Star. — London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

TO MY MUSE. 001111011XD Of ?V TT Wit t& CANBRIOGIi, eee . 4 1 1 2, 111.0. The tints which these beautiful shades ye displaying, Now Autumn embroiders their mantle with gold. And Summer's bri-10 children so fast are decaying, Would call n refi etion the apathist enid ! Bet, ah I Muse beloved, a leaf never flutters In my view. without fanning thy spark in sly breast; And transported I glow as the winter blast mutters, And ere I have warbled I never can rest! wo thought in my bosom is ever excited, Which is not conjoin'd with thee, Mistresk of Song! Thou know'st how my soul with thy chains is delighted— To thee the chief joys of my moments belong! Thou art not adorn'd with the splendour and graces Which beam'd on th' Inspirers of Thomson and Gray; But still my fond wre in thy lionments traces • _ Attractions whi. h hear irresistible sway ! The boons of the world I for thee have neglected, And heedless have followed thy wild devious feet; And never my spirit in dreams bath expected To hold in the Temple of Honour a seat ! No! Thou wilt not lead me to Time's gaudy treasures; But ne'er at tilt. rigour of Fate I'll repine : My soul would not barter thy heart-thrilling pleasures For the gems which repay for the toils of a mine! But thou don-conduct me to Virtue's dominions, Thou mak'st me contemn what is sordid and low: With thee T ascend on Devotion's swift pinions To the scenes where the roses of Paradise blow ! To thee, bosom-kindles, my soul is indebted For rapt roux sensations I ne'er felt before : Then all I have lost is for thee unregretted, And thee will I cherish till mortal no more! E'er, e're let me slag of the landscape's wild beauties, The woodland, the streamlet, the foliage-deck'd tree; Of kindred affection., Philanthropy's duties, And Hut whom the righteous for ever will see! When thro' his compassion their course they have ended, Thro' life which is nought hut a thorn scatter'd vale, Where the wicked and good in confusion are blended, And legions of sorrows the pilgrims assail! On themes such as these I invoke shy assistance, - • - O let my harp Pound to a soul-raking lay ; And when I have ftnish'tl my earthly existence, 0 then mae I speed, like an eagle, away! Where fir who demands th' adoration of mortals, . _ And justly demands it, so great is his love, Will order to open his gold-burnish'd portals, To w‘leorne the stranger to pleasures above! LAW I!,TELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 47. = PARTE MnNTGOMERY. &C. IN THE MATT-ER ('P JAMES DOUGLAS. DAVID RUSSEL, AND WILLIAM - mus , •ar.. liANEsitrrs. Mr. 13Lion slated. at the sitting of the Court, that he had a riessine and important application to make. with his Lordship's permission. I; was upon a re tirion in this bankruptcy, from which it did appear, that on Sattirday la , t, Messrs. Carlisle, Graham, Sut cliffe, and Nevins, were appointed assignees under the bankruptcy, and got possession of property Amounting to ten thousand pound, and that thee had got a few circular lette: s printed, stating the de . sc. :pt ion of the bankrupts' effects, and delivered them secretly to some individuals, Wm ming them that the whole tl.e effects were to be sold by auction this way (the 27th inst.) at No. 90, fleet-street, in four lots, the fir-t lot amounting at prime cost to £5600. The application was, therefore, for the Court's inter ference, that the sale might be stopped, and the as ignevs discharged. The Loan CIIANCELLOIt.....WitO is it that presents this petition? Mr. 111.161.1.—h k the petition of joint creditors. The Loner ClimscELLoa.--Why was it not pre sented sooner ? Mr. BLIGH—It was impossible to present it sooner, because we only heard of it late last night. The Lotto CHANdELLOR.—YOD must give them notice to appear or some early day. Mr. But:H.—My Lord, the sale is to take place in two or three hours. The Lo nn CHANCELLOR..-4 consider it a danger oui thing for me to interfere under such circumstances to defeat this save being effected ; I don't know a hat mischief I shall do by sir doing. Will your clients mulertake to indemnify the assi;:nees ainst any loss. - provided I grant Tou an injunction to stay the sale ? The Learned Counsel conferred with his clients, and replied that this sale, agreed to be made by the assignee-, professed to be a sale by auction, but yet it has been carried on in the most secret manner. After a few words more passed between the Court and Mr. Bligh, in which it was repeated that notice of this petition could not have been served upon the assignees, from the short time that they have had, both to draw up the petition and prepare the neces aaty affidavits, he (the Learned Counsel) said, he was instructed to state that the petitioners would indem nify the assignees. The Lotto Cu ANCELLOTt.