Star. — London, England, 1814-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 6. in the case of the CA RRON CONIPANY v. WINDER ) Mr. LEACH obtained an injunction, restraining the defendant from driving any files in the River Thames within 25 feet, or any other given distance, which might damage or endanger the wharf or premises of the plaintiffs, affidavits having been filed that the safety of the said wharf had been already put to hazard. In a case between KENSINGTON and Co. and STEIN and Co. an order was made for the exclus'on of all real creditors from a Jury List about to be impan nelled in the trial of a question at law between the parties. eestatameo 7. CONtIISIST OF coVlT—wAap 01 CIIANCRAY-.-AND CON SPIRACY AGAINST JURISDICTION. This morning, at the sitting - of the Court, Mr. SHADWF.LL moved, on the petition of the nearest friend of Miss Ann Wade, a young heiress and a ward of Chancery, now only seventeen years of age, hut possessed ot an income of 15000 a-year in her own right, for process of contempt against Charles H. Beasley, son of the Rev. Mr. Beasley, anti his ass°. dates, for breach of an order and injunction issued heretofore, to restrain the said Charles H. Beasley from prosecuting his illicit courtship with the ward. There were previous and private considerations and proceedings before the LORD CHANCRLLON, to prevent such unlawful intended union, when the case was discovered approximating to mitrimony, or publica tion of banns; and the order was so full as to prohi bit any further intercourse, either in person or by let ter, with the ward ; but the ingenuity ot the ardent lover was found to have extended to the facts now tlrarged, of conveying a litter through ;he maid.ser. vat to the young lady, and to the further ch i•ge ..t having offered a bribe of one thousand pounds Leo ie ot the Bove -street officers of police for his assistance . and co-opsratlon in gaining possession of her person, in direct violation of the order of Court. The letter was produced and read, couched in the %sue' terms of love. with an invitation to his arms. But an obstacle occurred to the present motion, on the want of proof of the hand-writing, which induced the LORD CDANCELLoR to direct inquiry to be made for the late school-fellows of Mr. Beasley, where he was lately educated, for persons to prove the hand- Writing, or among his tradesmen or those supplying him With articles of necessaries, among whom the re quited evidence could easily be found, and the motion to stand suspended for a very few• days for that per_poSea His LOrdship regretted this defect, and added on this occasion that he should shew many their error respecting the extent of the jurisdiction of this Court WI such cases, since he felt inclined, on the verification of the charges in this Petition, to hand over the same is sufficient to ground a criminal prosecution for a conspiracy, to the Attorney-General ; the conse quence of a conviction on which would subject the principal and his accomplices to punishment more serious and afflicting to the feelings of many persons, than imprisonment, or even transportation, nay, even death itself—and ordered dispatcit and diligence to be usod in proving the band-writing, and the motion to be brought on as quickly as possible.—The motion vas suspended. COURT OF 111,01G$ BENCH. NOTTINGHAM 116.HINNARIN Th:3 cause was tried on Monday, the sth Duets •,er last, at the Slitting' after MichLimas Term, be- .ore the Right Hon. Lord Eurcsonotruu, Chief .!stice of the King's Bench, and a Special Jury. The Plaintiff is a Professional Gentleman, residing at. East Retford, in the county of Nottingham. The - Defeadant belongs to the Thames Police Office, and keeps a Druggist's shop in Holborn. It appeared 'hew parties were brought into contact by the con duct of Mr. Richard B. WainEnsui, of Sbipley,York shire, an intimate friend of the Defendant, relative to his wife's separate property. It also appeared by the declaration, that the action was brought to recover damages for the injury done to the Plaintiff's cha- Neter, by the false, scandalous, malicious, and deta natory libels said to have been published by the De 4-ndant, and by the oral slanders said to have been .ILtered by him on several occasions. After Mr. TCPPING, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, had stated the charges he was about to wake out in evidence against the Defendant, he s.ured the Ginn and Jury that his client had no kish to press for heavy damages, he had no intention 1 ) reap pecaniary advantage from his proceedings ; is only object was to do justice to his own character, nd he conceived that could not be more effectually .ne than by taking such a verdict as would remove :cry imputation upon his Plaintiff's character, and x the Defendant with the costs of the proceedings. 