The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

GUICRNSI . ...cort.on Tuesday , n tat „,a ." mowed 10 have asi I t rePT.ts Nap Horne. 0. llrstos. John Os aeg 0 , a „ ) , and Jot rOj,4 drat they shook It tld 0 0 ,,.. P- 4 trial, unless they , n o " demer. to the sn • , which wi eel dwee three get • as answer to the chary John De era away, Of picnic ra , Horne, II if ' obe elk 4 rf,r4s torn& . T. 0:-4 • , p s o:v in or ed • does „term Owe th it • "Mr. D'Auvergne (ant ' ado hb Ile W . • rut ▪ y owl* g .0 tor banished then bar to receive and all biz pt •• at Pl . ▪ SOW „Algoma had, 1 ...Abair. On the nig 01 75;eorl been tint and Brown • 'a they scpsext &Iswhowereer, did not '4l for the rurpose r- in ikearagaimit ths a s igasplekdamage to knee the same woe into t n si,w wit to heti. In th ,was, Oat , he had the presence of 13 l oot fifteen), loaded t ▪ via ping we shoot tse kitchen, In l ow Ilse followed hi wi dow! father." Cl/ nter tw it biro, he woof, l ola= into the kiicl ▪ drag Ids daughter, she - Pe deceived ' s righ • *lmes• and beggt i lire• wet pulled. and t aill• Tat wound/NJ man h ,_: • Ink amof a Mr. Riche • *tare!" Mr. B. laid 1.. aialluillo nos expired , to 0610101nrit person, tha t sibs farad auk the whit with No.l dast. whit ;use, gati,atal patted out undi n pv. anti utli work of / e Er woe ?nailed LI . • 7 Ali dye depamons k ebi r ran, who is chary; Although most p dos of tins rature belies o pate reoeste , t to hint in tonal that he is determine 0 we clergymen atteneliog 1) ger ninon term, which w O De Greeks composing I Ilhoey. arrived here on Fi 10 eit watiert, and we make MAY meats to return 11 . 6 be men, very men gals and Iron the wrocl ▪ lira in Alderney is a ei 10 Ma to buy nor is there a sow Gerald.. SPORT!N 7 TATTERSAL 0 1 . 1 attendance of bettin in &se. but the hefting, thous 3 amen is the odds, if we 4 u decidedly second favour tit f eerie is pin as fat e lewd illy. sot sf Morel, w I 'AMIN bested against 7 usparelienibigh odds for at sr r Si to 1 opt Monarch lei to I art Trodrille II a I it Bolivar is I art The lieneral N ra I apt Zulcika N 11 agst firamart• 30 to I r I • I age Miernionette, lel apt Pawn I I 1 nest bloats r YllaptHenry U I 1 apt Parasol 7lte I apt Bediarrate 11 te I apt Cron/vier it to I lest held, ni MUNTINfI 11.JoI1 o'e, Esq.'s fox in Crawley.road; Walton Ilestl :ex The despatch of The le delayed yesterday ni bar, in cornet:pence of t' b! the foreign and inlane Owing to the high pi-it a Inset trades have heft 112 - 4 of the shawl wear sod different sot /t 1 carpet are Lours. r • 0.3 are regularly arri, newt-wearing shops ar • .arNTON.—The nut litmus to about 1,000, ism is computed to girl that the warpt•rs i voinder that ?coons emploTed testier, of organs:lse 2-14 . 4 Prins. The am .. • swam mar be athirst slaws slate are about I ?tarot is no prupermis of estitahir he:motor the biro iraturdiatsly ' , nub tir o r e spirit of comLinai tiloul in Publin, Ems • The jonittcytne• 'a bailer wages; and stft in martyrs until ! clew intimidate the rho hav not as I JuraNa Vote tie dissolution d'l.• lead. re have been errs:" term tLemselrei te:•.11 support oh. n of priors allow, ' • • :an led Into efee • tentributions of muted wherever .. ca CoLLtras.— . rut, Ly n eeivin '*heir as • vrtn'en, so that • •• • .t t.l tiff rences ; , ral the old eel . ' rely made to SC .•n ii offrntl for • , ''•'• r,tr t F'ret. Sot ..• • ••.s it. the nen ; , s t rt serious nor ' hold no intt . • r have : '• • • ',eat I nnWn to hich the ,r natives • •,,• ' in , 'at.ct, • i t - • •,! c, F • e. 1 - •! ' .1 Pr•tor 411 1 1 111160 4 ‘ .. • iFY, NOVEMBER 30. 'IS'S HORNE. roamed their examination of the Incii- assisted In the escape and concealment of John De Jersey. Louis de Campourcy (a nil John Brock, were committed for trial : it should he tincrisoneil in the public gaol until they fintrd bail for their appearance ; the e amount of 1001. each, and 31r. Brock to was giro% Having received summonses gentlemen appeared be fore the Court on charges preferred against than. The De Jersey and bouts de Campourcy, with uteri and participated in the taking away, young girl under age, dcoghter of the r. Brock wa. merely charged with haring her concealment. They pleaded Not Counsels. They will be tried next natire of Jervey) was brought before the 11136 accused of having committed dif. of huitig returned to this islsnd after therefrom for prior robberies. The Court A Ur) to be banished horn this property in the island (if any) confiscated ICULARS OF THE LATE MURDER. I, for a considerable period, lodged in night preceding the murder the deceased &toeing together ; • quarrel maned ; the tern rearived a cut on the eye.lid ; about separated, and Brown retired to his mom. lid not go to bet ; he took. tip a fowling. -se (It is enplaned) of ascertaining its coo. partition, close to the tire.place, which the plaster. A short. time afterwards o the garden, from his window, and after. the morning Chapman proceeded to the I tired his piece on the preceding night, Brown's eldest d a ughter ( a girl about the fowling-piece, and told her that her bather ; he then wqnt down ich ploorwast.the entrance td Bgown's him, and staid, " Poe God's sake do Chapman said that if she attempted stolid shoot her." Brown came out of kitchen, for the purpose, it is supposed, of when Chapman placed his fowling-pieta right shoulder. Brown immecliaiely fell 'ti him net to manic, hint, but in vain— ,. a ghastly and mortal wound was in. man rushed into the street, and was caught Ilichanl, when he exclaimed, " the villain B. laid him down, and in about three minutes expired. So close was the muzzle of the piece • that the charge burned his clothes, and e size of a half-crown. The piece was iieh entered the right shoulder, under the under the spine of the scapula, shattered oilier articles of table furniture, and per. the drawer. during the graver part of last week. in $ of the crown officer's witnesses against charged with the wilful murder of William most persons competent to give an opinion in e believe that the prisoner's only choice of o hint in the plea of Insanity, still it is generally determined not to avail himself of It. Ile has on him daily. His tri.d will not take will be at the end of January next. the crew of the Cymone. wrecked at AI Friday Iso. Every attention is paid to make no doubt but they will be amply pro torn to their own country. They are in musculsr. and dressed like Moon.—The wreck at Alderney will he wild here. An complete farce ; there are neither mer mute,' to pay for such goods.—Soath. 'G lA:TELLIGENCE. ,LL'S, MONDAY, Dsc. L betting men of all classes was very respect. though brisk. did not produce any material if we except two or three horses. Trtdrille wourite, and the General is still advancing, fast as he can. Mr. Thornhilre crooked was brought up fo► the Oaks, and 33 to t her, which arc extraordinary and almost an Oaks favourite. DERBT. SO to I apt Twatty 20 to I apt Sophist 23 to I agst Canvass 23 to I agat Pranks I 24 . to I apt Advance I 30 to I agst Cedric _ I against any other. OAKS. iliptheilite, le to I agst Elisabeth Ili to I apt 80-peep le to I apt Quadrille It) to 1 apt Meal :Ur R. . 