Star. — London, England, 1821-11-02 00:00:00

THE SLEEPERS. WRITTEN IN THE DORMITORY OF AN ACADEMY. It's silent influence Sleep has shed On every little thoughtless bead; The house from noise : Their troubles for the day are o'er, The tyranny of tasks no more Their lighten'd breasts annoys! They suffer now their daily death : Around is heard the long-drawn breath, The heaving coverings rise: But yet, perhaps, each playful brain Nay sums strange phantasy ccatain, A fav'rite sport that plies! This runs a race, F:rhaps, and that As earnest grasps the shadowy bat, And strikcs the airy ball; S{ bile this perchance, the fag or scout, Unheard is et ying, " Put hint oat As loud as he can bawl! The next with open mouth who lies, Ig broken accents stammering tries To prove he'll be obeyed ; This, who in fight his strength may try, Of crimson'd nose or purpled eye Will waken half afraid ! Oh, happy souls! oh, trebly blest! Who thus enjoy a sportive rest, By watchful care uncheck'd ; Whose grief, awake, is but the shower That gently bends the tender flower, But leaves it more erect ! LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 1. This morning the LORD CHANCELLOR held his first Seal before Term. His Lordship came into -Court at half-past ten, when an immense quantity of Re cords, &c. passed the Great Seal of the United King dom. These having been disposed of, his Lordship proceeded to hear arguments on Bankrupt Petitions, none of which were, however, of any public interest. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 1. KNOWLES V. HORSKIALL AND ANOTHER. This case was tried at Lancaster, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the case. It was an action of trover to recover 17 pieces of brandy. The following was the case for the opinion of the Court :—The plaintiff, who resides at Liverpool, was a wine-merchant, and the defendants are assignees to a person of the name of Dixon, a bankrupt, who was also a wine-merchant belonging to the same place. The brandy in question was imported from France by Dixon previously to his bankruptcy, who, in the customary and legal manner, entered them in the Custom-House, and bonded them in his own name and with his own residence. The bonding warehouses in Liverpool were situated in several parts of that town, and the custom of the trade is, that when an importer has no warehouses of his own, he lodges the goods in a warehouse hired for that temporary purpose. Some part of this brandy was lodged in warehouses hired by Dixon annually, and part of it in a hired warehouse belonging to a person of the name of Ledson. In February, 1819, the plaintiff purchased '27 pieces of brandy from Dixon, and on the Ist of March following he sold 10 pieces, which were delivered : the remaining 17 pieces were to continue in the warehouse so long as the plaintiff should think proper. Regular invoices were made out, and the plaintiff paid Dixon for the amount. It was notorious that Dixon was the importer of the brandy. The plaintiff, shortly after he became the purchaser, re-sealed the brandy in the presence of an Excise officer, and marked them with the letter K. the initial of his name. Dixon subsequently became •a bankrupt, and the defendants, as his assignees, claimed the 17 pieces of brandy. The question for the consideration of the Court was, whether the goods were ordered and sold by Dixon, so as to confer upon him the reputed ownership? On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. TYNDALL COM. tended on the authorities in the case es prate Flynn, in 1 Atkyns, and Thackwaite v. Cocker, S Taunton,: 407, that here there was that sort of apparent owner ship in Dixon, which the law required. The bank rupt Dixtal ought to be considered simply as the warL•house keeper to the plaintiff, from the time that they were sold to the bankrupt. The CHIEF JusricE.—The defendant was not a warehouseman only. The goods were his originally. Mr. Parma was preparing to address the Court on the part of the defendant, but the Court inter rupted him, The CHIEF JUSTICE observing, that they were per fectly satisfied that the whole ownership was in Dixon. Judgment for the defendants. CALVIN V. NFWBERNY. This was action on the case. It was brought for a breach of charter-party, by which the defendant bound himself to convey a certain cargo of goods in the ship Benson, from Calcutta to the port of London. The alleged breach was, that the defendant's ves sel was not seaworthy, and therefore being una6le to complete the voyage home, the goods were either, sold at a loss at the Nlauritius, or delayed there so long as to make it impossible for them to reach the home market. In other counts defendant was charged • with having unskilful servants, &c. The cause was • tried before the CHIEF JUSTICE, at Guildhall, in the Sittings after Hilary Term, and the plaintiff was then nonsuited, with liberty to move the Court upon the . •erdict. In the Easter Term following a motion was • made to set aside the nonsuit, but at the recommenda tion of the