Star. — London, England, 1821-11-23 00:00:00

lan' OF KING'S BENCH- r THIS DAY. SEDITIOUS LIBEL TIIII KING V. GEORGE DIRE. The SOLICITOR -GENERAL prayed the judgment of the Court on the above defendant, who it appeared vas a shopman in the employ of Mr. Carlile, for p oth,bing a most seditious libel in the "Republican," d October , 1820. The case was tried before Mr. hoice lirsr, at Guildhall. several affidavits of the defendant having been go a by the Cierk, i. 11r. COOPER now rose and addressed the Court, in a sp eech of considerable length, in mitigation of pu lar:go. The defendant, he observed, was only the wo o of Mr. Carlile, and acted only as the shop. l a . ; be merely sold the publication for his employer, a d, be considered, was not aware of the evil ten ancy which the work contained. He entreated the Court to extend their leniency towards him, as he o ss but a young man, only twenty years of age. The SOLICITOR-GENERA L. rose in aggravation, and In d the libellous matter, which was of the most blas phemous nature. Aiter the Court had consulted for some time, Mr. J us tice BAILEY pronounced the judgment of the c a d, which was, that the defendant should be im owned Six Months in Winchester Jail, and at the o pinion, give security, himself in £5OO, and two ott i es in I:50 each, for his good behaviour for Seven Years. SPORTING INI ELLIGENCE. BATTING AT TATTERSALL'S, NOVEMBER 2`.1. DERBY. NO to 11 apt Landscape 15 to 1 agat Boos getout apt Frolic 20 to 1 net ally other Ag to 1 +S►t SY cigaz OALS. UN !apt f. out of Partisan 115 to 2 agst f. out of Reserve. Itiontaswouvit-7 to 4 agst Frolic. Sr. Laotii-9 to I agst Marion. BOXING. lbs battle between Rob Nelson, the daunting drover, and b a ba, the Warminster Raman, was fought on Wednesday, sfeshans.heath, after having had notice to quit in Surrey. It was a lon, but a merry smashing combat of four rounds of Ind thri, occupying fourtk er. minutes. It was for 50 sm.- Rim The seconds were Junes and :Ross for the tinman, and Fed aad Appleton for Nelson. lathe int round the men had scarcely slanged their mauleys, Amity tamed to rough and ready ; without studious move onu. Bound bits were exchanged until the claret Hew mer nlyord Funs was grosses! by a right handed blow on the listener. L Nate was hit heavy on the head, but he gave it a careless age, irks both unmuzzled and fought a gallant round, which isetkeirfasimess out of them. They hit each other to a stand di, bah refusing to go down, but at length Sims was thrown aistherset. i Both open-mouthed and piping, like race-horses after a four sir kat, the combatants were too tired for quick work. Nei ll' wade the play, and a smashing rally followed : Sims was hit aim and Nelson was the favourite. 4. This nand gave Nelson a quietus by one of those unlucky bib which being to Gas and Randall. Nelson was making the 'by who Ns adversary placed a right-handed hit upon the jaw, Oki lathed it, and wan him; (Sims) the battle. Both were neck punished. ISRETON PArRIC RACES, TUUDAT, NO•11411ZIL 20. hiseton Club Stake* of S. each, with 20gs. added, for untried horses.—Heats, two miles. la A Bouverie's Spider 1 1 - 2 3 CJantes's Fortunio - IL Montgomery's ironside - Mr. C.avendish's Gipsy Lass - . _. - 3 2 - 4 4 - S dr blues Freebooter 6 to 4 on the field. Sweepstakes of 15gs. each, for hunters. lk.llaynes's Peregrine - Jupiter bierey's Sally L started, and three were placed.—A good race. LAMBTON PARK COURSING. Is Match for the Silver Collar, on Tuesday, was won by batter's Juno, beating four other dogs. . - 1 - - s s Match for togs. 1,. Hudson's bl. b. beat 31r. Thorn's Whelp. 6. Prendergast's Fly beat C:.;ptain Smith's Leopard b. 6.Gnen's Sorrel b. agst Mr. Louth's Greenshade, undecided. Ik. Hut's Forward beat Mr. Ptince's Maria. 6. Makers Merryweather beat Mr. Lawrence's Sunbeam. There were six other Matches undecided. FOX-KILLING EXTRAORDINARY ! lh Timm, of nodesley Lodge, Salop, having a sow with elms of young pigs, had one of them taken away, but could set discover the thief. On examining the sty again on Sunday themiag, the 11th inst. he found therein the brush of a fox, MI6, it is supposed, had, on the preceding night, visited the ItY hi the purpose of regaling himself with another little gru nter; bat therm being aware of the intruder, and most likely enraged it tie loss of her young one, attacked Iteriard so roughly as to Mope' him to make a hasty retreat at the expense of his brush, ad