23 in 1 apt Barefoot 25 to 1 agst Monareh 23 to 1 agst Sister to HOUMT :(4 A PI'OINT3I E NTS. . hound % will meet to-mortow. at the 23d 1; on Fri:lay at Tangiers; and Saturday letter carriers from Lombard-street =mug much beyond the usual 'the extra number of letters brought and ices of wool, the worsted shawl and Oat for some time in Kilmarnock. ...era are now employed at silk trim sort.t of fancy fabrics from Paisley. revel' doing very well. Extensive wing front new quarters, and new ire erecting in all parts of the town. er of silk looms In this town ), and 400 in the vicinity. Each de employment to two perwns ; so ter., guillent, aril weavers, including ' in the throwing mills, in the ma sh'', amount to not fewer than annual returns of the silk trade in vied at not less than 150,000/. The 1,0001. per weak. The trade is at a state, that wilting but the want artisans employed prevents it from *e are sorry to final that the unfor iation, which for some time past has • now made ha appearance in this It shoemakers have " turned out" , they not only refuse to take any their demands are complied with, !neaten from employing the few yet joined in this lawless cotnbins 'al.- of the wearers' combination, wine en attempting to persuade their dip vs into •• ft irntlly s:teleties," for their nit of work, without the least refer- fer wraviug. Were dais eet, the drones would draw I n r;t 1 e 11 1; of the iudurrions ; but lb* idea has 'et it bar hem atooted.—Glargetr The Quarrellers colliers continue ing suppott from their brethren in inccenots are daily becoming more it there is little Freept et of any ad being soon effected between the pro nib's". An attempt was, we under act fire to one of the pits, and a large the (11.k:every of the incendiaries, one trifling animosities exist between Iv and old woikmen—no collisions, taturc have oci-urred. In the mean tercuoree with each otber.—l'ai,ley swelled the Mersey to an 'tumor (xceptinc in one instance, than it to rise. On Monday a great quan :e riok nee of the stream had carried wafers, were caught near the town ; y bi autitul trout were netted, weißb •, a pound and a half each.— 'our moil Prizes of 30,0001., &c. ( anon ts Contraett T. Tins i. ha. always been remar►able for 'telling y application at his fortunate OfEcer. ; and 26, Varcoll-street, ie therefore 11 t'll• LAW NOTICES. COURT OF CHANCERY. szroaz THE LORD CHANCELLOR THIS MORNING AT TEN. Per order—Cooper v. Thorpe. Bankrupt Petition, per order—Ex-parte Baxter. Appeals, Exceptions, and further Directions—Dart v. Osbaldes. tone, Osbaltlestone v. Askew, Bothwell v. Askew. Appeal—Donn v. Watson. Appeal per Order—Attorney -General v. Mayor of Exeter. ISCFOLE THE VICE.CIIANCELLOR THIS stonstso AT HALT-PAST TEN. To be spoke to—Silverschildt v. I,e Gros. CAUS7S. lotufear v. Vincent Mummery v. Bradley Fownes v. Coxon Bailey v. lAufear Yeo v. Yen Sam° v. Friend. Gilbsnks v. Cox Fownes v. Collard Wingfield v. Thorpe Codrington v. Bal. Same v. Horn Batley v. Carting. four Same v. Teddy ton Owen v. Flack Same v. White Brewer v. Crofts Gascoigne v. Lyne Same v. Smith Cobden y. Pally ROLLS COURT. The Muter of the Rolla site erery evening this week at six o'clock, to hear causes, except Saturday, when lie sits at nine in the tnomitig. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MIDDLESEX CAUSES TO BE TRIED BY CO3IMON JURIES THIS HORNING AT HALF•EAsT NINE. Kent v. Curtis, by. .11'CaHum v. Turn. Eastwood v. Brown the-bye. linson Glanham v. Durham Melton v. Gomperts Dixon v. Deveridge Granger v. George Willis v. Walker Antes,. Bowne Wood v. Lowndes Fatly v. Nutt Townson v. Green Baynes v. Wood Doe, deco . of Long, Iselin v. Ten on Robertson a. IVard v. Robson Doe v. Johnson Kersey v. Potts Doe, dem. of Chan& II ewett v. (lowland Price v. Limner less, v. same Sharp v. Sadd Mullins v. Edgell Doe. Am v. Duro Same a. same, by- Hartley v. Richard. Bailey v. Bread- the.bye I son. ram Pitcher v. Hulkea. Parma v. Andrews Wright a. Abbott Sherwin v. Keaston LONDON CAUSES TO BE Trim) ItY Ci THURSDAY NEXT. Hell v.. Russell, a r►l•e Bell ♦. Graham Fenner v. Roper Monition vr. Jeffetys cwt.; V. %mini., Olindnn v. Pain Lady Turner r.Jones Green ♦. Fozer Wright r. King Clements V. King Wright v. Rood Wells v. Pocock Moore v. Langdon Attic v. Jones Roth well v. Boughcy Vere v. Nott Sudbury v. C. Lock Same ♦. W. Lock Ford v. Hughes Pope v. Monk Saunders v. Brian Hugrns v. Forbes Gardiner v. Durant Bradford v. Gibson Taylor a. Channon Robson v. Bulkeley COUR LONDON CAI:sEs Ti Z OF COMMON PLEAS. Dunn. v.Willianssan Smyth's.% v. Dunnett King v. Hitching Williamson v. Pul ley Larkin v. Brown 11IMON JURIES OX Pocock v. 3loore Morley v. Walker Lumley v. llellycr • E,.ony v. llou'ditch Leeder v. Biddell Will am 4 v. Bryans Lynch v. Kimpton Turner v. Ellis Capel v. Guy Bradbury v. Bloom. held Haddon v. Cuddon Benson v. Dean Brett v. Cundell MORNI 3 BE TRIED BY COMMON JUItIES TIM IE9 AT lIALF-PAST NINE. Ridley v. Nsish I Bird v. Wilson and Stanger v. Ftnloyson another Bennet v. Deudney Morris v. Trout Collins, (lent. v. Brown v. Stapylton Heart and others Bird v. Fairclough Lewis v. Dunnoghue LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, MONDAY, Dec. b. DE BEAUVOIR r. RHODES. • The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in this cue he could not grant an injunction unless on the terms already mentioned t and directed that It might stand over till Thursday, in ordrr to give time to the patties to come to some satisfactory arrangement. COVENT-GARDEA THEATRE. CONST v itAnnts. Arguments were resumed in this use to-day. 31r. Twiss proposed, on the part of Mesas. Willett, Forbes, and Kemble, to take the accounts before the Master, and show how the monies were expended. The Loan CH AN CE L LOR said this was an application to the Court to give directions to the receiver respecting the appropriation of the nightly receipts of the Theatre. The proceedings in this case was not to be distinguished from any other cases of partner ship property, and perhaps the patties would find out before long that every shilling spent in the Court of Chancery would be thrown away. The present motion referred to an order made some time ago respecting a certain deed. il'hen the motion was formerly before the Court, it found itself unable to take any course but to call on the proprietors to meet and decide in what manner, and to what purposes, the receipts should be applied. It was not the duty of the Court to call on that assistance. For his own part he was ' unable to come to the knowledge of the manner in which he should administer the afrairs of a theatre, and indeed he never yet knew a Judge competent to do it. Accordingly it turned out that the Daniell always comprontised, being satisfied every shilling spent here was lost. The or.ly case where a Judge did settle such an affair was when Sir Win. Chant directed t he Opera-house to be sold. If, as had been represented by the present applicants, the Master was wrong, the Court had nothing to do with that on the present application. The matter must be brought before it in the shape of exceptions. Theutmest limit the Court could go to was to order that the nightly receipts be applied to meet the exigencies of the establishment, so as the concern might proceed. Ile could not give any directions as to how the surplus should be applied, but if he were pressed for a decision lie would order that it be paid into Court to abide the decree. There was no way of quieting the patties but by transferring the concern by sale Into the hands of people that could agree, and this they must expect it' they did not come to an amicable agreement. Mr. Haar said that Mr. Conet would most cheerfully obey any order the Court might be dispelled to make. He deprecated, how ever, being sent back to Messrs. Willett, Forbes, and Kemble, who would come to no arrangement. 