Star. — London, England, 1808-12-07 00:00:00

"IF' FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. , - WISTAILY PROMOTIONS. . WAR-OFFICE, DECEMBER 6. t of Dragnons--Charles Madden, Gent. to be Cornet, lll_, gm ~.., " Pluthase light Dragoona--Lieutenant William W • o=.. as e d igth Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Eyre, who O w e. Surgeon John Ennis, from the 61st Foot, to be wok ;Ice Eidaton, appointed to the 7th Royal Veteran 11 111016 Emir Robert Brown, from the 18th Foot, to be t, without purchase. ....-- Hesw, Cent. to be Cornet, without pur e. Regiment of Foot Guards—Lieutenant-Colonel Wil boldges, from the Royals, to be Captain of a Company, vice p i g** who exchanges. it of Foot-.-Lientenant-Colonel W.H. Pringle, from tbs aids:earn Foot Guards, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Drier, wbo exchanges. rott ....yasign Edward Irwin, from the Sligo Militia, to be t. oLleutenant William 0. W. Ogle, front the 9th Gird we wallop, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice P. promoted in the Bth Garrison Battalion. L g r et ' o :_Ensign F. Armstrong to be Lieutenant, without lichass, vice Gualey, promoted. Di ttv —.Lieutenant Charles Eyre, from the 14th Light Dra to be Lieutenant, vice Wainman, who exchanges. fol i N Brown, Bishop, t Gent. o be Ensign, without par +•"' B row n, promoted in the 15th Light Dragoons. 04 Dino ... Ensign J. G. Schofield to be Lieutenant, without pars d is c, vice Bury, who retires. mote. -Lieutenant John Geddes to be Captain of .a Cow by•purshase, vice Tomkins, who retires. toti r - tw.../41Is Sandy*, Gent. to be Ensign without purchase, ,i ce NM, who resigns. gyp--Ensign Thomas Gerrard Ball to be Lieutenant, by a mmo, vice Johnson, promoted. ot ylyese.-Ensign John Richardson, from the Monaghan 141. bis, to be Ensign. 0 1 Diteo—James Robertson, Gent. to be Ensign, by purchase, Wt. Lord Berridale, promoted. 0 Ditto. Hotoital-Mate John Collins to be Assistant Sergess,, vice Hanby, appointed to the Ist Foot. ]Afro--Charles North, Gent. to be Ensign, without mus casse, vice Spicer, promoted in the 59thlFoot. 01Ditto—Joseph John Crosier Harrison, Gent. to be Ensign by =vise Barrowciiff, who retires ; Lieutenant Haley from the South Mayo Militia, to be Ensign. rehDitto—Thosnas George, Gent. to be Ensign without pur. thaw, vice Witherington, promoted in the 69d Foot. piDitto—Ensign Thomas Witherington, from the 57th Feet, ts be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Copping, who retires. 49h Ditto—Ensign Philip Humbly, from the 15th Foot, to be Lieutenant by purchase, vice Richards, promoted. Dino--Captain Compton Domville, from the 4th Garrison lett - Alien, to be Captain of a Company, vice Hawthorne, who melanges. ItaDitto—Lieutenant Joseph Thomas Pidgeon to he Captain of a Company, by purchase, vice Forbes, who retiree. letknitto—Ensign and Adjutant George Creswell, to have the rack of Lieutenant. Nth Ditto--Lieutenant Joseph Ellis, from the 15th Foot, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Wheeler, promoted. bid Ditto—Captain Lewis Saurin, from half-pay of the late 105th Foot, to be Captain of a Company, (repaying the difference), vice Lyster, who exchanges. 114 Ditto—Ensign John Montgomery to be Lieutenant, vice Reingtoc deceased. oh Ditto—James Michell, Gent, to be Ensign, without pur- Oise, vice Goodhere, whose appointment ban not taken place. IA Ditto—Lieutenant John Franklin, to be Captain of a Com pay,vice Pohlman, deceased ; and Ensign John Purcell, from the 11th Fut, to ho Lieutenant, vice 'apple, deceased. West India Regiment—Charles Goodwin, Gent. to be Ensign, without ?unbolt, vice Sutcliffe, promoted. ak D itto—li aleolm Fraser, Gent. to be Ensign, without pur chase, vice Whiteford, promoted in the 84th Foot. 4th Garrison Battalion—Captain Robert Hawthorne, from the did Foot, to be Captain of a Company, vice Dora ville, who exchanges. Pb Ditto—Captain James Spawfortb, from half-pay of the late Ititb Light Dragoons, to be Captain of a Company, vice Ei dson, who exchanges. thsTiato—Taign James Kirby, from the 36th Foot, to be Lier.rwmt, vice Ogle, appointed to the 9th Foot. Rep' Menem Battalion—Surgeon John Kidston, from the lid Light Damns, to be Surgeon, vice Gill, deceased. BREVET. Optin Panes Edward Blake, of the sth Carrion Battalion, to be Mier is the Army. BARRACKS. ' ffißßay, Esq. to be a Barrack Master in Great Britain, vice ' klo Johnstone. deceased. , The King's German Legion. 