Star. — London, England, 1821-10-24 00:00:00

MAN. TERMED PROM AN . APOLOCIORRT DR. Affliction, one day, as she hark'd to the roar Of the stormy and struggling billow, Drew a beautiful form on the sands of the shore, With the branch of a weeping willow! Jupiter, struck with the noble plan, As be roamed on the verge of the ocean, Breathed on the figure, and calling it Mae, Endued it with life and motion ! A creature so glorious in mind and in frame. So stamped with each parent's impression, Among them a point of contention became, Each claiming the right of possession ! Ile is mine, said Affliction—l gave him his birth— I alone am his cause of creation; The materials were furnished by me, answered Earth; I gave him, said Jove, animation ! The Gods, all assembled in solemn Divan, After hearing each claimant's petition, Pronounced a definitive verdict on Man, And thus settled his fate's disposition: ' Let Affliction possess her own child till the woo Of life cease to harass and goad it; After death give his body to Birth, whence it rose; And his spirit to Jove, wbo bestowed It! LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. ex. The Court was occupied nearly the whole of the day upon a special case, a:king out of an ejectment, tried before Baron Woon. The question was, hether John Luscomb Man ning had complied with the proriso in a will, by which he came into possession of a considerable estate? The testator, it appeared, left him the property upon condition of taking the name of Manning, and using the family arms. A clause in the will contained the following words:—" And in case any heirs male of the body of Margaret Manning, or of Mary Creen, oy John Luscomb Manning, or others who shalt be in possession of the lands and hereditaments, shall not take my name, by Act of Parliament, within three Tears, then, and in such case, the use of the estate to such persons neglecting ,to get such Act of Parlia unent shall cease and be of no effect." It was contended on the part of the heirs at law, that there had been an adverse possession, and that the terms of the will had not been complied with.— The question was deferred. LORD MAYOR'S COURT, OCT. 9.3. CURIOUS AND IMPORTANT CASE AND DECISION. A question of some importance relative to the ad missibility of bail came on for decision in the Lord Mayer's Court to-day, before NEWMAN KNOWLYS, Esq. the Common Scrjeant, in the case of Anthony Harding and others, plaintiffs, a, ai list Peter Angustris Heyliger, defendant, and Sarah Alcherne, Mrs.Heyliger, the wife of Captain Heyliger, the defendant, a Gentleman of fortune and welt respect ability, had obtained from several tradesmen a variety of goods, consisting of wearing apparel, books, house- Vold furniture, Scc. which had been sent to Mrs. Ai ello! ne, a respectable packer in the city, to be packed up in order to their being for siarded to Mrs. I leyliger, then at St. Omer's, in France. Against these goods, Svllich, from their quantity, were contained in no less than 56 packages, several foreign attachments were issued while in the hands of Mrs. Alchorne, the gar nishee, and among ot he r s by the plaintiffs, Messrs., }larding and Co. o f' Pall-mall, for a claim of E 2.52 due to them. Messrs. Houlditch, coachrnakers, of Long , acre, whose attachment was the last issued of eight or nine, accidentally got information as to the correct Christian name of Captain Heyliger, and filed a second attachment in the name of Peter Au gustus, all the other attachments describing the de fendant as Peter Heyliger only. By this piece of management, Messrs. Houltlitch's attachment, from being the last, became the first; and from the value of the property attached, there appeared every pro bability of their recovering the whole of their debt. The garnishee, however, was advised to try the case With them, upon the ground that the goods were not delivered to her in the name or as the property of Captain Heyliger. On the trial in tht Mayors Court the Jury found a verdict for the validity of the at tachment, thereby deciding the property to be the defendant's. Notwithstanding this decision, the gar nishee persisted in going to trial upon the same point on every other attachment against the goods, to the' amount of eight or nine, the verdict in each case being the same as in the first. Messrs. Houlditch now looked upon themselves as secure from loss, when the garnishee put in bail to their attachment, and the goods, not without suspicion of some private arrange ment between her and the plaintiffs, Messrs. Harding and Co. who had the second attachment, were pub licly sold by auction at Mr. Murrell's room, in Skin ner-street, in August last. 