Star. — London, England, 1822-11-21 00:00:00

LODGINGS IN EIHNBURGH. When looking for lodgings, a stranger will see Smne custom sacraria to a Soutbrun like me. law 4 1 Lodgings" put up, and began to explore A dirty 'stone staircase; and came to a door, With a name and a bell and a scraper complete, 'Like the doors which In England we have in the street). .--rung—and was told there were lodgings NEST DOOR, S 4 I turti'd, and went down the stone staircase once more; And I search'd the wart noun for these lodgings of theien, But discover'd at length that NEXT nooa meant ur STAIRS; And on the next story I speedily came, To another street door with bell, scraper, and ;lame ; And if you go up eight or nine stories more, Each has scraper, a‘il bell, and a perfect street door! This custom at first could not fail to create a Great marvel in nte l for they all live in STRATA I . Oue over another from bottom to top, .trd beginning below with a stratum of shop! And the mixture is such that we often may see an Undoubted pure stratum, 'twist strata plebeian : You may call on a friend of some ton, and discover him, With a shoemaker yenta, and a staymaker over him ! My dwelling seams with a perriwig maker, I'm CINDER a corneutter, OVER a baker ; Above the chiropodist, cookery too ; O'ER THAT is a Lutidress, O'ER HER is a Jew; A painter, and tailor, divide the EIGHTH fl.tt. And a dariting academy thrives . oven THAT ; We'll leave HIGHER CIRCLIS unnam'd :—Vother night 'My landlady enter'd my room in a fright, And cried, half in tears, with a face full of woe, " Your lurn's in a low, Sir, your lum's in a low • 1" Plaugh'd in her face, for her hasty oration, To me, had convey'd very small information; Indignant she havdd, when she saw that I laugh'd, " Your foolish—your lutun's in a low—the mart's daft! d' The baker ! the oven !"—I now comprehended, And join'd in the cry ere the uproar was ended, ."The baker ! the oven ! oh, oh! is it so? 'Ay chimney's on fire! my lumps in a low !" • Your chimney's on fire. LAW INTELLIGENCE. • • COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER !O. BEER V. WARD. Mr.Ntirrn enELL resumed the argument in this case. He proposed to address himself rather to the difticul.: t es suggested by his Lordship than to the arguments upon the other side for a new trial. The LORD,CHANCELLOR begged he should not he understood to speak with severity of the arrangements of the parties. They might have properly laid their heads together in order to keep out so formidable an enemy as the Crown. But the question :nosy was, that he was to do when the circumstances came to his knowledge? Mr. WETHERELL argued at length that Mr. Ward had only continned to act as the Rev. Evelin Row land Cotton had acted before—as committee and re •ceiver on the lunatic's estates. 'Was it to be said that Mr. Ward was to be stripped of his property pro salute oni , ttee ? A new trial was not surely to be granted on the ground of imputed delinquency in matters in which the parties on the other site were ten times more delinquent? It was proved that the issue tried had been the choice of the parties, who all preferred an issue to an ejectment. The issue had been the act of the Court, as well as of the Counsel. At the time of the issue, too, Mr. Ward had been abstracted from every circumstance of connexion with the estates, and another receiver had been appointed. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the Attor ney-General had notice of this motion ? Mr. SHADWELL said he had not, but the Attorney- General would not be for a new trial when the ver dict was substantially for the Crown. Loan CIIANCELLOR.—I am not sure of that : but, for aught I know to the contrary, he may be with you. Mr. WETHERELL continued.—lt would be a viola tion of all the laws of the land, if, for an offence which might be penally or criminally visited, Mr. Ward should be punished otherwise than by fine or criminal prosecution. Ile was not to be robbed cf 2,0001. a year because he had suffered the estates to he mana ged as they had been under the Rev. Evc!in Rowland Cotton. How could a new trial then be granted?-- Why punish him, and not others? If his Lordship could not punish impartially and indiscriminately, he would not punish at all. The LORD CrtaNcEr.r.on.