The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1803-04-19 00:00:00

TYE At R.S. VIM It Y 4 &Vt . Mr. L. LlNlr....x's new Cermet , of The Marriage Praasiss, was repeated here last night. It went off with even more eclat than on its first representation. For this increased success it is indebted to some ju dicious improvements, aided by the Performers, now become more mellow in their several p a rt s ._ The latter circumstance was particularly re markable in the charafters supported by Mrs. Powst.t. and Mr. Port. The influence of the Piece has been manifested in the way most grateful to the author. The house was crowd ed, and the crowd displayed the most fashionable appearance. Mrs. Joanales second song was omit ted. The Play was given out for future represen t-tion, amidst thunders of applause. It was fol lowed by the Dramatic Romance of " Blue Beard." Miss Di; CA me resumed her part 0; Trent, in which .he displayed all that life and vivacity which never f:sil to pleas. Mrs. MrstsrAiti gave considerable interest to Fatima, and executed the songs with great taitt. Yes=day morning his MaJusr v, accompanied by their Royal Highnesses the Princesses SoPHIA and AMELIA, and attended by Generals GwvNsE, Hattcouar, anti DL BUDE, and by Sir WILLIAM and Lady PITT, took an airing on horseback, and viewed the different improvements in Windsor Great Park. Her Maissry and the Princesses AUGUSTA and ELIZABETH, with their usual attendants, took an airing to Frogmore. Her Royal Highness the Princess MART, at tended by Lady Ca Ater. ET, took an airing in a coach and four round by Englefield-green. To-morrow evening their MA.tESTits will honour the Ctirci-st of Ancient Music with their presence ; the performance will be under the direction of the Earl of Uxuainat. Prince WILLIAM of GLOUCESTER arrived at Hamburgh on the 10th inst. under the tide of Earl of CostfAconT, on his way to England. - - -- - Major Ms xwrf L, eldest son of Sir WM. MAX irist.t., brother of the Duchess of Goitoom, was married yesterddy at four o'clock, to Miss Cern A.. BINS rORDYCi, daughter of Joni Fouovci., Esq. at her father's house, Caddick's-row, Whitehall. Miss Fueuvce and Mr. Duviti., aEled as the bride-man and bride-maid upon the occasion. Af ter the ceremony, the new-married couple set off for Welton Park, the seat of Mr. Dors E, near Beaconsfield. Mr. DUPRE celebrated the' vent with a splendid dinner, at his house in Grafton-street, which was attended by Vistmv‘b—Beane and lilnehinbroeke. Lards —'roves and Farr. Sirs—l Shells. and Stephen Glynn. essrs — St. George CAullivl4, Ntaddoeks, Berkeley Craven, Welsley, and Mast-rs. VlSO:lumen Broome. Latises-•C Lennox Emily Wehley, and C Cads,gatt. lin sod twos iordre's. Mrs. Sr. GLOROE Cautrittn's ball and supper last night, in St. James's-square, was one of the most splendid and fashionable of the season ; above 300 persons sat down to supper, which consisted of every delicacy that town and country could afford. The rrince of WALE:, and a large party of friends, to the amount of 50, supped in the front parlour, on one of the most costly services of plate, elegantly gilt, this country can boast of. The middle dining parlonr, the library, and rooms adjacent, were also laid out for supper. The Earl of RONNE , / and family, returned to town last night, from the Mote, near Maidstone, where they have beetwpassing the holidays. Mr. STuA itv, and a large party of fashionable friends, leave town this day for Goodwood Races, near Chichester, Sussex, which will commence to morrow. Earl Frrzwtcta Ass, during his residence at:heeds has generously ordered each man serving in the Ist West York tegiment (of which he is Colonel) a jacket and other cloathing, at the expence of five hundred pounds. The late Earl of ABERDEEN is succeeded in his titles by his grandson, the Earl of WIN Dson, eldest son of the late Viscount Moutcrstua sr, by Lady PaNZLOPE, the Earl's only daughter. Mr. Dry.% YVES gave an elegant dinner yesterday at his house in Dover-street. The Earl and Countess of BARRE &LORE have taken up their residence, for the season, at the Bri tish Hotel, Jermyn-street. Last night Lady ELLYNIIOBOUGH'S Rout, Blooms bury-square, and Mrs. Us TLIRDALE'S Music, Her ky-street, attrafted large parties of the fashionable world. The remains of Mrs. ',torn, many years house beeper at Kensington Paiace, were removed yester day from her house in Mount-street, to be interred at Hammersmith. The Earl of Dtaav and family returned to tcwn yesterday from the Oaks. Mrs. GRAHAM gives an elegant Ball this evening at her house in Portland-place. Lord Dit.s.ox and family arrived in town yester day front his seat at Ditchly, Oxfordshire, at his house in Fituoy-square. On Saturday afternoon a post-chaise and four droi e with great vi,,lence through the town of Ken sington ; inside were a young lady and a man struggling. He grasped the lady's throat in a most brutal manner, apparently endeavouring to prevent het from calling for assistance. 