31r. SUDDEN said, on the contrary, Messrs. Willett, &c. in vited Mr. Cons: to come to terms. The Loan Cnauctu.ou—Where there is a majority they generally take whatever course they think right. 111 r. Haar —These gentlemen al wuys hang together. Mr. Twigs said it was right they should, when it was fora com mon purpose. It was different with the lessees ; they did not bang together, but came into Court on different titles. The LORD CHANCELLOR -If the parties come into Court, on every occasion they will tind it bring about not only thew own ruin but that of the concern. If they sought the opinion of the Court they must he treated as. common partners. His that award would be, that the prolita of the day should satisfy the demands of the day, and the rest abide his decision. This was the common principle of partnerships, and thonld be at:hcred to in the present ease. He could rot dismiss front hilt mind that a debt was hanging over the concern which would render !inch en order ruinous to the pasties ; but if they called fur his decree uri Thursday they should harsh. 11r.Svonser was afraid he would have to call on the Court for its determination. Mr. Twiss said his clients were noxious to come to an agree ment, and had no apprehension of his Lordship's decision. CRAWSIIY r: . COLLINS- 7 .IIROWN P. DE TASTET. His boarish:li void be swab! give judgment in these eases on Thursday or Friday. Mr. HART made an observation at to the propriety of mixing up the two case.. The Loan CHANCELLOR—I do it to illustrate the doctrine ap plicable to both. CLAD TONE AND °THUD, r.DENTITII AND OTHERS. Mt. HEALD addrateed he Lordship, just as the Court was ' rising, on behalf of Messrs. David Gladstone, David Paton, and' James Wordley, merchants, nt Liverpool, formerly carrying on business in co-partnership with the defendant, Jcv.n Dewitt), as brewers, at Nantwich. in the county of Cheater, under the firm of D. Paton and Co., and after briefly stating that, notwithstanding an injimetion had some tune since been obtained against the said John Dentith. to restrain him from drawing, accepting, or in dorsing any bill or promissory note, in the mute of the said late firm ni D. Paton and Co.. observe d, that within the last few days two hills of exchange, purporting to Ire accepted by that firm (one for I,ofrit and the other fur folan.), hail been left with !Jetsam Jud son and Cook, highly respectable men in the City, by a Mr. George Dickson, who, with Dentith himself, waited upon them to know whether they Clients. Jettison and Cook) would sell goods, and melee in payment .the befixe.sientioned bills. Messrs. Judson and Conk, as respectable tradesmen, naturally made some inquiry respecting the bills before they parted with their property, and the reptile was, that they were convinced that they should neither be justified. nor acting honestly in the business, if they had anything to do pith the bills. which. as before said, were still in them possession. They, Illestens. Judson sr.d Cook, accordingly ap prised the parties in Liverpool of the two bills which had been offered to them, and which they then held. Under these circuits. stances, therefore. be (Mr. Heald) had to pray his Lordship for an injunction, to restrain Messrs. Judson and Cook, who had acted the pan of honest, respectable, and disinterested persons, from parting with the hem bills in their procession, and also to extend the injunction to restrain culler Dickson or Dentith from taking any legal steps against Judson and Cook, to compel them to de liver up the bills. The LORD CHAWCELLOR immediately granted the injunction as prayed, bids as against Messrs. Judson and Cook and against Mason and Denial. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, lIIONDAY, Drc. EAURAS v. /.E.4TOX. This was a bill filed for the purview of compelling the defendant to accept redemption of a 11110itgaite granted by the olaintirs grat.d. father in 171X1. upon (Twain lards in the manor of Wickham, as a security for a sum of 3001. adtanced In him by Mr. I.enton. Mr. Heald, with whom was Mr. Iliekersieth, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sugien, and Mr. Illeggisson, for the defendant. It appeared thst poniession had beau taken under the mortgage in 1780. and an acknowledgment of the mortgage title made by the deftsalant in the litth November. 1709• TIN application for re demption trick lance i t the yar 1819. ten days wiihin the period when the twenty ;can shored for er:ity of redemption would hate expired. rtor 0:1C iltferilant It was corierukel that there had been DO at knowkilgtned of the cuorrobe Cite in 1780; or if so, that the _ t .. ~: PRESS. present plaintiff was not the party entitled to redeem, inasmuch as there was not sufficient prior that Anthony Deacon Barran, the plaintiff', was the legal descendant 1104 heir-at•law of the mort gagor. It was further objected, that supposing the right of redentp. :ion to exist, and that the plaintiff' was the person entitled to exer. cise it, it did not obtain here, as the defendant must be considered in the light of a purchaser, without notice for a valuable con sideratimi. The VICS-CHANCELI.OII gave judgment, and expressed his opinion that the defend:me& was merely a meetgage title, and the plaintiff' intided to redemption. Mr. HEALD—I:um Honour will make the usual decree for an account. The VICE-Caraticitttox--Vre. Mr. SVGDEN naked the Court to permit an inquiry into the sums of money dtperded by his client on the estate during the 40 years be remained in possession. The Vicx-emartexti.ntt thought the Court too much In the dark upon that subject to grint the application at present. How ever, ht would allow she defendant to present a petition on that point, to which the plaintiff could scarcely object, when the great length of time this property had been in Lesson's hands, and the lucky escape the plaintiff had bye term of ten days were considered. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WrsTatixaxxx, MosnAy. Mc. a. Sittings before the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE and Cernmon Juries. sowTEIII-16,PRiloa. This wag an action to recover SW-for work and labour done in re. pairing a house situated in Weston-place, Battle-bridge. The defendant is the proprietor or the house in question, the plaintiff' his sub-lessee. For the plaintiff it war contended, that the repairs were performed under the direction of the original lessee, and that titer were nrcearary to make the !inure tenantable ; for the defendant, it appeared that he had paid 81. into Court, and that, as to any thing beyond that, it was contended that he was not liable, inasmuch as he had repeatedly remonstrated with the workmen in the progress of the repairs, and that in reality these was nu neces sity tor them. The Jury cave a verdict for the.plaintiff, damages 81., in addition to theta. that had been paid into Court. OOND v, CL•IiIICE. This was an actioa to reeoves money lent to the defendant. 31r. SCARLEVT said, that the plaintiff ltd lent 001. to the de. fendant, tot which he had his written acknowledgment. Two sums —3Ol. and 2/. 104.--hed been repaid; and the action was brought to recover tho balance of 171. 10s. The defendant resisted the re. payment on the ground that he had purchased and sold for the plaintiff' shares in the Imperial Plate Glass Company, the loss upon which, he said. covered the balance. The plaintiff, however, in point of fact, had never. had anything to do with the shares of this embryo and abortive speculation, nor ever given any autoority to the defendant to purchase for him. The written acknowledgment being put in and proved, 11r. 31A RATA?, who was for the defendant, time and said that hehadno answer to this. • • Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 171. 10s. CHADWICK a. BURNING. The plaintiff is a surgeon and accoucheur, and this action was brought to recover 91. 7s. for business done in bis professional ea pacity. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff, previous to bringing the action, bad sent in a bill for 31.135. The various items were attenuated to be proved, hut, in the final result, it was proved that the whole had been paid except IL 13s. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages IL 135., and consequently the plaintiff will have to pay the costs. 'WOOD r. WOOLER. The plaintiff in tithrution is a printer. carrying on business in New Church-court, in the Strand t the defendant it Thomas Jona than Wooler, the weal-known editor of the Block Dwarf. This action was brought to recover a sum of 231.. being the balance of an scrount for work and labour done in printing *eventl number* of a periodical started in the autumn of last year. called the llf echa wits' Chronicle, which, after lingering through a few numbers, was given up. Mr. (3uusrEY and • Mr..K ELIA' conducted the plaintiff* can; Mr. SCAItLETT and Mr. CIIITTI• that of the defendant. It appeared that' tbe o►igir•.al account was 88(., of which Mr. Wooler had paid ISt. He resisted the payment of the residue, from the exorbitance 6f the charges'. The plaintiff, however. enforcing payment of 'the whole, Mr. Woolsr determined to avail himself of a defence which he would not have resorted to but for this. The plaintiff, Mr. Wood, had been in partnership with his aon.in.law, /11r. Keene, which partnership was subsisting at the time the work in question was done. This action ought therefore to have been brought by them jointly. The only question for the Jury was, whether or not the plaintiff and Mr. Keene were partners. To prove that they were not, Mr. Huitxt v called Mr. Keene—l know the plaintiff. I was with him the greater part of 1824. I was to have entered into partnership with the plain tiff, but no psrtranship deed was eves executed. Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Mr. Wood is my father. in.law. He has been in business marry/ears. He has carried on business In New Church-court two or three years. The premises have berm fitted up for printing offices at a considerable expense. I ant liable for it. Sly father, Mr. Wood, has been compounding with some of my creditors at 10s. in the pound. Sly creditors were compounded with last summer. A partnership was contemplated, but no agreement-wail ever drown or signer+. Ido not recollect that I ever gave instruction to the boak.keeper to keep the books in such a manner as that no partnership transactions might appear on the face of them. My father might have given such instructions, but not to my knowledge. Ido not recollect that 1 have ever pro. posed to Mr. Woofer that I and my lather would do this business jototly. I and Mr. Wood had separate offices. (The witness here admitted that he had seen a bill made out to himself by Mr. Wooler.) I was in the habit of making out bills fur Mr. Wood against some parties as if I wan the creditor. Mr. SCARLET? put ID a variety of letters and papers, tending to show that Wood and Keene had carried on business in partner. ship • and, among others, two checks which were payable to Wood and Keene. Mr. SeaILETT Isere handed in a paper, purporting to be an agreement to print for Mr. Woofer a newspaper, called the Nation, which was signed by 11r. Keene, and in which he contracted to do this jointly with 3lr. Wood. Mr..SCARLETT, for the defendant, said, that this was the first of a series of similar actions which were now pending. Ile said, that in point of fact Wood and Kane were partners, but wished to keep this partnership secret. Their transactions were carried on in this way : Certain pats of their business, such as fitting up their premises, and in which they would have to be the payers, were done in the name of Keene, and then, he being insolvent, Wood compounded with his creditors, paying them so much in the pound. In other eases, where they were to be the receivers, the business was done in the name of Wood, and they shared the spoils between them. Mr. Kelly, examined by Mr. CHITTY-1 was a clerk in the printing-office in New Church-court. I was on the establishment of the Nation ; after this 1 went into the office when the Me chanics' Chronicle wu printed there. As I was to be treasurer, I gave a security, headed " Wood and Keene." They desired me to keep the books so that no partnership should'appear on the face of them. I repelled this with indignation. Persons were in the habit dunning into the office and Inquiring for Wood, or Keene, or both. Mr. Keene had apartments in the office, and managed the business. Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—Wood's name was on the door. Mr. Dimon, examined by Mr. ScAn LYTT—I know Wood and Keene; I was employed in printing the Roman Empire for them. I always considered them as partners. [This witches proved a cluck drawn by Dr. Gilchrist, which was drawn " Payable to Reeve and Wood."] Mr. &ebbs, examined by Me. CHITTY-1 always considered Wood and Keene as partner.. Wm. Evans, whu engraved the plates for the Roman Empire, gave testimony to the same effect. John Thompson—l am a worker for Mr. Baines. The stereo_ graphic plates for the Roman Empire were prep are d at o f our boost. When I went to get the settlement of the account. I wan always referred to Mr. Keene. The first time I saw Mr. Wood he said, how could we have the impudence to make out our account in the names of himself and Keene. Ile said that it must be made out in the name of Keene, who would pay it if it was 3,0001. The Loup CHIET JUSTICE told the Jury that it they thought the walk had been done by Wood, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; hut it' they thought it ha .1 hem, done by him in partner ship with Keene, or if it had been dune by Keene alone, then they would find for the defendant. The Jury immediately returned a •erdict for the defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ItloxnAy, Dsc. S. Middlesex Sitlings after Mlchnelmns Term. lefore Lord Chil JNstice BEST and Common Juries. IDCNII V. CLAM AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by the plaintiff; an attorney of dray'r. Inn, against the defendants, to recover damages for the injury sustained by hint in consequence of their committing a trespass on his chambers on Sunday, the let of December, 1822. Mr. Sergeant WILD; said, that the cause of action had arisen as long ago es the Hi Dec. 1822, and the action was itself com menced immediately after but the plaintiff' had afterwards, in consideration of the very long intimacy that existed between him and the 31eura. Clarke, one of whom was one of the defendants, given up the idea of bringing the cause to trial: nor would the Jury ever have been n -üblei with it but fur the subsequent con. duct of the defendant, a:r. Clarke himself. who, in a letter written by hint to Mr. Hicks, had caked hint a scoundrel for having cont. menced the action. It wan with a view to vindicate his own cha racter, and not for the sake of the damages, therefore, that the suit was resumed and now brought into Court. The plaintiff was a respectable attorney, and his chambers were in Dray,' Inn. The Alessi% Clarke were, and had for many years been, very intimately acquainted with the plaintiff, sib= they employed in various actions in which they were concerned either as plaintiffs or defend ant,. It happened that 31r. T. Clarke was made a devisee under tha will of a 31r. Stoddart, the validity of which was disputed, on the pound of the inas n i t y o f the testator t an d pr ongs were instuuted to set the will 'aide. One of the actions which arose in consequence of the will being questioned was that brought by a Mr. Dew against Mr. Fletcher, a tenant in possession of some of the premises devised by the will. This per,on being merely the tenant had no icterest to defend the acti,n. tint Messrs. Clarke, being desirous diet the arise should be defended, authorised the plaintiff. as their attorney, to give an undertaking to Mr, Fltidter's solicitors thu: they sou;d indemnify their dint ft. it •r the costa that should be incurred ; and the papers were then placed in the plaintiff's hands, to conduct the defence to he termination of the suit. Subsequently, however, Mews. Clarke wrote a letter, declaring that they would not be answerable for any colts in that action ; the plaintiff consequently discontinued the defence, and Fletcher not having any interest in the question, suffered judgment to be recoveted against him. Upon this 31esars. Clarke ezpresaed themselves dismantled with the conduct of Mr. Hicks, and some letters of rather an unfriendly character were written by them to that gentleman, which in the result induced him to request llileaarL Choke to appoint some other person as their professional adviser. An appointment was accordingly made from Messrs. Clarke to have their papers. which were in the possession of the plaintiff; delivered up to them, and in the month of Nov. 1822, one of the plaintiff's clerks was ee,ployed (one days in ar ranging and making &schedule of the papers, and which were all given up to Messrs. Clarke except a few, which it was appointed should be taken on the following day (the filth), but Mr. T. Clarke did not keep that appointment. Among the papers thus given up were those In the action against Fletcher. But Mr. Clarke (the defendant) and Boote (a person in his employ) came to the cham. ben of the plaintiff on Sunday, the Ist day of December, 1822, and applied to the plaintiff's clerk, who resided there, fur the re. matntler of his papers. The clerk said he knew nothing of them, or if he did he could not take upon himself to deliver them up without the sanction and authority of his muter, who was not then at hie chambers. The defendant Clarke said he would not go away without his papers, and immediately went into the offices where the papers belonging to the clients of the plaintiff were kept, and under the pretence of lookirg for his own papers opened a great number of base', containing the papers of other persons, and threw the papers all about the office. The clerk remonstrated with the defendants, and begged them, for his sake, to desist, but the defendant Mr. Clarke put himself into a great passion, and cisn tinned throwing the papers about for some time, after which lie and the other defendant went away. On the plaintiff learning this }le naturally felt much hurt, and in his anger commenced the pre. sent action, but when his feelings beg a n t o c o o l, an d h av i ng settled all his accounts with Messrs. Clarke, he gave up the ides I of pursuing the action, particularly as be and the Messrs. Clarke had been on terms of the closest friendship for many years. Mr. T. Clarke. however, afterwiirds wrote a letter, in which lie called the plaintiff a scoundrel for commencing this a-tion at all, and it was this circumstance which compelled him, in his own justifica tion, to bring the question before a Jury ; hut the plaintiff had not even now any desire to obtain large damages, and if the de. fendants would now a d m i t t h at M r . Hicks 's conduct was perfectly correct and proper he would consent to take a verdict for nominal damages only. This proposition not being acceded to, the Learned Sergeant called his witnesses, whose evidence supported the facts stated by him in his opening speech. Mr. Sergeant LAVES addressed the jury on the part of the de fendant. He designated the action as one of a most frivolous and triflingdescription, and the trespass being laid in the declaration to have been committed on a Sunday, was a piece of arrant affec tation ; as, according to the nature of the action it was quite im material on what day the trespass were alleged to have been com. mined. It had been proved that these parties had been living upon terms not only of ordinary intercourse but of friendship, and throughout the period of their acquaintance it appeared that the defendant, Mi. Clarke, had 'tetra In a manner towards Mr Hicks, that ought to have induced that gentleman to have passed over a little offence of this description. It was one of the greatest mis fortunes that ever happened to Mr. Clarke to have been appointed a devisee under the will of Mr. Stodilart, for he hail been in volved in lawsuits ever since ; after, however, all this litigation the validity of this will was clearly established. Mr. Sergeant WILDE said his Learned Brother was saying a great deal more than he RSA justified In doing. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he could not help it. He wished he could have prevented half that had been sail on both sides. There seemed to he a rivalry who should waste most time. Mr. Sergeant LAWES proceeded to comment on the irrelevant matter that had been introduced into the cause, which was one that ought never to bare been brought at all. Bet the Jury would not engraft or incorporate into their consideration anything that might have taken place between these parties at a time subse quent to the trespass; and, he thought the smallest coin of this realm would be amply sufficient to meet the justice of the case. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, if his Learned Brother had said two hours ago the sentence with which he had just closed his address, this case would have been over, and he would have had a verdict against him for nominal damages only. Therefore, if It is client should now,have to pay more money he would have to thank himself because it was distinctly said at the outset, if thedefendants would admit that 31r. flicks had acted vighly, that was all that would be asked. His Lordship thou that Mr. Hicks' s c o nd uct i n t hi n case was correct and proper. Blame had been thrown upon him for not carrying on the defence in the action against Fletcher, but that was the defendant's fault the having rescinded their own undertaking to pay the costs of the defence. There was no evidence that a single paper was left in the plaintiff's custody belonging to Mesas. Clarke, but if there had beau. was Sunday a proper day to go for them 1 Ilia Lordship agreed with his Learned Brother. that there was a great deal of mock moderty sometimes displayed boon these matters ; but still, unless a necessity existed for these papers being used on the Monday, it was a very indecent and improper thing to go to an attorney's chambers on a Sunday, at i time when he hoped all professional inen were at some place of divine worship,to require documents to be given up. It was for the Jury to say whether it was not Mr. Chirke's own fault In the first instance that the anion was brought, and whether Is was notiela own numerous dispute/cm that had induced its being continued. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Darhages, 291. FIRTH V. HANNAH AND RETSY. This was an action of teaser against the defendants to recover the value of a quantity of leather taken by them from a man named Galley, in the employ of the plaintiff, who is a boot and shoes maket, and converted to their own use. Hannan pleaded the general issue. The other defendant pleaded, In abaternent, that his name was Betsor and not Betsy. It appeared that Galley was tenant to Betsor, and on coining home one evening, with some leather from the plaintiff's, and find ing that his wife was not within, he went in search of her. Betsor putsued him, and gave him into charge of a watchrnah, saying that he was clandestinely removing his goods to avoid a distress for rent. They went to Hannan, the constable of the night, who in spected the contents of the bag which Galley had with him, and after hearing Betsm's story, he told Galley lie might gal about his business, but he detained the bag an d t h e leather. The parties went bef ore the magistrate the next day, when the constable said that Betsor had called while he was out, and had got the leather from his (the constable's) wife. Betsor, who was then called Betsy, corrected the error, by giving his name Betsor. It was, however, proved, that on the service of the writ, Betsor compared it with the original, and did not make any objection at the time of its being sued in a wrong name. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Nor was he bound to do so. He saw that lie had a good defence, anti it was the stupidity of the plaintiff in calling him by the wrong nanie after the defendant had himself once before corrected him. This defendant, therefore, must have a verdict. But with regard to the constable, his Lord. ship thought there was sufficient evidence of a conversion against him ; for as no charge of felony had been preferred against Galley, the constable had no right to interfere, much less to detain the, leather. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff as against Hannan— Damages 31. 101., the value of the leathei, and a tionsuit uitgaiust Betur. JENKINS AND ANOTIII:R V. IMEnTLPII, ESQ. This was an action brought by Anne and Charlotte Jenkins, to recover damages from the defendant for the injury they had sus. tamed in consequence of a false return made by him, as Sheriff for the county of Hereford, toe wit arteries espies ed nztisf octet, dam which had been sued out against them. It appeared by the statement of Mr. Sergeant TADBY that the two plaintiff's, together with two other" sisters, were seised as te nants in common to a cottage and about eight acres of land. &imam at Credden-hill, about four miles from the city of Hereford. Un. fortunately for them, within a few yards of these premises resided a Mr. James, a very opulent solicitor. In consequence of his opu. tense, he enlarged his house, and was desirous of enlarging his grounds around it, but which he could not do without getting some part of the plaintiffs' eight acres of hind. lie accordingly pur. chased the share clone of the RiPIeTS, who was not a plaintiff to this action. and then applied to the Court of Chancery lot a decree that the land should be partitioned. The plaintiffs were, by these pro. ceedings, put to a great expense, and Mr. James ultimately suc ceeded in getting both the plaintiffs into Hereford gaol on the 221 ' of June, 1821, a here Charlotte Jenkins remained till the 20th of klatch following, and Anne till the 21st of Jdne. 1822. While in confinement, Mr. James, who was determined to get possession of their property, set about doing It by instituting proceedings of out. lawry against them ; one of the :consequences of which was, that the property of the outlaws was forfeited, sad became vested in the crown. As a toundicion for these ptoceedings, throe co. oat). were issued, upon the third of which (being the tansies) the Sliciff . had returned non Cot interns; or, in plain Englieh, that the par ties were not to be found in his bailiwick. This return was made at the specie' instance and request of the plaintiffs' agent, Mr. Platt. The usual steps were then taken to an outlawry, and the two plaintiffs were outlawed ; or, as the law designated it, when I applied to women, waived. The lend was then taken possession of by the crown, and a lease of it was immediately obtained from the Commissioners of Woods anti Forests by