Star. — London, England, 1810-07-19 00:00:00

NA FA L IitrTELLIGENCIL PLYMOUTH, JULY 17. The ESPIEGLE sloop, with the Marquis of EUTE'S luggage, and Commissioner FANSIIAWE'S yacht, with the Marquis and family, sailed this afternoon, for Sidmouth.—The LAVINIA frigate, Lord WILLIAM s T vAaT, sailed this afternoon, with several officers on board, to join the British forces at Cadiz and in Portugal. The LAVINIA also took several victuallers under convoy. The LAVINIA and the yacht both went out of the harbour together, and parted off the 11/41ew.stone, when Lord WILLIAM STUART saluted ills father, the Marquis of BUTE, with 14 guns. PORTSMOUTH, JULY 18. Arrived the FLY sloop of war, with about ten sail ender c onvoy from the Downs, among them is the ; Town AVILLI.‘m, for India, Arrived from the East• ward his Majesty's ships, IcAyt3Anon, KITE, Gos //Amu, rumors, and PutPrs schooner, Passed by, a Sea of transports from Harwich for Cork, with troops on board. Sailed the SCYLLA sloop of war, with a convoy for the Downs ; also about 7 sail of vessels to join the fleet for Cadiz. The BovNE is preparing for a state of ordinary ; the HIBERNIA and NORTHUMBERLAND are in dock getting repairs. The Chichester store ship sails to-morrow, 'with the LION man of war, having the PERSIAN Aar i i AssAnort on board, for the East•lndies. • DEAL, JULY IS. Arrived the VENERABLE man of war, Rear Admi ral Sir THOMAS WILLIAM% from a cruize off Flush-, ing ; fiemaEn armed ship with a convoy from Fal mouth, and are sailed for different destinations ; and the RINALDO sloop of war from a cruize. Sailed the TRINCULO sloop of war with several transports for Portsmouth.—Wind E. GREENOCIt, JULY 16. The Amphitrite, IZERT ) arrived here on Saturday from Pictou, in 33 days ; she left the Favourite, Dux. t Axsos (which vessel passed for Port Glasgow yes. terclay morning), and Graces, —, both loading for Cycic. Spoke, on the 14th June, the Collingwood, G it uißts.r, of this port, from Fayal, bound for Que- Ivc.-..The Jane, MeEwFw, from Malta, passed on Isiiday for Fort Glasgow, from quarantine station. ABERDEEN, JULY 14. A brig, belonging to Newcastle, yesterday pasted through the bay, and reports, that they parted, about three weeks ago), with (se brig Fever. Sisters, of this place, on her homeward passage frcri America. liy a letter from Peterhead, we learn, that the brig Hope, SANGF•TER, of that place, was arrived. off Rattrayhead, froth Greenland, with 17 fish, a full ship; and that the above vessel left the Enterprize, VoLust, with 13 fish, and had seen, about al Month ago, the Active, also of Peterhead, with 10 fish. By the Resolution of Whitby, which passed this place yt ster day, a full ship from Greenland. we learn, that the Neptune, Jame 50N, of this place, had five fish early in the season ; the La tma, HasstsoN, seven fish on the 21st, and the Jane, JA NILSON, ten fish on the lune ; and the fishing was reported to be ge n6...fly good. The Resolution had on board part of the crew of the Rodney of Dundee, which vessel, after haviree five fish, was suiforttmately lost among the ice.—The crew saved. A boat from the Royal Bounty of Leith reports, that the Her eules, GIBBON, of this place, was making off her tenth fish early In lune. FROM LLOYD'S LIST. GRAVFSLNP, het 18.—Arrived the Mary Ann, (lamer, from Amelia Islands; Swallow, Wheatley, from Mogadore ; Coiling word, Webster, Isom Newfoundland ; and ;he London Packet, Holum, from Oporto. No vessels sailed to-day. The VENGEurt, a new 71, built at Harwich, has proceeded up the Liver Medway for Chatham. His Majesty's ships Donis and PSYCHE have cap tured in the China Seas the Dutch annual Japan ship oiled the Rebecca, she had on board the Dutch Re sident for Japan. The PsvcirE had arrived at Co. limbo with her prize, in January, when the Rebecca was to sail for Bombay for adjudication. The OWEN GLENDOWER frigate has arrived at Quebec, with a fleet from Portsmouth. The Ann, VAIH.EV, from Liverpool, has arrived at Quebec, with damage. The Arnistad, —, from Spain to Vera Crnz, has teen taken by the Superieure French privateer, plun ckred, and given up. Were we to form an opinion of the number of fa shionables in Town, by the nightly display of corn pray at Astley's Amphitheatre, we might be led to believe that very few of the Nobility have as yet left it: convinced, however, from circumstances, to the contrary, we must attribute the appearance of such as are still in the Metropolis to be attracted every evening to this place, to nothing else but the superio rity of the entertainments, led on by the Blood-Red Knight, and the new pantomime of the Judgment of Tuesday night as Mr. DESIIAYFA was commencing the Pas de 7.ois, in the Ballet with Mesdames CLAM and Desnal•E.s, his font turned under him. He ap peared at the moment in excessive pain, and, after some ineffectual attempts to walk, was obliged to be carried off the stage. A BLIND PEDESTRTAX.