--Well, upon your clients. undertaking to indemnify the estate against any loss that it may suffer by this injunction, let the assignees be enjoined from selling the bankrupts' effects with. out further orders, but with notice to them that they shall be at liberty to mention this to the Court at any time to-nronow, or to-slay if they please. And you Kill have the goodness to hand in the names of the creditors who undertake to indemnify. BEAUMONT V. BRAMBEY. This was an application to amend a decree pro ?minced upon the finding of a Jury, in an issue di rected to be tried in the Court of King's Bench. Mr.Wernattem. stated, the case for the considera tion of his Lordship was one which arose out of- a sale of an estate of freehold belonging to the plain tiff, called Sheepshead Field, in the County of Lei cester, to a person of the name of Norman, whose assigr.ee the present defendant was. The case had. been under the consideration of the Court in the life time of that great ornament of his profession Sir Samuel Romilly, when the Court directed the issue abovementioned to be tried, the decree upon which his client was now desirous to have amended. From the documents in the cause it would appear the bar gain in this case was for a farm, and the sale was as of a farm; accordingly the conveyance should have been of certain lands and tenements accurately de sctibed. Such, however, was not the case, and it, was now contended, Ora% by this conveyance Mr. Beaumont had made over the tectrrial tithes of this perish, whit h had never been contemplated, and which; in Net, was in itself a tar more valuable pro perty than that originally intended to be conveyed. The right contended for was said to arise out of the construction of an Act for inclosing Charlwood Forest, in Leicestershire, over which the Rector must have had a omiderable claire, 414 . ,up to the' time of the Inclotbne Act, an,opetitiniticlosed forest. Mr. Beaumont claimed a right over this property proportionate to the amount of No acres,-pursuant to an allotment made at the time of the inclosure. According to the valuation by a Mr. Wyatt, it was ascertained that the property of the estate of Sheeps head Field, Was worth A.'6.552, but the purchase was completed for £ . 6260, not a word being said by Mr. Norman on the right of John Beaumont, Esq. to the' Rectory of Sheepshead, or to the future claim of this Gentleman on the allotment of Charlwood Forest, in tight of his property in the neighbourhood. The deed, it would be observed, contained a clause to convey all rights, commons, and appurtenances thereunto belonging ; and alluded m other heredita ments in the liberties of Sheepsbead Field. It was said, that because an exception had been made of the tithes of two acres, the constructive claim of the pur chaser to the whole tithes was clearly made oat, or else there was no necessity for the-exception. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the deed was cer tainly a curiosity. Sir Samuel Romilly thought, in deed he knew he did, that by this deed the Rectory did pass. Now, unless it-kiid pass, Mr. Wetherell's client had nothing to do in a Court of Equity. But supposing it to have passed, then there might be some ground to claim the interference of a Court of Equity, en the ground that it had .passed by mistake, if there could be shewn to the satisfaction of the Court how it could get at the mistake. The exception of the two parcels - of land would seem to imply, that had not the exception been inserted, the conveyancer himself imagined the whole tithes, or this part of them particularly, would pass with the estate or free hold. His Lordship could not see how he could, con sistently with the practice of the Court laid down if.ir years, interfere with the decree pronounced in this case. His Lordship, on rising, mentioned inciden tally, that to-morrow would be the last dayehe would receive motions. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER s 7. lIANKIN V. LEACH. Mr. DANIELS said, that in t: is case a bill was filed by the plaintiff to compel the defen.!ant to return part of the•purchase money I , f an estate. paid under the following circumstances :—Some time since the plaintiff purehased an estate, patt copyhold and part fieebeld, from the defendant, on condition that the deeds should be delivered within a month—the de fendant promising to make out a pod title. Th purchase money was to be paid in five years. The plaintiff entered upon the estate, and made consider able improvements and erections upon it. 'l'he title deeds were not produced by the defendant until the end of the five years, when it was found that he could make out no title to the frechn:d part of the purchase. The plaintiff now asked the Court, trnser these cir cumstances, that the defendant should be obliged to make a deduction in the purchase money of the va lue of the freehold part of the estate ; and also to make compensation to the plaintiff for those erections and improvements which he had made on the freehold. Mr. HART, for the defendant, said this was a new and estraordinury species of equity which was at tempted to be set up on behalf of the pLintiff. The Learned Cout.sel contended, that the Court had no thing at all to do with the case. The plaintiff ought to take ur reject the estate as it stood, and to seek his remedy in A Court cf Law for any injury which he might have su-taine.f. With respect to the erec tionswhich hehad chosen voluntatily and imprudently to make upon the freehold before be had got any title, the Court wt)uld doubtless consider that he must bear the consequences of his own imprudence. From the defendant's answer to the bill, which was directed to be read by his *Honour, k-appeared that he was willing that it should be referred to the Mas ter to inquire what allowance Ought to be made to the plaintiff. The Vrce-Ceexemon.—l am afraid, Mr. Hart,, that your client his submitted you out of Court. Mr. HART.—WeII, your Honour, I can't resist my client's: inclination to be honest. . _ The Vice•CIIANCIMLOIL said, that this was a case • in which he certainly would not have interfered, but' should have sent the plaintiff to seek his remedy in a Court of Law, had not the eefendaut himself sub-. mitted to a refeience. - his Honour directed that the case should go to the Master upon the terms 4 , f . the releieuce ; and that it should be considered what rent the plaintiff ought to pay for the occupation t 4 :he 'freehold. • COURT OF KING'S BF.NCIT, NOVEMBER 27. lIABEA:S CORPUS. On a former day Mr. LITTLEDALE obtained a Rule calling upon the Commander of his Majesty's ship Gloucester, to slim' cause why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue for bringing up the bodies of two men in his custody, in order to their being forthwith discha r ged. Mr. Jcitvis ibis day chewed cause against the Rule. He stated that, on the .sth of October last, these men were taken on board a smuggling vessel which was brought into the harbour of Folkestone, where they were landed, and were afterwards put on board the vessel, which was sent round to Dover, and the Ma gistrates of that place committed them. The Learned Counsel contended that the . lagistrates at Dover were justified under the 47th Geo. 111. in committing the prisoners, as the words of the Act were, " by the Magistrates at or near the port where the persons shall be so taken." He also contended that, in all transac tions of this kind, the port of Folkestone must be con sidered as within the jurisdiction of the port of Dover, as there was not at Folkestone a Custom House, or 'any place of security - for goods of the description seized, and, therefore, it was not necessary that it should appear upon the face of the conviction that the Magistrates of Dover could take cognizance of this offence. • Mr. LITTLEDALE, in support of the Rule, con tended that the prisoners ought to have been com mitted by the Magistrates at Folkestone ; that the Magistrates of Dover could not take cognizance of the offence Cand, if they could, that it must appear upon the face of the conviction that they pcssessed this authority. • CHM Juartez.