Star. — London, England, 1810-11-28 00:00:00

.~ " , . LAW INTELLIGENeff.' COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBEit" CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS. 7 , The ATTORNEY GENMIAL moved for a rule to skew , cause why a criminal information should net be filed,, against George Polhill and Stacey Coaste, Esqrs. and Leonard Austin, for resisting the execution of an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, for making certain roads in the neighbourhood of Shore ham, in the county of Kent. From the statement of the Attorney General, it appeared, that the first two gentlemen against whom the information was applied for were Magistrates of the County, and. also Trustees under the Act ; and that the other person was their Clerk, though without any regal authority. At the regular meetings ap pointed by the Statute, a Quorum of the Trustees had appointed a Clerk in terms of the Act, and he had again pointed opt the track of -the road, on which he had placed a number of labourers, to pro ceed in the execution Of the work. The gentlemen, complained on, being interested in the property so marked, out, had advised the under-tenants, &c. to push the workmen off the lipe of the intended road, with the view of provoking trn M assault the per sons impeding them, on which the two de(vidants, who were Magistrates, engaged that they wopl4 tom snit the regular Clerk and his workmen. Accord ingly, twefity-One labourers so employed had been 4pplehended, and by the defendants sent to the Jail of Maidstone, at the distance of nineteen miles., One of the:Slifendants, on being applied to by a per son Who wished to bail the prisoners, having referred .lsim to - gooks for 04 - cause of the commit- meat of the prisoners; and 'reusing himself to give ivy information on that subject. Lord ELLENSOROMI Malt not convinced that the Magistrates complained of had been guilty of a con tempt of the Legislative Authority : they might have misconceived the meaning of the Act—they might even have been impressed with the conviction that the Act in question had been made the pretext for an un. authorized invasion of the rights of individuals, and, in eomequence, might have given the advice imputed to them. The Court could not, in such circumstances, grant the rule.—Rule refused. ' • MANDAMUS. Mr. MARAYATT moved for a Rule to spew cause why a Mandamus should not issue to the Commis sioners of Compensation under the London Dock Acts, directing, th ein to make such compensation to , Mr. Whiting, as should seem just, under the circum stances. Mr. MARRYATT stated, that Mr. Whiting having come into possession of some ground and wharfs on the River-side, and intending to throw them open i for public accommodation, entered into a contract for! building warehouses, and making other additions ne-1 esssary to the premises. There had been two Lon- don Dock. Acts : the first passed in 1799 ; Mr. Whi.l sting's buildings were begun subsequently : the second Act was passed in July, 1800; previously to which ! the buildings had been begun, but were not finished I I until Octcber of the same year. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" Has the applicant any in jury to impute to the first Act ?" Mr. MARRY ATT...." NO : he only adverts t. the second ; and by its .operation he was obliged to sell, at least, one of , his warehouses, for £3OOO, a sum much below what its value would have been. if the Acts had not passed." Mr MARRY,ATT was notable to state the precise sum which its building had cost. By the Acts it was provided, that losses to the trader by the chyerbien of trade, or to the owner by the lowered value ot the buildings or wharfs from which the trade was taken by the construction of the Docks, should be compen sated. The Learned Counsel contenned, that in this case thedamage had arisen from the Docks, and that therefore the claim was fully tenable. Lord ELLENnoaotrort" The last Act was passed' in July, 1800, and yet Mr. Whiting went on build ing till October. The nuisance did not come to him, the mischief was yoluntary, he came to. the nuisance. Why did he not stop ? He began under the encou ragement of the first Act, and proceeded under the excitement of the second. Are there many other ; tares of buildiisgs undertaken under similar encou ragement ? Or, is knot to be asked, whether those things were not all done with a view to compensa tion ?" Mr. Martavarr" My Lord, these are questions for a JUry." . ;,ord ELLENBOROUGH---" No, Sir,; they