared from the deposition of a :liss Morgan, who was in the habit cf visiting the .ceased, that calliug upon' her some time in the oionth of September in . the same year, at her resi d?nce in Long Ashton, near Bath, she found her in Ler bedchamber, in a very disturbed state of mind, at a table covered with papers which she was busily engaged in destroying. She requested the deponent to destroy the remainder. Miss Morgan, however, in carryiug them irto another room, for the purpose of burning them, reflected on the dangerous conse quences that might follow the execution of the de ceased's orders, and preserved such of them as were n..t already torn up. Among the papers were the ctutilated.fragments of the Will in question, which were produced to the Court, totally illegible, and a fr2morandum, of the nature of a testamentary paper, .s.ich is entire. For this memorandum it was further alleged, the deceased, on coming to a more com posed state of mind, made the most anxious inquiries, repenting of the order she had given for the destrifc- Can of writings, among which, she feared, was " memorandum, signed and dated by her, describing tl;,:t alluded to ; and testifying touch satisfaction at learning it was s'afe. By it she left her wearing ap p trel, &c. to the wife of Pardon, who is her nephew A hi next of kin; several articles of property as testi tr.onikls of regard and affection for certain friends; only twoingaciss, one of £lO, and one of £‘2 Na bequest was made, specifically, of the residue of l.er property. - Ile memorandum was opposed, as an imperative piper ' by Dr. LuseINGTON, on behalf of Pardon, the next of kin, who prayed that the allegation might be rejected ; and, consequently, that the will and testa mentary scrips might be pronounced against. The Learned Counsel proceeded to argue, that the paper in question was not a perfect one, or one by virtue of which the Court would decree probate of the g . .ds and estate of the deceased. He contended: rhat the deceased never meant it to operate as a sub stantial and independent paper, bequeathing her pre petty ; but that it was nothing more than an adjunct scrip, relating to some former or other testamentary d'spositiolu, which did not then appear; that this i ict appeared strongly,• by contrasting it with three ot,her papers before the Court; all of which (being i-eleptions only of wills) began, " I, Mary Davies, of such a place, do make this my last will and t ‘nansent. First, I desire that all my just debts and laseial'expenses," &e. Now this proved, that so far from meaning by that m emorandum to make a will, the deceased, when about to do a formal act, did it Formal manner; beginning first with her de and so en regularly ; and that she was competent to this,. further evidence existed in the 1a ,er No.i.; in which she revoked a legacy of £lOO kft to Mary Davies, and. another legacy is the paper No. 8, both of them in a distinct and proper name. (None of these papers were signed . or executed.) But her cairn estimation or judgment of the memorandum was clear from what occurred in her own hand writing at the bottons•of it, via.—" To the friends specified in this Memorandum'." The Learned Counsel then endeav to estab li sh as certain, that the paper could c ° 4 4 be viewed as adjunct to `some preceding one, or as.ehe Memorial of a future will, on the following grotinds—that it only enume rated small article of no intrinsie-value, which dt ceased disposed of to her most particular friends;— that, except the £l2 already mentioned, it contained to pecuniary bequests ; that the residue was not dis posed of ; and that though Margaret Davies was spoken of, relatively, as executrix, there was no ex press appointment of an executing in that memoran dum; frant whence he dented another strong infe rence, that it referred to some paper not before the Court. The Learned Counsel, in conclusion, advert ed to the residue c observing, that it the paper were iwonounced for, the whole of it mast go to Margaret Davies. As to the state of her (the deceased's) mind at the time of executing that paper, he was not aware that the opposite Counsel could prove any thing for their case from discussing that point. If she were of sane mind, it bad been strewn she wished those pa pers, among which, clearly, was the former will, should be destroyed ; and if the Court considered that he had proved that the paper attempted to be set up was really an adjunct one, it must of course be devoted to the same fate, as being of a similar tenour ; if she were of ur.sound mind, the Court would be equally unable to pronounce for the vali dity of the will so destroyed. Ile should therefore pray the Court that the ;negation be rejected. Dr. ADAMS, in reply, obse..ved, that the arguments of his Learned Friend wo.ild seem to relate, not so much to the admission of the present allegation, as to the decreeing probate after that allegation had been admitte.. Tne paper in question was duly