—Mr. Wetherell takes a view of the case very different from any I take of it. —lt is not as a punishment that any course is to be taken. From the year 1796 the estates . of the lunatic were committed to Mr. Ward. During all that time the persons next of kin were represented to the Master with Mr. Ward's knowledge and acquiescence. In. ordinary cases he would be told, .when the lunatic I , died that there was an end of his office of receiver. It is not the rights of parties that the Court has here. To consider, but the pi inciples on which the ;Jail's of lunatics can be securely administered. en() difficulty had arisen, the estates would, of course, have been • - delivered to the next of kin as soon as the lunatic died. I speak of Mr. Wetherell, I need not say, with affec tionate respect from circumstances,of past life ; but whether a new trial ought or ought not to be granted, is not the mode of arguing this question. It is with the view of arriving at the right conclusion on this point that 1 wish the Attorney• General, not only Co have notice, but at my desire to consider what he is to do in this case. If he say that it is not the interest of the Crown to interfere, it n ill be foe the Court to consider what is fit to be done. Whatever the result: may be, or in whatever mode the Court may part with the cause, it will be necessary to guard it from becoming a precedent. For that reason IE wish the Attorney-General to have notice. Mr. SHADWELL said he should address his Lord ship now on the same side, but as Mr. Serjeant Bo sanquet was kept therefrom his own Court, his Lord ship would perhaps hear him next. The Lotto CHANCELLOR readily consented. Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET said• he would not pre sume to interfere with die forms of Chancery, or the law of lunatics, but would only offer a few obser vations on the motion for a new trial. On this part of the subject Messrs. Scarlett and Wetherell bad left him little to say. The Solicitor-General had made an impression as if many important documents had been withheld at the trial, and particularly two affi-' davits, ane by Mrs. Rebecca Cotton, the other by the Rev. Evelin Cotton ; but he would read them tohis Lordship to shew their total irrelevancy; the former, respecting the perfect satisfaction of all parties with the settlement of the lunatic's affairs in MO,: on the death of his father. The latter stated that the com- . . _ . 1 . died i 1 N'orieict ) Abts,:latf altAl a bid'Utitt made! mission..and inquisition of -htnacy bad been in the 10- 1 natic's father's life-time, and that the lunatic was re• .on the partof the executor, bat there were bona. no- 1 ocinized then as next of kin to his father. ' • nter g I tobilia suitcteni in tooth . , cltfte l es,".nini efediti'withht the province of Caturi, to fistind 'the jUritd* tion . - The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that was evidence of re putation. , . .1 of this Coutt. In the: meantime the ettentinu had ; been subjected to varitini expenses consequent on the Mr. Serjeant BOSANQurr admitted that it was, and i caveat of the inferior Court. Tht I.eartted Counsel' had been so argued on at the trial; fOr thEcommission ' submitted that the A'rclideacon onfOrtvlch . onght to and inquisition had been produced , and therefore the be condemned in the Costs of all the proceedints con affidavn of grelin Cotton could be of no use. The 1 sequent on the eitirj , of the caveat, which he had since expressed his w !review° withdraw. Dr. LUSHINGTON, who was instructed to appear on behalf of the Archdeacon, trusted 'that the Court mould not make such i'dectee, when it considirtd . the difficulty whicitthe lades of infetiOtlitrisdictibtis' experienced in discriminating, in cases like the pre= sent, between those which were within their own cog nizance legally, and those whiCii' appettaihed to higher Courts. Dr. JESNER contended, that if every country juris diction was permitted with impunity to obstruct, by i the entry of caveats, probates from passing the seal of this Court, upon frivolous or erroneous pretences, the vexations and charges which would accrue to ex ecutors . s:vould be enormous. Sir JoHN Nicnot.s. said, that he should not take up the matter with any regard to the question of ex penses incurred by reason of the Archdeacon's assum ing that his Court had jurisdiction. All that the executor had to do in that case was, to appear and make affidavit that there were bona omtabilia in this province. . The great ground of objection was, that the At chdeacon had entered his caveat in this Court. If this were passed over, every