Star. — London, England, 1814-11-08 00:00:00

NAPAL 17raLLIGEWCL The Matwaret, 3ostws, from Fenian to Liverpohl, was on shore on F <lsterbore Reef the 17th ultimo— crew arn; part ~ f the cargo saved. The A tve..tetre. &mistiming. from Petersburgh te Portsmouth. w.,s on shore on Drag° the 29th ultimo, and tall of water—carats expected to be caved. The Geri •.• VLLIS. 4 to Peterchnrgh, was on shore near wenburg the end of last month—most of tl'e cargo egFectel to be saved—stores saved. IfThe Jacob, SPINDIrt, troth Liebau to Gottenburgh, c,undered at sea the ifiith October. The Adventure, BELL. was driven on shore at PA,,,c)langei, during a heavy ale, on the 14th Septem ber, hut rot off, after discharging part of her cargo. The Fountain, BARTON, from Wyburg to Lynn, and the Anna, JEWBON, from Narva to Hull, are lost in the E I C-CTEW saved. PORTSMOUTH, NOVEMBER 7. Arrived the Sally, HALL, from the Downs; aad . the Benjamin and Mary, from Riga ; his Majesty's ships TYRIAN, from off Brighton ; CRACKER, fiom Plymouth ; and the FERVENT and Suamt, from a crutze. The AMARANTHS and convoy is still in St. Helen's Roads.—Wind W. DEAL, NOVEMBER 7. The White Oak, of London, Amen, master, with timber, plank, and iron bars, from Calmat, bound to Portsmouth, ran on shore the sth instant, about four miles ea,t of Calais, and is discharging her cargo. Arrived the Tots frigate and Kira sloop of war, from the Westward, and sailed for the River. HARWICH, NOVEMBER 7. Sailed the Anson, transport, for Ostend. The brig Huddersfield, SHAW, of and from Hell, with a gene. ral cargo, for London, has been brought in by a sal vage boat, having been on shore off the Hasborough Sand, aid is very. husky... Wind W. COVE OF CORK, NOVEMBER 4. Sailed co the 2d instant, his Majesty's ship Stn.- TAN, with ISS sail. for the West Indies ; and his Ma jesty's ship CYANi, with 15 sail, for Newfoundland. —Sailed bi► Majesty's ships PRtSIDENT and TANAIS. GRAVESEND, NOVEMBER 7. Arrived the /grew Christina, Holtman. from Rotterdam ; the Young Dixon, Hindhough. from Riga; and Vanseobit, Holy, from Homer. Sidled the Duikentield, Stevenson ; Hanover, Adamson ; and Mint, Drysdale, for Jamaica; Progress, Hunter, for St. Kitt'.; Preston, Baldwry, for Lucie; Hope, Patter son, for Senegal; Syren, Clark, for Jamaica ; Avatxe, Schroeder, for PWau ; Fanny. Manuel!, for Riga ; Edward, 'fortiow, far Cottenburgh ; JOsephine, Bourg's, for Havre; John and Sally, Rogers, fnr Dieppe; La Pair, Maw, for Ostend ; Tyne and Trent packet, and Lively, Pitell, forHamburgis; Latosta, An- Away% and Hemet, Enerson, for Antwerp. Ahthentie account of the Death of MUNGO PAnx, extracted from the Journal of IsA*co.who was sent to ascertain his fate Before the village of Boussa then! is 41 rock stopping the whole breadth of the river, one part of the river (Jalliba) being very high ; there is also a hole where the water can pass, but very narrow ' • the King's army went and took pos session of the top of this rock. When A:No PAR* attempted to pass, the people began to throw rocks and lances at them. Marco PARE defended himself for a long time ; he had two slaves killed at the stern of his canoe, after defendinz themselves long; and being overpowered by numbers and fatigue, and the eutrr.nt so strong, they began to throw over every thing they had in the boat. kforroo PARK took hold of one of the white men, and they threw themselves ism the water. Warm, one of his companions, did the same to the other white man. The natives stili persisted in throwing rocks and lances. The only man remaining in the canoe, a slave, then said to them— , There is nothing in the canoe but me, why see you so desperate ? cease, and take me if you llies' which they did. They took the canoe and the . miss, and went back to the King." COINING AND TAR SCOTS BOROUGHS.