—ln this case two questions hare been made—first, whether the Justices of Dover had any authority to take cognizance of. this fact ? and, secondly, whether this conviction is good , it not ap pearing upon the Lace of the conviction that they had suclf authority ? Now it is stated in the 47th of Geo.lll. that for offences committed upon the high seas, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate of the port ipto which the peplos., Committing such offences !hall be brought to tile cognizance of it. In this case,. it, appears. that .the - persons applying for the writ - were taken on board of a vessel in the hathour of Folkestone, and that they were landed within thel limits of that harbour, where they were-detainer& for a day or two ; that they were vain put on board the same vessel, and sent to Dover, where the Ma gistrates of that port took cognizance of the offence. If that can be done, it would lead to considerable abuse, because if it can be sustained that the Magis trates of Folkestone' can send those persons to Dover, and that the Magistrates there can take cognizance of the offence, I can see no reason whf those men could not be sent to any port in England—the most distant from Folkestone, and why the Magistrates of such port should not exercise their juriZction.— The inclination of my opinion at present is agdinst such a jurisdiction ; but I do not feel myself called upon on the present occasion to give an opinion ‘vhich might •be binding on myself or others here after, if this question should be brdught under consi deration; as I am quite clear that it should appear upon the face of the conviction that the Magistrates had power and jurisdiction over the offence: I there fore think the Rule ought to be made absolute. Mr. Justice BAYLSY—I am of the same opinion. Mr. Jiistize litiLncrro—l am of the same opinion. Mr. Justice Barr—l am of the same opinion ; but if it did appear upon the face of the conviction that the Magistrates had jurisdiction, I still think the Rule u.ust be made absolute. Before the passing of the 47th of George the Third, the Magistrate; could not take cognizance of any offences committed on the high seas; and 1 think that that Act gives jurisdic tion only to the Magistrates of the first port into which the persons shall be brought. If that be not the true interpretation of the Act, it would lead to consider able inconvenience and abuse.—Rule made absolute. THE KING V RIDOWSVAL Mr. Serjeant Iluu.omc showed cause against a Rule obtained lvy Mt. Biongham, calling upon the .proset nulls, Sir John Sewell and John Atkins, and Charles M:irray, their Solicitor, to spew cause why the certiorari obtained in this cause should not be quashed, why a writ ofproccdendo should not issue, and veLy the Solicitor should not pay the co-ts incur red by the defendant, is consequent eof notice to go t.) trial, and the costs of this application. The Learned Serjeant said, he would not have troubled their Lord ships, it this Rule had been confined to the costs in curred by the defendant in consequence of the notice of trial, but he did not think the "defendant entitled to the toss of this application, as he might, without making this•application. have obtained his costs by an ordinary side Bar Rule. CHIEF JusTice.-4 don't think he could obtain his costs by such a Rule, as this Ve2s not a record sent down from this Court. The Learned Serjeant wasproceetling to comment upon the Atlitiavits in support of the Rule, and to con tend that the certiorari could not be quashed— Ciller JUSTICS.—Mr. Brougham, if you are paid the costs of going to trial, and of this application, would you not let the certiorari stand? Mr. SMOUGHAM,....My complaint is, my Lord, of the time at which the certiorari was issued. Mr. Justice (3AYl.ey.•—The Crown had a right to remove the trial. Clint/ Jusucs.---There was nothing wrong in is suing the writ; but the circumstances under which it was issued were oppressive to the defendant, and w•e therefore think him entitled to his costs. Mr. BnouottAst.—My Lord, I think we are a little worse than if we had been let go to trial in thecountry. Mr. Justice 11.syteT.—Are you worse off by being set ved with that writ on the 10th, that if you had been served on the Ist? Mr. Justice BasT.—lf the certiorari be quashed, the Crotii can sue out another. I think, Mr. Brougham, by giving you the costs of going to trial, and the costs of this application, you will have all you want. Mr. BROUGUAllielfiri well, my Lord, I am At. tisfied; I have all I want. Mr. Scrjeant Litn.Locc—More than you (wet to have. CHIEF JUSTICE.—If you don't like what is pro posed, we will make the Rule absolute in the terms in which it is drawn up, and then you can sue out ano ther writ of certiorari. The Rule was then made absolute, as far as relates to the payment of the costs of going to trial, and of this application. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. Mr. CRESWELL moved for a Rule to shew cause, why a criminal information should not be filed against two' Magistrates of the Borough of New Radnor, for refusing to renew the license of Thomas Grifiths, landlord of the Crown public-house in that borough. Cum/ JUSTICR—What corrupt active do you impute to these Gentlemen? Mr. CRESWELL—My Lords, I have the affidavit of Griffiths, who swears that he believes the cause of the Magistrates refusal was his giving st vote for the Borough to a Gentleman opposed in politics to those Gentlemen, _ Cnt>ir JUSTICE—Does he give any reason for that belief?—Mr. Cagswat.s.—No, my Lard. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—A Grand Jury would not find a bill of indictment upon such evidence. Cuter JUSTICE—We cannot presume corruption against these Gentlemen. If the number of public houses be not left to the discretion of the Magistrates, we can never expect that a reduction of public-houses will take place.—Rule refused. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER IN RS ISAACSON, THOMAS CLASH& AND BSOONSgr Serje . ant VAUGHAN in the course of last Term had obtained a Rule to shew cause why Isaacson and Clarke, both being Attornies of this Court, should not be struck off the 8011, for having permitted Brookes to act as an Attorney in their names ; and why Brookes should not be imprisoned in the Fleet for having so acted; and further, why all the parties should not answer the matters contained in the affi davits on which this rule was moved, and why they should not pay the costs of the application. This, Rule arose out of the following circumstances s—ln the month of June last, a person named Wtn. Clarke brought an action against Brookes, to recover a sum of money which Clarke alleged Brookes had received from one Seager, a debtor of Clarke's, on his account. The plaintiff in that action had proved that he called on Brookes, at his office, in Broad:court, Dray-lane, and employed him as an Attorney to prosecute an action for him against Stager, and that Altookps bed trntli fafifail :the kW! frdm *Meager. ea de(.n hfinself; ato 50 mach as wa s elaimeti from him, it reppett of tile money reeeivid. from Seeger, by alleging that he had received tii* money as the clerk of Mr. Isaacson, to whom he hal paid over the money, and in whose name the cause had proceeded. up to the comp:smile. The Jury, however, thought on the evidence, that he had acted as the Attorney of Clarke,- and had actually assumed that character, although he had not the slightest pre tensions to it. They, therefore, gave a 'verdict for tfe plaintiff, adding these words, .4 With all costs." This trial having raised a strong presumption that Brookes had illegally practised man Attorney, without havi ng been regularly admitted, the present motion was ' made to punish him for such conduct, and affidavits of several persons were produced, which stated, that Brookes had practised as an Attorney for them in different cases, 'having formerly used the name cf Thomas Clarke, and subsequently that of Isaacson. Mr. Serjeant Put, on Monday, diewed cause against this *Rule, and produced affidavits of and Thomas Clarke, both of whom stated that they had employed Brookes as iheir clerk at a regUlar salary, and had never given him ',emission to use their names in his own behalf, nor had ever divide,! the profits of their business with Eliot An affitiavir of Brookes was also lead, in which he coosfilit,ed the account given by Isaacson. and Thomas Clark e , an d declared that he had always acted a. the clerk of son and Thomas Clarke, add in no other capaci,y or situation whatever. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN and Mr. Setjeant ONST.Ow yesterday observed on the loose m.tnuer in iridiu m affidavits of these persons were swr:rn, The Cowie* then adjourned the further considcra •tion of the case until this morniog ; when Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, after consulting with the other Judges, said, at present he •hortrt n t give any judgment on the Rule before the Cour„ for Ire con idered that Nailer information ot, tl,is subject miglit be gained; and fur himself, he mu t say, be observed, that further information appealed neces sary. After going through the principal a:legation; in the afli :aviis on both side:, he observed on the different dec;rees of credibility to be attached to tl;e statements, and inquired whether in this ca e the al legations in the atlida vits of these parties ranged within