11111hmat of Light Dragoons—Cadet Serjrant George Baring BY °Met, vice Heimburg, promoted. • . MEMORANDUM. Aft Major Henry Cox, of the 81st Foot, who was super- NM is owed in the Gazette of the 24th of September, 1808, 1 Milo* in his rank. lisprinuatat of Ensign Guy Rotton, from the 20th Foot, Ills Onset in the 16th Light Dragoons, as stated in the Gazette d le leek ult. has not taken place. 'hounder -mentioned Officers are superseded, being absent without leave. 11111 Fad—Lieutenant Henry N. Bromwich. ea Elko—Ensign Baron Thukr. StliDitto—Lieubtnant J. Bordwine. Commission in the Inverness-shire Regiment of Mi litia, signed by his Majesty. Henry Walker, Gent. to be Adjutant, vice Wilson, resigned. Deed August 18,1808. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. honk Ellis Batley and John Hinchliffe, both of Witham, parish of Almondbury, Yorkshire, dyers and copartners. BANKRUPTS. iffirom Whitaker, of Charlton-row, p ar i s h o f M anc h es t e r, ma onfacturer, dealer and chapman, to surrender December 14, MOM January 17, at three, at the Dog Tavern, Manchester. Annie; Messrs. Kearsley and Cardwell, Manchester, or Mr. Rep Hurd, Temple, London. Glop Beswick, now or late of Portsmouth, Hants, tavern /1"w, dealer and chapman, Dec. 19, at one, Dec. 20, at twelve, lad laneary 17, at one, at the Blue Posts Inn, Portsmouth hint. Attornies, Messrs. Thomas Naylor and Samuel Naylor, Great Newport-street, Long-Acre, London ;or Mr. William ....illendening, Porta g e, H ants . mid* Davenport, of Sheffield, Yorkshire, cutler, Dee. 15, 16, * henry 17, at eleven, at the Tontine Inn, in Sheffield.— Anoraks, Messrs. Sykes and Knowles, New Inn, London ; w Messrs. J. and I. Wheat, Sheffield. Malone, of Birmingham, taylor, dealer and chapman, De.l2, at five, Dec. 20, and January 17, at twelve, at the n, New-street, Birmingham. 4ttorney, Mr. Egerton, Henry Inn-square, London ; er Mr. Stubbs, Birmingham. Stone, of Wilton, Herefordshire, corn-factor, Dec. 21,44, . lad January 17, at eleven, at the Bush Tavern, in Bristol.— i Anomie., F ClissoldMr. John Tarrant, Chancery-lane, London ;or Mr !Lomas Hill, late of Brighthelmstone, Sussex, baker, Dec. 14,15, "II January 17, at ten, at the White Hart Inn, Lewes, Sussex. Anomie+, Mr. Gwynn, Lewes ; or Mr. Henry Heathcote, „Ikoverie-street, Fleet -street, Londo n . nftry Matthews, of Kent street, parish of St. George the Mar l", Surrey, baker, dealer aad clapman, Dec. 10, 24, and Jan. 7, at ten, at Guildhall, London. Attorney, Mr. Noy, Mkt 4011.tlitetes", I.7t d c o o n i Breretin, Staffordshire, grocer, dealer "I shaprnaa, Lee. 17, 19, and January 17, at eleven , the Res 1 . 40 p Ins, in Breret on . A ttorn i es, M ain. J. and R. Will i s, . ! ff amford-cotirt, L on d on ; or Mr. Foster, of Rugeley. 464 Elderahaw, of Shifnal, Salop, horsc-dealer, dealer and chap. assa, Dec. 19, 209 at eleven, and January 17, at four, at the Fountain Inn, is New-street, Birmingham. Attornies, Mr. 8. Lowe, Birmingham ; or Mr. Chilton, Exchequer Office, Lisp Wes lan, Lord 1412 ,, 8 tutel no w . a m prisoner in Hull Gaol, master mariner, Dee. 1 : , 20 , and Jan. 17, at twelve, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. ,I•tnel, Ei shopsgate-street, London. "12! rotes, of H ors l ey d own, Surrey, wine merchant, Dec. 19, le, and Jan. 17, at ten, at Guildhall. Attornies, Mesais. At thisalland Morgan, Wlncitestet-street, Bfoasl-otrect, London. John Dards, of Bankslde, surrey, !letterman, dealer and Chap man, Dec. 10, 13, at one, and Jan. 17, at ten, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Towle, Fishmonger's-Hall, Upperi Thames street, London. Jeremiah Mallatratt, of Wansford, Northampton s hir e , i nn h o ld e r, dealer