'ills Karl of MO ilt A did not arrive in town till yesterday forenoon. Lord Kti.ric is the Scots Peer set up as a Can didate to succeed the Karl of Dust rests. There is n rumour that Mr. ADDINGTON has written a letter, in which he states, that Government do not mean to interfere in the most distant degree in the elteion. Lord LA DERD ALa is also spoken of u a Candidate. sittings appninted in Middlesex and London, lwfore the Right Hin. Richard Pepper Lord Alvanley, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster, in and dt;er Easter Term 1603 : IN TIIO4. >IIDD tit< _ _ tOPI DOM . Fr (14y, - Ap•il 29 S-trurtkay. • - April SO r.day, 111.ty 6 Sattirigay, - • M.ty 7 V. .1 y May IS Sliturdsv, - • MY 14 Wedrantlay, • Mty 19 Thurrilay, - • May 19 A /Tel 71101. Wedneitlay, - May 25 ThanAiy, a • Mal 46 • • LAM /NTE'.I.IGENCZ. teltnkT 11F KING'S BENCH, Gunonatt, APIA Is. Sitting: before leoLo Et. , t!I POROUGH end a SszclAL hay. LORD ISEIIH V. 14111401 A, tSq. This wa% an anion between the Noble Plaintiff and the Defendant respeCting his right to a share of certain prizes. Mr. ERSKINE observed, that the Counsel on both sides had thought proper to make a case for the opi nion of the Court, upon the question between the par , ties, with leave to turn it into a special verdia, if it should be deemed adviseable. A verdia was taken for the Plain:iff for 62 fl. subjelt to the opinion of the Court. M d CARTIVZ V. GLOVER. Mr. Glens stated this was an aftion on a Policy of Insurance brought by Daniel M'Carthy, owner of a ship called the Thomas, to recover a loss, on which the subscription of the Defendant amounted to 2001. The Policy was on the freight of the vessel from Riga to this country. The ship was chartered by Mr. Corner, one of the Owners, to Messrs. Thornton and Smalley, to ,proceed from Portsmouth to Riga, take in timber, and bring it back to this country at stipulated freights. She ar rived at Riga, got the timber in, and the freight amo anted to 17301. The money insured was 12001. title had taken in the greater part of her lading, and had gone over the bar of the harbour, as was acces sary in that country with ships which were heavy laden, and the remainder of her cargo was ready to he pin on board, when, by the embargo laid on all English vessels in Russia, in the year 1900, she was detained, and the Captain and crew sent up the country. News of this circumstance reached the Owners, and early in the year 1801 notice of aban donment was given by the Owners to the Under writers, who took to the vessel, and paid the loss. In May, 1801, this vessel w.ts set free, the Captain and crew were released, and the Captain was per mined to take his cargo on board, with which she afterwards arrived at Ill:mouth. Notice was given that she belonged to the Underwriters, and not to the Owners. She earned her freight, bringing with her the greater part of her cargo ; freight therefore was due. The question then was, to whom that freight was due. There could be no doubt but that the Plaintiff, eh° was the Owner, and who had abandoned the ship to the Underwriters, was enti tled to recover of the Underwriters on the freight. It appeared that the vessel had been seized, and the voyage had been lost for the time; the Plaintiff therefore being in the situation of having lost his freight, had abandoned the vessel to the Under writers. At last, however, the vessel was released, of course whatever was earned by way of freight was due to semebody. The Underwriters on the ship centended, that it having been abandoned to them while at Riga, they were placed in the situa tion of Owners, and were entitled as Owners to the freight. Now he had no objet ion to these gentle men, the Underwriters, contending for their claim with those to whom the cargo was consigned, but there could be no doubt as to the Owners having a right to recover the freight which they would have been entitled to, if there had been no embargo.— The Plaintiff, therefore, brought his action for that freight, which he had an inchoate right to, a freight which the Defendant had insured with the Plaintiff, and he had abandoned. It might be a considerable question, whether freight w:ts due to the Under writers of the ship, but there could be no doubt with regard to the right of the original Owners to recover freight of those who had insured it. He had stated the case without going into particulars ; he should prove the fact of the total loss of the freight, which would be sufficient to entitle him to a verdict. The regular proof was given of the policy of in surance, and the detention of the ship at Riga. It was with an extreme degree of difficulty that Mr. Gibbs proved the fa& of the abandonment—to do. so he was compelled to call the Defendant's son, who positively denied all recolleCtion of either his father or himself having received any notice to such effeft, and coesequently if he ever had received 'it, it must have been destroyed. The fart of the deli very of the notice to him was proved, and therefore the Court admitted a copy of the notice to be given as evidence of the contents of the original one. Mr. ERSKINE addressed the Jury in favour of the Defendant ; he observed, that the Owner had enter ed into a chatter-party that this vessel should bring a cargo of masts from Riga ; he had insured the ship with one set of lYnderwriters, and the freight with his Clients. 