are ques dons for the Court who are applied to for a manda- Mus ; and it rested with the Court whether they Would ever suffer the matter to go to a Jury." Mii..JUitice LE BLANC-6f When did you, make yew R.pplication ?" Mr: dmutirATT—ig Within three yeark, the time appointed by the Act. After a variety oftOrrespon dence, the Commissioners finally refused aU compen sation in October. As to the question which the Court-had asked, Why Mr. Whiting did not stop his buildings when the 'second ,Act passed ? one reason *Might have been, that the Commissioners would have at once rejected a claim which came upon an unfi nished work. He might not have wished to suffer his buildings to moolder away, and all his expenee to go for nothing. He might have thought that a long rime would intervene between the passing of the Act and its beineput into execution. Since the original passing of the Act, the Company had been allowed to extend their capital, and thus raise an additional Obstruction in the way of individual trade." Lord ELLEN BO RO The Commissioners ap pear to have been perfectly right in refusing this. tlaim. It it were allowed, there could be no. bound to claims. Every spot of ground in the neighbour hood of the Docks might put in its claim ; for every spot must have been affected in its value by theiriqr: oration." Rule refused. • begat M t ot, and then bound MO over to ieep rite pace, for one year. At the end of that time, Mr. Adatnai was waited on by Messrs, Finch and Brown, at dif ferent periods, but he declining to see either of them but in presence of an attorney, they withdrew with out mentioning their business. Mr. Adams went to Aberistwyth on some private. affairs. Mr. Abberley on his departure came forward again, posted him in the coffee-houses at Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Aberist. Wyth, and other places. He next sent about the country a hand-bill to the following effect . " It having been supposed that Captain Abberley has not adopted the most correct way of obtaining satisfactioa from Mr. Adams, he gives the following note, under the hands of the gen tlemen who waited on Mr. Adams We declare it as our opi nion, that having frequently waited on My. Adams, and never ;being able to see him but in the presence of his Attorney, no other way but that of posting Mr. Adams was left open to Mr. Abberley. CuatLes Etacti, Lieutenant Bth Regiment. DANIZL BaowN, Ensign Bth Regiment.' " Mr. Justice LE BLANC. — " How do you bring that hand-bill home to these persons ?" Mr. ABBOT.—" In no other way, as to Finch and Brown, than their having waited on Mr. Adams, and obviously with the intention which they expressed.— As to Abberley, we have affidavits, proving the post ed papers to have been of his hand-writiting." Lord ELLENEOROUGH" Take a rule to skew cause with respect to Abberley." CHALLENGE. Mr. SCARLET moved for a similar rule against Walter Carr, a General in his Majesty's service, for provoking William Bateb Esq. of Durham Court, in the county of Durham, to fight a duel. Mr. Bates had been out with another person pur suing game. The General, who saw him passing across the field, rode up, and demanded why he dared to shoot there ? Mr. Bates replied haughtily, and the General called him an impudent sz s tproud fellow. The General called out to his t to take the gun, but the servant rode away. The language on both sides was high ; and the result was the Gene. rays telling Mr. Bates, that he would wait for him it a place which he mentioned, next day with a friend. Mr. Bates conceiving that this was a mere burst of idle resentment, did not go to the place ; and he in a few days received a letter from the General, saying that his conduct at their meeting yesterday had in the first instance been so gross, and latterly so cowardly, that he could no longer consider the complainant to be a gentleman,and should represent him accordingly. Lord gLuvocatouosi.-01 - The Court cannot lake cognizance orsuch an affair as this. General Carr expressly tells Mr. .Bates that whatever he might have thought, he cannot any longer consider him as an opponent. He. expressly says he'will not fight a duel with Mr. Bates."—Motion refused. THE KING V. DOHERTY. Mr. Hugh Doherty came into Court to give secu rity for keeping the peace. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that as Mr. Doherty had been. already bound over for one year, it would be expedient to make the present term two years. Mr. MARAYATT slated some cases to support the offering of evidence Sgainst the allegations contained in the articles already exhibited, but the Court were of opinion that they could not go into the truth of the articles ; it would, however, exercise its discretion as to the amount of the sureties and the term. The Court then directed, that Mr. Doherty should give security to keep the peace for two years, himself in £5OO, and two sureties in £250 each. I'Mr. Doherty attempted to address the Court. He observed, that criminals under sentence of death might speak, and that he was a much more respect able person.—Lord ELLENSOROUGH said, that no thing further could be done. JACKSON V. CHAPPRONIA. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL shewed cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Marryatt, to set aside an execu tion. He stated, that this was a case more suitable for a story in a novel than for a Court of Justice.— The defendant in this cause was a young man who made a number of people believe that he had been bequeithed a fortune to the amount of £BO,OOO, and that he was only waiting to obtain a probate from Doctors' Commons, to be put in full possession of it. He was told by several that he ought to assume the air and manners of a Nobleman, drive a curricle, keep a town and country house. The plaintiff kept livery , stables ;' and the defendant was recomtnended to him by several oblizing gentlemen, and among others, by the Attorney, Mr. Oakley, who - had the present mo tion made. The defendant bought carriages, curri cles, tandems, and horses, from the plaintiff; bor rowed money from him, and even condescended to become his tenant in a house in Essex, the furniture of which he also obligingly bought from the plaintiff to the amount of A:3500, fur which he gave him a bend and jud;:ment, with a proviso that he should I not issue out execution until a month after the defen dant had obtained the probate. At last the defendant came to the plaintiff, and told him he had got the ' probate, and shewed it o bin), and borrowed A 200; and from that day the plaintiff had never seen hint— but Mr. Oakley, the attorney, accompanied by defendant, went down to the house in Essex, and car ' ried away every thing they well could. But the na ture of the pttseitt 'Maim was this, that the plaintiff issued execution before the month had elapsed after 1 the issuing of the probate, when in fact there was neither probate or fortune, but a mere swindling transaction; fie Was not afraid to say it, for a Grand Jury had found an'inclictthent against the defendant and Oakely, for a conspiracy ; but what is Oakely's intention he says, that the defendant, before he ab scended, gage-hun 'it bond and judgment f6r £l7O, 'which be will lose if the execution of the plaintiff is not set aside. Is not this effrontery to excess ?If the defendant is aggrieved, let him come into Court, and he should be glad to meet him ; but what right Mt. Oakely has to move he was at a loss to comprehend. Under these considerations he trusted their Lordships would dismiss the rule. Mr. Palms contended, that at the time the bond IV as given to the plaintiff, _Mr. Oakely did not, know . G pia... . CHALLENGE. , • f eitlier the proh , nlff or the defendant, so could not be Mr. ABBOTT moved for a rule toskew cause why 1 privy to it. the plaintiff admits in his affidavit that a criminal information should not be filed against he gave his money on the strength of the probate, Charles James Abberley, Charles .finch; and 'llsuliel ! at the persuasion of Mr. John King s Dr. Stevenson, Brown, for provoking Charles Adams to fight a dewi. I and the defendant, they being confined in the Fleet Mr. Adams was an Attorney, and Captain otffig prison. He els° contended, that if the plaintiff's troop of Ludlow cavalry. bl.r, Abberley, who west I. judgment was taken out irregularly, it ought to be set Captain in the Nottingham regiment, having, in elm- - aside. - - - • • sequence of some dispute, insulted 41r. Adams at the I Lord ELLEVBOROUOff observed, until they shw the Theatre, at the head of his troop, and posted him in , defendant in Court they could not do any thing. the coffee-house at Ludlow as a coward, Mr. Adams Rule refused. nrutti ittatins, , Mr. invert moved the judgment of the Court on George Taylor, and several others, fot a riot at the Chester Theatre. Mr. GARROW said he was for the defendants in this case ; and had trusted that his Learned Friend would have suffered it to have stood over till next Term.