—Yesterday, a poor blind man, for a wager of 7s. undertook to walk six miles in an hour and a half. He started at eight o'clock, 'A the Fulham road, conducted by a faithful dog, !sing one mile out' and one mile in, and completed his undertaking in an hour and a quarter, to the great surprise of those who were present, amongst whom a sum of 40s. was readily collected and given to him. In the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday, a !traw-hat manufacturer, of the name of Hewlings, re covered fifty pounds damages against Giller, the land lord of the Ball-faced Stag, on Finchley Common. The plaintiff and a friend were snipe -shooting, in Ja nuary last, on the Common, and about eight o'clock at night applied at the Defendant's house for beds and supper. This acctimmodation, due by law► to all tra veller", they were not only refused, but sent to High gate watch-house for the night. Persons who are anxious to obtain anyirmicular Numbers in the present Lottery, should make im- I mediate application, otherwise it is more than pro-'t bable that the Numbers they want will be issued from the Bank, as the demand for Tickets and Shares is daily increasing. LAID tYPELLICSIOI, COURT Ol? ICING'S BENCH, JULY 17. LOVELL V. WALLER. The ArfOnNEY-GEsERAL stated this to be an action brought by the Proprietor of the Statesthan News paper, against a News-Vender, for substituting and tit cnlating another evening paper, called the Alfred, among persons who had ordered, and were in the ha bit of taking in the Statesman Newspaper. In the particular case on which this action was founded, the damage sustained was very insignificant in itself, but the principle at issue was of considerable importance to Newspaper Proprietors, in a general view for if the News-venders were to be permitted to circulate one paper instead of another which they were com missioned to send, the interests of the latter would not only be so far injured, but also in another point of view, by having a rival established on its own loss. The circumstances of the case were shortly these : the Statesman some time ago belonged to a number of proprietors, but Mr. Lovell at last became the sole proprietor, and one of his antagonists, who had left the Statesman, lately set up the Alfred, whiCh thus became a kind of opposition newspaper to that which was conducted by his client. Before this separation of interests had taken place, a Mr. Horsley, of Canter bury, happening to be in London, had ordered the . Statesman of Mr. Lovell, who, according to the cus tom of the trade, desired Waller, a News-vender, to send the Statesman to... Mr. Horsley, at Canterbury. In cases of this sort, the profit of News-vender arises. fro:li this, that he has an allowance of three half-pence , per paper, according to the custom of the trade, which, allowance he receives from the Proprietor. The Neves-vender has the full price from the person to whom the paper ie sent, and thus. receives a profit of three , half-pence for every paper he thus circulates.— For a considerable time Mr. Horsley received the Statesman regularly,bnt at last he received the Alfred, which he at first thought might proceed from a mis• take ; but as this substitution went on for some time, he was convinced it must be by design ; and Mr. Horsley having occasion to come up to town about the 19th of May last, complained to Mr. Lovell that his paper was changed. That Gentleman, of course, exptessed his surprise at the circumstance to Mr. Waller, the News-vender, who made, some fri volous excuse, which it was unnecessary to mention ; and it was for the injury which he had thus received that Mr. Lovell now sought compensation in a Court of Justice. In the present case, however, his client wanted only nominal damages ; for he brought this action rather to stop a practice on the part of the Newsmen, which ought not to be endured, and to establish