'lc, therefore, propoeedlo accept a verdict of 40s. -MI costs, as between Attorney and Client. Considerable hesitation appearing on the part of c defendant, Mr. Tonne° again addressed the Jury 'fith great energy, and was about pressing upontheli c 'amity of allowing exemplary damages, wiaen the kyroitNiv-ottiik . leading Counsel for the defendant, rose, and most handsothely coMplimbnted the plaintiff on the llbitrality of the proposition, and took upon himself to accede td it ; he observed, it was ittipossible for him to justify the conduct of the defendant, he might probably strip it of some of its stings, but it was not in his power to pievent the plaintiff obtaining a verdict. The Noble and Leatned Judge then declared the conduct of the defendant could not be justified, and that the plaintiff (whose moderation he highly ap proved) would be entitled to a verdict, which was taken accordingly for 40s. damages and the full costs as between Attorney and client. The costs of.the suit will probably amount to be;. tween 4 and £5OO. DECEMBER 6. GIBBON C. Tilt LONDON DOCK COMPANY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as owner of a vessel called the Darlington, which had entered the London Docks to unload, to recover the • in value of a pipe of wine,• staved unloading by the - - Company's labourers. J. Lowrey was Master of the Darlington ; she WAS loaded with wine and cork, and had gone into the London Dock to unload. The cask of w►ne, which was staved, was lying in the second tier from the bottom ; the usual course of nnloading wine cargoes is to tak off the top tier. Before the Docks were •established, lumpers were enipl•qed in unloading, and the master lumper was ioutid to make good all losses ; but now the Dock Company will not allow a lumper to enter the Dock. On my arrival in the Docks, I discharged all my ship's company, except the carpenter and mate. It is still the practice to discharge some cargoes in the Thames by lumpers. If the vessel has 20 pipes of wine on board, or more, she is obliged to go into the Docks. The master and his crew may clear the vessel by their own strength, but if they want assistance, they must have it fit.m the Company. In the present case, the Company furnished four men, and none of my men assisted in unloading. S. Higley wasExciseman on board the Darlington, and saw the pir of wine staved. The Mate was on deck at he time the accident happened, and the wit ilia not hear him give any direction as to the mode ot unloading. Witness told the Company's men they had got the pipe in a very awkward situa tion ; they had upheaded it, and there was nothing underneath t. , break the fall. Witness advised them to put some ciik under to break the fall of the cask; the, did not, and almost immediately it fell on an her cask, and was staved. The Mate was all this time upon deck, and did not at all interfere. Wit ness heard the foreman say to his men.-- , 4 You are unloading in so awkward a manner that you will do some mischief " .... - Lerd ELLENBOROUGH asked the Attorney-General, who was for the defendant, if he had any witnesses to contradict this statement ? _ _ _ The ATTORNIEY.GZNZRAL said, he was instructed, that the four labourers would say, that they worked under the commit of the' Mate of the Darlington ; but be doubted whether the Jitry would credit them, as they were interested witnesses. Lord ELLENuoaouou observed, there could be no doubt, either in law or in fact, that the ual"ading was wholly under the contro►il of the Comp4ny's ,servants; and that the Company, therefore, was The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da mages sel l 3.66.6 d. THE KING , IP. JOHN BAKER. . - This was an indictment against the defendant, for having assaulted and ill-treated Lieutenant Dean, a Lieutenant in his Majesty's service, at Bow, on the evening of the 12th of July List, and rescuing a cer tain impressed seaman whose name was unknown. The ATTORSKY.GENERAL opened the case to the Jury, and called the following witnesses to prove the facts : Mr. S. Thurtle, a clerk in the Admiralty, produced the Prince Regent's Order in Council, authorising the Lords of the Admiralty to issue press-warrants ; and also the press-warrant issued to the prosecutor, Lieutenant W. Dean. Lieutenant Dean was employed in the impress ser vice in 1813, and had the warrant in his possession. On the 27th of July witness went to Bow with his men to search for seamen. They went to the Black Swan, where they found a man in sailors' clothes, and supposing him to be a sailor, they took him away towards London. In coming out of Bow, witness observed a mob olthirty or forty persons assembling, and heard one man say, a don't let them take him away." They closed upon the witness and his men ; and the witness perceiving it was their intention to rescue the man, took a pistol from his pocket and presented it at them, intending to intimislate them ; the pistol was not loaded, but it did intimichtte them, and they retired a little. The witness then desired the midshipman to het forward with the man, and hearing the mob coming up, he went back towards them, and again presented the pistol at them, when the defendant Baker came up, seized the pistol, and with the assistance of another man, who came behind him, threw him down, and dragged him about on the ground with considerable violence. This was about nine o'clock in the evening. They then raised the plaintiff up, and forced him back to Bow, to a public-house, where they kept him confined in s room, pushing and hustling him about for