— This .was a riet of a different description to those which had been already before the Court ; it had no particular object ; it was the imprudence of the instant, arising among a large body of workmen, and those who had been engaged in it had already suffered pu- Inishmeat by being dismissed from their employ ; the disturbance originated in a political quarrel, and if it were suffered to stand over till next Term, he hoped such steps would be taken as would prevent the Court. hearing any more of it. The ATTORNEY GEN f.t. said, the ocher side con sidered the case in a far more serious light than his Learned Friend seemed to do ; he saw no reason for its standing over. Lord ELLENBOROOGIf observed, that if it were to be brought on at this late period of the Term, it would be unmerciful to the Court ; and he hoped Gentlemen would be. as parsimonious of time as possible. TheArroaser-GeniikAl. said, after what had fallen from his Lordship he would not press for judgment till next Term ; he wished, however, that his learned Friend should understand, that it was not considered -as a trifling offence of whicfi the defendants had been found guilty. The defendants were, therefore, ordered Ai be r brought up for judgment next Term. HARRISON V. WRIGHT. Mr. TDPPIN Q applied for a Rule to shew cause why an award made in this cause should not be set aside. It was an action on a breach of charter-party, tried 'before Mr. Justice Chambre, at York, in May, laq. The defendant had agreed to sail to We s twick, in_ Sweden, and in twenty running days take in a cargo of deals for the plaintiff, under a penalty of £1,300 for non-performance—it appeared, however, that ha had neglected to fulfd his contract, by which neglect the plaintiff said he had sustained a loss of £2OOO the cause had been referred to arbitration, and the ar. bitrator had awarded the sum of £lBOO to the plain tiff. Mr. Topping now moved for setting the award aside, on the ground that it was excessive ; the learned Counsel contending, that the plaintiff could not be entitied to snore than £l3OO, the stated penalty in the charter-party.—The Court granted the Rule to shew cause, on condition that the £1,300 should imme diately be paid over to the plaintiff, and the remain ing £5OO into the Court, to wait the result. BIRTHS. At Mitcham, Surrey, on the 35th Instant, the Lady tif Major `General Wary Oakes, of a son. The Duchess of Orleans, datiLhter of their Sicilian Majesties, of it Prince, at Palermo, on the of %-, , teriib-,r. The Lady of fte William Geary, Bart. -of a son and heir, at Orel Houk itt , Kent. Sunday se'nnliebt, at Bory, near Gosport, the Lady of Capin Karon, R.N. of a son. Friday, at the Naval Colley, in Portsmouth Dock-yard, the La.ly of Professor Inman, of a son, Wednesday, in linliee-qrset, Cavendish-square, the Lady cf (attain Christian, R N. of a soo. Early in the month, a‘ Horsley, the lady of Captain Gibe Heathcote, R. N. of a daughter. A few days since, the lady of Dr. Hutchinson, F. R. S. Wen (tithe Physicians of the County Hospital, Kent, of a son. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. 56. AUBERT in WALSH. This was an action for money had and received.--- The plaintiff, in September 1809, halgiven thOderen dant the sum of X;eo, for whichseloo wacto be return ed, if a cessation of hostilities between -England and France was eflected,and preliminaries ofpeace between the two countries signed, on or befote the Ist of July 1810. In the month of June preceding the expira. tion of the stipulated period, plaintiff had brought his action for the purpose of recovering back l!is premi um, and the Jury had found a verdict in his favour. Mr. Serjeant LENS had obtained a rule to shew cause why Oat verdict should not be set aside, and a non suit entered; against which Mr. Serjeant Sueriterus and Mr. Serjeant MARSHALL shewed cause. Lord Chief Justice MAYSPIELD this day pronounced the judgment of the Court. He observed, that a • great number of cases had been cited ; the general principle which seemed to govern them was, that when a person had made an illegal contract, is the nature of wager, he had no right, after the event had determined, to come forward and demand the original premium, on the legal principle of potior en eotatio porsidentie.