Court, a special case was made out for the consideration of the whale Conn. Mr. PARKE was heard to-day against the nonsuit. The plaintiff, he observed, was nonsuited at the trial before he was permitted to go into evidence. The whit of law involved in the question was, whether the defendant, who was the real owner of the vessel, will, by the agreement entered into between him and Beetham, the Master (and of which the plaintiff had, notice), relieve him of the liability which would attach to him by this breach of the charter.party, when the goods had been put on board under an or dinary bill of lading. The Learned Counsel con • tended, that the owner of the vessel alone ought to . . . be liable, and that .the Captain leas but . I‘;s servant. If the liability rested with tht Captain, then would the shippers of goods in future be compelled to look not to substantial owners of the vessel, but to a mere adventurous, and possibly insolvent, Captain. This instrument between the owner and the Captain would not protect the former from his liability. The Learned Counsel cited several ca.es in support of this position, and concluded a most able and ingenious argument by expressing a strong conviction t hat . in this case, so important to the commercial interests of the country, the Court would allow a new trial. On the other hand, Mr. CAMPBELL was heard in support of the nonsuit. 4le contended that this was in fact an action of contract ; the question was, with whom had the contract been made ? The plaintiff in this case had not contracted with the defendant. The COURT, having heard Mr. Campbell, decided that the case should go down again for trial. LORD SORDES V. FLETCHER. The CHIEFJUSTIOE remarked that this cause stood first in the paper for to-morrow. But before that case was argued, he wished to know if the plea tendered on the part of the defendant had received his sanction ? The action was upon a sintorgiacal con tract, and if the Court gave judgment upon that plea it would be attended with the most serious conse quences to the defendant. He was anxious to know if the defendant intended to urge that plea ? Mr. Justice BAYLRY.—If the Court gave judgment upon that plea, the amount of his living for the two last years should be refunded. Mr. LITTLEDALE, under these circumstances, begged that the Court would put off the considera tion of the case for some time t and the Court accord- ingly acceded to the Learned Counsel's request, and it now stands over for Tuesday week. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER I. HARRisos V. BEECH. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a la bourer, to recover damages for an assault, under the following circumstances: Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, who appeared for the plaintiff, produced witnesses, who proved that on the 10th of March last the plaintiff was employed by a Mr. Jackson, in a colliery, in Staffordshire ; that the defendant, who was owner of part of the colliery•, ' having come into the pit, charged the plaintiff with working in a part of the pit to which his employer had no right, and told him if he did not leave off, that he (the defendant) would shift him off. The plaintiff said his employer desired him to work in that place, and that he would do so ; upon which the defendant threw the plaintiff on the ground ; a scuffle ensued, in the•course of which the plaintiff re- 1 ceived from the defendant a severe blow of an iron bar, which prevented him from working for some time. Mr. Serjeant PELL admitted that his client had first assaulted the plaintiff by taking him by the collar and throwing him, and consequently a verdict mutt be found for the plaintiff; but he trusted that the i Jury would see the assault was not of that serious' nature to call for heavy damages. The fact was, that' the plaintiff's employer and the defendant in follow ing a vein of coal under the surface of the earth, had met each other, and that the bed of coal upon which the plaintiff had been working on the 10th of March, had been undergone (excavated) by the de fendant the previous evening. The Learned Serjeant then called three witnesses, one of them the partner of the defendant, who swore to the facts stated by the Learned Serjeant ; also, that Beech committed the first assault by taking Harrison by the collar, but that they did not see him strike Harrison with the bar. Two of the defendant's witnesses deposed that Harrison was at work in the pit on the 12th March. The CHIEF JusrtcE summed up, and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lO. PREROGATIVE COURT OF YORK, OCTOBER 26. MAW V. WATERWORTH. This was a case of considerable moment. The facts are briefly these :—The late Mr. Robert Maw, of Doncaster, solicitor, on the 30th December, 1820, gave verbal instructions to his friend Mr.Waterworth, of that place, solicitor, to draw his will; and after leaving an old servant £5O, and also leaving Mr. Waterworth his law books and office papers, he di rected his property to be equally