administration might be liable to be obstructed by the inferior jurisdictions from passing the seal of the superior Court. Lest such a case should grow into a precedent, the Court felt itself bound to decree the expenses as against the Archdeacon of Norwich. BROWNE AGAINST gOATES. The facts - of this case, and out of which the pre sent application arises, are briefly these:—Some time since, a Mr. Browne, of Hereford, died, leaving be hind him a will, in which his son, Mr. F. H. Browne, party in this cause, was nominated residuary legatee. The will being in the possession of Mr. Coates, an attorney of Hereford, a suit was commenced in this Court by Mr. F. H. Browne's suing for a monition, calling on Mr. Coates to bring the will into the Re gistry. The will being brought in (and the surviving executor having renounced), Mr. Coates applied for the administration, with the will annexed, as a cre ditor of the deceased. On behalf of Mr. Browne, it was proved, that besides being residuary legatee, he was also a creditor of bis late father both by specialty and on bond ; and this Court decreed admiuistration to be granted to him, with costs, as against Mr. Coates. Those costs not having been paid, applica tion has • been made for a new monition against Mr. Castes, On the ground of their non-payment. Dr. J. ADAMS stated, that in this case the Conn, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, had thought fit to con demn Mr. Coates in costs. He was very far from complaining of that determination ; but in the act on petition which had been brought in, the Court would find, that subsequently to irs decree, Mr. Browne had entered into a deed of covenant with Mr. Coates, by which he specifically engaged not to go for his costs; to hold Mr. Coates harmless from all claim of the cost on his own part, under a penalty of £5OO. Now, though the law, therefore, in this case might be against Mr. Coates, yet the equity was with him ; and by the present application the Court was prayed, not certainly to condemn Browne in costs, but not to 'pronounce (since Browne, notwithstanding the deed, had chosen to go for them) that Mr. Coates was in contempt for not paying his costs. Dr. LUSHINGTON protested that, as far as he knew, the present application was without any precedent whatever. Here, on the one hand, was Mr. Coates, a solicitor, and alleging himself to be a creditor of the deceased ; on the other, Mr. Browne, the son of the deceased, the residuary legatee, and a creditor also both by specialty and in bond. The Court had already decided, as the known law on the subject must have induced it to do, that Mr. Browne had the preferable claim to-take the administration. The deceased died in February, 18'20; and, for some reason or other, best known to Mr. Coates, Browne never got possession of the will till September follow. ing. This Court issued a monition for its produc tion ; but Mr. Coates, instead of giving it up, took out a new monition in the Court of Hereford. On the 18th of July, 1821, however, this Court made a decree that there were bona notabilia within the pro vince, and for payment of costs. An appeal to the Delegates was entered from this Court, in January, 18'22 (and the Learned Counsel implored the Court to watch these transactions narrowly, as proving the most fraudulent conduct on Mr. Coates's part, in re spect of the deed); a deed of agreement, drawn up as between these parties, and prepared in Coates s office by his own clerk, was executed by Mr. Browne, he being a farmerohe other a solicitor. In Feb. 1522 Browne appeared before the Delegates to the cita tion and inhibition; the appeal was dismissed, and the Delegates were on the point of decreeing costs, when they were stayed by an intimation that an act on pe tition in this Court had been agreed to, andvras now pending in this Court. But supposing for a moment that the Court could by possibility pronounce on a deed of covenant like the one produced, in order to prove the compromise, could the Court for one mo ment be deceived by so palpably frauduletti a compact? Advantage had been taken of Mr. Browne's ignorance, in a way the most disgraceful to • the chat acter of a professional man; and he (Dr. Lushington) seeing , how this act had been written and re-written to, and how vexatious had been the proceedings of the other side, must express his wonder that any practitioner in the Commons could consent to give his support, ov, countenance, or