—ln the present case there was this distinc tion, that the demand for the • premium had been made prior to the time to which 'the policy was re stricted; which seemed like a wish to do away the illegal contract. There was some doubt, however, about the soundness of this distinction, because no period was fixed for the party to come forward and rescind the contract ; and, therefore, a person might wait till the time was very near expiring, when little doubt could be entertained of the way in which the event would be decided—and, being certain of losing, might make his demand; but, DIED. certainly, it was a difficult matter to point out the! Yesterday morning, at his house in the Borough of Si.. period at which the demand should be made.— i Henry William Coffin Esq. In the case of Lowry v. liou rd i eu, Mr. Justice Buller' had clearly recognized the distinction of actions ! ESL T E Owt t ?!erk of t t h h a e t ;ity, ag t. ed h 7 e ye N • v at t - s thim Dir.:we,* co s: f eh a con deel tract ine o ,:t RoChester. ea the SI st lost. Jobs Nichols brought on contracts omitted and executory—and the same distinction was acted upon in the case of Tap.. i On the 19th of October last, after two days illness, at a Talli penden v. Randall. The Court must either follow' on his way to Lisbon , William Moffat, Esq. of Prinla tts, p a ' , that rule, or decide differentlyerently from the cases he had i, master th o e f p the 79t.11 reg o im f vent, Strachan,no!rjatesPoetul. Esq Assistr3 quoted, and in direct opposition to the decision of Mr. Ilk n there. licY 4 Justice Buller. He thought, however, that there weal At Dunbar, John Beanie Bower, Is+ C.ptain in the Eke very proper ground for adhering to that rue, for it %MO was but right that a man should be allowed an opj-* regiment of Militia. portunity a rescinding an illegal Contract, hef. - the : ley Stafford. the 15th instant. Charles Moore, t'q . on' of the Amiga Mondayse'nnight, Sarah, wife of Colonel Bellieley, of BO expiration of the time to which the event was'f6stric- 1 ,1 4 f Public Accounts; and brother of the Lae _Genera sub's ted. The party wishing to annul the contract might .). L 00re.. • say- 44 I know, even if I win, that I can have no re- E k :' ss "'" l "s envie of Loyal tmigrants in the service of his Britannia Jil in Reaffitsg, the reedy against you, the transaction being illegal ; I j - f r :r y , therefore wish my money' to be returned.' Besides f Regiment of Infatttryattod *night . nijhe Order of.*. L"'" under the old hench G Cb o:rn al the cases already quoted, there was one to be found j • On the lith inat...Ron„Ceorge Ta)lor,,Aector ef Churt e h.. To. in Loft's Reports, Walker v. Chapman, in which the same principle appeared to have occurred to the mind the, shire. : ie a r en D t, e:o p ie j T oney, i C n .a t pt he sis iogo. isLie s ISth Inttabt, ht hisitnth venr, the Rev. Wm. Nesi t4 i $ .: taff o :rds tile hitv, of Akifeed,Cheshire, and jam 0f,./darolg ut of Lord Mans fi eld. His Lordship also referred co l lector cf Dailiam, and vicar of Wfikliarnbrout, ‘44tio!t. , 0 the case of Lacossade v. White, and stated that the . In his 75th par, the Rev. Aleaguder Cr o .niehohne ;i rre o taroc doctrine laid down by Lord Kenyon' n a subsequent t heri PEP n " 4 11 0 " ch l i m en ' B l l f l 4 l? Y a g n 7 h 6 4l 7o; case, was different from that which he had promul- l gu A T e d .1 ";;; I ffie , Wo r n. ° sad Rev . R.: R . :PL Roper, rector of C krl gated in the above-mentioned action. Under all the lathe county of Mouagbasylreland. . a bte a ll: circumstances of the case, and after an attentive exa- Rev. Cavalier lompt,eawacg.ot Rawretb, Esse:, an urination of the different cases cited, the Court was of ,ir ick. , .. Pot lopinion that the plaintiff had a right to recover ; ther tie of the eeysioseL oo ' mouth Harbour, Dr. I. FA Cleed, • D e attl,ool l premium. , m Sunday sennight, es I. FA the Chapman transport! in . ' ''. ,Stati of the Brtigh Army in Portugal. He had _ ~,, The verdict of course remains undisturbed. '3!4 26tb year of his age, was. distinguished by strong naturals= STEEL D. LACY. and a correct and extensive knowledge of isis profesigta r i runs Palms" This was an action on a policy of insurance on an it was in the unwearied discharge of the duty t 'American ship, from I ondon to a port in Russia; selected to come home with French prie! . Ten guns 1,6 trog g i i and which was captured bra French privateer .on her 'Ch man, H , e wl i tw ith er n e t ia to V il in l i el ie ld ra t bl o :s CPci int rigt) ; in vr l ii : ta i ke i g : s' ‘,o return, and was condemned in a port of Denmark. she having simulated papers•on board. A Rule had 1 411sitot as hittanuaiess in his throat, attended been obtained to set aside the verdict, and to enter *ln ide '"a' buried to the garrison et Portsmouth CIAO, "' 1 , nonsuit. Sir JAWS MANSFIELp said, that the evidence we* much too loose for him to enter iato it.; nor did be think it at all necessary to give an opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of tessels carryipii simulated '• Last week, the Right Hon. Thomas Henry Foster, son tithe Chancellor of the Irish Ezeheque,r,.to Miss Skelington, &nine of the Right Hon. C. Skeildron. 