divided amongst his brothers and sisters, and appointed his brother, the plaintiff, and Mr. Mozec, of Doncaster, surgeon, his executors ; these instructions were repeated on the 3d of January, 1821, being the day Mr. Maw died, and Mr. Waterworth withdrew to write the will ; but on retui ning into Mt. Maw's chamber, with the will and pen and ii,k in ;is hand, he found Mr. Maw in the agonies of death, and the formal execution was thereby prevented. The plaintiff applied for admi nistration, and contended that the deceased had died intestate. The COURT was clearly of opinion, that as the will was reduced into writing in the life-time of the de ceased, and conformable to instructions received from him whilst of disposing mind and memory, it was perfectly valid, and the Court ordered Mr. Water worth's costs to be paid out of the effects. JACKSON AND ATKIN D BURNHAM AND OTHERS. This was a came respecting the validity of the will and codicil of Mr. Thomas Thorp, late of Drypool, near Hull. The will was propounded by the plain tiffs (the executors) with several obliterations and era sures appearing on the face of it. The evidence fully proved that the obliterations were made by the tes tator himself, and that he had determined they should stand as part of his will, and not as instructions or memoranda for a new will; in consequence of which the COMMISSARY pronounced for the validity of the will, with the obliterations and erasures as they ap peared on the face of it. The defendano applied to the Court to have their costs allowed out of the ef fects on the following grounds—lt appeared from the cross-examination of the professional man who prepared the will, and who was employed by the executors to read it, after the testator's death, to his relations assembled at his funeral, that he then read it as it stood before the obliterations weie made, and without noticing them to the parties in any manner; and he also did not mention that the testator had, subsequently to the execution of the will, made a codicil, which was then in his possession. The Cosi NI ISS Ala thought that these circumstances were sufficient to raise suspicion on the part of the defendants, and to justify them in requiring proof of the facts urged in support of the obliterations, and therefore decreed that their costs should be paid out , of the testator's effects. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS. • Yesterday Thomas Wood was indicted for stealing a I piano -forte, the property of Chapple aad Latour, piano-forte-makers, Bond-street. Mr. Foster, an auctioneer, proved that he sold the piano-forte in question to Mr. Bygrave, a musical instrument-maker, for thirty guineas, twenty of which he paid to the prisoner. The circumstances of the case were these :—The prisoner called at the prosecutor's shop and ordered a piano-forte to he sent to his house, 22, Liward street, Portman-square, directed to T. Woed, Esq. The piano-forte was accordingly sent, and it was agreed that the prisoner was to pay forty-five guineas if he purchased the piano, and thirty-five shillings a month if he only hired it ; the transaction took place ih August, MO, and the prosecutor heard nothing more of the prisoner until he saw his name in the Papers a week or two ago, when he was examined before the Magistrate, charged with a variety of similar offences. Mr. 13eeSy, the owner of the house in Edward street, deposed, that he hired the wife of the prisoner to let his house ; and that he gave her five shillings a week for taking care of it : witness knew that her husband was confined in the King's Bench Prison for debt ; on one occasion the prisoner told witness that he thought he had let the house to the Archbishop of Tuam ; prisoner had offered to sell the piano-forte in question to witness, saying, that he had purchased it when he kept house, and that he had recently re deemed it for EH; ; but witness 'closed to purchase it. Mr. ALLEY, on the behalf of the prisoner, argued, that the offence did not amount to stealing, and that to make it so, a specific contract ought to have been entered into, stating a given period at which the in , strument was to be returned or paid for. The IttconnEn over-ruled the objection. It was, however, for the Jury to determine what was the pi soner's intention. The prisoner declared, that when he took the piano it was his intention to pay for it. lie had received large sums of money in right of his wife, and that lie was now willing to enter into any arrangement which the prosecutors might &site. John Bull deposed, that he had paid two-thirds of £175 to the wife during the prisoner's confinement in the King's Bench.—The Learned Judge summed up the case with great perspicuity ; and the Jury, after a very short consultation, returned a verdict of—Guilty. The COMMON SERJRANT observed, that those who speculated in law, ought to be sure that they were right before they attempted acts of this kind. '[lie prisoner must be sent out of the country. 