Star. — London, England, 1822-12-18 00:00:00

a petition against the bankrupt's certificate, forwarded in the paper, and set down for hearing before his Lordship. The reasons for this application were, that the bankrupt, who was the father of ten children, might •be kept in prison no longer than was fleets sary.;,. for, if it were to be heard before the Vice- Chaocellor, the petitioners would most probably ap peal against the judgment, though it should have no other effect than -that of detaining the bankrupt in custody. - The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could not but feel for a person so circumstanced: at the same time he must use great caution in entertaining those feel ings, -lest he should open the way for very.many ap plications from persons suffering the same hardship under very different circumstances. For this reason he wished to have the papers handed to him to read over before he gave any opinion, which he hoped to be able to do to-morrow morning. BEER V. WARD. Mr. HART informed the Lord Chancellor that he had made inquiries as to the production of the papers .in the Master's Office, to assist the inquiry into the nest of kin of William Cotton, the lunatic. He had discovered that there had been some neglect in pro ducing some of the papers ; but there was no neglect attributable to the Master in any stage of the inquiry. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had been misunderstood. There had been neglect of a •ery culpable nature ; but he did not intend to throw any blame on the Master, who had been imposed upon in common with the Court. NelLpea said . payment out the production of those documents. _ that 'there must be some decree in the•case, as the Master had reported specially upon the incunibrances. Mr. BaIDOILR said that there was no objection to the order for the sale of the estate being rescinded. The VJcs•CHANCILLOR directed that the motion should stand till next Seal, when the necessary docu menu might be produced. CLARK V. CLARK. This was an application,by Mr. lIRALD, on the part of the plaintiff, Mr. James Clark, to have a re ceiver appointed with the usual directions for ma nagement of an estate. The facts, as stated by the Learned Counsel, were shortly these :—James Clark, the present plaintiff, had a brother, George Clark, a man of considerable fortune. George Clark had an only natural daughter, Mary Clark Turner, and executed a will, leaving the whole of his property _to this child. After the execution of this will, and be fore his death, George Clark purchased an estate worth upwards of 5,0001. but died without altering his will with respect to this estate. George Clark died on the 3d of October, 1820, and the plaintiff, by law, of course became the heir la the estate. — About ten days after the death of his brother, the plaintiff, who is a labourer, was working in some fields, when a Mr. 6kb:in, the uncle of the illegiti mate child, came to him, and desired him to go to his brother's house, to have some property settled upon him. The plaintiff accordingly went with Mr. Bitton, and found there Mr. Margison and Mr. Bur ton, two executors of his brother's will. The plaintiff (as he now swore in his affidavit) was there asked whether he was willing to give up this estate upon a consideration of 50/. a-year for life? The plaintiff answered that he knew nothing about the matter, but imagining that he should get nothing if he did not accept the offer, agreed to the bargain. The conse quence was, an agreement was signed, transferring the estate to the plaintiff% brother's daughter, Mary Clark Turner. Subsequently, he executed a more formal instrument to the same effect,. and in the Ja-1 nuary following executed further deeds, giving up all his interest in the estate. The plaintiff had since ' filed a bill Cu be relea s ed from the effect of these deeds; and the foundation of the bill was, he was wholly ignorant that he bad a right to the estate in question. The two executors had filed affidavits, swearing that it was distinctly explained to the plain tiff at the time he executed these deeds, that he had acquired a full right to the estate. Another affidavit, put in by a Mr. Utting, an attorney, who had been previously employed in other transactions by the plaintiff, stated that at the plaintiff's request, he looked at the instruments in question, and swore the plaintiff perfectly well knew what he was doing. - The Learned Counsel (Mr. HEALD) contended that ' the affidavit of the plaintiff was sufficiently strong to overturn the allegations in the affidavits filed by other parties, and hoped therefore his motion would be granted. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without troubling Mr. Wingfield, who was Counsel on the other side, was decidedly of opinion that there was not sufficient pre sumption against the legal effect of these deeds to in duce the Court to grant this motion. The strength of the evidence was in favour of the deeds executed by the plaintiff', and the Court must take it for granted, that in signing them he acted under a sense of moral duty towards his brother's child. - Mr. WINGFIELD made an application for costs, but it was immediately refused. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 17. HALL V. BOOT AND ANOTHER. This was an action for infringing a patent granted on the 3d of November, 1317, to the plaintiff, Sa muel Hall, for improving lace and every description of net-work. It appeared from the specification, that the object of the invention was to remove super floors threads which give a woolly appearance to lace. This is effected by eiposing it to the heat of inflammable gas, and passing it, by means of rollers, with such velocity as to destroy the woolly excrescences, while the intense heat is forced upwards by a current of air, se as to pass through the meshes of the lace with out injuring its texture. The novelty of the invention consisted in cleansing the interstices from the woolly fibres, whereas before, by the process of singeing, the edges only could be rendered free from the particles. Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Edenborough, Mr. C. W. Nunn, and Mr. John Johnston, Gentlemen acquainted with the lace trade, proved that the invention, which they believed to be new, added greatly to the clear ness and transparency of the lace, and that in con sequence the home consumption of British lace had increased, and that an increase had also taken place in the quantity of the article exported. There was a great demand for the gassed lace in France ; and scarcely any lace except that gassed was purchased by foreigners. The LORD CHIEF Junto' asked Mr. Johnston whether this lace so exported to France did not very often come back as French lace ?—(A laugh). The witness replied in the affirmative; and Mr. GURNEY stated that a Norwich manufacturer had lately exclaimed against the wickedness of importing French lace, when the piece he was moralizing over had been manufactured five doors from his own. Mr. Arthur Aikin, Secretary to the Society of Arts, said be had devoted great part of his life to scientific investigations. Before he saw Mr. Hall's invention he knew of nothing similar ; the only thing approach ing to resemblance was singeing muslin by passing it over a red hot cylinder, after which it was passed between two others to prevent it from burning. Mr. Hall's apparatus appeared to be completely effectual. The process applied to muslin, it; adopted as to lace, would clear the surfaces, but not the interstices. The witness explained how the application of the flame of coal or charcoal would fail of clearing the fibres from the interior of the net, and how the current of air produced by the machinery of Mr. Hall was es sential to the purpose. He had no doubt either of the originality or the utility of the process. The specifi cation coincided with the process.. Professor Brande, Mr. Children, Mr. Donlan, Mt:. Fereday, who assisted Sir Humphry Davy in the plan, which he had been enabled to copy by being introduced into the room bone of Mr. Hall's work men. According to the testimony of this witness, the machine was wotked within a partition in the ware house of Jervis Boot, in Mount-street, Nottingham,. the windows bf which were barricadoed, And to which ' access was obtained by a secret entrance from his bed-room. The gas was conveyed through a bracket from the pipe which supplied the ordinary burners in the outer room. This witness also proved •that an other house in Mount-court was taken for another machine, but the intention was not in this case effected. —He also swore, that after the final discovery was made, when he alluded to the danger in which Jervis Boot stood, he replied, 0 4 I care neither for you nor Hall ; can only go to prison, and TB gas again. The testimony of this man was corroborated veral circumstances by other witnesses. Evidence was then