three quar- ters of an hour. He had in the mean time called for a constable, and for assistance, but he was told these was no constable for him. Baker was present an this time, and was one of the most active amongst the mob ; some one, witness believes the landlord of the house, demanded a sight of his warrant, which the witness produced; witness believed the defendant saw die warrant; the impressed man was lost in the scuffle. Baker struck the witness, when in the public house be learnt his name by hearing some one call out, a mind what you are about Baker." It was not quite dark, and the witness was certain the defendant was the man. G. Bushman was one of the Midshipmen who was with the prosecutor; he corroborated Lieutenant Dean's statement as far as related to their being 'sent forward with the impressed man. As they were going across the fields with the man, they observed the mob coming after them, and hen learnt that Lieutenant Dean bad been dragged oack to Bow, and ill-treated ; none of the gang, which consisted at seven persons, had any weapons not even a stick. The mob consisted of thirty or forty persons, and . . vowel! they Would have the Matt • and, pressing close upon the witness and his party, they thought it prit , dent to let the man go. Mr. P. &mu, for the defendant; submitted to the Jury that there was no proiif whateiter of the de fendant's having been aiding or assisting in the rescue or even that he Was present at the spot When it took plAce. He submitted also, that even if it Should have appeared that he had assaulted the pro. secutor, he was ignormit at the time of his character and authority, and therefore, at most, he could only have been guilty of a common assault. Mr. Smith then called Mr. G. Graves, a locker in the Irestlndia Docks, who was at Bow on the night in question, and pre sent in the public-house during the time of the dis turbance on account of the impressed man being res cued. Witness saw Baker pulling Mr. Dean into the house by the collar, and desired him to desist.— Alter some time, Baker let him go, and Mr. Dean produced his warrant, which the witness read, and again requested the mob assembled to desist from violence. S. Price was present at the Rose and Crown; Baker was there, but witness did not see him do any tl.ing except look on, as others did. This was the evidence on the part of the defendant. . The Jury, without hesitation, found him Guilty. LAWRCNCE OBE L. This was an action of trespass, brought by the plain tiff, a widow woman, against the defendant, who is her next door neighbour, charging him with having erected a privy in his yard, one side of which rested on, and was cut into, the plaintiff's wall. Several witnesses were called, who proved that two holdfasts bad been driven by the defendant into the plaintiff's wall. This, the Learned Judge observed, was suf ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. The Jury retired, and, after an absence of two h. , urs, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 40s. Costs 40s. The sittings at Westminster finished. LONDON Slrl'lNGi, DEC. 7. Dot ex dim. PITT V. LAMING. This was an action of ejectment to recover posses- sion of Grigsby's Coffee-house, Threadneedle.street, by reason of certain alleged breaches of covenant in the lease, The first was, that the lessee had not in sured the premises from fire. It appeared that he had effected a policy of insurance with the Eagle Office, but that that policy had not been indorsed to his personal representatives, till after the three months stipulated for such purpose by the printed conditions of the policy ; for which reason it was con tended that the policy was void—but Lord ELLEN. BOROUGH held the golicy still valid, and that the in surance office shouli give better notice to representa sives, if they meant to vacate a policy for such a reason. Another breach was, that the Coffee-house was an Inn, th at an Inn was one of the buildinos which the conditions of the policy described as d2ulle hazardous, and that it ought therefore to have been insured as such ; far want of which insurance the po licy was void—but Lord ELLENBOROUGH held a Cof fee-house not an Inn, and that the iniurers only con templated such inns as incurred danger from fire, by reason of the stables, and hay and straw w..ich they comprised. His Lordship said that Grigsby's .Cot fee-house haqipened to be the very first place into which he entered upon his arrival in London, and he therefore knew it not to come under the insurance office definition of an inn. A third breach was, that the lessee had underlet without licence ; but it ap peared that he had only let lodgings, which Lord ELLENBOROUGH held no breach of the covenant.— Nonsuit. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 6. POPKINS V. THORNTON. This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship Experiment, effected by order of the plaintiff with the defendant. The only question in the case was, whether there had been any concealment of the risk ? It appeared that the assured having doubts of the vessel's safety desired a policy to be effected, pay ing, at the same time, an encteased premiurn.of ten per cent. The Jury, under these circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintiff. . ega • Old• Liflf 11 , 17ILLIGE1VCE: ADMIRALTY COURT, DECEMBER. 