credibility, ititprobability, o- absolute incredi bility ? Hrs Lordship then- et.entioned a ea -e in the Court of King's Bench, in which in a similar appli cation, that Court, where Lind Kenyon then presided, decided that the Rile must he made ahso.ute, though the feet-sons complained of had directly ans. cred the charge brought again -t them, as their affi lavits re presented an incredible story. In this case, though his Lordship would not say the stafements of these at ties "ere incredible, he should at least decia:e ihat they appeared to him inipi &sable. He theleirre wished for further info; ma in.., for it was clear that Brookes had acted as an attorney, and lie riq.lred that it should be shown by Brookes that he had so acted, not for his own benefit or emolument, bat merely for the advantage of Clarke and Laacson re spectively. An attachment must them efore issue against these parties, on which they must give hair to an .wee interrogatories which should he forthwith tiled, and a day in next Term should be appointed for hearing the answer to these inter: ogator ies, and the re m ort of the Prothonotary thereon. Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice Bunnouctf shortly ex, , te,sed their concurrence with li•L -rdship, and an attachment was therefore or..ered .• %Pt issued, the bail on which was required to be 1001. for each of the parties themselves, and two sureties if 501. each. In the meantime the Rule was iii,:ered to be enlarged, arid the sixth day of next Term was ap pointed for the hearing. The Ciwter then said, the parties must stand com mitted, unless the clients of . Mr. Serjeant Vaughan would take their undertaking to appear and give bail. Mm. Serjeant VAUGHAN said, he should mist press for their commitment, but he would expect due n;- tice of frail. Mr. Brookes said he would give respor.sible sure ties, and he promised to give immediate notice of bail ; which promise being accepted, he left the Court with Isaacson and Clarke, who had also undertaken to appear and give sureties. Notice was given to the Solicitors practising in the Court, that after the vest= hlichaelmas Term, the evening attendance of a Judge in Chambers in Term time would be di.- continued; and that in all future Terms attendance would be given every day from half an hour after three until five o'clock. BIRTH Tuesday, the Lady of Cyril J. Monkhouse, Esq. of Cr'arcn. street, Strand, of a son. MARRIED. On the 26th inst. at st. Mary-la-bonne Church, George Sim son,jutt. Esq. of Si!!wood Park, Berk!, to Mary Anne, dAugb ter of Janes Sutherland, Esq. of Gloucester-place, Pornaso square. Al A 1 I.S. ASS. nu s. Dublin 1 0 Waterford 2 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 1 Lisboa 0 0 Holland 0 0 Leeward Islands 0_ 0 ♦RR. DUX. France 1 0 Hamburgh 0 3 Flanders 0 0 Malta 0 0 Gettenburgit 0 * Brasil 0 0 COAL MAR! Hebburn Main 41i Bd—Olti Co.'s .45i 3d—Hartley 57.—Hi Main 385 6d—Wallaand Spriai • 8 Ships at Market-6 ET. NOV. 27. Walker 40s—Wal!send &41 and dworth Main Ses 9d—Lanibtou will 415 6d. r Ships sold—la unsold. LON DUN ; rtinted and puhhyhed by Una. Ks" Dykes.- Place, isl33fle-841. DIED. • Nov. 25, at Elbam, Lieutenant James Lawrence, aged 47, late of the lath Light Dragoons. Last week, the youngest daughter of Captain Croucher, New. port, Isle of Wight. Nov. 22, Mary, only daughter of Mr. Henry Althans, con tactor, of George street, Tower-hill. At the Parsonage House, near Glenarm, the Rev. Jolla Hodges, Vicar of the united parishes of Tickmacreevar. and Templeoutragh. Lately, Jas. Piggot, Esq. of Atzball, near Midhurst, a Ma gistrate of the County of Sussex, aged 64 years. Nov. 12, at Kirkcaldy, Mrs. Reid, relict of the Rev. James Reid, some time Minister of the parish of Kinglassie, Fifeshire. Thursday, the wife of Mr. J. Stride, shipwright in his Ma jesty's Doek-yard, Portsmouth: she was seized with apoplexy, at her own door, and instantly expired. Nov. 18, the Rev. Spring Casborne, of Pakenharn, Suffolk, Vicar of Old Newton, in the same county. (kt. 17, at Pinebush (Montgomery), New York, aged vt, Captain Archibald Hunter. His death was somewhat remark able. As he was opening a cow, supposed to be poisoned in 5.1:1e way or other, he received a slight wound on the hand, o Mch became immediately impregnated with the poison, ind in lesa then an hour it was diffused over the whole system, in collie quence of which he died in about ten slays. Sonic hogs wbiax ate of the cow's flesh also died. I i 1‘ II i II . : . , 1. 1