and Chapm an, Dec. 23, at four, 24, and Lan. 37, at ten, at the Littleton Arms Inn, Penkridge, Staffordshire. Attornies, Messrs. Impey and Wightman, Inner Temple, London ; or Mr. Wlllim, Bilston, Staffordshire. DIVIDENDS. • Dee. 12. John Bridger the younger, of Mortlake, Surrey, tallow chandler, at ten, at Guildh a ll, London. Dec. 10. Curwen Gale, of Tower-Hill, London, merchant and insurance broker, at twelve, at Guildhall. Dec.lo. Robert Stevens, of Percival -street, GoewelLetreet, Mid dlesex, silk-skeinsclyer, at twelve, at Guildhall. Dec. 10. Roger Partridge, of Clement's Inn, Middlesex, dealer and Chapman, at ten, at Guildhan. Dec. 10. Win Lowe, of Drury-lane, Middlesex, cabinet-maker and broker, at twelve, at Guildhall. Dec 10. Michael Furlonge, late of Guildford-street, Russell square, merchant, at ten, at Guildhall. Dec. 10. John Eddington and John Grosvenor, both of Monta ge-street, Middlesex, builders, at eleven, at Guildhall. Dec. 10. Edward Read, of Ilford, Essex, carpenter, at ten, at Guildhall, London. Dec. 6. George 'Davis, of Cranbourn linen-draper, at twelve, at Guildhal l Dec. 6. Benjamin Travers. and James Esdaile the younger, of Queen-street, Cheapside, sugar-dealers at twelve, at Guildhall. Dec. 13. Wm. Tucker the youn ge r, of Exeter, serge-manufactu rer, and banker, at one, at Guild hall, London. Dec.l4. George Ryley, of Salford, Lancashire, builder and joiner, at three, at the Sawyer's Arms, Bridge-street, Manchester. Dee. 13. William Barrett, of Broad-street, London, merchant, at one, at Guildhall. Dec. 13. Thomas Hughes, of Bennett-street,• St. James's, Mid dlesex, victualler, at one, at Guildhall. Dec. 9. Joseph Phipps, of Wawa Bank, parish of Lapley, Staf. fordshire, innholder, at twelve, at the Red Lion Inn, Newport. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. W. Tait and Thos. Dawson, of Liverpool, August 16, 1808. Benjamin Till and George Horn, of Manchester, bricklayers, January 1, 1807. William Shackleton, William Oldfield, and J. T. Gritton, of Kingston - upon - H ull, merchants, Dee. 31, 18011. Rickard Mitchell and James Mitchell, of South Cadbury, So mersetshlre, June 1, 1808. Thomas Stern dale, John Lloyd, and John Robley, of Manchester, malt and hop dealers July 21, 1808. John Major, Aan Major, and R. Pemberton, jun. of Brooke's• Wharf, Thames-street, London, bottle mer chants,: September 30, 1808. Fisher and Houghton, of Liverpool, dress makers, Dec. 3,1806. DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZE-MONEY. The Spurowhawk, for the Dutch gunboat, No. 3, captured May 12, 1808, will be paid on board, this day, and recalled at 11, Cecil-street. The Furious, for the Aurora, captured August 21, 1805, ern!' be paid on Monday next, at 14, Clement's Inn, and there re called on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The Linnet, for the Harmony, recaptured October 30, 1808, will be paid on her arrival, at 28, High-street, Portsmouth, and there recalled on Mondays and Thursdays. The Ruby, for the Fenchon and three Prussian vessels, cap tured April 11, 1806, will be paid on board, on Monday next, and recalled on Wednesdays and Thursdays, at 14, Clement's- Inn. The Tigress, for the Fortuna, captured April 7, 1806, and the Sceptre for a Dutch East Indiaman, taken in June, 1795, will be paid, the former on the 16th, and the latter on the 15th instant, at 19, Great George-street, Westminster, and there recalled. The Fernier, for the Gute Mutter Suite, detained April 4, 1806, will be paid at 10, Essex-street, Strand, on Monday next, and there recalled. I,.eicater-Fields, LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 6. DAVIS V. COLLINS. This was a demurrer to a bill of discovery. It appeared that the Sheriffs of Middlesex were the real Plaintiffs. They had seized, under an execution Against the Duke of Sussex, at the suit of Davis, a quantity of looking-glasses, in the shop of the Defen dant, packed up in boxes, with his Royal Highness's name and arms on them. They had been in his apartments, but were sent to the Defendant's shop to be taken care of. The