6. Courier, Hock mastet.—This was a question of salvag-i. The ship, laden with clover-seed and lin seed,-trom Rotterdam to thit country, met with tem. pestnous weather, and was discovered by the Viper, Excise cutter, in a distressed state, at the back of the Goodwin Sands, and brought. into Ramsgate Har bour. An offer had been made by the owners of 150 guineas to the salvors, which was rejected. The Court was assisted by Trinity Masters, who were of opinion, in conjunction With the Court, that 50 gui• fleas was a sufficient remuneration, as it was a mere towilg service; which the Court immediately de creed, with expenses. Hoppet, Aberg mister.—This was also a ease of salvage, rendered to a Russian ship. The Court de creed £3OO, as a remuneration to the salvors, and their expenses. Diana alias Hebe.—This case has already been re ported, when the Court required farther proof. The same being now deemed satisfactory, the Court re stored the property to the Prussian subject, and gave the recaptots their expenses. Emanuel, -- master.—This Vessel, laden with oats, was seized on the grouad of a breach of the blockade of Norway. The property was restored, subject to the captors' and masters' expenses. It to Woes nd►af krbilo ot of bony, N's The crow n tW ° I per e. MAGWAY, ESQ. V. BURLEY. This was an action to recover 60 guineas, the price of a horse, warranted sound, but which, it was al ledged, was unsound at the time of .the sale. The unsoundness was hi. being a crib-biter. A number of witnesses were called in support of the plaintiff's case ; but none of them proved crib-biting was con. sidered an unsoundness. The horse had been re sold to a Mr. Christopher, and returned from him to the plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant VAUGIIAN was about to address the Jury for the defendant, but the CIIIEF JUSTICE thought there was no necessity, the witnesses for the plaintiff not having made out his case. Plaintiff nonsuited. DECEMBER 7. ABBOTT v. BEANS. The plaintiff is a coach-maker, living in the Kent Road, the defendant a hop-factor in the Borough.' The assault arose from the following circurust4ncec: The defendant kept horses at the Boar's Head livery stables ; and a man of the name of Gouch, who was his rider, had lent to the plaintiff a fine horse of hts ' that had lately taken physic. The defendant seeing the plaintiff upon his horse, returning to die stables, seized the horse by his bridle with his left hand, and violently pulled him off with his right. It appeared that Gooch had been in the habit of ordering out the defendant's horses, and riding them himselt ; but there was no evidence of his having any authority to lend them to any other person. ' Sir VICARY Gums observed, that there was a great deal of difference between a servant or a groom his.master's horses, and his lending them out to other people to ride.. Unless it could be proved that Gouch had express authority to lend the horse, as it was a question in which very small damages could be ex pected in case the plaintiff should have a verdict, and as the parties were both of them persons in a respec table situation of life, and neighbours, he thought it would be more for their credit and future comfort to compromise the matter. • The parties at length agreed to withdraw a Juror. ASSAULTS-••WITIIM V. LYON. In this action for an assault there was contradic tory swearing. and a vist number of witnesses pro. duced. On the part of the plaintiff the case, which was sworn to by nine witnesses, was this 1 that the &fen ciant, who is ti hiewer, hiving gone out in his gip, had stopped At the door of a public how in Love lane, near t. ack-hill, where he beat his horse most so. Merely with a stick. The plaintiff came out of the ptiblic-liothe and remonstrated with kiln on •his cruelty, when he told oim that if he did not keep off he would serve him in the same mainer. The plain tiff called hint a bi :Ala fellow, and the defendant struck him first across the hand Ind wrist, and when the plaintiff was closing upon him zo avoid more blows, he struck him t , . ice upon the head, each of which blows brought blood. The stick was Rroducedi, which w.:s a heavy knotted stick. On the parr of the defendant, three witnesses swore that when the plaintiff came nut of the public-house, he called the daenJant ate approbrioos name, ant threatened to Serve him as he served his horse: that it was upon the plaintiff's - shaking his fist in the dc fend,ant's face and threatening him, that the defeat dant struck him his first blow over ail knuckles: and that it was uo,in vile plaintiff's endeavouring to rush in upon the defendant that the delendaia struck him the blows upon the head. They also proved that the defendant's horse was extremely restive, which was the occasion of the defendant's sulking him so se verely. _ _ _ Tile case then went to the Jury to determine on this contrariety of evidence.—Vadict for the Plaintiff— Damages £6O. DARING OUTRAGE.