—We .I:popy the followino statement from an Eanbargh j'aper There is at present confined as a pri soner in the Canongate jail of Edinburgh, upon a I writ, at the instance Of GgOgag CANNING, Esq. o f lioltan-su e ret, Piccadilly, county of Middlesex, M. P. (we believe the Member for Petersfield) a person of the name of Williams Ogilvis, designating himself Earl of Findlater and Baron Banf. The debt is constitu ' tailed by bond. in the English form, amounting to direr showed pounds s the bond is signed Findla ter and Banff s it is followed up 'by a decreet before _ the Court of Session, as against WILLIAM, Earl of Fittricaxint ; but the Honourable plaintiff has, in the writ of caption; altered the designation to WILLIAM OGILVIE, calling himself Earl of FINDLATER," and upon, that this soidisasst Peer of the realm has been committed to prison. Being in a state 'of great po verty, his Lordship of Ftlintstamit applied to the Ma gistrates of Canongate for the benefit of the Scots Act, 1696, commonly called the 4 Act of Grace.' This ap plication was strenuously opposed by Mr.CANNING, on the ground that the petitioner was an impostor, and that he had no right to the title of Fosiotarta; that he bad obtained the money fromhim onfalw pretences, kc. —ln answer to this, it was stated by the noble defen dant that his tide to the Earldom of Findlater was undoubted ; that he hid been .rfgularly served heir b.r.a, jury before the Sheriff zqf Banff ; that he had been countenanced and writ** to as Earl by several - persons blab in rank, and who had promised him • every assistance with money and otherwise to procure his title to be recognised by the House of Lords, when In an evil hour he became acquainted with the plain tiff ( Mr. CANNING), who besieged him most closely, offering him any sum, even to the extent of no,ouo, if he would use his influence to get him returned for a Scottish Burgh. That he accordingly received £3OOO for this purpose, and his friends finding he had joined with Mr. CANNING, withdrew their counte bance and support from him ; in consequence of which be and his family came to poverty ; he could not g et b ib title recognised by the House of Lords, and his fficaaMr. CANNING, lost his Scottish burgh, and is soy also his £3OOO, thus lent for electioneering purposes. 't:llese are the statements of the parties, ot t h e trot h of w hi.:l we of coarse knew nothing, but the Magistrates of Cs:.notlate, in consideration of the whole circumstances of Pe case, and in respect it is, other party, by the petitioner, and not denied by t he het party, that be granted a band for the debt as Ea r l of 111MDLATIM. and subscribed the Mile by that signs _ sue,. and not as WILLIAM OGILVIE, designed i.g.1.. the letters of caption, modi fi ed an a l iment of vesbultir per d a y, to b e p a id and consigned to him by the cr. ' t iior incarcerator, and which be is at prosaic receiving fro. 411 opponent Mr. C40111111(6' LAW INTELLIGENCE. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1814. This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the knots waited . 'Tan the LORD CHANCELLOR, as USUAL and from his Lordship's house proceeded in state to their respective Courts. COURT OP CHANCERY. THE ATTORNEY-OENERAL OF THE PRINCE OF WALES 'v. STEVENS. Sir Arrutnt PIGOTT s tat ed, that in this case a bill had been filed for restraining the tenants of various tracks of common and other land belonging to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the Duchy of Cornwall, from working the stone quarries, and car rying off the stones found therein, and on the com mons in the lands occupied by them. The stones so carried off had been transported to London, and em ployed io the building of the Strand Bridge, and an injunction had been obtained restraining the Def,:n dants from proceeding in their operations. A com munication, however, had since taken place on the subject, the result of which was, that the Defendants were allowed to go on in the meantime, they keeping an account, and undertaking to be responsible, in the event of its being found that their title to proceed as they had done was defective. The affidavits in an' swer had since been put in, - and the Defendants had given notice of a motion for dissolving the injunction. He (Sir Arthur Pigott) had looked into those affi davits, and from the most attentive consideration he `had been able to give the case, he was satisfied that it must ultimately come to be decided by an issue, or issues at law. He had spoken to Mr. Hart, who was for the Defendant, upon the subject, and he believed that he concurred in this opinion. It would be con venient, however, for him (Sir Arthur Pigott), that the matter should lie over for a few days, as he had not had an opportunity of consulting with Sir Sa muel Romilly and Mr. Bell, who were, with him, Counsel for the Plaintiff, nor with the Officers of the Duchy. Mr. HART concurred in thinking that the case must come, in one shape or another, to be decided at law; 'either by ejectment, or by directing an issue. Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT said, an ejectment could not try the question, the Defendants having grants, which they would naturally set up as a defence against any action of ejectment. The rights of the parties could only be tried by an issue or issues. Mr. HAUT said, then let Sir Arthur Pigott's junior prepare minutes of the tetras of the issues. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, as the Defendants were allowed to proceed in the meantim; keeping an account, the proposed delay of a few days could be productive of injury to neither party. Let the matter, therefore, lie over to Thursday se'nnight, and the parties, in the meantime, communicate among themselves. JIMNEOII V. CATOR. Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY, followed by Mr. SRN:WELL, moved that the time for paying in the mortgage mo ney in this case should be enlarged for six months.— This was 7 an application, he submitted, entirely to the discretion of the Court ; and as it was made in very extraordinary circumstances he trusted it would receive that favourable consideration to which it was entitled. The case had been more than onee'alreAdy before the Court, and his Lordship had already more than once enlarged the time for paying thejponey.— Many of our Readers may recollect it, as , tog have more than once stated the circumstances attending the case. About the year 1808, Mr. Cator, *Aso had only a life-interest in the estate, mortgaged the same Ito Mr. Johnson for the sum of 4315,000, the snort. gape, at the same time causing him to insure his life tor the full amount. In the year 1811, Mr. Johnson becoming dissatisfied with the security, filed a bill of foreclosure, in which he afterwards obtained it decree. I He also seized upon an interest of a mercantile nature which Mr. Cator had along with four other Gentle men in a pottery concern, to the trade in which he put a stop, and from Mr. Cator's interest in which he realized a sum of about £4,000. Not satisfied with this the Plaintiff proceeded against the person of the Defendant, against whom he sued out a writ of Ca pia: ad satisfacteriduat, and under that writ had kept him in prison for the last year and a half. This was not all, he then brought an action of ejectment, and having obtained a verdict in it, was now actually at this moment in possession of the Defendant's life-in terest in this estate. Under these circumstances, the Defendant's son, being not much more than a year from his full age of twenty-one, and being in hopes' that he should be able, if allowed a short time longer, to borrow money on his own interest in the estate sufficient to pay off this mortgage, he (Sir Sa-1 muel Romilly) trusted his Lordship would enlarp the time for paying in the mortgage mol l for sit months longer. Mr. LEACH, for the Plaintiff, stated that it appeared from the Master's Report, that there was upwards of £12,000 of this mortgage debt due, while the rents of the estate were net equal to the payment of the in terest, and of the premium of insurance ; Si) that the amount of the debt must be daily accumulating. Sir SAMUEL ROHILLY said they had now heard this for the first time. In answer to it, however, he could state, that next year, the lease under which the estate was now held would expire, when the rents would be nearly doubled. The Lotto CHANCELLOR asked, was there an affi davit to this last tact, which he esteemed highly im portant ? Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said there was no affidavit to the fact, but one could easily be filed, the tact be ing indisputable. Mr. LEACH had never heard that a mortgagee, who had not lent his money fot ever, but only for a given time, was not at liberty to bold his security, and, at the came time, to take the usual remedies which the law afforded him to make his debt effectual. Sit SAMUEL ROMILLY did not dispute the tight of a creditor to resort, one by one, to all the remedies, and or every one of which the Plaintiff in the present ease had availed himself. But, he contended, that those were circumstancei which must weigh with the i court, in the exercise of its discretion, on as appli eation such as the present. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in ladling of a Can lik e the present, it was highly importantgiatthe Court 4ould be informed not only what was di actual and; immediate tent of the estate mortgaged, but also what would be its probable value next year. Thesal could be no doubt too, that a mortgagee. was en.' t i t l e d :o avail himislf of all the remedies which du) lilt4Vowed to any ether creditor ; but, at the same thiikkkwas proper that the Court slunk/ know what weWjbe remedies which had been resorted to by a mortgagee coming to the Court and asking that the mortgage money should be irnmedia:ely paid ; in order that the Court might be the Arua enabled to judge whether by those remedies thotortgagre had so pressed on the mortgagor as tomlllt e him more un able than he otherwi s e would have been to pay the money. The resorting to twenty ditrerentremedies against a man, it so many existed, it wa s'' easy to conceive, would render him less able to pay a large sum of money, than it only one remedy had beer. tried. His Lordship wished, therefore, before he disposed of this point, to have an affidavit as to the rise to be expected in the rent of the mortgage pro perty, during the next year. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 7• This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the usual returns were made of the state of the convicts at Woolwich, Langston Harbour, Portsmouth, Sheer- ness, &c. and the Governors certified most favourably. Ordered to be entered on the files of the Court. BOROUGH 01.-LIVERPOOL-. • THE KING V. LEYLAND. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved fur a Rule; to chew cause why a Writ of Mandamn: should not issue, directed to a gentleman of the name of Leyland, commanding him to take upon hmself the office of Mayor of the Borough of Liverpool. The success of this application would depend on the construction which their Lordships should put on the governing Charter. There were forty-one Common Could!. men in the Borough, and the Charter directed that a Mayor should be annually elected from among such Common Councilmen : and it provided further, in the event of the Mayor dying, being removed, or " refusing to stand," that then tke Corporation should proceed to the election of a new Mayor. In the pre sent case Mr. Leyl.tud had been regularly n minated, and duly elected ; and unless that Gentleman ought to be excused, for the reasons which he should here after state, he ought now to fulfil the duties of that office. There was nothing hostile in this application, its sole object was to ascertain whether any Common Councilman of that Borough could, under the go verning Charter, granted by 'King William, 46 refuse to stand for the office of Mayor." Previous to the election, it was intimated to Mr. Leyland thathe would be put in nomination for the office of Mayor, in con sequence of which he communicated to the electing body, that baring already filled the office of Mayor once, that of Coroner, and being a Magistrate, he should " refuse to stand," to use the language of the Charter. At present, however, the question was, not the validity of Mr. Leyland's objections, but whe ther he was justified in retusing to stand for not withstanding Mr. Leyland's refusal to stand for the office, the Common Councilmen proceeded to the elec tion, and elected Mr. Leyland. Being largely en gaged in banking concerns, and alledging that he could not satisfactorily discharge the duties of the office, that Gentleman still continued to refuse to act ' as a Mayor, and such refusal was productive of many inconveniencies to the Borough, as the late Mayor was compelled to continue the efficient Chief Magil -1 Wane. The f.,.t to be ascertained was, whether !dr. '.4loe)lassd could refuse to stand ? The words of the natter were, that the Common Councilmen should proceed to a new ejection,- “ should the Mayor die, be removed from his office, or reuse to stand." Mr. TOPPINti observed, that Mr. Leyland did not the honours, comforts, and AdvAntages result ing from being a Ceinmon AU he oil' continues I !.:ein'oer of the Council, .:!'hough he had refasuti to till the (ince of Mayor. Lord ELtexaoltovon remarked, that the nature of the refusal which should be received, did not appear to be defined in the Charter; but, as Mr. Leyland continua a Commoi Cuuncilman, the point merited more deliberate investigation, and therefore the Court would giant the Rule. It would be athisable that the Court should be pro vided with copies of the original Charter, which was in LAM, on the motion to make the Rule absolute. Rule Nisi granted. JUDGMENT& The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated, that having made enquiry what day would be most convenient to their Lordships, on Monday next he should apply for the Judgment of the Court in several cases of persons who were in custody. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, NOV. S. IN THE CASE OF JOliN WEATIIERLET, A PRISONER.. Mr. Plx.Loot, for the Plaintiff, a creditor, said, that his objection to the discharge arose from the. defendant's own statement on his schedule, by which it appeared that in March, 1814, there was a distress on his farm for £757, for rent, and while that dis tress was on the land, his mother obtained a warrant of attorney to confess a judgment on which execution issued, and the stock valued at at2:360.•55. was sold to the landlord, and the balance, after deducting £925. 17s. 6d. for rent and expenses, paid over to the mother. This was a fraudulent preference, for the prisoner went to gaol in May, 1814, and had not any thing left to pay his creditors. Mr. PRINCR SMall and Mr. BALLANTYNE were for the defendant. The forther stated the defendant's case as being a very hard one. He was one of six children of a farmer at Denham, near Uxbridge, and as such entitled to a sixth share of his father's pro perty, which consisted of the farm and stock. When he came of age, his mother allowed him to carry on the farm for the benefit of the children, and he was, in tact, only an agent. The mother, however, to secure his good conduct took a bond for R197/.65.3d. and should then have hail a warrant of attorney.— They were ignorant of law, and had not the dextrous Attorney of Uxbridge at their elbow. He who had advised them latterly would have taken a proper se curity. For this negligence he hoped the poor chil dren would not suffer. In order to do justice to them the insolvent had in March, ISI4, executed the judgment which should have borne date and been made in 1812 with the bond. The words of the act were to prevent not all preference, but any undue preference. The question would then be, was this a preftrence to which the children, for whom the mo ther bad acted, were in equity not entitled ? He hoped the Court would consider that what ought to have been dose had its effect been done, and would not . regved the distance of time at which the two se curities were giver*. Mn. Welithuley. Mr. C. Weatherley, and Mr. rGosling were called, who proved that the bond was given for the use of the other children, an I th.tt the money was now vested in trustees f.sr them. hut they did not prove any exprecs agreement to ' ave a ju ment with the bond. Tnis, it appeared, was an Attu thought. Mr..Serjeant Par.sten was very sorry for the situa tion of all the parties, and as the money was invetned in the Bank, it would be impo.sihle to get it hack.— It was not an unfair transaction, but yet it was e fraud on the rest of the creditors, ‘n that the defen dant could not be discharged under the act, which looked to an equal distribution of the effects amongst all the creditors. Unless something could be done to get the consent of the creditors to his discharge, be must remain in prison, without remedy. Adjourned for a fortnight. NOVEMBLIt 7. SPROSTON v. WIAHAIII ISAACS. Mr. PRINCE SMITH opposed the Defendant,. for a fraud, in obtaining money un..ler a false name. The defendant was indebted to T. Spioston. on a bill of exchange for 80, which not being paid, Sproston stopped all further dealings with him. He after wards went to Gibraltar, and there met tl.e brother of T. Sproston, who was in pittnership with him-- 1 He not only state I himself to be is friend of T. Spro ston, but passed himself off as Mr. Brabant, the singer, a man of mast excellent credit, whose notes of thin air were like bark notes—would pass current every where—and . were as read ly convertible into real wealth. Here, in this character, he drew a bill on A. J. Isaacs, and signed it J. Braham, Mr. Bra ham's name being John Braham Now, th it Balam was not his name was clear Hz not only signed the first note by the name of Isaacs, but he bad p frion ed in that name, and must 'weir by it. The only difficulty in the case wis for want of evidence :—he must rely on documentary evidence—the notes, which could not lie; and Mr. Isaacs, of wleins he could not say but it was possible he might tell a false hood. He hoped he would not do it on his oath. The notes being put in, one was admitted, but the defendant denied that it was sizned by him. At last he admitted it was written by his brother-in-law. one John Lumley, whom he had a titiviiis d to settle t's bosiness, and give not , : for him at Gibraltar. This, he said, he could explain, if time was given to him. He was called Israham as well As Isaacs. Mr. Serjeant PALM= said, that might very pp perly be so, but it did not Aut' orize him to sig., or get Lumley to sign for him J. BrAhAm. At his re quest the cue should stand over for a Lirtnight.