Sheriffs sold them under the execution, and the Defendant brought an action of trover, to recover the goods, on which the present Plaintiffs filed their bill for an injunction to stay the proceeding in the Court of Law: which injunction was granted. Mr. HART, Counsel for the Defendant, contended, that the Court could not in any instance oblige a Plaintiff in an action at law to disclose to the Defen dant what his case was. If this was allowed, it-would be the means of introducing a system that would make it dangerous to every Plaintiff to attempt to go into a Court of Law for justice. If the Defendant, in this case, did not prove, in a Court of Law, that the goods in question were his property, he would have a verdict against him. He could not conceive how that Court could give them redress by allowing a bill of disco very ; and, under every circumstance of the case, he was convinced the Court would allow the demurrer. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, Counsel'for the Defendant, contended, that the demurrer should not be allowed, and that the Defendant should be obliged to answer the bill of discovery. The Defendant had acknow ledged that part of the goods seized under the execu tion were the property of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, and the bill asked him what part was his Royal Highness's property? Surely he could answer that without committing himself. He was of opinion that the whole of the property was his ; for although it might have been originally bought from the Defendant, yet if there was no regular transfer of it back, it belonged to the original purchaser. Under these circumstances, he had not a doubt but his Lordship would dismiss the demurrer. Lord EtnoN observed, he was of-opinion that the demurrer should not be granted, for it could not in jure the Defendant, as Plaintiff at law, if he answered what part of the property did belong to his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, and it was but justice to the Plaintiff that he should, when he had no other mode of ascertaining it. The demurrer was accordingly not allowed, and the Defendant will be obliged to answer the bill of discovery. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMSER 6. CHAMBERS V. JONES, ESQ. Mr. SCARLWIT stated, that this was an action brought against the Marshal of the King's Bench prison, for the escape of Capt. Caulfield, who was in his custody for 21201. the damages due to the plaintiff in a crim. con. action ; and the question was, whe ther, after his voluntary return from his first absence from the Marshal's custody, he had been since kept, and had died in such custody The fact was, that he had not, but had lived with Mrs. Climbers both in Bryanstone-street and in Hampton -court, in which latter place he died, and was brought to his lodgings 1 within the wits of the prison to be buried, as if he I had died in the custody of the Marshal. The plain tiff had, therefore, to look to the Marshal for indem-I nification for the escape ; and the Learned Counsel trusted that the Marshal again had good security to lobk to for his indemnification, in suffering the priso ner to live out cif the prison doors. Mr. Purkis, the Plaintiff's attorney, proved the Marshal's failure to produce his prisoner on his first application for that purpose, in March, 1806 ; but saw him on the 4th of July following in Melina-place, where he had lodgings within the rules of the prison; and on the 18th of July, the prisoner was produced in the Marshal's Office. Elizabeth Collins, a servant in the same house, in which the prisoner had lodgings, did not know Capt. Caulfield ; nor was he, to her knowledge, ever in the house. Dr. Blackburn knew Captain Caulfield, and saw him dead at Melina-place. The witness' saw him when he was alive, about the Bth of September last, and about the 22d of the preceding October. John Rawlings, plumber, stated, that he had sol dered up a coffin in a house in Hampton -court, axd helped to put it in a caravan, which conveyed it from thence to Melina-place, where he afterwards saw