sanction, to a case that he must, know to be unjust, and to statements that he must be aware were nut founded ie. strictness or truth. This, deed began by a recital that was false as-to the ante., rior proceedings in this Court, and it purported to be between, on the one part, Mr. Coates, and on the other, Mr. Browne, and two sureties in the penalty of £500; the latter engaging, without even the men tion of a single good or valuable considerition as pais" to himself, to give up, in fact, his claim on Coates for the costs. Mr. Browne now alleged that this deed was obtained ft orn him ou alsesuggestions ; and, in fact, who ivould deny that there was. fraud on the face of it ? But the Court, he must well know, could have nothing to do with such a doed. IL . it real estates must have come ` by a deed of settlement to the Rev. E. R. Cotton, so that no escheat of real property could take place. The head and front of Mr. Ward's offending was, that he had not informed against his . mother and his aubts. The LORD CII'OItELLOR, at the rising of the Court, intimated that he world heat Motions to-morrow, and could not' ow flit a day for the further hearing of this cause. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 20. MOONS V. BERNALES. Mr. KNIGHT, for the plaintiff, stated that this was' a bill filed against the defendant for the production ler accounts. The following facts were stated Vy the Learned Gentleman:—ln the year 1793, Servals Kaison, a woollen manufacturer at Verviers, in the territory of Liege, in Fhinders, established a corres pondence in trade with Saturnino Domine, a Spanish merchant at Seville, relative to the shipment of Spanish Wool to the former country. On the 13th of September, Saturnino Domine shipped 35 bales of wool on board of a Genoese vessel called the Caul)°, lican, then at Cadiz, bound for Ostend, in order that it (the wool) might be consigned to his correspondent Kaison. Saturnino Domine immediately wrote to Kaison to inform him of the shipment. and Kaison, upon the receipt of the letter, sent back the price of the rods. In consequence of the Genoese Govern ment being at that time at war with the Algerine , , the vessel was detained at Cadiz until the month of February, 1794, when, in order to avoid molestation, it sailed under the Spanish instead of the Genoese sag. The vessel was compelled to put into Corunna for repairs, after which she again set sail for Ostend ;, but on her voyage, she received information that that place was in possession of Ole French ; in conse quence of which she put into the harbour of Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, on the 21st of July, 1794, in great distress. Information of the arrival of the ship at Cowes was sent to the owners of the ship and her cargo, and they empowered Messrs.lves, Echalay, and Basely. merchants of London, and Jose Cayetano de 13ernales, the defendant, also a merchant of Lon don, to proceed as they should think proper with respect to the ship and her cargo. Disputes arose between Messrs. Ives and Co. and the defendant, and the de fendant of his own accord, and without the consent of Messrs. Ives and Co. caused the ship to be sold, the cargo having been previously landed, and re ceived the proceeds of the sale. The defenda.nt af terwards, that is, in March, 1796, acting as agent for the owners of the cargo, caused it to be sold by pub lic auction at Garraway's Coffee-house, and received the profits of the sale, which were to a very large amount, which he has ever since retained in his pos session. In consequence of the war, and his con , tinned residence in Flanders, Servais Kaison had not• the means of compelling the defendant to account for so much of the cargo as belonged to him. Kaison died intestate at Verviers, in 1818, and the plaintiff, , , Francois Moons, as his legal personal representative, called upon the defendant to account for the sale of the cargo of the ship. Not having been able to pre., wail upon the defendant to do this, he had filed the' present bill, which prayed that the defendant might be directed to account to the plaintiff for the pro ceeds of the sale of the wool which belonged to Ser vais Kaison, principal and interest. - Mr. Bell, for the defendant, stated that his client demurred to the bill on three grounds-Ist, that he (the defendant) was a mere wrung-doer, and could not be considered as having acted as an agent in what he had done with respect to the ship and her cargo ; 2d, that the plaintiff was not entitled to assert his claim now, alter it had been allowed to lie dormant during a period of 25 years ; 3d, that there was a want of parties in the suit. . The VICE-CHANCELLOR over-ruled the demurrer, and ordered the account to be taken. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER to. The COURT were engaged till nearly one o'clock in hearing Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. MARRYAT on the, motion for a new trial in the tithe cause of Batt v. Wiseman. Before one, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICR , left the Court to sit at Guildhall, and the other Judges took only ordinary motions, and shortly rose. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 20. POST-HORSE DUTY.--DOWSE V. GA rt BATT. The COURT was occupied for some time this morn ing in hearing the arguments of Counsel in this, which was a special case. The point to be deter mined was, whether a pair of leaders, put in addi tion to the usual number of horses, to assist in draw ing a stage coach up a bill, rendered the coachmas ter liable to the duty as for post-horses, under the previsions of the Post-horse Duty Act? Mr. Serjeant LENS maintained the affirmative of the question. Mr. Serjeant LAWES supported the negative. The COURT deferred its judgment to a future day. The COURT rose at a quarter past two o'clock. PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 20. LAURENCE, ATTORNEY OP THOMAS, AGAINST MAUND AND ANOTHER. Dr: LUSHINGTON begged to announce to the Court, that the parties in whose hands certain papers had mnained at the last hearing of the cause, and which papers the Court had then declared to be necessary as exhibits, had, upon the Court's wishes being inti mated to them, consented to' deliver them up, in or d'r to be annexed to the proceedings as exhibits. The Learned Counsel felt it necessary to bring this matter under the notice of the Court, in order that the allegation might be altered accordingly before the Court rose. The Court permitted the annexation of these papers. CHASE AGAINST YOUNG. Dr. .fetoran stated that the Archdeacon of Nor wich was now ready to withdraw the caveat that be had entered against the probate of this Court passing to the will of a party deceased within the City of Norwich. The Court would recollect that the Arch deacon, conceiving that the granting probate in this case was a Matter within his own jutisdiction, had entered the cavoat in question. The groubd of• this proceeding was, that the deceased had resided and 47 was a valid one—if4C.ola teii : ktlew it to be a fer and honest 'transaction —why did he .not carry it irto l a Court of common law ? The . reason. was; Utat Mr. Coates meant to continue in practice in Hereford, hevery 'welt lenesvithetthe , would have to repent of defiling. tea a died'befi re . any one of . the Judges of the country ; for they would-busily fail to anunad. vett upon it. The Learned Coenset trusted thlt this Cotitt, by rejecting the petitkar.and decreeing cotc, would make Mr; Coates a little more careful for t! future how he engaged in undertakings of this Skit:mil; NICHOL& remarked, tharthe bringing in, Ender the circumstances, an rot on petition, was i 4 itself rather an unusual proceeding, at least in this stage of the case. By the deed is question, Mr. Browne had bound himself, and two collateral secu rities, not only to demand his own costs of Coates ] but to pay all those of th# 'Other party. He alleged that this deed and bond were unduly, and by false suggestions, obtained from him ; it having been ext 2: cnted as well as prepared in Mr. Coates's fice,wher4 Mr. Browne had not the benefit of any prntession.:: or other assistance whatever. The Court thooght it was by no means competent to decide on the validity of such instraments ; and it could not even form a judgment on such transactions passing out of door,cy. crpt on affidavits. The monition to compel payment 4 costs already decreed by a former sentence, this Court certainly felt that it was bound to tztant.