written, signed, and sealed ; and there rra:st be some thing of a very extraordinary r.ature in wills relating to personal property, and its disposal, where these requisites were not sufficient. The iniperf.e , :tion of this memorandum had beer, stated to consist is this —that it did not convey what the deceased intended to convey. But it did not result, he maintained, from a view of that paper, that it was her intention to do any thing niare than appeared on the face of it. If it were the testatrix's intention to make it an operative paper, the circumstance of its being termed a memo randum could not invalidate its effect. That such was her intention, was pretty evident, from her pre serving it to the day of her death, in October, with out having attempted to substitute any paper for the will of Atiust, 1817, whose destruction she outlived several da) s. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Court would not reject the allegation. 1)r. Doosox, on the same behalf, observed, that if, as had been urged, the paper in - question was only a memorial for a will, it mould be difficult to ac count for the extreme anxiety of the deceased for its preservation ; and that it had often happened, in the absence of other teStatr:entaryalnaiments, that the Court had pronounced ler the validity of such me moranda as the present. The JUDGE here declared that. I:e would not this day Elecide in this matter; and did not,,learn, from the papers before him, what was meant by the ex pressions disturbed state" and " composed - stale of, mind." The decree he should give would be mate rially affected by a knowledge of the sanity or un soundness of the mind of the deceased testatrix ; but the law did not recog::ise the vague and indefinite description just rueatioilt!d. lie, therefore, ordered the .sth article of the allegaT'r”i to be correclad, and assigned the cause for furtiler hearing on the next Arches' day. COURT OF KING'S nr.NcIT, I:LELAND, N0v.12. CRIMINAL Mr. VANDELEUR applied on the affidavit of Mr. Ellis, Assistant:Barrister for the County of Mayo, for a conditional order for a eriminalinformation against Mr. Nevin for words intended to provoke him to fight a duel. The affidavit stated that Mr. Nevin, at a time when he was unknown to the deponent, had accosted him en the highway in a violent manner, accusing him of having taken a mean and base ad vantage of his sitdation, to injure and insult him (Mr. Nevin): and went on to incite him to fight a dud. The affidavit concluded with stating, that the application was made wholly on public grounds._ R ule granted. Mr. R. I'a.NNEFATIIER moved for a similar order against Cornelius Mahon, on the affidavit of John O'Connell Deponent was lately a member of the Killarney Hunting Club—on withdrawing from the club he borroned a pair of hounds from a Mr. Barry. Mr. Mahon then wrote to deponent to say that the hounds were his, and that alter this intimation, he would consider that he acted in an indelicate and un handsome manner towards him if he continued to use the hounds. Deponent called on Mr. Mahon for an explanation of this offensive note, when he declared that it was his intention thereby to give the deponent personaLoffence.—Rule granted. Mr. E. PENNEFATHER moved for a similar order against a Lieutenant Watson, on the affidavit of Lcrd Caher. The affidavit stated that during the late con tested Election for the County of Tipperary, while Lord Caher was breakfasting at an inn in Clonmell, Lieutenant Watson entered, and in a violent manner required his Lordship to dismiss a Mr. Egan, one of his Lordship's agents for the election, who he said had grossly insulted him (Mr. Watson,) at Nenagh. His Lordship referred him to his Committee, who answered that the principals could not be answerable, for the conduct of their agents during the election ; whereupon Mr. Watson repaired to his Lordship and ordered him to dismiss Egan within two hours; which not being complied with, he procured an exceeding offensive piper to be printed and placarded, and dis. persed thi ough the whole county, calling Lord Caller a coward—Rule granted. Mr. PENNEFJCZUSA also moved for a similar order against Mr. David Barry, on the affidavit of Mr. Fetnam. The parties reside at Tallagh ; Mr. Barry propagated a report that Mr. Fetnam had been en gaged in an affray, but denied the fact when interro gated by this gentleman. At a dinner party, Mr. Feta= declared the report to be untrue, and that he who made it had spoken falsely. This Mr. /terry resented, by saying he would ram those words down his throat. A mutual friend afterwards called on Mr. Fetnam from Zdr. Barb to say that Mr. Barry would aknowledge he had originated the report, and that it was only in jest, if Kr. Fetnam would say he was sorry for the words he had used. To this Mr. Fet nam agreed ; but on repairing to the appointed place, Mr. Barry, instead of eatenn& into the stipulated explanation, applied a horsewhip in a very rude way to Mr. Fetnam's shoulders, and called him a coward. —Rule granted. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IRELAND, Nov. 1 L BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. HARRIET CAILA, WIDOW, v. RICIIARD BIq:AMARA, ESQ. Mr. DOOHERTY moved to chew cause why the de fendant, who had been arrested at the suit of the plaintiff, under a writ for £5,000, should not be held to special bail. The plaintiff's affidavit stated, that she lived at 32, Upper George-street, Bryanston square, in the parish of Maryla-bonne, county of Middlesex ; that in the year 1815, the defendant entered into an agreement under his hand, to marry deponent, and never live or cohabit with any other woman, or on breach of such promise, to pay to de ponent the sum of £5,000 ; that defendant had since married another woman, and consequently could not now fulfil his agreement with deponent, and was therefore indebted to her k the sum of £5,000. This case, it appears by the information, has lain over since October, 1815. Mr. O'Comczt.t. contended, that as this affidavit did not aver any mutuality ef promise or other con sideration, it was ao more than a promise, and not an agreement; for a mere promise on one side, without any consideration orfthe other, is but a nuclum paclum, and no agreement, and therefore insufficient grounds for the party to be held to hail ; - and farther, Mr. O'Connell observed, that the plaintiff in her affidavit only stated, that the defendant agreed to ma:ry her at a future time, hot does not mention the _precise period. " Now," said Mr. O'Connell, "this same Harriet Caila had been married herself, and is now a widow, and at liberty to many Mr. M.Namara ; how, therefore, can she say but that at some future period he may become a widower, and be at liberty to marry her? and if there was no time specified at which this £5,000 was to fall due, how could they say it was due now ?" It was urged by Mr. DOGH£RTY, in reply to these objections, that with respect to want of consideration, the Courts generally inferred a mutuality of promise in cases of promised marriage; that where there was no time specifically mentie::ed for the fulfilment of an :agreement, a reasonable time Ras usually pre sumed ; and as the execution of his promise, by the I defendant, could not now be ejected ssithin such , 1 reasonable time, he being married to anpther woman, he (Mr. I)ogherty) hoped the Court would allow On Mr. O'CoNsrxes complaining of the hardship of keeping Mr. M. Namara in prison, " Inde.:l," said Lord NORHURY, " the unfortunate' gentleman seems to he suffixing under a double cap tivity—he is a captive in the chains of wedlock, and a captive within the bars of the Sheriff's prison." Tha Court intimated a wi ill, that as the defendant was a gentleman of fortune, his own recognizance might be received ; but if not, the else being one of great moment, and requiring much consideration, they would hear further argument upon it on Saturday next.; Maxstam Hoti'sv.—Yesterday a person, named I3lie:, whose appearance evidently proved that he had once known better days, and who described him sell to be a surgeon of a Greenland ship, was brought up by a constable. ' He was found on Sunday even ing, in a state of great disttess, in the door-way of No. 22, Poultry. When, taken to the watch-house, he declared that he had not been wider any roof for the three last days, and that he had spent the greater part thereof in the fields between the Shepherd and Shepherdess and the Britannia public house, at Islington. He was, at the time he was taken into custody, in great want of nourishment, and the con stable very humanely provided him with some bread, cheese, and porter. He further stated, that he had been out of employ for the last two months, that he had neither friends nor relations in town, nor could he gain any employment whatsoever,_although he was very desirous to do so. His family, originally resided at Chalbury, in Oxfordshire, but his mother now lived at Abingdon, in Berkshire. In March, he could get a situation in his old ship, but till then he did not know in what manner he should obtain a subsistence. He locked indeed the very picture of d;stress.--Mr. Alderman SMITH observed, that this was indeed a lamentable case ; but, notwithstanding, he did not know that it was in his power to order the prisoner any other relief than that which most people of his rank of life would think equivalent to no re lief at all. He must commit him to Bridewell seven days, and then order him to be passed on to his own parish in Oxfordshire. It is only justice to the Alderman to add, that he subscribed something to the immediate relief of the prisoner, and repaid the constable the money which he had'expended in be half of Mr. Blkk, at the same time complimenting him on his humanity, which, he was sorry to ob serve, did not in general distinguish men acting in his capacity. Bow-STREET.