it. Benjamin Smith, undertaker, was employed to bury the body of Captain Caulfield. • He took the shell and the leaden coffin to Hampton-court about the beginning of last September, but, was only per mitted to place them in the room where the body lay, being ordered out of the room without seeing the body. He afterwards helped to put the coffin into a caravan, and saw the body in Melina-place on a Sun day. The body was buried on the Saturday following. Jane Marshall lived next door to Captain Caulfield's lodgings in Melina-place, and saw a coffin brought there on a Sunday evening, in September last, about a quarter before eleven : she did not know that any one had died in the house at the time. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, fbr the Defendant, said, he would not attempt to deny the fact in issue, viz. that the Plaintiff did not die in custody, but said that it was upon the Marshal that this deception had been passed. Against him, it was a case of extreme ri gour. The Marshal had granted the prisoner no fur ther liberty than the law allowed him to do. He thought it a case of peculiar hardship, that though the Plaintiff would never have gotten a sixpence from the prisoner, the mere circumstance of his dying out of custody, unknown to the Marshal, should entitle the Plaintiff to recover from him. Lord ELLEwsonouon observed that there could be no doubt of the fact in this case, however hard it might be upon the Marshal. Subject to the points of law which were for the Court's consideration, the Jury must, therefore, find for the Plaintiff.—Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 21201. DE CHEMINANT V. THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY. The plaintif brought his action against the de fendant for neglecting warehousing a quantity of brandies, by which means a considerable quantity had leaked out of the casks. The plaintiff proved the warehousing, and that the charge for warehouse room amounted to nearly 4001. upon the quantities in their care, and when they were examined, some casks were found to have lost two, some three, and some as many as seven gallons each: On behalf of the Defendants, several of their offi cers were called to prove that the casks in which the liquors were contained were of a very bad quality.— The staves were Hamborough timber sawed through, which was very soft and porous. It contained also several veins through which the liquor °cued out, and in some instances flowed out copiously. On cross examination, however, it appeared that it was usual to cooper such vessels as appeared to stand in need of repair as soon as they were received into the Dock, and then to give the owners notice, that they might give further orders. This was the constant practice at all ordinary wharfs, but in this case no notice was giVen to the Plaintiffs. Lord ELLENBOROUGH animadverted severely upon the inattention to the interest of the owner in thus ne glecting to give notice, as other wharfmgers would have done, and . the Jury found a verdict for the Plain tiff—damages As the full amount of the loss. TENNANT o. BAYNES, BART. _ This was an action of a similar nature, and it wash, agreed to take a verdict upan the same principle. 1 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 6. FELL V. TIMMS. This was an action of trespass, for breaking and en tering a house ansl taking away a key. The house is situated at Sloane-street, Chelsea, and it was occupied by a Mrs. Jackson, who gave up the possession to the plaintiff. The defendant rented the ground floor, and wishing to get possession of the house instead of the plaintiff, he sent for the key, on pretence of re moving some of Mrs. Jackson's goods which remained on the premises. The plaintiff, in compliance with the request, gave up the key, and the defendant afterwards re fu sed to return it, and kept the plaintiff out of possession. Mr. Serjeant LaNs, for the defendant, contended, that detaining the key, after it had been sent by the plaintiff, was not a trespass: he also objected to the form of the declaration, which did