—A violent outrage and rob herr was committed at the house of GABRIEL Flume, Cherry -mount, county Waterford, within four miles of Youghal, on the evening of the 29th of Novem ber, about six o'clock. As Dennis Fisher, son of the above-mentioned, was returning into his father'i house by the back-door, he was seized by three men. each armed with two pistols slung in a belt, and a short gun: they, with two more, armed in like mans ner, who now joined the farmer men, immediately wrested a gun from Fisher, which he was then tak ing into his father's house, and into which they f aced themselves with him. When in the kitchen, they asked Fisher where was his father ? who replied, he was in the parlour with his family ; on which they rushed into the parlour, where Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, wish two young ladies their dauehters, and two of heir grand-children, were. These miscreants, on entering the parlour, asked the elder Fisher for his arms; he replied, he had none. One of the villains then advanced, and presenting a clicked pistol to the head of this aged gentleman, in the presence of his wife, daughters, and grand-children, de.iresi him to kneel down. 'Phis Mr. Fisaer refused, adding, in a detearr.ined tone—" if you mean to shoot me, I shalt receive it stending." The villain then turnEd the pistol trona the directian in which Mr. Fisher stood, and disch 'yard it against the .Al!. Tits villains, at this period, were oteserved in the act of refitting . their sentinel, of wham, as it wierwards appeared, numbers were regul trly posted for a considerable distance about the house, aad especially on the road to Youghal. They ail appeared to have equal com mands, and asked whick of the young ladies would make tea ? The father replied, neither of them— upon which one of the gang very deliberately took up the kettle and male tea, to which the whole party sat down, eat a large hot cake then at the fire, be sides all the bread and butter at table. T;ity then commanded Mr. Fisher to shew them Vie Lela!, in order to see whetner there were any more :oafs, ex clusive of the gun which th. y b.rd previously taken from Mr. Fisher's son. This Mr. Fisher complied with. They then asked far spirits, when they were informed by Mr. Fisher that he had none, except a little rum, which was contained in a decanter. This they divided among themselves, and wishing the fa mily good night, departed.—They then went to the house of Mr. Power, which they plundered of arms, • and set the house on fire ; but it was happily ex tinguished. Last week, the house of the Rev. Mr. Averall, of Mothill, county of Waterford, was attacked by a gang of armed rullians, who had the almost-untver sally-combined objects in view of obtaining money and arms. It was not ascertained of how many they consisted ; but two of them entered the parlour, one of whom presented a pistol at Mr. Averall, and de manded his arms and powder. When he assured them that he had neither arms nor powder, he was compelled to attend them over the house, and to open for their inspection every drawer, desk, cup. board, &c. Disappointed in their primary, though not exclusive design, they demanded the price of powder which they thought they ought to have found, and robbed Mr. of a small Lunt of money he had in .his pocket-book. LIMERICK, Nov. 30.—Last night a detachment of Captain Wallet's Yeoman Corps came up with an armed party ,of nightly disterhers of the peace, who were going to attack houses in the neighbourhood of Ballinecariga, near Pal a :: Keary. The !chews fired at the Yenta insy, which was 'calmed, and it is sup posed with etlect, as the military contiatied thing in pursuit of the rulreens, who decetnped in all direc tions. One of them, who was wounded, is taken, and is on his way to our comity jail. Yesterday morning three men attacked Michael Doogan at Sooty, county of Clare, and beat hint si dreaelfully that the died. tiluanata—Lit week, -- Hasson was attacked near Lyng, on his way from liallyinullans fair, in open (lay, on the King'. highway, and within view, it is said, of sevetal persons employed in digging pota toes, and not twenty yards from houses, and was de liberately murdered by three (other accounts rear live) rains, who appear to have lain in wait fsa. him. One of them knocked him down with sine heavy weapon, and the others continued to brat with bludgeons until life was extinct, while t..e poi t. toe-diggers stood alai)/ with their spades in their ' hands, seemingly regardless of his cries t, rm.rcy and assistance. What is equally extraordinary, acid very improbable, those who witnessed the ,',, . eking scene deny all knowledge of the murderers; and net. withstanding the 'must minions of the Magistrates, they have nut yet been ideutiftid, iu *might:win:mud wheie every individual is alrin,:.,t univ,rsaily known. Hass ,n was reputed to have been en Orangematti.—. Londonderry Joel nab. Tnutsiley, tint ty fine ewes in lamb, the prcpaty of Mr. Marc suN, 1314(1.41...1i, .“:ft: 11 1 Ili a Ilk • doe, at A restord, by a cog. Only tau or th.ce of them were bitten, but the timid Ain/mats were driven into a dutch in t he nie,di.w, and kept so close ult. th..r Uldi they were smothered. .el DI, ; of ; for of rth se len 4 a over ruck were nav