'Tuesday sennight, sir Maidstone, Mr. lames Stanger, to monger, to Mies Sarah Bentltff, daughter of the Rev. George Bentliff, Minister of the Baptist Meeting, In Ma id s t one_ _ . At Norwich, oti"Wedneaday u'ouigiii, Dent. Charles Pitt, R.N. late of his Majesty's sloopSarpedon, to Matilda, only daugh ter and heiress of the late Sir George Walcott, Barr. Wednesday, at Ablocdon,hy the Muter of Pembroke college, Oxford, the Rev. Wm. Price, late fellow of that society, and mo tor of Coln, Saint Deny's, Ulouceatershire, to Min Davies, of Abingdon. I. Rev. S. Alien, jun. of Lynn, Norfolk, to Catherine fddatightss Of the Rev. G. Woolley, ut Hutton Bushel, Yorkshire. Rev. Richard Ridley, son of Sir M. W. Ridley, Bart. to Via' Johnson, only daughter of the Rev. P. Johnson, of .Alston.upon- Mersey, Lancashire. . On Thursday, the Rev. Robert Wm. Bastes, Rector of Kin tborpe, near Northampton, to Miss Clavering, of Newaold Pr coy, Warwickshire, daughter of the late Robert Clavering, Esq. •• On the 20tb-last;nt Edward Kendall, Esq. of Dan-y-Park Brecknockshire, to Miss Darling, sister of Col. Darling, Deputy Adjutant-General. On the 18th inst. Richard Wood Fair/ .1(1, Esq. Captain in tb td Battalion of the .59th Infantry, to ELzabetli, eldest daughter Archibald Campbell, Esq. late of Wilton Dean, Middlesex. . On the £2d instant, John Gordon, son of the late lion. Colons John Gordon, of Aboyne o to Eliza, daughter of Robert Atones Esq. M. P. for the City of Gloucester. H 14414 W A T WHIZ PR! - ITG - 0; 0 ' . . - $7 fainuto ant —., .11in Ittes___±..L4 . t :. ;Man0nim........... 1 .... I end publtsbed by LEVIL. COIL 0 Terllll-tiel4 and N.• 1 ) Cur "b 40: • The 11 . InStVing must hate I.now n tb 3l the' assured were under the necessity of using s ;, nu. lated papers in going to any of t'he parts o f t h e " tic, since the passing of the Berlin D'cree. pears, however, that the Berlin Dec ree h ad not y:rsti adopted in Denmark at the tirn.-thePennsylvania vessel in question.) was carried into one of the /rite of that country. And it further appears, fron t tl , e condemnation in the enemy's Prize Court, that L s e , had condemned the vessel because she Ltd no port, and not on the Berlin I)ecree, Their 1...“ rd. snips were therefore of opinion, that the nonsuit sh o w be entered. , 3RAIMM V. NABS. • Mr. Serjeant Bata, in this 'case, :applied for a ri i i 4 to shew cause why, a - verdict which WAS entered ‘ a the plaintiff, at the last. Lancaster Assizes, for til t damages should not he - inereieetr to £5O. The c i e . I fendant is a Sheriff's OtEcer, and Was encplriy c is t • the plaintiff in arresting another,peison ; for sl o d f and the bail-bond the defendant charged the plaiatit• agl. 4s. The accign was brought befure Bartm l 1104 on tpe 32d of Geo. 11. cap. 28, which thie ct i • that *no sums of money; 'shall be taken for . artes..,, us less those already settled by law. Now, by the i:nr i , according to the 23d. of Hen. V. the slim :now t ! td an Officer for an. arrest is only 4d.; and by the A c f. Of Geo. 11. already_ stated, a penalty 'of £5O h to I,‘ paid by any one. exceeding that charge of 44.1. 1 as arrest. )sir. Baron atehern alloWed the verdict to bt entered for arl. 4s. subject to the 'judgewnt et ,In Bench, whether or no; the lull penalty of *541 thouit be exacted.—bole granted. '• . • • Na. 1,5711••••......••"•,,:."•• 41000 Na No. 3i077 " 5t.0 ...The above Prizes were sold in Twenty-five s+ ; , mss in the Lottery. just finished, at Errpa's L ac k ; No. s..coralaill,near.the Mansion-Houte 1 amt ut the lasi Coma City Lottery, So. 15,020 AG,OOO No•114 11 $1... • 4,000 Na.. Atnonnting to 'MAI), were also sold in Twenty.% Shares. Tie - Ire:and Shan's ate on sale for the eosu. ,ingeity House - LotterVwhich draws on ruciatty next. ECCLESIASTICAL PROMOTIOI4f. -The Rev. Thomas Huntingford, Felin* of New College, Or ford, and Private Tutor to the Marquis of Carmarthen, dint son of the Duke of Leeds, is presented to the Vicarage of Kerns. ford, Olotseest rrsli i re, vacant by the death of the Rev. idr.Rcskecy,