—Yesterday along investigation took place before Sir N. CONANT, respecting the breaking open the Queen's Palace.—Colonel Stephenson came to town from Windsor Palace to be present at it. Mrs. Beckendorff, her Majesty's principal dresser, also came to town from Kew Palace, the Queen hay • Mg dispensed with her attendance, to ascertain the [ property that had been stolen by the robbers, the room which had been broken open, and the property ir. it, being under the controul of Mrs. Beckendol ff. Mrs. Beckendorff gave a full statement of her disco very of the Palace having been broken open. Mrs. Beckendorff stated, that she well knew the contents of the drawers which had been forced open, as well as all the property which was in the room, and which was safe when she last left the Queen's Palace to at. tend her Majesty at Kew Palace. She had yesterday morning, since her arrival in town, carefully exami ned what was left in the drawers, as well as other parts of the room, and she found very few articles missing ; what were so wore of very little value, and they were her own property, not the Queen's.—The ladder by which the robbers entered the room be longed to the Palace.--No trace whatever can at preser.t be made of the villains. Lamarrn-STREET.--Yesterclay G, Arukisom was charged on suspicion of uttering a forged note to J. Wake'', a chz . winciPger, iR Fon 8ed.... Wakely asked Anderson 1, the house Of a person who did not lodge. He also sr Mr. Honeyman, a master-cl worked. Honeyman, whe had ever paid the prisoni therefore, were against the however, appeared in the and stated, that he had psi he had received with sever He had at first denied ha note, because it was unpl note traced to him. nor and Anderson discharged, rnising to pay his expenses. UNION HAtt.---Yesterc with uttering forged one inst. the prisoner passed a lord of the King's Head, in he repeated that offence ; tempted to pass a third not discovered that those whit} were forgeries, detained hit fire-place, and thrust a pap instantly consumed.—Mr. 131ackfriars-road, stated, applied at his shop to purc while Mr. Gregory was gc the shop, leaving the note hilly committed. P.41:1SII APP LT OTLITY OF MILITA ItACkS TO TAKE 1' Al TOWN lIALL, PLY3I-C A question of great in., heard. Major-General Si and Dr. Kein (Surgeon), a residing within the Barrae the Plymouth Division, ii summoned by the Parish C Parish Apprentices should The Major-General and L by the Magistrates, Mr. EASTI.Ace I.cgan b: a case of great LatioilA it deep and serious con3idera the present questiva wou which would affect not tlk many others, laulding sini jesty's service. It as a r never been attempted in a till now. Mr. Eastlake pr it was never in the coutem and was contrary to the pt of the military establishmel a parish apprentice upon by submitting to the Magis land and Dr. Kein were no apprentices placed upon th The audience then reti: deliberated for upwards Court being again opened, their opinion —that Genera wete not liable to take app This case excited mud was crowded. It is under cision will be api-..ealed ag Sessions for the County. CORN EXCHANGE, CCaatat Wheat, Kent and Essex 72s lits Suffolk 7os 80s Noes& . . . 704 78s Rye ...... ....... 564 Barley (New) sos 72s Malt White Peas ..... 6as -, Boilcrs ... 76s 2636 Grey P 52. 70. 726 NENVGATE AND f.TC 40E14 (SY the ' 4d to 44 8.6 Mutton 4s ad to 5s , Sti PR ICES or RAY AND ST ST. JASITS . S. Hay... 71 7s Od to SI Os Od Straw 21 Si Od to 31 31 Od Min:rat Os Od to S 1 Os 041 NEW RACib. Kent 6l Os to 71 Ts SUSiel 51 12s to 61 12s E.:ex. Ol Os to 01 Os Foreign 3l St to 41 4s • COAL MAR' Ships at Market. Shlps 131 Newcastle 4 3 Sande'land 0 B113:1 Saturday sennight, the wife of No. se, Btidgegate-street, 6lasgt Thursday w'nnight at taglesEs weaver, of three female childavu. 151 E On Thurptiay last, at an advanc at Colonel Knight's, Tythogston bath Puget, sister of the late Jolt On the leth ult. at LiAion, Li roll, of the 16th Regiment of 1 was occasioned by a fall from his Tile Civil and Niilitary Authoric • Saturday sennight, at I.ockerbi there, and late of the Royal Nav Friday, at his house In lied Lit ful illness, George Sandetnan, M Saturday se'nnight at Both, ag of Captain Righy, Royal Navy. Oa the 16th ult. at Paisley, NV Mr. Ferrier, at tie age of 23. PRICE OF STOCI Bank stock Reduced 76i-1:77 31 per Ct.B6 4 per Ct. 95,t ; Navy 1071 108} 111.11 LS TI •lt. DUE. Dublin 1 0 ' Waterford ' 6 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 1 Holland 0 0 Flanders 0 0 HIGH WATLR at LONDON Mooing Aftegnoon rniklN Pruited.wd pubti Flue, Ire; , , I ! A ! 0 I 1 ) . 1 • sv 1 :i 1 , tc 1 fc Si ..., i it ti . P'' it; N' 4 CI 1 t( CI .2 , it , 11 n , ? ' - in I d• c: I. 1) ' t ',, ' •ci 0 , 1 rt 0 1 YI •f it IL 1 z• 1 . i. i P .ot. Li. 1 ! 00 1 L 1 ' L t 4 a' . ei Il f • i ii, 0 I . ; :, r. 1 c + . . . I v, I' 1 :. .I • P r: tl , r n i 0 • 1 3 1 li .., I 1, f I fI, r t 0 t 1 c .1 , t . t 1 . : . . 0 . : i / .• . - . II 1 ' • I .1 - I • ' 1 I . 1 . . . ~ 'k) ' 1 1 1 i ), r. 0 , 1 :A