— To grant or withhold it was not a matter of iiscretirn in the Court; it was a measure of rigs t, e.r dcl..itojra !Wee, to be rendered to the other party. Mr. U. .atcs was an Attorney in the country ; he had appeared in this Court solely in the character of a cie •ttr- t.f the deceased : but the creditor had no legal tight to ad ministration, unless where all the executors named, if any, or residuary legatees ) or next of kin, had first voluntarily renounced. There was not a clerk of one year's experience in the Commons who did not know this to be the law and rule of the Court; and yet LH: professional Gentleman, for so long a period, and by every possible contrivance, had been trying to extort a concession of the at4ministration fiom the party to whom it had been dec r eed—the son and residuary 'legatee. This proceeding appeared to be manifestly vexatious altogether. The Court really felt it ex tremely difficult to see how, consistently w ith honesty, morality, and professional honour, a struggle (as Coun•el had candidly called it) for administiatiya could be carried on, by resorting to every vexat:ors measure possible, in order to obtain that which t?-.e patty must know he had no title whatever tu.—The Judge finally rejected the Petition with Costs. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, NOV. co. William Donnet came up to be examined in obe dience to an order of the Court, which had been sued in consequence of an affidavit made by the as signee of the insolvent (who had been discharged under the Act in June last), stating that since the in solvent's discharge he learned, that a few days before: his arrest, which took place at Dover, upon his WAY to France, in January last, he investeu 301. in t:-.0 Public Funds, in his own name and that of Charle.; Dikzd, a young man in his employment, which re mained so until the day after the insolvent's dis ' charge, when it was transferred, although no mention was made in the insolvent's schedule of his having any money in the Funds. The insolvent, a native of France, who has reside,' here for some time fitting up gas light apparatus ; stated, that the 501. in question was the sole property of Diked, who had been in his employment for about two years, residing in his house, and receiving wages at the rate of 15s. a week. In the month of Sep.tem her last they calculated the wages due to him, and it amounted to 501. 17s. which was then pail to hint; and when the insolvent was going to Palk, Dik7l prevailed upon him to accompany him to invest his money in the Funds for security ; and the day ai . :er his discharge Dikzd asked him to go with him to :eel out the stock, which he did; but he positively denial that he had any interest in the mn.ney, or had receive,: any part of it, or anything else but a share of a pot of beer from Dikzd. Charles Dikzd corroborated the account giventy the insolvent; the but on being asked by the Culla why he demanded payment of his wages in Selitember, when he had been so long without requning any part of it, he replied that he was then in want of it; and yet he swore, in answer to further questions by the Court, that he kept it locked up in his box front that time to the period when he invested it in tile Funds. The Count found it utterly impossible to place any faith in the story told by the insolvent and witness; and therefore ordered the former • to be revoked, and that he should be remanded kJ prison for nine months from that day. _ DIN). Nov. 13, J. S. Rainier, F.sq. Rear-Adosiral of the B. April 10, on board the Duke of York East Indiatuan, 4:I her passage to Bombay, (five days after child-birth) Mrs. „I.4rca, aged 37, wife of Captain Jarnsy, of the 4th Dragoons. Friday, after a long illness, 9liss Sarah liodgcor, daughter of the late G. limlgson, Esq. Coroner for Mht,l: , J.:— Thursday, at Weymouth, Louisa, the infant daughter of CAI • taro D. 11acdonald. COURSE OF Amsterdam l2 3 C.F. Ditto at sight 12 1 Rotterdam... l2 5 2U. A n twerp, ez-mc 12 4 I lamburgh... 57 8 2U. Akona . l7 9 IU. Paris, 341ay'b sight 25 5 0 U. Ditto 0 5 20 2U. Madrid, effective 571 Cadiz effect....... 36} Barcelona 56 liilboa, effective 37 EXCHANGE. Seville I d Gibraltar _ 34). ----- Leghorn Genoa ....... Venice ital. Lir. 17 JO Malta Naples ......—.— TAti Palermo ri E. Rio Janeiro. Dublin Cork V: PRICES ()F GC)I ' Foreign Gold in liars New Doubloons New Dollars Silver, in bars, standard.-- DIANDSILVEL ...... ..... 317 6 ..... 3lt 9 .......... 1 ! 4 et ........... 4 11 MAILS. ♦aa.en a. Dublin n 4 France t t UFlarclett Malta " Gotteliburih 0 t Brazil 0 111 Waterford 1 1 - - GurT nsty and Jersey 0 0 A stunt 0 0 0 0 Leeward Islands 0 0 HIGH-W A rElt At LONDON PRIDPV TO-M0118 1)0. itforttule . • - :29 llirtute. after 7 Aftenrr■wt - 49 Minute. after 7 , • lON DiUs : l'ris4rd andqultlMled M Levu. Kea, Trimplob.Ba.- • ~+ i i ►~