'Thomas Ingram and Arnold Hunt were indicted for stealing a trunk containing divers articles of wearing apparel, value £lO, and two £lO Bank notes, the property of Robert Baker, in the dwelling-house of the Dowager Lady Templeton. By the evidence of a number of witnesses it ap peared, that the prosecutor was under butler to Lady Templeton, and on the 9th of July last, in the mottl ing, he saw the trunk in question, with its contents, safe in his room. Two or three hours afterwards he went again to the room, and discovered that the trunk was gone. An inquiry was set on foot, but no in formation could be obtained as to who had taken it. The payment of the notes was stopped, and informa tion of the robbery was given at the Police Office.— Some time afterwards the notes were traced, one to the possession of Ingram, who kept a public-house in Bedfordbury, and the other to Hunt, who acted as' occasional waiter to Ingram. Hunt paid one of the notes to Mr. Crossly, a cheesemonger, at Holborn bridge, in less than a week after the robbery, and In- gratn gave the other to his housekeeper to procure change, about the same time. The housekeeper, when ' called, swore that the saw her master take from a cus tomer the £lO note, and this she changed at Mr. Spice's, a grocer. Cooper and Handley, two police officers, were sent to Ingram to inquire of him respecting the £lO note, and he said he could not tell from whom he obtained it until he saw it. After many postponements, the prisoner did see it, and he then said he got it from one of a party of persons who were drinking at his house for liquor, and not being able to change it him self, he sent to Mr. Spice for it. The person who gave him the note said his name was Thompson, and lived at 22, King -street, Westminster. Upon inquiry it was found that no such person lived there. The prisoner, Ingram, in his defence, told the same story as he had given to the officers, when he was taken into.custody. Hunt said, he was employed by the same men who gave Ingram the £lO note to get a cheese for them, and to pay for it he received from them another ten pound note. Neither of the prisoners called any witnesses to their character. The RECORDER summed up, and the Jury instantly acquitted both the prisoners. The RECORDER said, he had not the smallest doubt that the evidence of the woman was perjury from beginning to end ; and he thought that both the pi i soners were guilty. John Howe was indicted for stealing a quantity of plates and inscriptions from coffins in the vault of St. James's Church. Mr. ALLEY stated the case on behalf of the prose cution, which was carried on a: the expense of the Parish of St. James. One of the watchmen of the Parish said that about half-past eight, on the night laid in the indictment, he saw the prisoner come out of the Church-yard with a bundle under his arm : and then he went up George-court. He saw him again, about twenty minutes after ten, coming out of the Church-yard with a bundle. Witness asked what he had got there? The prisoner teplied it was nothing to him, and de sired w itness to go about his business. The witness collated him, and took him to the watch-house. The person who acted as constable of the night produced the brindle which he took from the pri soner, and of which the prisoner at the time refused to give any account. At length he acknowledged that he had sold a similar bundle to a dealer in marine stores for three•halfpence a pound. All the other facts of the case being clearly proved, the prisoner was found Guilty. William Hicks was capitally convicted of breaking into the dwelling-house of James Mills, with intent to steal. POLICE. BOW- STREET.--Yestet ;lay, TtioN,TAS HALL% E R , the newly appointed Magistrau, took his seat to u t his rotation, for the first time since his appni nt ,,,, l le was accompanied by Wm. BECKETT, Esq. Michael Roche, who watcharged with rob!ingilie shop of Mr. Thomas Lane, an t‘ilman, of Ch andos. street, Covent•garden, and with attempting t o Mrs. Lane, wac committed for trial. MA R LBO ft 0 UGH-ST n EET.—A questing eef as to e it ricyht of hackney coachmen earnin g ly • •ggag e , yesterday hea rd, on the complaint of Mr. D ec h ern of Frith-street, Soho, against Blaze% a lack coachman. Mrs. 1). and her seivant had lakeri coach from the Gloucester Coffee-house, h av i n „ trunks and other luggage ; and Mr. D • Mai d eighteen-pence in Frith -street, when defenda nt d h mantled another sixpence, and refused to depa rt he got it of the servant, whilst Mr. D. was rie faro , * poker. The defence was, that a coachmanisentitka to be paid for luggage, and that be had stated w , fore it was put into the coach, agreeable to a book e i Mr. Gitiaife s, under the sanction of the Commis, sianets. The words ran thus:—" It is a custom le give a trifle for having luggage; but a coad aki must refuse to take it, bete; e it is put into the coa c k or make his agreement. This does not :triply small trunks." Mr. D.'s son proved Lb:ache coack, man had required to be paid for the luggage ; aat the case was dismissed with the coachman pari ng three shillings costs. TOWN-H ALL, SOUTIIWA EMPT AT MT" DER.