'though the sale purported, according to the printed catalogue, to take place un der an attachment, no precept of appraisement, it appears, had been returned; and the property, which, according to Mrs. Heyliger's statement, had been re cently purchased at an amount of nearly 12000, pro duced at the sale between £5OO and £6OO only : among other articles, worked cambric handkerchiefs, which hatibeen invoiced to her at three guineas each, sold at the sale for no more than 9s. a piece. Captain Heyliger is, it seems, at the Island of St. Croix ; but Messrs. Houlditch seeing the property thus sacrificed, and themselvis thrown out, gave informa tion to Mrs. Heyliger, at St. Omer's, who imme diately furnished them with instructions to put in bail, on behalf of the defendant, to all the attach ments that had been issued against the property . . As the bail in these cases must be freemen of London, Messrs. Houlditch applied to their iron -merchants, lidessre. Daly and Kipling, of Upper Thames -street, and through them procured as bail a Mr. Quint, of Bush-lane, and a Mr. Bickerman, of Tower-royal.— When the bail appeared before the Lord Mayor, at the' Mansion-house, to justify, Mr. Andrews, as Coun sel for the present plaintiffs, and Messrs. Reynell and Ogle, attornies ler the garnishee, opposed the accept ing of them, not on account of their insufficiency, their solvency being undoubted, butupon the ground that they had not been applied to by the defendant to become his bail; Mr. Andrews contending that, 'ruder such circumstances, the bail could not, in eon fogaity with the practice of the Keno; Courts, be received, and the Lord Mayor not choosing to take upon himself to decide so important a question, the case was referred to the next sitting of the Court, which took place at Guildhall to-day. Mr. NORTON, for the defendant, now tendered the above-mentioned bail. Mr. liouksen, upon the part of the plaintiffs, pot m the affidavit of Mr. Alsop, one of the partners in the house, which stated that he had written to Capt. Heyliger, at St. Croix, giving him information of the whole transaction ; and, although sufficient time bad elapsed, no answer or instructions whatever had been received from him, nor from Mrs.Heyliger, nor their son, to both of whom he had likewise given notice; and be verily believed the bail now tendered had not in any way been applied to by the defendant, or au thorised by him. The bail were then called and examined by Mr. BOLLAND ; and, in answer to the questions put to them, stated that they had not been applied to to become bail either by Captain Heyliger or by Mrs. Alchorne, the garnishee ; that Mr. Kipling, residing in Thames-street, had procured them to be bail, as the friend of the defendant, and had undertaken to bear them harmless. They had been introduced to Mrs. Heyliger, since her return from the Continent, by Mr. Kipling's brother, as the persons who had, as he said, so kindly undertaken to become bail in the business. From this examination Mr. HOLLAND contended that, according to the uniform practice in the supe rior Courts, this bail could not be accepted, as it was now in proof that they had no communicationwhat ever with the defendant, and consequently did nut offer themselves to become securities at his instance or by his authority. Mr. NORTON urged the peculiar nature of the foreign attachment a, taking the question out of the reasoning of the rule of the superior Courts. In the superior Courts the defendant had always personal notice of every suit against him, either by arrest or service of the copy of the writ, and consequently can communicate with his intended bail; the offering of bail, therefore, with whom the defendant has had no communication, was upon the very face of it objec tionable and suspicious. But in foreign attachments it is necessarily implied, and indeed generally is the case, that the defendant is out of the kingdom. li: the present instance the defendant is at St. Croix, and his wife in prison in France. How, then, were they to communicate with freemen resident in London ? Indeed, had Captain Ilevliger been upon the spot , he must have employed ' some such friend as Nlr. Kipling to procure bail to these attachments, as, from his hal , its and situation, an Officer of Dragoons, he was not likely to have much acquaintance ith freemen of London. The I rile laid down by his Learned Friend; if strictly acted upon, would there, fore prevent, in most cases; the possibility of giving bail at all. Tile rules of the superior Courts were not necessarily binding, especially tyou a process that has no similarity with any of their proceedings, upon a Court of ,local jurisdiction. In this case the bail were authori,ed by Mrs. Hey lier ;.and a wife, ender such circumstances, ought to be considered as the proper agent of her husband,. especially as the greater part of the property in question consisted-of her own wearing apparel ; and she was ready to swear, if necessary, that she has acted in the arrange ment of her husband's business since his absence, and that he has a just defence to the action. No injury could accrue to. the plaintiffs by accepting the bail; they were acknowledged to be solvent to the amount, and the rapid progress of the proceedings of that Court would render them liable for the payment in a very short space of time in case of a verdict. Mr. HOLLAND, in reply, said the acceptance of bail would place the plaintiffs in a worse situation than they stood at present, inasmuch as they now had their remedy both against the goods and also the person of the defendant ; whereas, if bail were . taken, they would lose one part of their security, viz. the goods, and get the personal remedy only. The COMMON SERJEANT, in giving his judgment, said, that