not describe the parish where the trespass was committed, but merely , stated the parish of Chelsea, when it ought to have been St. Luke, Chelsea.. Alir JAMES MANSFIELD considered the informality of the. pleadings contrary to the general practice, and I the plaintiff was nonsuited. DOE V. JACKSON. This was an action to remove the defendant from a cellar, which he holds in Covent-garden market. The real plaintiffs, Messrs. Hughes and Prince, hold Covent-garden Market by lease from the Duke of Bedford. The tenants under them are all weekly tenants, but it is covenanted in the lease of the plain tiffs that they shall not turn out the under-tenants within the bounds of the market, without the consent of the Duke of Bedford. This, and an irregularity in the notice to quit, was pleaded in defence. But it appeared that the covenant only protected the tenants or their executors and administrators, but not their assigns. The defendant had get this cellar, which he uses as a public-house, by assignment from a Mrs. Little, for a valuable consideration, and therefore was not protected. Upon the defendant agreeing to pay the plaintiffs 150/. and 4)1. towards the costs of the action ; the matter was settled, a verdict being taken, however, for the Plaintiffs, to secure the per formance of this engagement. The plaintiffs them selves are bound to quit upon six months notice. Sir JANiA himarnum expressed his satisfaction with this excellent management of the market by the Noble Duke, by which the poor tenants were care fully protected, and yet the means retained of imme diately removing improper persons. REAZtEY O. WILLIAMS. This action was brought by Mr. Beazley, who is a surveyor, against Mr. Williams, who is of the same profession, for defamation. The circumstances of this case, as stated by Serjeant SHEPHERD, were shortly these : These two Gentlemen, with twoothers, had been employed, the one by Mr. Hawkes, and the other by Messrs. Dermers, to survey some party. walls at No. 22, Piccadilly. A certificate was sign ed by the Surveyors on the part of Mr. Hawkes, against which the Messrs. Dermers appealed • that appeal came on o be heard before WILLIAM littrx wannio, Esq. at the Guildhall, Westminster, when both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were examined; and, in the investigation of that appeal it became a material question whether Mr. Beazley had on a cer, tain day (10th February) communicated his opinion and judgment to Mr. Williams and the other Survey ors, concerning the state of these party-walls ? Mr. Beazley deposed at the Guildhall that he had made known his opinion respecting these party-walls to Mr. Williams and the other Surveyors: Mr. Wil liams deposed that he had not ; and Mr. Williams, (at a subsequent period, (2d July last) when Mr. Beazley, Mr. Stoddart, and other Gentlemen', were met at the same premises in Piccadilly, to survey the party-walls,) said to Mr. Stoddart, after Mr. Beazley had quitted one of the rooms, ‘, I am astonished you should be seen in company with such a rascal, who perjured himself in a Court of Justice—he is a per- • jared rascal or fellow—he swore to a direct lie." For the - speaking of these words, this action was - brought, to which the defendant pleaded a plea of justification. After Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD had proved the speaking of these words by Mr. Williams, Mr. DAUNCEY next addressed the Juty on the part of the Defendant. After he had finished his opening, and called his first witness to substantiate his plea of justification, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said, , 4 Gentlemen ' it would be too long for me to write down what I think on this subject." In consequence of this intimation from the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, the Learned Counsel on both sides conferred privately together. The LORD CHIEF .Tosnce said, 4, 1 should have no difficulty in telling you what I think should be done ; and one thins I will say now—Mr. Drawbar has conceived that if the Defendant were to acquit the Plaintiff of what