'Ole vessel had proceeded to Riga, where it had fallen under an embargo ; there had been an abandonment ; pending that embargo the Plaintiffs had sent to the Underwriters, , 4 You have insured my ship, it is now under the pressure of an embargo, which may be final, or which may only be temporary, but 1 abandon the vessel to you ; I con sent that you shall enter into all my rights and the vessel's rights." The embargo was taken off, and she had earned her freight. The Learned Cquasel said he had a short answer to the case of the Plain tiff. He should prove that Mr. Corner, who was a joint-owner with him, had received the freight him self, and that 1w had paid it over to the. Unde rwriters of the ship under their indemnity. The Learned Counsel entered into proof to that effcfl. Lord Et. re so eounit was of opinion that it did not affelt the Plaintiff's right to recover ; and the Jury, under his Lordship's direr ion, returned a ver diet for the Plaintif f —Damages 2001. GNIFFITHs v. ILENsINGtoN. Mr. Gmettow said, this was a question whether the Defendant, an opulent Banker, should pay his Butcher's bill for the liberal supply of his table for a certain period ; and certainly, if the Jury should not find a verdiCt in favour of his Client, all he could s.-.y was, that himself and his learned friends around him had aaed very unwisely indeed in paying their Butcher's bills for the last two or three years, for that it would have been much more prudent in them to have invested the money in the public funds. He understood he was to be told that his Client, the Plaintiff, had not given credit to the Defendant, but to his Cook; in other words, that he had trusted a beggar, for she was at this moment in pri son, having been :a-rested by her master, whose money she had most wickedly embezzled.— He had heard the late Lord Kari YON say, that if a man sent his servant out cloathed with his credit, he was bound to answer all the consequences of his improper use of it. He wished persons of large estates would condescend to look a little ilLo their cs*n anairs certai::ly it would eventually to much better for diem but if they would trust to coltti dential clerks and servants, the fault wins theirs, and honest tradesmen ought not to be injured by their folly. It might be said, that the Plaintiff ought not to have suffered the bill, which it was the object of this aOion to recover, to have gone on so far. In answer to this, he had only to observe, that trades men, to whom large bills were owing from men of fortune, were frequently fearful of applying to them lest they should give offence and lose their custom. The Learned Counsel alluded to the case of a gen tlemen, whom lie described as a most amiable cha- raFter, who had had this truth exemplified in a way extremely injurious to his feelings. It happened that his hrewer called at his house with a small bill, and he observed there could net possibly be any thing owing to him, unless he had sent in beer in the ciurse of the week, for that he had given his servant the money to pay all his tradesmen's bills ; however, he said he would enquire, and call upon him. He accordingly- enquired of his servant, who said," 0 dear, Sir! it must be some mistake, he has been paid." The Gentleman, who was a Member of Parliament, and was just then departing for t 1..• House of Commons, had Lot at that moment time to call for the voucher, which his servant pretended would prove the payment of the bill ; but he after wards thought it would be as well if he gave the brewer a call. Accordingly he paid the brewer a vita, and was informed it was a mistake, and that the bill hai been paid. Upon interrogating him as to tad probability of a mistake, the brewer can didly said—" Sir, if I must tell you the truth, your servant has paid the bill since I presented it to you. He told me you was a very good man yourself, and always gave the money to pay your tradesmen punetually, bat your lady had such an itch for gaming, there w.ts no getting a single guinea out of her fists. Upon inquiry it turned out, that this insolent servant had told the same kind of story to all his tradesmen, that he had described his master as a punctual man, and his mistress as a woman who intercepted for the purposes of gaming that money which he appropriated to the payment of his tradesmen. The whole story was as wicked as it was false.