as the rules of that Court differed from those of the common law, it was of importance to take care that they were not improperly extended. The Court was therefore bound in its decisions to keep strictly to the custom. By the custom, the de fendant and the garnishee were entitled to give bail within the space of one year and a day ; even after judgment had, and after the goods had been seized and the appraisement made; and the plaintiffs were bound, upon payment of their claim, to restore the goods or the value to the defendant. The defend ant's claim to give bail, therefore, was undoubted; and the only question was, whether bail was now properly offered. The rule in the superior Courts was for the purpose of preventing improper bail, or such as might be put in for the mere purpose of liti gation. In this case no objection was made to the sufficiency of the bail; and the wife being a party to the transaction, it did not appear to him that the ob, ject was mere litigation. His judgment, therefore was, under all the circumstances, that the bail should be accepted. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, OCTOBER 23. Thomas Mahrtv, James Draper, John Smith, Wil liam Scott, John Barnes, and Mary Plumb, were in dicted for a riot on the night of the 10th of Sep tember. The defendant John Barnes was not pre sent, having been since the disturbance apprehended as a deserter. On the part of the prosecution, about half a dozen watchmen were examined to substantiate the case against the defendants, and it appeared by their evi dence, that a number of dustmen had assembled be tween eleven and twelve o'clock at night, is Bidbury street, Burton-crescent, to celebrate a wedding, and were, according to their own fashion, ringing their dustmens' bells to the great annoyance of the whole neighbourhood. The defendant Mahew was a trades man residing in the Old Bailey, but was present on the occasion. When the watchmen came up, they met with very scurvy treatment. Some were knocked down, and others received very violent blows in va rious parts of their bodies. The female defendant was observed to be peculiarly active in resisting the watchmen : while they sprung their rattles the dust men were ringing their bells, and completely drowned the sound of the rattles. The defendant Scott was heard to say that he would knock (loft the first b—y watchman that offered to interrupt them: The defendant Mahew was particularly active in exhort ing them to resist the watchmen. He said to the ; . dustmen, while the watchmen were ondeacoaring to do their duty, " D—n their eyes, they are alit par cel of old toddlers, pitch it i n to them—you will do for them all in five minutes." At another time he was heard to- say, when the watchmen were drag ging some of the men to the watch-house, " Oh, poor devils, let them go," and pushed among them. — , When the dustmen were in the watch - hous e, Mahew addressed the mob, saying, " D—n your eyes, break the door open, and pull down the watch-house ; you are no men if you don't." There was at that time a great crowd about the watch-house, and Mahew was exhorting them to interfere on behalf of the men. Mr. WALFORD spoke in defence of Mahew, and called three witnesses, who proved that they were present with Mahew on this occasion, and swore that he never used the expressions imputed to him. Mad hew, instead of exhorting the people out of the watch•house, went into it, and remained there for seven or eight minutes. The Jury acquitted Mahew, and found all the other prisoners Guilty. Draper was ordered to be um prisoned for one month, Smith fourteen days, Scott seven days, and the female was discharged on pay ing, a fine of one shilling. Jame& Hootlier, William Hoother, and Mary, his wife, were indicted for an assault on Rebecca Mol loy ; .and Rebecca Molloy, Hannah Abergale, and Mary Seagtave, were indicted for an assault on Mary Iloother. This, it appeared, was a double indictment, in which the ptositutors on both sides were also de fendants. All the parties resided in Ilartshont-court, which has of late been the scene of a deadly feud be tween the 'bothers and the Molloys. The enmity began between them, like most of such hatreds, from a very small beginning. The children of both par ties, who, it seemed, did not inherit the ofl their parents, were playing together in the court. ' Mrs. lioother observed it, and in the presence of Mrs. Molloy, desired her children " not never to play with them there rotten creatures," meaning Mrs. Mol loy's children. At this Mrs. Molloy, usually a placid mild tempered lady, grew irritated, and upon using some harsh language, her antagonist stripped to fight. Matters at length proceeded to a high pitch, and the ladies were separated by their husbands. On account of a misnomer in the indictments, the evidence was not gone through, and of course a ver dict of " Not Guilty" was pronounced against both parties. Thus the Molloys and Floothers were re luctantly compelled to leave the Court as wise as they came, and perhaps a little better friends. Elizabeth Drinkwater was indicted for assaulting Mary Povey, in her dwelling-house. The patties wet e both persons of rather respectable appearance, and were accompanied