— - Payne was brought to this Office, yb terday, charged with cutting and stabbing, and a, tempting to murder, his wife. The prisoner ap peened about forty years of age; he is a personnel known in the Borough, having for a considenbi time attended the Blackheath coaches. Rebec a Payne, a young woman, about IG years of age, tt g daughter of the pri,oner, deposed—" My father at. tends the Blackheath stages in the Borough. came home about one o'clock this day, to dinner. was Standing in the room, near my little sister, an 4 my father took up a rope, and beat me with it; said it was because I had not taken my sister to schod Ile then went to my mother, who was standing at neighbour's door, and knocked her down with 1 4 4 fist; she had given him no provocation whatever.— When she got up he struck her again with a tope, and also with his fist ; and when she fell on the ground he kicked her in the ribs, and in the loins;— he then seized her by the hair of the head, arida?. ged her several times up and down the kennel. lie took a knife from his pocket, and cut and stabbed* with it, and TM attempting to thrust it into her side, when a bystander, amidst the cries and screams of all present, seized the knife, but his hand was cut shock. ingly. My father then ran into the house. beet to see for an officer, and for medical assistance fa my mother, who was bleeding dreadfully."—Kincy, the officer, here produced the knife ; it was a cias t knife, about six inches in length, and was identi6d by the above witness. The evidence was confirrod by several witnesses, and a message Laving been ceived from St. Thomas's Hospital, where the relic had been carried, stating it was impossible, at pre sent, to say whether there was any chance of her re covery, the prisoner was committed for exadinatice on a future day. MANstox-House.—Yesterday, Painter and Cote, who were brought up on Monday by Hawkins, the Marshalman, underwent another examination on 56 veral other charges of having obtained goods Mo. niously. Mr. HARMER attended as solicitoroobe half of the prisoners. A solicitor attended ton duct the prosecution. The Office was crowielW tradesmen who had charges to prefer, but thelnu MAYOR said he would not enter fat thee into thew that day, and he should, therefore, rem:sad the pr soners until Saturday next, that it might be retie more completely, for the town was now surreal with depredators, and the utmost strength of 'hell, ought to be exercised for the protection of the Lost shopkeeper. Wednesday evening, between eight and as o'clock, the premises of Mr. Hunt, a watchmaker,it Welbeck-street, Cavendish-square, were broken is and robbed of three gold watches, two silver, cap and jewelled, and a horizontal one, during the to porary absence of Mr. Hunt. The thieves, it 3 geared, gained entrance by a false key, into the frc4 parlour, and took from a drawer the above article with which they escaped. A number of watches in the parlour, which the robbers had not sufficia time to carry off. Yesterday, an alarm of fire was given at a 6:LW shop on Holborn-hill ; but, by the timely exert of the emen, was soon got under. , MARRIED. Sept. 14, •at Salteoats, Oeptain Robert Fullerton, to Nh Keay, daughter of Peter Kelly, Esq. At Edinburgh, on the 250. h ult. William Johnston, E* Mrs. lteidie, widow of Dr. lteidie, physician, Ilrechio. DT ED. Oct. IR, at Newcastle, by the rupture of a blood-reset la bells, daughter of }lr. E. 641oway, of tilt Customs, ard ~ &pt. 2u, at Naples, the Lady of James Dupre, F.sq• of ton Park. August 20, at Constantinople, Joseph Douglas Strutt, Tit aged 27, only sun of Joseph Strutt, Esq. of Derby. in the pursuit of intellectual improvement and gratificatire ,o amiable young man, fourteen months ago, left his Oathe tie try, with the purpose of vishiilg the scenes and cnunmes? eluding Egypt) inert celebrated in classical history. Hey } ready traversed France, Switzerland, and Italy, sabseqteg proceeding to Sicily, Malta, and such of the Greek isLe?, political circumstances, or the prevalence of the pl.,•guei render inaccessible, and had been successful in o luainitg* valuable relics of classical antiluity, when, on a voyage tr g Smyrna to Constantinople, he wus Eel z ;:t1 with a ma ligurat er! .. incidental to the climate. He landed at the latter place of daiq•erous indisposition. Th.:re, notwithstanding tlicert and unceasing attentions of the physician to the &lush . bassy, and other eminent medical men, his malady tenTo .. ] fatally, and on the day subsequent to his death, he wa ulr g ' at Pent. MA MS tins DALTrAltil. WC/- Dalin 1 0I Waterfori 1 0 Duerr:icy arolJeriey 1 0 I tiollacd 0 1 Fiai3ers • 1 0 0 0 Aite- 0 0 I . Irm ce o w I laintitirgh 0 I (3otttnbilr!4ll 0 I I.,:clvarki Islands 0 0 Jainaic4 0 . _____---• HI GH. ------ _ ‘ V ATE at at LONDON RR I n G fi TO- 7,101 i I! ) 1 Mc neng ' - 53 nifnut::4 .:Ve 7 $ —.--- : lipt.ip,,Wi.lir to., f ld'a Mb, 11/4.11$ I.i.bnn .