Mr. James. But it art. peered that at the very time the return was made by the Sheriff, that the parties were net to be found, Charlotte, one of the plaintiff., was then living at her cottage, keeping a day-school, and the Sheriff .. .officer wits was employed on the occasion actually re. sided within a few yards of her house. Not only so, but the other plaintiff, Ante, was at that time in the custody of the She riff himself, she being, on the return of the writ, which wax in Michaelmas Term 1821, apriaoner in lleteford gaol, end had been then appointed the matron of that gaol by the visiting Magistrates. It was therefore contended that the Sheriff must have known where these partiedwere. The anion being brought jointly, the Learned Sergeant did not mean to ask for damages tor the individual suf ferings that each of the plaintiffs had separately sustained. They were in thejnint occupation of the property, and had incurred i joint expense in the suits brought against them by Mr. James. That gentleman, it was true, had paid part of those expenses, Mr when the Court set aside the waiver, or judgment of outlawry, on motion of the plaintiffs, It made the rule absolute with costs; but mill those were only the costs baween party and. party, and not as between attorney and client. lie therefore should ask the Jury damages file the joint inconvenience the plaintiffs had in curred, and for the joint expenses they had been put to. The necessary proof was then given es to the regularity of the judgm.nt or waiver. Jolllarilicy. the keeper of the gaol of lleteford, examined—Miss A::n J e:Air s came into my euatody the 281 February 1821, and re. .--- ! s - - •-,,----.-- ,•. • • 'N- "Twqr.l .44r , , \ a i ' • 'I t . ' i .. . . . maned till 22d Tune; Ib2. when she was discharged. Sbe hair remained in the gaol ever ,rote as matron, being appointed to that situatisa by the visiting alsaristratee. Chanute Jenkins came Into ,my custody the 22d February, 1821 ; and was tfisehergad on t h e f • 20th altirea,llS2l. i 1 Ann Stamen — l am a niece of the plaintiff's'.plaintiff's'. l remember i their being taken to the county gaol, tp February . 1821. They ; were then living at Credden Hill. about four miles from Hertford. Mr.-James lived next door to them. Before they went to gnol, flit. James had made an enlargement of his house and round, Do you know whether any cattle ever came upon --• Mr. Sergeant AV renr—C an t h e y go int o that, ply jawed ? . 1 The Conn CHIEF JULTICE—I think not. If you wished to have shown these facts you should have brought 'true action against Mr. James for maliciously causing them to outlawed. The Sheriff is only answerable for his of f icer's acts, rind not for Mr. James's. • • Witness—The plaintiff's mother lived there prev,ous to her death ; and the plaintiffs continued th e re a f terwar d s . Th ey h a d ' a field and garden adjoining. When my atilt Charlotte came r , out of prison in March, 16 4 21, she returned to live at Coden Hill. and kept a day school there. She used to go to Hereford occasion- ally to see her sister Ann, who was still is gaol, I lived at Here- ford, but used to visit my aunt Charlotte et (;redden Hill every San. day. I used to go with her to my that Ann while in gaol. I wet not present when any person took possession of the garden and premises. I have been there between July and November, 1824, when my aunt Charlotte was in possession of the premises. I never knew any doe else being in poet slim of it. Cross.exeminee by Mr. Sergeant, ai'traos —I have hoed my aunts thy that they were entitled. each to one-Meech part of the premises. I have never heard them say that they had conveyed' v their share'. to Mrs. Lewis. They never said to me that they were afraid of Mr. James, and that they locked themselves up front him every 'lay in the week, except Sundays. e. Mr. John Rudlin, Clerk in the Auditor's Offiae for the Lend i Revenue, produced an enrolment of a lease to John James, Gent. made by the Commissioners of AVtiods and Forests, of the premises . . ) in question, in pursuanc e o f t h e S tatute 2, Geo. 4: Mr. Sergeant WILDE objected to 'hie being read, and said the .. lease itself might to b e p ro d uce d. 1 Mr. Sergeant Ta k onv sontet,a.d that the enr o l m ent was a public document, and direr / ace adoassilde evidence. He qu o t e d / the case of Smartell v. a tiliame, 1 Salkelli, p. 2110, wherk the en- rolment of a bargain ant. sale, under the Statute of Henry YIN. • • was evidence, without the n re d uc ai on of the original deed. . Mr. Sergeant Ncitarta alio sebmitted that the plainti ff e co u ld • not maintain th is acti o n, i aas a t ilet is f appeared by the record that i , their title was several a id th e a ct i on waif a joint action. As an ' injury done to th em severally would revive the damages to be * apportioned, this was not the form of action they should have 'dewed. i - • The LORD CHIEF JUSTICII aid be site desirous to decide points at It'iri Prins if he could; u If dften need the panies .' t much expense. He was clearly of opinion that the fueM df Fiction was right. The injury complained?? slat tldne to the p os s ess i on, . iI - which was j o int, a nd not to the smelt', which wits seve r al . Th e 1r case of Olney. v. Spearman, 2 Hen. Blackstone, p. 388, was an authority for this opinion. But with Amara to the question of ~.1 evidence, hie Lordship w as of anthemth -at the eurolrhent was not admissible as a proof of the { rate d ; His Lordship then took • notes of the two points, and neadaa =lame of Ith decisions neon I them. i Mr. Thos. Day—l live at Hereford, end have for thanetitrie it known the plaintiffs. I had lashed" Marlins at the premises in June 1821, I visited there after July, ana;elthe . lag the months I of August and Septerither. She was In the, Apaise, and a man was f in possession at the time. I know that it I* al men with attends t i the Sheriff's officer. • . Ile ,nerae• • , The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—That NODitiot—, The ma who attends the Sheriff's officer might NOR been parRIA MI courtship ] to this young wo man . l, . Mr. Sergeant TADDY—ft was a Yea* relugtf Obresliipa as the Hake of Rutland said on the oceaaiou of the nestriagif &Me YWarat King Edward and the Queen of Scuts. . it Mr. Lawrence, attorney for the plaintiffs, thenpreved that Ain costs amounted to Sea Ills. 2d., 211 . 7s. 64. of which was' allowed t 1 by the Prothonotary, and had been paid hi/Mr...Limes. Alo Fieiden, an attorney, said thatoklippt clip kennels : tr.ig.ho be i taken off, esatera .....•0 _ Elizabeth Lewis examined —t resided- 4shb.dreilalata^ before they went to prison, and remained there aft* Chadotte had re- turned. ~ Llo you remember Mr. Ames .thltatakjitiClFtsaion of the pre . miser' ? " ''•'' --.- ~ ~,..,_ ; The Loeb CHIEF JusTtet Iva thrit'ilildence could net be . 