ultimately of his life ; for, on the Tuesday following, Mr. HMO having occasion to go near a dingle, about two fields item from the house, entered it, and there found poor Rey and stiff and lifeless. Saturday evening last a most daring robbery was committed between Egham and Staines, on the per son of a poor old woman named Cavey, nearly sixty Tears of age. The villain on meeting her gave her a violent blow with his fist, knocked her down, and drew her into a field ; he then stripped her, and left her for dead. Through the exertions of Mr. James Banister, of Egham, the villain was taken, and has been folly committed to llorsemonger-lane for trial. Ine poor woman lay from half-past six on Saturday Welling till half-past two on Sunday morning, and, if *bad not been for a roail-waggon passing at that me, she must have perished. Monday evening, between six and seven o'clock, Mr. Davies, of Easthope, on his return from Wenlock market, was stopped near Westwood by three foot 1, who presented a pistol at him, and demanded 1 . 4 looney. Mr. Davies gave them two sovereigns °rid, and four shillings in silver; the latter of !Inch the gentlemen very politely returned, observ- Ing that they only wanted either gold or bills ! They then allowed Mr. Davies to proceed. Shortly after, Mr. ll hitefoote, of Longville, and his neighbour , Mr. Daniel Lo w e, who were likewise returning from market, were attacked by the same men. The rob bers took from Mr. Whitefoote about eight guineas. One of the villains has been taken. is, ri- A lamentable accident happened at Malden on Saturday. 'nit youngest son of Mr. Docray, whilst s tanding upon a part of a filed threshing-machine, and driving the horses, was suddenly beat down, and, Wag among the machinery, he was killed on the spot. LAP/ INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER et. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V- THE SKINNERS COMPANY. This day the LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment , in this case; it came before him in the shape of an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor; and it originally was an information by the Attorney-General, as to the conduct of the Skinners' Company, with respect to some property left by Sir A. Judd, to endow a Free Grammar School at Tunbridge, in Kent. His Lordship then went through the whole of the plead ings on both side;, by which it appeared, that Sir A. Judd, an Alderman of London, had:lay a sort of', testamentary deed, bequeathed, previous to the year 1554, the sum of £3O per annum, arising out of two estates ; one in the parish of Allhallows, Grace church -street, and the other in the parish of St. Pan cra-, Middlesex, for the payment of £2O a-year to a Master, £8 a-year to an Usher, and £2 a-year for the reparation of his Free Grammar School at Tun bridge, in Kent. This was bequeathed, if it could be called a testamentary deed, to the Master and Wardens of the Skinners' Company, to be by them applied for the purpose, before-mentioned. There were, how ever, other e.tates purchased by the money of Judd, but left in his name and that of one Tho mas Fisher, fot the maintenance of some alms-houses . ; but all this property had, in two hundred and fifty years, augmented so much in value as to be worth several thousands a-year; which the Skinners Com pany claimed the right of appropriating to the pur poses intended and meant in what was called the will of Sri A. Judd. On the one side it had been con tended, t'i'nt the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth had a retrospect as well as a prospect ; and that it not only was meant and intended to make all invalid wills for charitable uses good in future, but that it made this invalid will of Sir A. Judd (if it was invalid) good in the retrospect, it having been framed before the enactment of this Statute for a considerable time. In support of this. a case somewhat similar to the pre sent had been cited, out of the Ist Chancery Reports, by Hubbard ; in which, it being referred to him and another, they decided it on the ground of the Statute of the 43d of Elizabeth. His Lordship also cited four cases from Lord Nottingham's Manuscripts, in which that Learned Lord decided them all on the construction he put upon the 43d of Elizabeth. His Lordship (Lord Eldon) could not, however, conceive how this Statute had received such an extensive con struction, since it only appointed that Commissioners might be