— Adjourned accordingly. SIR MARIE WOOD, BART. 9. PTIFILL. Mr. PRINCI SMITH stated that the -Plaintiff was a most respectable gentleman, the Member for Calton, in Surrey, and the Defendant was a horse-dealer. The Plaintiff bought 'of him two hors?, for £lO5, and selected two horses. The Defendant drove dowo two horses to Sir Mark's house, and having put them 'in the stable, received the 200 guineas for the two. When Sir Mark went to examine the horses he found that one of them was a different horse from that which he had selected. He therefore returned him to the Defendant, who made an excuse that the horse sold was lame, but he would bring him another. Sir Mark never could get sight of the horse or the horse. dealer. He afterwards got a horse of Pywell into his possession, and would have kept it, but the Defen dant served him with a warrant for a felony, and Sir M. immediately gave that horse up. This the Counsel relied upon as being a fraud, and the frat.d consisted in delivering a different horse from that pur chased. Sir Mark Wood, on being examined, fully con firmed the above statement. The Defendant said, that he had no: delivered the same horse that he had sold, because it was lame, but iir Mark Wood had agreed to take another in ex- change, and he had strewn him another horse. He said also, that instead of Sir Mark paying the hundred ;uineas in one sum he pal,' it in two checks. Sir Mack said, that it being a long time since, it I might be so, but whether it was paid at one an' th.! same time, or at twice, it was paid upon the I.i•h f having the same horse that he had purchased aeto,iir delivered. Mr. BALLANTYNI, for the prisoner, contended that here was no fraud. Mr. Serjeant PALMER said, if S:r Mark was to be believed, ihe fraud was most palpably. He wool i re. commend to him never to pay for a horse be nrrhatid, f r it he did the jockey would be sore to shew h. , n hOrse after horse d and not one th4t would suit him.— For the satisfaction of the parties the case shoold be adjourned, to enable Sir Mirk to refer to his cheas. GARDNIIII V. 'AM!'. Mr. ANDREWS, for the pl.rintitf, in an able tpeech, detailed a very long c.ise of conspiracy. which it is imposs.ble for us to slate. The inviry to kup tonne hours, and at Ile end nt it the Court adjsrurned this case also for a further hearing. /slaw Scu u m; WALPS—By the exertionsof C.ereessnr. General MACQUAtiktIII, a passage has teen d across the chain of mountains which inc)- se Ilse settle ments contiguous to Port Jackson, a , id wnich bad been deemed impassable. Thi ace , mit , sof or coon. try in the interior are highly ?raid yin?, and the dis covery of extensive and hirol-ialit ?asturi s, with a river of magnitude, c .n hardly tail to he most tsetse.. ticial to the settlement. The gri.at difficulty under ' which it at present labours, is the establishment of nn export, to make returns to the motht r cluntry. En. terprising individuals have, fix some years, carried on a trade. in oil, seal-skins, sandalwood, and lat terly in pearls, and the pearl oysitx.s'a.ll, which are all found in the neighbouring seas and isiands. The leading object, however, is the wool, Las bri ll found to be equal in quality to the fl-eces of Spain and Saxony. With a view to this, the discovery of the im mense tracks of pasture land in the interior must he highly advantageous, as it will afford the colmirs he means of increasing their flocks to an almost thilifEj'ed extent. The number of settlers who arrive from &g. land every year, is stated to be very great. These perscns generally receive grants ut land, „rid turn their attention to agricultural pursuits. From October, 1810, to October, 181 S, fifty-live 'nesst Is, from laki to 700 tons, strived in the port of Sidattysalone ; an t i, - exclusive of these, there were, in 181 k thirty-five yes sets employed in the colonial Tice price of beef was 7d. per lb. I re LT. .0.