given to spew that a machine was worked at a house in High Pavement, "Notting ham, which was shared by both the defendants. It was shewn that Francis Boot gave orders for the sup ply of gas ; that the gas supplied' was far more than could be consumed by the burners apparently in - use ; that an alteration had been made in the pipes, which. could not be accounted for by any visible object ; and that the attic was divided closely by a p artition, of which the.servant refused to give the key. Two witnesses, named Fogg and Coleby, proved that they, by desire of the plaintiff, ascended the roof, took out the painted skylight, and looked into the recess, where they saw the machine and the gas-pipe, exactly as used by Mr. hall. It was further shewn that Mr. Francis Boot offered a piece of gassed lace for sale ; and that he had taken the house- on the High Pave ment, and paid the rates and taxes. Mr. GURNEY, for the defendants, stated, that he should be able to shew that, long before the alleged in vention of Mr. Hall lace had been cleared by flame, and that spirits of wine and oil, or charcoal, Would equally produce the effect with gas. He called two witnesses from Nottingham, who stated that they had cleared stockings and lace by passing them through a flame; but it did not appear that they had ever used an ap paratus resembling that of the plaintiff.' The Learned Counsel also contended, that there was no•evidence to fix any share in the transaction upon Francis Boot. The Jury intimated that there was no occasion for the.Socictroit-GanettaL to repty. The LORD CHtkiJUSTICi said, that there could be no doubt that the verdict must pass against both the defendants ; for Francis Boot actually ordered the gas with which the machine was put in action. As the plaintiff did not seek for damages, they would find only nominal damages.—The Jury returned a ver dict for the plaintiff. DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF HARRIS, V. MASTERS. This was an action of ejectment,-brought by the lessor of Sin ing-gardens Chapel, to recover possession from the lessee, a Clergyman, for non-payment of rent. It appeared that tholease contained a proviso, allowing the lessor to enter if the rent should not be paid within twenty-one days after it became due, al though not previously demanded.. At the time of the demise, the rent was overdue, but there was an organ, carpets, mats, curtains, and other properly, hi the Chapel, liable to distress, and more than sufficient to countervail the arrears. The organ was, proved by Mr. Bishop, the builder, to be worth at least 200 guineas: he had agreed to build it for that sum, but being unable to obtain payment, he suf fered it to remain on hire at ao per annum. The Statute of 4th Geo. 11. which in case of provisos of re-entry for non-payment of rent, dispenses with a formal demand %%hen there is no sufficient distress on the premises, did not therefore apply, and the case 'stood as at common law. It has been decided that, at common law, a demand is necessary, though not declared to be so in the lease; but here not only was no demand stipulated for, but there was an express declaration that none should be required. The ques tion, therefore, was—whether this express stipulation rendered a formal demand needless? The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE recommended that the point should be reserved ; and the Jury found a ver dict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the 'Court in a special case. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 17. HEATHFIELD V. STEERS. This was an issue from the Vice-Chancellor's Court to try whether a commission of bankrupt, issued against a person named Holding, was not sued out by his own connivance; and in collusion with some of his creditors. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN addressed the Jury for the plaintiff, and called witnesses to prove that Steers' (the defendant's) debt was a fictitious one, and also that a debt alleged to be due from Holding to a per son named Healy was fabricated for the purpose of getting him (Holding) his certificate. • - - Mr. Serjeant PELL addressed the Jury for the de fendant, and contended, at considerable length, that no case had been made out to prove that there ex isted the slightest collusion between Holding and any of his creditors. The commission, he maintained, was fair and bona, de, and he trusted the Jury would so consider it. ' Mr. Justice PARK summed up; and the Jury, with out hesitation, found a verdict for the defendant, thereby establishing the validity of the commission.. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DECEMBER 16. Henry Puckride, who had been heard on a former day, when his discharge was opposed by a creditor named Cooke, came up to receive the judgment of the Court. . . ,The CHIEF COMMISSIONER briefly recapifblated the of the case.' The insolvent had been a watch and clock-maker, and took a house for carrying en his business, which he employed several of file pre sent creditors to fit up in an expensive manner, so as to give the appearance of a flourishing trade: In the month of January he Was sued for a debt of £lO, which be was then unable to pay ; and although he was absenting himself from his house In the months of June and Jaly, to avoid being arrested, for that small debt, yet having his business carried on by his c‘ 7", brother, eostionia to Winne& ICUs tadefrotek bir:COoki, wheat 'he tassild have tun tenantable erg pedant% tifiletng able to pay (dr Me V. • llsiot was which. prudent trodeitomi tetra ** likely • credit th aibi a person huldmi t cavvying•oa:an extensive bur. - most then k the testittinj to such R. The judgment of **Coat; the insolvent .should not be cres... charged _ tea months ire= the alp of ,his petition. • Thomas Has7,and was opposed by Hatt and Camp. bell, tailois, Tavistock-street. ' • Mr. Hart stated,' that in May last the insolvent was introduced to them by a person of the name of Clarke. Who was a custorner. and debtor of 'their'si od whose introduction they gave -him credit. In Augu s t they received a notice from Clarke, that he had pe.: titiOned the insolvent Court to be discharged. n e t then demanded payment from the insolvent, who sai4 Clarke was his debtor, and in cons equence of h 4 (Clarke's) insolvency he could not pay, and they sue 4 him: The insolvent states) that Clarke was his debtor for five pounds, at the time he introduced him to Hart and CaMpbell, but he had-since given him se :Vera! small sums, which discharged the debt. The CHM! Commissior ER said the probability was, that Clarke, being in the insolvent' debt, and unable to .pay him. they had agreed together that he should introduce him to Hart and Campbell to get a suit of clothes; by which the debt was to be discharged. • 'The Collar thought it a proper. case to exercise the'distretion vested in it by tht 16th Section of the 4 ,4et,lbackr which they adjudged that the In olvent should be remanded for sit months from the date of . . -........, A. his Petition. John' Lomas, who had been a farmer at Tunbridge, in Kent, was opposed by Dr. Wordsworth, the licctur of the parish, for a debt due for tithes. The Insolvent stated, that in. the month of Mar, 1821, he gage his two brothers a warrant of ittorp.ey for 9001. he owed them fur money borrowed at s:.- rious times during a period of fifteen or sixtven cals. His brothers issued execution immediately, and put a person in possession, but allmsed the insoivein to carry, on the farm ostensibly tilt September, they sold everything he had in the.world. The s.►le produced 8001. out of which they paZl the rent, but no tithes. On examining the Insolvent's balance sheet, it was found that he had not accounted for his receipts and expenditure from the date of the .earliest debt in I is schedule, which the Act requires him to do; and the further corfsideration of his -case was adjourned, to give him time to amend his balance sheet. A person at —Rochester, near Uttoleter, a few days ago, who had obtained various credits of-the public, died, and was buried. A few days after repo' is ere abroad of his ghost being seen; and suspicions arn,e on the subject of his decease, on which the coffin wa - i taken up, and found to be filled with stows. The defunct debtor is still at la ge, and suspected to Ite practising on the living in some other place. A Man; who offered his wife for sale on Tharsd :y, in the public market at Plymouth, was taken up, and, with his wife, whom he was, about to part front " nothing loth," brought before the Magistrates at Guildhall; and both were admitted to bail to ansnec for the offence at the next Borough Sessions. Wostatto—The following curious compliment to the fair ser is extracted from an old play, entitled Cupid's Whirligig :—" Who would abuse your sex that knows if? owoman, were tte not born of you— should we not then honour you? Nursed