a general principle on the subject, than with. any other motive. Josiah Ryder was then called, who said he was Printer, and occasionally Publisherof the Statesman. He understood Mr. Lovell to be the proprietor of that papor. On being cross examined by Mr. GARROW, witness said he acted as a kind of clerk in the office, awl that though Mr. Lovell's name stands as Printer, Publisher, and Proprietor, yet that a Mr IsKardell was in fact the printer. Sometimes they sold papers from the press, to chance customers; did not gene rally refuse newspapers to chance customers. . Q. Did not your regular customers, the News venders, complain of your paper being kept so late, that they could not get it in time for the Post-office ? —A. Only once or twice there were complaints of this kind ;, once during the 0. P. business, and aim. ther time, about Sir F. Burdett's procession. With these exceptions, the paper was always time enough for the News-venders. William Horsley proved the circumstance of his having ordered the Statesmal ; of his having-received a letter from the defendant, as news-vender, asking for his reference in town for security of payment; and also the circumstance of the Statesman being changed for the Alfred, which he had complained of to Mr. Lovell. Mr. Gannow then addressed the Jury. He sub mitted that there was no proof of any undertaking of Waller to Lovell . to send the Statesman, and there fore the plaintiff must he nonsuited, es Horsley alone had ground of complaint against his client. At the commencement of a new paper, nothing was more common than to send it round to different people.— lie himself recollected having received the Alfred in this way, containing a long , dissertation of that politi calc, veteran, Major Cartwright. Lord ELLENBOROCCII thought, that from Waller's letter to Horsley, in which he seemed to say, " Your order for the Statesman is given over by the Proprietor for me to execute," there appeared an implied con tract that Waller should send that paper ; and if the Jury were satisfied that Waller substituted the other paper of his own accord in the room of it, then the plaintiff would be entitled to the nominal damages which he sought by the present action. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is. JULY 18.—wir.zaa11s v. •CALLENDER• This was an action of damages for a libel. The circumstances of the case were briefly as follow : The plaintiff, an Attorney in Monmouth, and posses ' sing a large fortune and extensive family connection in the shire, had been the confidential adviser of ii person of the name of Jones in his neighbourhood. Jones fell into misfortunes, and applied to the plein. tiff to point oar, a way in which he might liquidate the demands upon him. In consequence of the advice which be then received, his family property was sold, and he left the country. Jones happening subsequently to meet with Mr. Hill, a Chancery Solicitor, at Mar gate, was induced to commence an action, for the value of a bond which had been given to him in part payment for his estate. For the purpose of deter ring him from suing on the bond, he was threatened with a Commission of Bankruptcy. He persisted ; the Commission was obtained, and he was stripped of whatever property had remained to him. In consequence of some further investigation, this Commission was superseded by the Chancellor's Order, and leave given to bring an action against the plaintiff for the part which he took in the transaction. —A pamphlet was published, purporting to be a re port of the trial in the Court o f Ch ancer y. This publication charged the plaintiff in the present cause, with a tissue of fraud and treachery of the grossest na ture, representing him as having been the teal purcha ser of Jones's estate, under another name, and at a depressed value, at a moment when he was the At torney of that unfortunate man; and afterwards, when the bond for £3OO, was required to be paid, tcrrifyingJones by thratelliss to strip him of his last 0111i* by a iOMMissiott of bankruptcy, pressing that 1 commission by swearing to debts that had neves ex isted, and at once perjuring himself, and suborning perjury. This pamphlet was published in London, in May 1809, with a frontispiece, representing Jones's wife and children returning thanks to Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Hill the Attorneyovho gained their cause in the Court of Chancery. In the back ground there were sketched three figures, representing Mr. Williams, and his two suLordinate agents ih the tran saction, carried by the devil, in regular progression, from the court to the gallows, and from the gallows to hell. This pamphlet was published in May. In June,l Mr. Callender, also an Attorney in Monmouthshire, ordered down a parcel of the copies, and distributed them through Monmouthshire, some .of them illus trated with marginal references ; such as " The ras cal who did this ought to be driven from society."