1 ' taken.. The . pleintiff ought to hilt prodatied the warrant order which the Sheriff's officer meted. • Mr. Sergeant TADDY observed, that the possession was net taken tinder any warrant, but under the lease which was granted by the Crown. The LORD CUIE7 JUSTICE—But yod have not ehown t h at i there was any swell kw. Mr. fiergeset TAHOE—Then, my I,otd, I will show that air. James did take possession under a supposed lease. The Loap Cuter JUITICE—Vuu cannot do it. Ton tmaht . to have .brought your action against Mr. James, or have made hen ' a a witness. This was the plaintiri ate, . Ideetieramaat Wiens tialdteseol th e Jury for the defender!. , a Re said this was a cave of a fi r st iinpresdon. The Shed!' was in I general perfectly justified in acting upon the authority of the plain- tiff;and, if the consequence" of the Sherlfl"a acts were injurioe% i I by pureeing such illesciimi the pealed Injured generally brought their action against the plaintiff: There was, therefore, no legel complaint against the Saeriff for having returned non est inventi... This practice had been sencdoned by the Courts for a long period. If, however, the Court should now say • that these returns were wrong,..he was sure they_ would not occur again. But there was / abundaht reason, ht this cute, *by the present action could not be sustained. Tie upset of themetion w as thi s , th at if t h e pl a i nt iff s hataknosro that they were wanted in that suit they would h ave ap . k• >. peered. There had, however; been ample Poke KilTll to theta ] before the judgment of waiver was pronounced. They were de.. manded five times et the County Court, and proclaimed three times at the church doors. He would 'say, that it was impose/Me to re. 1 verse an outlawry Ly saying that - the - parties had not euffaclent no- tice, for that was the leg a l, rnede of giving theta notice.' Hut the question was, whether the Sheriffs had bein negligent Of nos? He contended that there was no moof of negiiteasee. '.The Sheriff was not bound to know every poo r w oman tetra oceuaied..ll eet•age or kept a school in his county; nor was it tisualaerldnitetralia wear r ! I sent to him, to inarcb his gall to find the party.' Bet en pose a writ woe issued eamiust a person, 'Lott. on ini teems hand to the . i Sheriff, the attorney should say, '! there, Sir; is a watt,but you 1 • need nor look for the defendant, you cannot fintahim, sed a a, -who am responsible to the directions I pave, eelaymathat this _array is not to be found, and you may return so?' He contended, 'that the Sheriff might have made the return without bay bionic.. The evi- dame was not sufficient to show negliganc,et antejdos, nothing was. , . ''..., said to the Sheriff as to this being a writ t . Which It proem* of outlawry was intended to be g romu l e tt , effheoff had not the i 0 slightest reason to suppose it. Had he knowo that, then, inde e d, r there might have been some ground for this accusation. TteJary would also remember, that nnless they found there had been negli- t i genre as to both the plointifGathey could not fi nd a verdict egehot the defendant. It was a quest ion of fact, anti not of law, and t o trusted it would be their opinio n t h a t no ev id ence ex i ste d to prove - a t ' that the Sheriff had been negligent. The Loan CFI LEO JusTrct regretted that en much time should ,) i i ...,, have been lost in a tri a l o f so tr ifli ng a nature as t hi s. T he goes- tion was, whether the Sherifahad been guilty of neglect in malting the return of non est invents* to the writ. Undoubtedly the fact of the parties living in the county wag not sufficient moot of' negli- e Bence. One of the parties was In gaol, but there was no direct evidence that the Sherllrs officer knew that fact. It had also been proved that the other party was living within font miles of the city of Hereford. The question was, might the Sheriff placer 11. , have known dud these two women were in the county ? If so, des .tr action was maintainable. His Lordship, foe one, hoped that that action would have the effect Of teaching Sheriffs that they were not ! i' ' justified in acting upon the mere information of any party, but that they had a duty to perform, which required them to be mare Ma- r , cutely acquainted with the facts before they made this species cat i return, of which his Lordship had all his life been complainice. Why was It that gentlemen of rank and property were selected 'or . the office of Sheriff, but that there should be a fund to resort to by i parties who should suffer by the neglect of those who were ap- pointed to execute the Hines write? The Jury, however, would a ' confine theit iniatity to the point of negligence, which mast be as ' to both the plaintiffs, to entitle them to their verdict. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages let (the 1 . . stun doe tothe attorney for setting aside the outlawry); thus fan] - ing that the Sheriff war guihr of negligence. CONSTRUCTION OF TUE COURT. • In the course of the morning the Loth Cwitw J Dealt a con:. planted of the many currents of air that passed through the Court a ; on any of the valves or windOws being opened, and of - the intake. able heat that was expaienced when they were closed. His Lord- . .., ship said be was confined to his bed nearly the whole of Sunday in consequence of a cold he had caught from the draughts on Satin- i a day. It was his intention to adjourn over till Thursday, with she k hope that some alteration would, in the mean time, be made is the mode of ventilating the Coma The Jury have constantly complained of the draught whiter comes down from the lantern directly upon their beide and sets si . them sneezing most inconti nent l y . Wh en it rains the table of die Court and the wigs of the Learned Sergeants on the front seats get a gentle sprinkling, to the vexation of the officer who takes care of the former, and to the equal satisfaction, no doubt, of the perru. e quicr, whose profeesional skill adorns the latter. , . —.......-- . COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DECEMBER 7. 4 Sittingsafler .11figiachnas Tern,bdlrre the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury. . THE KING Si. NELSON.' This was a scare facies against the executors of the defendant, a . , one of the 'Hoene,' et the hood of 1,0001. given for the good condoct i iof Captain Correll, the Paymaster of th e lath R eg i ment o f th e . ( 1 goons.l te cue for the Crown was neater the conduct of the Solieitco. General, Mr. Clarke, and 31r. Parke; for the defendant, AIL Rowel and dir. Steers. The case, which has been mare than once before the public. was this :—Cettoin deficiencies appearing in the accounts of C a p ta i n e ' Correll in the year 1807, an inquiry tusk place ; it then w as dit to . vered that C.eaain Correll had ellowed tote )tike of Cumberialtd, 1 teed other persone, to overdraw their accour.ts in snce a manner, that ho became indebted to the Government to the emoute at a II k i bonito-I pounds.. Captain_ Correll was bILUSbi to a (..' up t-g a: :a , and thamised front his saus.iuu. A cout.t.unkaatz . r. sr Wadi , ~. , • 1 * ' f • i, mi‘• . , _ .. . • . . . e __ • :