lawfully nominated to inquite into and re form the abuse of donations or bequests for charita ble purposes ; for if that Act could render a trust of Sir A. Judd's valid, which had been made long be fore its enactment (and which he, perhaps, was in law unable to make), there was no saying how far back its effects might be carried. The Vice-Chancellor had declared that an account should be taken of ail the messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises, and of the rents, profits, and issues arising from the same, with the nature of their application by the Skinners Company, bequeathed to them by Sir A. Judd, in trust, for the maintenance of the School at Tunbridge. He should therefore no further disturb that decree, than by infusing some words, in order to leave the question open, whether the will of Sir A. Judd was a valid one or not? DAVIS V. THE DUKE OE MARLBOROUGH. Mr. RAY moved that the Report of the Master might be refer' ed back in order to obtain a reduction of costs in this cause. A bill hai been filed by the plaintiff to recover the payment of an annuity granted by him to the defendant. His Lordship appointed a receiver to the estates, but it was afterwards disco vered that the estates could not be liable to the debt of the Noble Duke, and his Lordship then directed that the defendant should repay the plaintiff the ac tual sum he had advanced, which was £6OO. The de fendant had complied with his Lordship's direction, and paid the money. The Master who had taxed the costs had objected to several of the items, and theob ject of this application was to get those items reduced. Mr. HART, for the plaintiff, objected that the ap plication was irregular, it being made by motion in stead of petition. The LORD CHANCELLOR confirmed Mr. Hart's ob jection, and dismissed the application with costs. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 22. COOK V. COLLINGRIDGE. Mr. HART argued this morning in support of the proposition, that a Court of Equity will interfere to order the sale of a property, which articles of agree ment had prohibited to be sold, and directed to be divided among several parties, but which are in their nature incapable of division. The VICE-CHANCELLOR reserved his opinion till Monday. He would take the articles of copartner ship in this case, and read them before Monday. His , present impression was, that the division in the ar ticles was a division by conversion, and not as among tenants in common. He would give judgment on the whole question on Monday next. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 22. THE KING V. THOMAS GREGORY AND OTHERS. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL prayed the judgment of the Court on these defendants, nine in number, seve ral of whom were respectable tradesmen of Chelten ham, and were convicted at the last Assizes for Glou cestershire of a riot in the town of Cheltenham, and of assaulting certain Excise Officers in the execution of their duty in seizing some window blinds in the shop of one of the defendants, which had not paid the Excise duty. Affidavits were put in on behalf of the defendants, in mitigation of punishment; and, after hearing Coun sel on both sides, the Court sentenced Thomas (ire gory, Thomas Boucher, Daniel Boucher, Francis Raw lins, and William Rawlins, to twelve months impri sonment in the House of Correction; Francis Raw lins to pay a fine of £5O; Daniel Alder and John Alder to be imprisoned six months, the latter to pay a fine of £25 ; and William Peachy and George Purk to be imprisoned for four months ' • and all the de fendants to enter into security for their good beha viour for three years. THE KING V. MILLIS AND ANOTHER. On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, these defendants, William Millis and Richard Lowe, who were convicted at the last Assizes for Berkshire, of a ) riot and assault upon David Deadman and Thom f ts Pike, who had been witnesses in an Exchequer Olt for smuggling, were sentenced to four months itn prisonment in Reading Jail, and Millis was ordefed to pay a fine of £.50, and both defendants were re- luired to give security for their good behaviour for iree years. • THE KING V. DANIEL RIDGWAY. On the motion of Mr. TINDAL, this case was or dered to be brought on as a motion, and not to re main in the new trial paper. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 22. WRIGHT D. DURWOOD AND ANOTHER.L This was an action of trover, brought by tie plain tiff to recover the value of some cheese, which had been seized by the defendants as assignees of a bank rupt. The defence set up was, that the plaintiff had purchased the cheese as the agent of one Birks, a bankrupt. The plaintiff, at the trial, put in several letters of Birks, and the invoices of the sale of the cheese, from which it appeared that the credit was given originally to him, and that he had paid the bills when they became due. The Jury found a ver dict for the plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant VAUGITAN, on a former day in this Term, had obtained a Rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial. Mr. Ser)eant LENS now appeared to spew cause against this Rule; but was stopped by The COURT, who, after having heard Serjeants Vaughan and Peake in its support, said, that this was a question peculiarly for the determination of aJury ; that they were satisfied with the verdict which had been given, and therefore discharged the Rule. DAVIS V. THE BANE OF ENGLAND. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that in this case Horatio Davis, Esq. was the plaintiff, and the Go vernor and Company of the Bank of England were the defendants ; and the .declaration stated, that the plaintiff had deposited in his own name in the public books of the Bank, £lO,OOO in the S per Cents. that the defendants had, on the 12th of October, 1819, and on the 16• h of November following, suffered the iaid Stock to be transferred, in two sums of £'5,000 each, from the plaintiff's name in their public books without his knowledge or authority. The declara tion also stated the transfer in the same manner of, some small property of the plaintiff in the 75 per Ct. Long Annuities. The damages were laid at £15,000. The Attornies on each side agreed upon the fol lowing admissions :—That on the26th of May,lBl9, the plaintiff had duly purchased and entered in the Bank books two sums of £5,000, Consolidated Bank Annuities; that on the sth of July following, the dividends upon the said stock were duly received by him ; that he had received no subsequent dividend from the Bank ; and that no part of the said sum of £1 0,000, `,3 per Cents. now stood in his name in the books, it having been transferred; £5,000 on the 12th of October, 1819, by a Power of Attorney to Messrs. Drummonds, bearing date the 6th of that month ; and, on the 16th of November, the remain- ing £5,000 was transferred by a Power of Attorney to the same Banking-house : that on the 30th of Sep tember, 1820, the plaintiff demanded of the Bank the dividends upon the said stock subsequent to the receipt of his former dividend on the sth of July, 1819, and that the defendants had refused payment thereof. The plaintiff insisted that to the said Powers of Attorney the signature was a forgery. The CHIEF JUSTICE, after this preliminary state ment of the facts of the case, proceeded to read his notes of the trial at Guildhall, in which a verdict was given for the defendants. The first witness was Lady Davis, and she proved that her name to the attestation of the Power of Attorney was a forgery. It also appeared from the evidence, that on the 3d of March, 1820, John H. Davis, the brother of the plaintiff, was apprehended and lodged in the Poul try Compter, upon a charge of forging a bill on Messrs. Drummonds and Co. a forgery quite uncon nected with the present case : that on the 12th of Jan. 1819, the day for paying the dividends plain. tiff went to the Bank, and got some small sum as his dividend upon Long Annuities, but lid not de mand his larger sum for dividend upon the 3 per Cent. stock which had stood in his name, and which, had he done, must have led to an earlier detection of the forgery upon the Bank ; and that a day or two before that time he had received a draft from his brother for £l5O. The reason which was assigned for his not calling for his larger dividend on the day ' before stated was, that he was going to an auction in the city, and did not want the amount at that mo ment. The receipt of the £l5O from his brother was not (as stated) remembered by him at the time of the trial, nor had his attention been previously called to it in the bill of discovery filed by the Bank. From all that appeared, it may be taken that on the sth of March, 1820, the plaintiff knew of the forgery corn-1 mitted upon him by his brother ; but in the month of September, 1820, he transmitted a Power of Attor ney to Messrs. Marsden and Co. Stock• brokers, to receive dividends upon 1:10,000, 3 per Cents. which he represented as standing in his name in the Bank l of England ; and he wrote to these Gentlemen at the time, as if he was entirely ignorant that any for ' fiery had been committed. On application to the Bank there was a. refusal to pay, an allegation of the forgery, and ultimately came this action. On the sth of March, Colonel Davis, the brother, was in custody for the forgery on Messrs. Drummonds.