—; " Mr. Williams the Attorney who ruined poor Jones has now nothing to do but to put a pistol to his head." The rest were sent where they were most likely to prejudice the Plaintiff. For this act of circulating the work, the action was brought. A vast variety of evidence was gone into to prove the allegations of the libel, but the particulars %vett' too unimportant to the general merits o 1 the cause to be worth detailing. • After an excellent speech from Mr. Scrjeant CFST, for the Defendant, and an acute and pointed reply from the A rroirs G , :x rata L, Lord ELLENBOItOCGII recommended it to the Jury to find a verdict for the Plaintiff; at the same time admitting the force of the evidence which was brought to prove the truth of the statements in the pamphlet. The Jury, without leav ing the box, brought in a verdict for the Plaintiff.— , Damages £lOO. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 17. LUCAS v. WILLAN. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who had been a passenger in the Pilot, Liverpool stage coach, belonging to the defendant, and had had his thigh broken in consequence of the coach having bro ken down. The plaintiff alledged the injury to have taken place from the double negligence of the defen dant ; first, in provid;ng a bad axletree to his coach, and next, in employing a careless driver. Mr. Hickman, who was a passenger when the accident happened, deposed, that it took place about MO miles from London, at the foot of a steep ', hill, where a rail-way intersected the road ; rain had fallen, and the iron of the rail-way projected near' two inches above the surface of the road. He warned the coachman, when going down the hill, that he was driving too fast, but the coachman laughed at him, land asked him it he was frightened ? the coach jolted ' severely over the iron rail-way, and the axletree snap ped : the plaintiff had his thigh broken. . Taylor, a country blacksmith, had examined the axle after the accident, it was broken about a foot from the shoulder. Serjeant VAUGHAN—" By your oath, Sir, were you not drunk when you examined it ?" Sir JAMES MANSFIELD---." Indeed I think, brother, if he was drunk you could scarcely expect him to re member it : you had better ask somebody else the 'question ?" The Surgeon, who attended the plaintiff, was of f opinion that, from a curvature in the bone, the broken ,`thigh would be always shorter than the sound .bne,„ ao that he would be lame all his life. Serjeant SHEPHERD, as Counsel for the defendant, contended, that unless there was some negligence proved against a Coach Proprietor, he was not to be made responsible for any casual accident that might occur to his coaches. If such accident could fairly be imputed to the Proprietor's want of attention, un doubtedly he ought to suffer, but not otherwise. It very frequently happened that coaches, belonging to ,private gentlemen, made with the greatest care, and purchased at great expence, met with accidents which it was impossible either to foresee or guard against.— If such was the case with regard to them, it was doubly probable in stage coaches which went constant journies, and carried both luggage and passengers.-- Modern coaches were very liable, from their construc tion, to accidents. Every one knew that since the war it was difficult to get as good iron as formerly, and necessary to use even what we had sparingly. Sir Jamas MANSFIELD-- 44 Indeed I, for one, know no such thing. I have even heard the contrary. Since the war there has been much good iron discovered in England." Serjeant SIIEPHERD-..." I know, my Lord, a coach maker once gave me that as a reason for the badness .of a coach he made." Sir JAMES MANSWIELD — " Very likely he did, bro ther, but you should not have believed it." Serjeant SHEPHERD declared, that let that be as it might, still he would prove all that was necessary in