into Court by great numbers of their female friends. Art s. Povey stated, that on the 10th of September, the defendant came to her house in Bethnal-green, and told her, that she was commanded by the Ma gi:trates to break all the windows in her house, and also to teat- out her liver and murder her. She in qantly proceeded to execute part of her commission by commencing a furious attack on the prosecutrix's windows, and after she had satisfied herself with the performance of the task assigned her on that point, she entered the house, telling the prosecutrix she would then murder her, and immediately commenced a desperate assault on her person. She tore the hair from her head by handfuls, and a beautiful lace cap the prosecutrix wore at the titre, was demo lished on the very first attack. The prosecutrix pro duced the relics of this ill.fated cap, which appeared by her account, and the feelings she evinced, to have been a favourite ornament of her person. The pro secutrix said, it was quite impossible to tell what might have been the consequences of the defendant's fury, had not a lodger in the house come to her re..cue. The prosecutrix was cross-examined by Mr. ALLEY. Pray, Nla'am, did not the defendant go to your house one day and catch her husband in bed with you ? She never did—but she sent me word she would be much obliged to me if I would accommodate him a little—she sent him to me for that purpose !—(The whole court were convulsed with laughter). Mr. ALLEY made a humorous defence for the pri soner; but called no witnesses. The deLndant was found Guilty, and fined 135.4 d. on condition of repairing all the windows. SURREY SESSIONS. John Donovan, a child, aged nine . years, was in dicted for stealing a piece of printed cotton from the shop of Mr. Jersey, linen-draper, Mount -street, Lam beth. The prisoner was seen running down Oakley street, with a bag, and on being stopped, he flung away the cotton, which was picked up by an accom plice, who, on the pursuit becoming hot, dropped it also.—The prisoner acknowledged taking the cot ton, but salt! it was his first offence.—Guilty. The CHAIRMAN said, there could be no doubt he. was leagued with a gang of thieves, and to break the connection, sentenced him to six months' imprison ment, and to be twice privately whipped. Maostox-HousE.—Yesterday, a curious case was heard before the LORD MAYOR.—Henry Levi, a Jew clothesman, of Petticoat-lane, attended the Justice yowl), upon a charge of stealing a coat. He had been in the custody of the Jew constable, Joseph Hyam, the night before ; but -an arrangement took place privately between them, by which the prisoner was left at his liberty for the night, upon the promise to be forthcoming at the proper hour. Before the busi ness of the Justice-room commenced, the accused made his appearance, and the person wt." charged him with the robbery was also in attendance; but the latter was not long in the room when he was ap prehended by Drinkwater, the officer, for a robbery, and handed over by him to Hyam, to be taken care of till the cases should be investigated. As soon as the name of Levi was called, to the astonishment of all, the prosecutor, who was also a Petticoat-lane Jew, was not to be found ; but it was soon ascer tained that his departure had been sanctioned by Hyam, notwithstanding the charge of robbery upon which that constable was bound to detain bim. Levi, no evidence having been brought against him, was discharged, and then the LORD MAYOR immediately turned to the consideration of the constable's conduct, of which he soon received a very extraordinary ac , count. The person who had been just discharged said, that be had been apprehended the night before by Hyam, who told him that if he would give half-a , guinea he should not be locked up. Levi had not , so much money, but he offered all he had (a crown), , *tick was accepted. and be was his own mastcr upon those terms until the next day, when he appeateJ cording to his undertaking. It was the practi ce „c Hyam to dispose of liberty upon coniition s of this kind. Dridkwater, the officer, said, that a m ar , sei . had been in the Justice-room, in the early p al ofthe ° day, pointed out to him the person who c l l .te e d Levi with theft, and called upon him ( U ; to take hini into custody for a robbery. Wicks, did so, and placed him under the care of Hyatt), w h, mitted him to escape. Lewis Lyons states!, th at he was present when Levi paid the as. to Elvana to t e allowed to remain at large till morning. IL declared that it was the notorious practice of Hyam to I m contributions upon pickpockets and other bad 4 ratters, whom he allowed to go about their 1 1 ,4 business for a fee ; that he had been excommunicated from his church ; and that it was the wish of ail de„ cent people that ire should be excommunicated hook the police. Mr. Wontner, the Marshal, s a w, sha i Hyam had no authority whatever to act as constable in the City, and that the sphere of his duti es Was li• mited to the keeping of peace in the Sy waave...... Hyam denied everything of which he was accused; The LORD MAYOR said, it would be imposAme to allow Hyam to act as a constable after having h eti guilty of such conduct, and suspended him. QuEE'SSQU Alt E.