—ln the present case, whenever the butcher applied to the Plaintiff's cook for his bill, she said, my master cannot pay it you now ; but here is something in part. The cause was of very little importance to Mr. Kensington, but it was far otherwise with regard to his Client, the Plaintiff. He had no doubt but Mr. Kensing ton's cook had cheated him, but it was his duty to have contro/ed her and prevented her from so doing. It was impossible fur the Plaintiff to force his way into the drawing-room of this gentleman, and tell him his bill was running on too far ; he gave credit to his cook, under the idea that she had his sandion for running in his debt. The balaace due to the Plaintiff, after deduding two sums of 101. which the Defendant had paid him, without prejudice to tile present action, amounted to 471. and this sam, he had no doubt, the Jury would give him. The Plaintiff's servant proved the delivery of the articles contained in his bill. Mr. ERSKINE said, he was Counsel for Mr. Ken• sington, and, in his short address to the Jury, would state on what reasons and principles this ac tion was defended. He said it was not necessary for his Learned Friend to have appealed to the au thority of Lord Kenyon, for the purpose of shewing, that if a man authorised his servant to go to a but cher, and if he did not give him any money to pay for the articles he purchased, that he was accounta ble for the credit given him; law, justice, and com mon sense required in such case the tradesman ought to be paid his bill.—ln the present instance, Mr. Kensington had always been very particular in desiring his butcher to bring in his bill weekly. He had made it the condition of his employing him, that he should do so, and for more than a s ear he had dealt with him, the Plaintiff regularly r.2ceived his money of his cook—for a length of t►me she had ailed with honesty, and had devoted the money he had given her to the discharge of the debts she had incurred. What Mr. Kensington complained of was, that when his bill had been regularly paid, week after week, and that there was suddenly an omission of the payment of it, that he did not give him notice of the circumstance, in order that he might be put upon his guard, and make enquiry as to the cause. Mr. Kensington, upon detecting the dishonesty of his servant, found that he was in debted to tradesmen, whose bills he had given her money to discharge, in a sum amounting to some thiag more than 2401. 'Ale Learned Counsel said, he should prove that the Plaintiff had declared he had trus►ed the cook, and that he did not wish to mention the circumstance from the fear of hurting her in her master's esteem. If this was so, he ought not to look to the master for payment : if a man made an agreement with a tradesman to pay him weekly, and he gave his servant money to discharge the bills, was it reasonable that he should after wards be called upon to pay the bills incurred by his servant ? He would ask his Learned Friend Mr. Garrow, wealthy as he was, whether he or any man, if such was the law, could keep a house over his head ? He was well persuaded Lord Kenyon would not have expressed himself in favour of such a iloCtnne. He thought it was quite sufficient for a man to pay his hills once. The Plaintiff had re ,.ceired his bills regularly for a year and a half, and upon that regularity of payment ceasing, he had ne ver thought proper to come near the Plaintiff to in form hint of it. The Learned Counsel urged the inconsistency of the Plaintiff's applying at different times for the loans of ten pounds, when he conceived he had a demand upon the Defendant for a much larger sum, and he thought his acceptance of that loan a sufficient proof that he had no legitimate or legal demand. A. witness, of the name of Garford, proved the circumstance of the Plaintiff having borrowed 201. of the Defendant, b.st it appeared to be under the express condition of returning it again, in c..se he should not prevail in his suit against him. Blanche Morgan, the Defendant's cook, was brought into Court by habeas-corpus, in order to prove certain payments, but such was the conscious ness of guilt and shame she exhibited, that she nei ther could hold up her head, or give the least satis ladory testimony ; nothing whatever was colleCted from her evidence. Mr. Divatt, the brother-in-law of the Defendant, merely preyed. that he had recommended the Plain tiff under an assurance that he would be paid weekly, as he was paid by the witness, but he could not prove a positive agreement that the dealings be- %wren thr Plaintiff itta Def:adAt: wife L Le 4..11 do other terms. Lord Ett.entosottos was of opinion, that the evidence on the part of the Defendant did not amount to an answer to the Plaintiff's claim, ad.d the Jury returned a verdiet for the, Plaintiff. HUMBERT T. HARMS AND OTHERS. Mr. EasitiNz observed, this case lay within a nar row compass, and rested on admissions on both sides. It was an anion brought by the Plaintiff, who had been secretary to Admiral Kingsmill, on the Irish station, and purser of the when it was commanded by Lord Ranelagh, and afterwards, when the command *as given to Captain Halliday ; by Mt of Parliament, officers in the navy were en abled to appoint agents who had ceroin duties as signed to them which were not only extrenie;v crative to themselves, but convenient to the cfLers who appointed them. .1 he Doris having taken a. prize, the Defendants, by a letter of Attorney, exe cuted by Lord Ranelagh and his officers, were ap pointed agents to manage their concerns relative to all captures and recaptures. In January 1801, the Doris was in port, and Lord Ilanelagh dying, the command was given to Captain Halliday, and oil the 20th of the same month the Doris captured a valuable French ship, which, on the 10th of March following, was condemned, allotted and arranged for sale. On the 24th of April the Captain and of ficers made a new power of Agency, appointing the Plaintiff to ail jointly with the Defendants, he con tended, that by virtue of this power the Plaintiff was entitled jointly with the Defendants to the profits of the Agency. The single question would be, whe ther the first power of Attorney was revocable. 