the present instance—he would prove that not only there was no negligence imputable to Mr. Willan, but that every day a man Is - as especially appointed to inspect the coaches, and see that they were fit to per form their journey : if he did this, he hoped the Jury and his Lordship would be of opinion that his client was not legally responsible for the effects of an.acci. dent, which it was not in his power to prevent. Captain Trotter was a passenger in the coach from London : the coaehman, in his opinion, conducted himself remarkably well. He attributed the accident entirely to the raihray at the foot of the hill. He examined the axle after it had been broken ; it did not seem to have suffered any former accident. He was a Sea Captain. Before the break down, the coach had unloaded some of the cargo. ----, a wheelwright, proved his being employed br Mr. Willan to inspect all the coaches previous to their departure on a journey ; he inspected 70 in a week It the Pilot had appeared at all unsound, he would have ordered it to be laid aside, and have sent another coach in its place. J. Short was also appointed to inspect the coaches; the was positive he inspected the Pilot, and that it was : fit to go any journey.. , --(This witness was very per- I plezed in his evidence : he said the accident happened in January, though it took place in November.) Valentine Hallam was guard to the Pilot ; it was quite a new coach. and had no flaw whatever. Tne driver was as good AS any man on the road ; he was I driving down, the hill at the rate of ;even or eight miles tn hour. The evidence was here closed ; and Serjeant LENS having replied, j Sir JAWS MANSEIELTI proceeded to comment on the evidence. In case a carrier took charge of foods, he tea, petsd nally ielponsibie for theft) if should he lost, no matter whether throne his carelessness not ; if he even deposited them in a place of safety,. he thought, and that it happened theywere stolen fbom thence, he would be li.tble. In short, the law exempt a! him in no case, exeept where the visitation of Penvt- ARNCE, or the unavoidable violence of an enemy inter. fered. With respect to a Coach Proprietor,the case wat different—he was not responsible, unless he was neidi geol. It was not, however, necessary for a plaintiff , spew that the Proprietor omitted to have his coaches daily examined. If it appeared that on the departure - the coach there was a - manifest probability that the coach would break dawn, he was liable : I e was also liable to the consequences of his driver's carelessness' on the road. The present complaint was of a mixed nature—it first objected to the weakness of the ail , tree, and next to the negligence of the driver. If the Jury should think, from what they had heard, that the axle wat naturally unfit to bear the j( •1t over the raj) way, which jolt was to be expected, because the ex istence of the railway was as well knows to the drivel% as the existence of any turnpike -gate on the road, and should have of course been provided against, they would find for the Plaintiff. They had heard the _driver was going down the hill at the rate of seven . eight miles an hour, and that he was warned he was ' driving too fast, but he disregarded the admonition. If then they thought the accident might have been prevented ly the driver's going more slowly, or p: ting a drag en his wheel, they would also find for thp Plaintiff ; they would give him whatever damages they might consider due to him, blth for his surgi: expences and personal injury.—Verdict for the Min tiff—Damages £120,-40s. costs. IVAItIVICK SESSIOYS. At the Midsummer General Quarter Sessions the County of'Varwick, held on Tuesday and Wed. nesday last week, JQ:eph Fdlowt, a decent looki man, was indicted for having, on the 30th of M. last, unlawfully endeavoured, by words and gestures, to excite divers of his Majestv's liege subjects to ri, against the King's peace. The only witness •agaii, the prisoner was Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon. H stated, that on the evening of the 30th of May las about ten o'clock, he observed a great number people collected together it the corner of Tempi , t: - eet, Birmingham ; he heard one man harangui; the mob, and speaking very loud ; he heard the pri sonar say—" I can earn five and twenty shillings , Ae.,k, and that is not sufficient to support me ;" I prisoner then said something about a