—Margaret Dunn, mho wa s Tt , manded on Friday last for tittering counterfeit 140. crowns, was put to the bar in the presence of Nh . Powell, the Solicitor to the Mint; but upon M. Powell's hearing the evidence against the prison ; he declined prosecuting her on behalf of the Mi ry .although it was the opinion of the wog thy Magistr ia (Mr. RA I NsiJRD) that a sufficient case was ni.ide si t to go before a Jury. Indeed, Mr. Powell statediut he had the prisoner at Marlboroughsqreet (Ace the 221.1 of August last for a similar offende. As X, Galton, the person to whom she passed a bad h. crown, declined prosecuting Dunn, she was let Inot once more upon the Public to follow, no doubt,la t usual avocations. Wi/Harz Johnstone, a lad c f about 18 years of age, was brought up by Clark, a constable of Cheists, and placed at the bar for stealing a picture, rep senting a view of Nurernhurg. The prisoner ta stopped by Mr. William Johnston, a cora-Jae, with the painting in his possession. Suspecting th 4 it was stolen from one of his ueighbours, afters, curing the thief, he made inquiry, and found it to belong to Mr. Stacer, of No. '3, Johnstorii.piar e , Thistle-grove, a tenant of his own. The Nlagistrau thanked Mr. Johnston, in the name of the Pu'ulic,for his conduct in securing his namesake, and remittal the prisoner till Friday. WoRSIIIP-STREET.—Jentima Mattison, whotetta. duct we mentioned on a former day, tuiderwentan examination before M. SWABET, :p.n. an..l Jous 3fro wAno, Esquires, and the three boys who weer.* ployed by her to commit felonies were broughtto from the New Prison, Clerkenwell, where they had been detained for the purpose of being witnessesagaiost her. The case excited considerable interest: th e (h. fice was excessively crowded, and among s t othe rs who attended were nine or ten parents who hank their children. The prisoner was placed at the kk, and the three boys were sworn. Little Bailey sa questioned as to his knowledge of the nature do oath. He said he knew if he told a lie he should go to brimstone and fire. In addition to his former nar rative, he stated that he had been off and on, staying with the prisoner, for the last twelve months. It first time he went there, was after playing in the street with one of the prisoner's boys. The prism then told him he might sleep there for three- r encee night, and for the last two months he had sleptthere constantly. He and the others were sent ever) dry under pretence of selling matches and pins, belle prisoner told them to thieve. He had stolen spie and meat at different times; the apples he attire self, but the meat he took home to the prisone.lk remembered stealing a piece of mutton in Spitaifile market, which he took home, and told the proes . he stole it. The prisoner told him to take cent himself, and not get into a hobble. This hawed three weeks ago, and if he went into the marfete should know the shop. The prisoner often toldke to go into the market and steal whatever he call: she had a pack of cards, by which she told for= to people; some she charged twopence, and sc • she charged sixpence, and she could tell the chid: whether they would get niagered when they went to thieve. Frederick Clark said, he was with the boner three nights, and was sent out by her every , to rob. In a short time he robbed three shops: Whitechapel. He remembered a butcher's shcpe the right hand going into Whitechapel, where: stole a heart, liver, and lights, last Wednesday, took them home, for which the prisoner gave he the right of lodging for two weeks. John Clarks little boy, brother to the last witness, said that% was sent out a thieving. The prisoner had twotea of her own, Ben and John. Ben went out and thini every day, but she used to beat John with her 6t and sometimes with a stick, because he v ould . nt go a thieving. In coming to the Office thistnom! the prisoner doubled her fist and threatened the ' dren, and told them to say nothing about the and the cards. John Tyrrell, another little* , whose father had lately delivered him WO, clutches of this monstrous woman, corroboram il; story of the other boys. He said he rernemberea t ; derick Clark bringing home the heart, lira, lights; when the prisoner said, 44 Go out, one raw of you, and see if you can get a bit of sawney, ing a bit of bacon. The prisoner, in her defencerit vied the charge. She said she was an unfottn ua woman, and she took the children in out of cht . O. She was committed to take her trial for the visa meanour in receiving stolen goods ; and the 1e were committed to Coldbath-fields, to be prorlas as witnesses against her. When she was renal' from the Bar, she lamented her fate, .but her 1 . 10 0 . , tations were instantly lost, amidst the execr ato° those who had lost their children. MARRIED. On Saturday, the 20th instant, at Cheltenham, geo, Esq. to Frances, daughter of the late Fleetwood mu — Esq. of Ripple, in the County of Worcester. DIED. On the 21st instant, in the bloom of life, and most lamented by her friends and relatives, Miss Osborn, dos' Mr. P. Osborn, of ATEIt at 1.0 hi DUN BIL10 55 1 1 " )41 ,. °8 1: Idurning - 31 annum Wei Afternoon • 1 . 0 X) ; Aimed end published hi Lyra lilm/s PP" ivnp!irlim•