he has charged him with, it would seem as if he admitted that he himself had been guilty of perjury. In- my view of the thing, no such consequence would follow. I think it is very possible that each of these Gentlemen might swear what he is supposed to have done, the bne that he had made known his opinion, and the other that he had not made what he calls a communication of hit opinion, without being guilty of any thing like wilful and corrupt perjury." Mr. DAUNCEY observed to his Lordship, he had stated that, and if he would just permit him for a mo ment— LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. —.g Your charge is that of wilful and corrupt perjury, as stated in the declara. tion. Did nobody ask Mr. Williams, at the Sessions, when the question arose, whether he was not awarc what Mr. Beazley's opinion was ?" Mr Serjeant SHEPHERD, and also Mr. DAUNCEY, replied, that no such question had been put to Mr. Williams, at the Sessions. Loan CHIEF J usTica--- , g Every body else knew it." Mr. DAuNcEY.-" The question was not what Mr. Williams knew, but what Mr. Beazley had commu nicated to him." After some further consultatiOn among the Coun sel, Mr. DAUNCEY said, at I believe, on the part of my friend the Learned Serjeant, I can now state that to which he will accede on his part, and that which will be sufficient on mine. Mr. Williams is ready to .- dechre, he made this charge against Mr. Beazley, the supposition that Mr. Beazley had intended to im pute to hint the same crime which he has now im. puted to Mr. Beazley. He says he made the charge on that supposition ; but as Mr. Beazley does not mean to impute that to Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams, by me, states, that if that had been at first so under stood by him, he would not have made it; and does not now make it ; and, explained as it is now, he is sorry be has made it." LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—" It is very proper to end this cause in this way. I should have had some dif ficulty perhaps in telling you what my impression of the matter was, if it had come to a conclusion. The Jury would hardly have found that Mr. Beazley, in what he had said, had committed wilful and corrupt perjury, which, on the part of the Defendant, must have been proved, and which, on the part of Bear ley, is positively denied. I think it is most probable, that Mr. Beazley did not in words communicate it, but it is clear from the evidence, it was as well known then what me Beazley's opinion was, as it is now ; and that Mr. Beazley should wilfully have commit ted perjury when he knew there were four or five per. sons in Court ready to contradict him, is what one can hardly believe ; and there was no interest which could possibly induce him to take such an oath.— : On the other hand, Williams, I suppose, was very strongly impressed with what Mr.' Beazley had sworn not being literally true, and therefore he concludes he was guilty of perjury. Supposing the fact to be that Mr. Beazley had not literally commu nicated kis opinion to Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams might very naturally be under that impression. I blame M'r. Williams for his intemperate behaviour ' when he met Mr. Beazley subsequently on another • business. At the same time, Williams did not charge him with this in any company except among . those persons, all of whom knew what passed at the =w— all of whom were present, except Hill, who was now a 4urveyor, and who, I dare say, knew it as well as the rest ; and therefore he did not make this imputation in public company, or in the company of strangers, where it might be misunderstood. I do not think that either of them have been guilty of any thing that the law calls perjury, or that any thing that has passed ought at all to aTect . their chara:ters." Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD.—" Mr. Beazley's object is obtained by what your Lordship has now said." LORD Collit JUSTICE. — " I suppose the Jury is. of the same opinion." The Jury declared they were perfectly of the same opiaiots. i i