3 Lord ELLENDOROUGH was of opinion, that the officers of the ship could not appoint an additional Agent without first ascertaining whether the Agents , before appointed would consent to aft with him and further, that before such appointment, they ought to have tendered to the first appointed Agents the amount of those profits which had been vested in them. Upon the expression of this opinion, the Plaintiff was nonsuned. LONDON SESSIONS. GUiLIAIALL, APRIL 1%. William Bowen was indiaed by the cliurchww- t and overseers of the parish of St. Andrew, born, for a misdemeanour in having refused to serve as a constable of that parish, after he had been re gularly chosen for the office by a wardmote. Mr. S Y LYESTER, the common-serjeant, stated to the Court the motives which had indaced the parish to commence the present prosecution, as proceediEg from the contemptuous manner in which the d•- fendant had treated their orders, with respea to his appointment as a constable. His abode was at No. Furnival's-inn court, where he kept a shop as a tailor. In that situation he had refusnd to acknow ledge the authority of the parish of St. Andrevrs under :t pretence that his house stood in the county of Middlesex. The Jury would, however, see by the evidence if such an assertion could be sup ported.—lt was a matter that required a stria i:1- vestigation, it was not only material to the defend ant, but also to the city, as it wen: to ascertain the extent of its boundaries. _ The witnesses for the prosecution were called, they were principally the colledors of rates belong ing to the parish ; they all said that they had re ceived the different taxes for St. Andrew's, from Bowen, who had paid them without complaining. A map of the city was brought from the office of works, by which it appeared that the buildings in Furnival's-inn were in the city, and its garden v.'as in Middlesex. This map, however, differed greatly from that made by Stowe. It made the Temples in Middlesex, at the same time part of one is known to be in the city. In many other respeas it was erro neous. Mr. Phips, a city-surveyor, said, that part of No. 5, the house next to that in which the defen dant lived, was the boundary of the city it extended across the court, to a drain which belonged to the parish, and that No. ti. was twelve feet in the county of Middlesex. Mr. KNowt rs called the evidence for the defert. dant,the most material of whom was Thomas Clarke, an officer to the Sheriff of Middlesex : he said tl e. sat he lived at No. 9, in Furnival's-inn-court, nearly op posite to Mr. Bowen, in whose house he could not arrest a man with a London process ; witness had once executed in the defendant's house a Middlesex process for 15,001. and he always believed it to be in the latter county. Several other Sheriff's officers stated to the same effea. Thomas Wcllfield, the landlord of the house in which Bowen lived, said that he bought the same at Garraway's, as a Middlesex freeholder, and he held it as such. Theodosius French, an officer at the Court of Re quests in Fulwood's-rents, stated, that the exent of the boundary fur Middlesex began at No. 5, in Fur nivars-inn-court, part of which was ire the said county, and all below it in the city. .1 he Recorder, Sir Julie Rose _summed up Cle evidence and expressly stated the erroneous appear ance of the maps, which had been brought to shew the limits of the parish ; from them, he observed, no po sitive information had been derived as to the true situation, of the Defendant's house, lie was, how ever, of opinion that the latter was under the juris diElion of the parish, as lie had paid the regular rates, leVed by the different officers. If the Jury were of the same belief they would find him guilty, and enforce the fine attached to the offence ; if they should think otherwise they would acquit him. The Jury retired for near an hour, and on their return pronounced the Defendant Not G illy. Yesterday afternoon, at e o'clock, an inquest was taken before ANT HONY 1., Esq. the Coroner, at the house of W. WATKINS, the Crown, in Duke's court, St. Martin's•lane, and the Jury went to St. Mar:in's bone-house, took a view of the body of the unfortunate man Who was killed on Saturday even ing in the stables belonging to Carleton House. It appeared by the evidence of the person who first found the deceased, that the body was quite cold, and had probably been laying an hour or two -tt the bottom of the well-stair-case down which he fell, and that the head was very shockingly bruised by the fall, there not appearing any evidence that the deceased threw himself down, but more proba bly that he fell over in a fit of coughing ; the Jury after some deliberation, brought in a veichet of--sfcei dental dealt:. / Mil MLA' a 9 • ft