— Lady Davis, in her evidence, said, that at an inter view between her sons in the Poultry prison, some conversation took place about the forgery on the Bank; but of the fact she could not speak with cer- 1 tainty, nor indeed could any particularity have been expected from her Ladyship, owing to her agitation when the conversation in the prison was alluded to, and also, indeed, on the trial. But, adverting to the plaintiff's answer to the bill filed by the Bank, it would be found that he there denied all knowledge of the forgery, until he obtained information thereof from Messr4. Marsden at the time he transmitted to them the Power of Attorney. There was at the trial some evidence to shew as far as this—that in the prison a conversation like the following took place between the plaintiff and his brother, Colonel Davis: " You are charged in a strong manner with com mitting a forgery : have you done anything with my property, or any part of it?"—" Yes, I have," was said to be the answer; " I have taken £lO,OOO Con solidated Annuities, and 75 per Cent. of the Long Annuities."—" Then you have indeed beggared me," was the reply. There the conversation ended. Some letters were also given in evidence, one of the 7th of March, two days after this conversation' with the brother in prison, written by the plaintiff to Messrs. Drummonds, the object of producing which was to shew that the plaintiff had thin a knowledge of the forgery. In one letter were throe words 1-6 , By what has happened, my prospects ate blasted, and a great part of my fortune irretrievably lost." The object of this letter was to implore com passion for his brother, who was then in custody.— In the answer of the pla intiff to the inference raised upon this letter, he said, that the expressions referred, not to this forgery on the Bank, but to certain secu rities and loans in which he had become involved for his brother. The Chief . Justice then stated, that in summing up the whole case to the Jury, he had ob served, that if there was a wilful suppression of the knowledge of the forgery for any unreasonable time after its discovery, such a suppression would impli cate the party making it, either in a knowledge of the forgery at the time, or in acquiescence in it sub sequently, so far as to preclude his right of recovery. The Jury thought that the plaintiff had precluded himself from t. Ling his right,: and had given their verdict against him accordingly. During the pre sent Term, the plaintiff had obtained a Rule to sliew cause why a new trial should not be had, on the ground that he was taken by surprise in the proof of his receiving, at a particular time, £l5O from his brother, a circumstance which greatly influenced the Jury, but which he was now prepared satisfactorily to explain away. Mr. Serjeant Bo 8 A NQUET rose to shew cause against this Rule. It was not contended that there was, upon general principles, any reason to find fault with the verdict ; but that the plaintiff had been at the trial taken by surprise upon a particular fact, which was, his having received £l5O on the 11th of. January, by means of a draft paid on his account to his bankers, Messrs. Cox and Co. by his brother. That fact could not have been inserted in the bill of discovery filed by the Bank, for he had Mr. Freshfield's affidavit to thew, that the defendants did not know it until three days before the trial. The plaintiff, it would be re collected, had distinctly denied receiving any sums of money from his brother, directly or indirectly, since the first transfer of the stock had taken place. It being of great moment to trace any money trans actions which happened between the brothers at that period, it was soon found on investigation that the plaintiff's declaration was incorrect : for upon re ference to the bankers of Mr. Horatio Davis, the plaintiff, it was found that two sums, of £BO and £l5O, had been paid to his account by a draft from