shilling or teen pence, alluding to the use of vegetables, he lieved, but which he did not perfectly hear, and ad ded, (addressing himself to the people) " you must right yourselves, and now is the time." The Colonel then pressed through the mob, and seized the prisoner by the collar. The prisoner at first consented to b with the witness, but a man and woman interfered, and attempted a rescue. In the scuffle the Co. lonel received a violent blow on the temple by a large stone, which at first stunned him ; he, however, kept his hold, and some of the peace officers coming to 1- • assistance, Fellows was immediately taken before Magistrates, the witness never quitting bold of 'prisoner all the time. , On his cross examination witness said, the prisoner was standing on the curb stone, about eight inches higher than the rest of , street ' • the words spoken by the prisoner were as h had before stated, or words to that effect ; the prisos tier appeared to have been drinking, but he was sober enough to know what he was about. Mr. REYNOLDS, Counsel for the prisoner, took exception to that count in the indictment, charging ltis dent with sedition, on the ground that the words were not positively and expressly stated ; but , objection was ever-ruled by the Court. Mr. MAURICE, for the prosecution, in a very abi address, called for judgment upon the prisoner, who, he insisted, deserved the mrs: exemplary punishment. Mr. REYNOLDS, in a most eloquent and impressive speech, addressed the Jury in reply. The CHAIRNIAN, with his usual accuracy and ca r. dour, summed u, the evidence to the Jury, who, after consulting for a short time, returned a verdict of C uilty. STAFFORDSHIRE MIDSUMMER SESSIO, RIOT AT WOLVERIIAMI'VON.—Mr. FULLER 01 e the cause on the part of the prosecution ; stated • the Jury the relative situations of the prisoners ; urged the dangerous tendency of their conduct. then examined the evidence. R. Smith, Esq. Captain in the Western Regiment of Local Militia, then on duty in Wolverhampton, deposed that the prisoners pulled down the stands in the market, and committed various outrages. Cross-examined Ly Mr. CLIFFORD. Mr. C. wished to know what a riot was s Depo nent conceived it to be a number of persons assem• bled for purposes of mischief. Observed Ellis, - of the Local Militia, to be pkrticularly active. Mr. Tomkinson deposed to the riotous behavii of the prisoners. Sir J. WROTTESLET, Bart.Tecommending the a wittess to be dispensed with, to shorten the case, Mr. CLIFFORD arose, and made some general nervations, with a view to shorten the case still ther. He said, that he had lately read in a pamphlet, that he hirnseY was considered as an excellent lea(' of a riot. He, however, had never led any party he guilty of a breach of the peace. He perceived ' he could not co.strovert the present case ; he adni the riot ; and as the object, on the Ort of the prose cution, was to prove that the law was strong en( to punish sech outrages, so he hoped they woult. forget another beauty of the British Constitution— that in the dispensation ofjustice, it was merciful. After a few words from the CIIAIRNI IN, the as directed, returned a verdict of Guly. Mr. CLIFFoRD being only retained as counsel Stabs and Ellis, the others were put urn their Mary Havre: pleaded guilty; the other two, Con and Joseph Hall, after a shun examination, were , wise found guilty. The Learned CHAIRMAN, on passing the sentences animadverted upon the wickedness of !he offeace.- He then ordered that Ellis (of the Local Minh) Mary Haynes be imprisoned six months, ;tad kept hard labour; and to give security for their t, good behaviour. Cockayne, Stubbs and Hall, imprisoned three months, and to find security; , to remain in prison till such security be giveq. ;old Is or ►, at loom stem )vt. ter. was •r. to :hes e of the also less zed :le. the the mil. ex. i vet% and hey the I or was ion. een put- . thp ►ges ical Ain. for red. ring 61.iy ires, riot, • inst He ▪ of ling Pri• gs a the • fif. be- ad. , 1 oust onel oner o go Co. arge kept D his e the the the ;urb. . F the is he ►riso• sober ik an .ging ►ords ; the able who, nent. :sive • can. after F Not ONS. e led ed to and He iment ipton, dings Depo. sscm- ;, one • tviour above al ob. 11 fur- iphkt, leader irty to .d that mined prose- • nough ld not tion— Jury, :el for r trial. ckeryite e tike• :cnces, :Mee ►) and :ept to t ut nye t•o be ' ; and •