by you, and not regard you ? Made for you, and not seek you ? And since we were made before you, should We not live and admire you as the last and most perfect work of Nature? Man was made when Nature was but an apprentice, but Woman when she wan skit. ful mistress of her art. By your love we live in double breath, even in our offspring after death. Ate not all vices masculine, .and virtues feminine? Are not the Muses the loves of the learned ? Do not all noble spirits follow the Graces because they ate women? There is but one phoenix, and she's a female. Was not the princess and foundress of good arts, Mi nerva, born of the brain of highest Jove, a woman? Has not woman the face of love, the tongue of per suasion, and the body of delight? 0 divine per fectioned woman, if to be of thy sex is so excellent, What is it then to be a woman enriched by nature, made excellent by education, noble by birth, chaste by virtue, adorned by beauty !—a fair woman, which is the ornament of heaven, the grace of earth, the joy of life, and the delight Of all sense, even the very summum bow): of man's existence." This old play, written in 1607, and falsely ascribed to SHAKSPEARE, is rarely met with, and is not likely to have fallen in the way of Buntis: who, however, in one of his songs his hit upon the same idea, and almost the same words as we have marked in Italics, in the preceding passage. Bolus, speaking of Dame Nature, says, " Her 'prentice han' she tried on man, And then she made the lasses, 0 !" BIRTH. Thursday, in Berkeley-square, the Countess. D'Asiie, the bre dinian Ambassador's Lady, of a son and heir. COURSE OF Amsterdam l2 6 C.F. Ditto sesight..— 12 L. Rotterdam... l2 7 91.1. Antwerp, ex-mo. 12 • Hamburgh... 37 9 2U. Akona 37 10 IU. Paris,3day'ssighs2s 55 U. Ditto 25 85 2U. Madrid, effective 57 Cadiz effect 36 Barcelona .56 Bilboa, effective 57 PRICES OF GO . Foreign Gold in Bars ... New Doubloons : ' New Dollan» Silver, in bars,.stiadard....., • • ' . • - 1 4 .-• • • . .., .. - . . - • . . . ' . . . ..• t • • . • .. . - 4. *. :fir- •' ' - so .• • • , - :'. .' .- ' 1 . '. ' :.'• '. : I s3- r. ' e li (,; rreV i i 1 . 4 1 .. f ' • . ‘l'l / 4 ' _ • NJ the Sate •of Mr. WaterO'sidreafaiffififiefiiiii*Mit , fig act* 4ellapr'snil MT. Phillips. brother, be manned to '* '.... . LAW INTELLIGENCE. = g er - on iii - Alia tertidon lidaitutioN: Mr:Cooke, when be to don to the present motion . • ...- .- ._ _ 1 ,- ~ __. • ... ha - 44th m i . A g rar i st ‘ rat i o i on ,. kne e ttlOC peetsttien of being able I Mn HEALD OilmaiTadt that 1001ZIPPA own paid • not ism watt in which preden COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 17. into Court by driblets, in .Consequ . . viteertoo -- • s or- Zai'eharcoal, vihieb %hip bad seen used; ' - • - ' to be induced w give cn den of the Court. • These orders, hOweeer, ought to answer the purpose of*, machie. EL•PARTE ACKLAND, IN TEZ MATTER or ROSE" be roduced. • In order to prove the iefringements oftbei patent i ota the appearance of c . . . • A BANKRUPT. Mk HART applied to have this cause, which was The VICE-CHANCILLLOE said he certainly,could by the defendants, Charles . Hart was first called, who ' mit ; and the Coon mu Si netition arainst the bankrupt's certificate, forwarded make no order for the Plyment of the 5,5001 with- stated that he entered into IA engagement .with Mr . . .means by insolvents. d_ed nnt the Ittoduction of those document!. He b e elieve d Jervis _Boot for working a machine on Mt. Hell s therefore, was, that the 1.;..5. It• hart enabled to copy by being , charged_ in less dna i LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL. Mr. Pciirs was beard further upon the objection to admit the affirmation of the plaintiff in aid of proof of his disputed title in the case opened yesterday. The Lour) CHANCELLOR suggested that the most convenient course would be to try the right of the plaintiffs to the production of the deeds ; as upon that right, and the contents of the deeds, supposing that the right should he established, must depend the use fulness of other proceedings. Mr.,HART assented to the proposition of the Court, to waive that part of the motion which respected the injunction. '•Mr. PEhYS then argued upon the separate motion, and contended that neither equity, nor common sense, nor. common honesty, could require a defendant to assist the claim of title made by his adversary by pro ducing his own deeds. The LORD CHANCELLOR had an