his brother on the 11th of January. The moment this fact was ascertained, Mr. Freshfield gave notice to the plaintiff to produce at the trial his bankers pass-book between the Ist of October, 1819, and the 10th of July, 1820: so that he was clearly apprized before the trial, that his bankers account, within the period specified, would become the subject of inquiry; and yet he now came forward and said that he was taken by surprise, when, at the trial, an item in that account was produced before him: but independent of that timely notice, the length of the trial enabled him, if he pleased, to have explained the transac tion, for he was, in the vicinity of Guildhall at .the time. He had, therefore, quite disentitled himself from putting in any claim of surprise. His Counsel (Mr. Serjeant Lens) had commented upon the fact at the trial : he had never offered, indeed, to explain it away, as was now attempted, but had submitted that the plaintiff's brother might have paid in the sum mentioned to his bankers, without apprising his bro. ther in any way of the fact. Lady Davis, who might, if the account were correct, have explained it, was never asked upon the subject. Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW.—" You must recollect she was permitted, from her distressing situation, to leave the Court." Mr. Serjeant PELL admitted that to have been the case, but still urged that she might easily have been recalled to support such an explanation about house keeping accounts as was now attempted to be put upon the £l5O. Besides the £l5O, there was the sum of £BO, which had passed from J. H. Davis to his brother, and which remained altogether untouched upon; and this, after the latter had distinctly de clared he had received no sums of money from his brother at the particular period when the occurrence took place. He must contend that there was no ground of surprise in the case ; and as to the general facts, he thought it was clear the plaintiff, from the conversation with his brother on the 5:1 of March, had then at least, if not before, known of the forgery ; and it was equally clear he made no communication upon the subject to the Bank until the September following, when he received the refusal of the Bank to pay the dividends to Messrs. Marsden and Co. upon his power of attorney. Here Lord Chief Justice DALLAS read from his notes the letter written by the plaintiff to Messrs. Marsden, with the power of attorney to receive his dividends upon the £lO,OOO, 3 per Cents. and assign ing at' the time his mother's (Lady Davis) illness in the country, as the reason he was unable to come up to town, And receive the dividends himself. Mr. Serjeant BOSANQVET concluded by observing, that he should abstain from going further in this case than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of re sisting this Rule. Mr. Serjeant TADDY rose at the same side, when Chief Justice DALLAS inquired whether his obser vations were likely to occupy any length of time, as, if so, the late period of the day would preclude the Court from hearing him ? Mr. Serjeant TADDY replied, that he should not detain the Court many minutes. He then merely urged that the fact of surprise upon which the motion for a new trial was grounded, was quite inconsistent with the whole of the facts disclosed on the trial. Mr. Serjeant LAWES merely repeated the same observation. The Court then adjourned the further hearing of the Rule, and intimated that Mr. Serjeant LENS could be heard in reply to-morrow. CORN EICIIANOS, MARE-LAPR, Nov. 23,—Our Market conti nues most abundantly supplied with Wheat from what remained over of last week's supply, and fresh arrivals received during the present, and for which there is little or no demand, eacept prime picked samples of old, which with difficulty obtained the prices of last Wednesday ; but all other descriptions are nearly unsaleable, and the prices, cf course, remain nominal. fine bright Malting Barley, being scarce, is in brisk demand at Monday's pricer, but the ordinary sorts are very heavy and ra ther cheaper. Beans and Peas are dull sale, but not lower is prices. Oats are very heavy, owing to large arrivals. In other articles there is no dictation. Summate MASILIT, Nov. 23.—There was a good supply 66 Market this morning of all descriptions of Catae, and prime Beasts obtained last Monday's prices, but inferior sorts were dull sale. Hay, Straw, and Clover remain the same. ~i ~. `i, i