opinion yesterday, which yet remained not very much shaken, that the defendant had put in an answer which was not quite correct. Sir 11. St. Paul might have put the plaintiff at once out of Court, but he' denied the- reservation affirnied by the plaintiffs. He had, however, sworn that he knew nothing of the deeds, and had no power over them. It appeared that Mr. Vernon held the deeds in trust for the defendants. The assertion of Sir II- St. Paul, therefore, that he had no power over them, was at least incorrect, because they were held for his benefit. The answer of Mr. Vernon (he spoke it with full respect for that gentleman) amounted to nothing at all. Had Mr. Vernon denied that there was any reservation of mines, that would have put the plaintiffs out of Court. Mr. Vernon said that he did not f.•el himself at liberty to produce the deeds : but he should have said whether or not the deeds contained the reservation claimed by the plaintiffs. As trustee for Sir H. St. Paul, he was bound to say whether the property of the coals belonged to his trust: if the deeds did contain the reservation, then Mr. Vernon Was not trustee for 'Sir Henry St. Paul only,. but also for all those who held title under the deeds, To have acted with impartiality, he should have stated the fact, yes or no, in his answer. Mr..DADWELL and Mr. BIGGS were heard on be half of lessees under the defendants. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had an opi nion which strongly inclined him to determine in a Eiarticular way. Were he out of Court be could not hesitate a moment. There were, however, before the invention of fire-engines and such other facilities for working mines, frequent reservations in the sale of coal lands, the vender little thinking, generally, that the mines would ever be worth the expense of work ing, and the purchaser as little supposing that the property would ever be disturbed by the 'exercise of ;he reserved right. Concideriiig, therefore, the great importance of the decision to very many purchasers and tenants of such lands, though his mind was nearly made up, he preferred waiting until to-mor tow morning. At his Loidship's request the bill and answer were handed up to him, that he might read them over. MILLER V. ELKINS. The Court was occupied the rest of the day in dis- Ciissing the due construction of ambiguous and con flicting p.issages of wills, involved in this and another case of die same kind, and the corresponding powers of the executors who were to administer them. — Decision postponed. VICE-CUANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER 17. WATERS V. TAYLOR, Mr, HEALD moved., that in this case, which has been so long litigated, the plaintiff, Mr. Edmund Waters, be ordered to pay into Court, on er before the ‘‘l'Sd of January next, the sum of 5,5001. being a part of the purchase money of the Opera House, e tained by him in consequence of an incumbrance upon the estate with respect to an annuity to Mr. Harris. lle also moved that the said 5,5001. when 'pail in, be laid out with the usual directions ;• and further, that the plaintiff be ordered to pay to the de fenciant,• pursuant to the order of the 24th of De cember, 1816, the sum of 9281.25. 6d: The motion went on to request the Court to declare the sale of the .estate to be null and void. The Learned Conn -4,1, however, conceived that he was not yet prepared to submit any motion respecting the sale of the estate. The Vice-CHANCELLOR asked for the decree in the cause. Mr. HEALD believed that there was no decree. Se 'veral orders, hoWiver, had been given by the Court. Mt. liiitocum,on the part of the plaintiff, observed, that be was instructed to state that Mr. Waters was wholly unable to pay the money into Court. Kr. Itourata., who was with Mr. Heald, said that MCHANGL . Seville 36 Gibraltar ... .. 30e Leghorn ,Genoa ` 43; Venice italLbr 27 SO Malta Naples Palertho ll4 pet Qs. Lisbon s2e Rio Janeiro.. 46 Diblin 9l Cork . . ... DANDSILVER. - • 317 . 0 .0 • . ..... ...... 4 9; 0 4 MAILS, Au- Du E. Dublin • .1 o France , Waterford 1 1 Hainburgh . - Guernsey and Jersey 0 o Flanders Lisbon 0 1 Malta Holland • 0 0 Gottenburilli .Leeward 41404 i 0 0 Brazil • •as. 11 , 16 O - - 0 O 1 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 tit GH. W ATER at LONDON lilt.lDnit ()Vi. 144traIng - - 52 minutes liter Attitnium - 53 minutes after 5 LONDON rtinitd acid yabthted.hy - Lvit. fzfro Indot • pigs, Tcovle-Bar. T~' i 11 ~ ~ ~' ~'