The Sun. — London, England, 1807-06-17 00:00:00

--)_. _ _ LAIC' REPORT. COURT ‘)I. KING's.I3ENCLI, TvNg O. ROBERTS V. CA This an • action for' slanilefbtotight by the Plaintiff, an Attornow of the Gi=ear Sog,sionspf Che who h'eitrObta lord o Verdict -in I)i9- favour. - • Mr. lit4ttikciuons,•on a former day; hid obtained rhlii to . sheet= cause , why not'be ttnul-thatthe words stated in the dec, :u were. not' actionable.. The wa k e& stated a the counts Were, spetil; lug of -the • Plaintiti, " he udder slie - Chr,irge Of 'a prosecution for "perjury ;" Alld it was added, that x pubfic °dicer would prose cutt. The ATTORIigY-QENERAL and Mr 7 SCARLETT op posed this rule: - The - question *as; whether ex pressions of this nature - woo rd not have the etFet of , . injuring, disgrating, and perhaps of ruining _the 4.la,intitf? slanderous expressionS;' there were a variety of cases in the books, in the decisions re `spe 'Learned Judges had Materially leiel'; and wheee authorities thuS Went both ways, `tits r I,,ord , bips ,would, perhaps, think it i:afar to 'mist to their own views of truth, reason, and coni mon sense, than to Cqnfile In any cursory classifi7 Sittion.of those.cases...,Qn such grounds, the Learned Counsel hoped that their Lot dshipii.woUld'discharge' his rule. . Mr. TOPPING and Mr. BtzanouGns contended, that words derogatory -to the party against whom they were direCted were 'not always the subjed of an- action ; and in support of this position they cited the ea-es of Holt v. Schofield, Haynes v. Sprott, Stewart v. Bishop, and Powell v. Winde, which, .yinh some others, are to be found. in Hobart, Cro. Litz : and NYilliams:.Saunders, particularly in the latter, Ist voi. 203, note 4, Where all the cases of inneudoes are calleaed in Croft v. Boite. From the.se authorities thg insisted, that to disgrace the piny was .not _sufficient, the words must alledge seine crime which would .subjeti the Plaintiti to mipital punishment; .and the meaning of such terms eoat-oot he.extended by intleoclos. There must be aserticlo, of guiln which could not be pretend ed in any rational construction of the,e3;:pression em ployqd by the Defendant in this case, since .they im puted no direct crime, but. merely that the party was vhder the 4 - charge, and that the Public Othccr was vmpioyed to prosecute tine. accused...: • Lord ELLENaououGH.--" We will look into the cases, to -we are unwitlii►' to by clown 4 rule which may entourage improper applications, or diicounie. Nonce the fit reference ,to the authority of The Court, ut cases of this iLiture. . Although the 3111011 here is wt consequence, yet the Rule 'may be of great importance." TTACIIMENT. Mr. LITTLEDAL;; applied for a rule to shew cause attachment should not be filed against Ro bert Mourisey, lisq. and Rowland Bowsey, for re sisting the execution of a writ of Fieri foci= issued Out of this Court.. It. was stated in . the atbdavits, that Mr..Mounsey was Under Sheriff for Cumber land,. and had granted his warrant to a creditor, to seize the goods of his debtor, and for that purpose a special bmilitf„ named Patrickson, was employed. After the Officer had entered into possession, Mr. lounsey came into the house, and demanded by what authority Patridison acted, when the latter skewed Mr. Moiansey his own warrant, granted as :Under Sheriff. Mr. Mounsey instantly snatched it from the Officer's. hand, and ran off with it, but patric4son retained possession of the, house. Sow] afterwards, Bowey and others came. there, .and, mnder,authority of the Under Sheriff, broke the pan, ne;s of the street-door, :entered . the premises, as ',faulted the Otiicor, and turned him out of posses son'; he, tiowever, still keeping the keys.---41.u1e to shew cause granted. ; . . • • . 21r. .3Com nothin., ti ht. ;Irgutu.tir correct. The ground of decis , on in the Court of 'Bench turned entirely- upon a -questioli of policy,; but he should be able to satisfy their Lord , . shipti 'not only that the prinjiple with respeCt to policy was mistaken, but also that, according to the strict legal and grammatical construaion of, the law, the I'Llintiti in error had done the, only thing neces sary for him to perform, viz. the registration do no.v O in the port of London. It way a circntirstauce most important ,for their Lordships' consideration as a pubi:e (fuestion; because, if this were not sufficient, nine-troths of the shipping of this great cotnniereial country, subsiSting by its navigation, might be lost to its pre:Tent- proprietors. The'•Learned Counsel said,- he would lay dOwn a few propositions tO•assist the—construction of, the . statutes popularly called Li'vcrpool's A. '• The plain grathmatical sense of the A& ai . itiot be departed from upon any notion of policy." " A statute which treats of things . or persons a inferior" rank cannot, - • by any 'general words, be extended _to those of superior rank." Having stated these propositions, and briefly rea soned up(in them, the Learned Counsel said, that he •slitnild divide the argument into three heads. 'tst. “ The Plaintiff in error has done all the re gister laWs require, by having registered the ship de novO." ad. g! The policy of the laws require nothing more, in a Case„like ite present,. that: a neU:,,regis tration."'. 3d. " - The judgment in thCCourt of King's Bench has proceeded upon complete mistake of the re ', gister laws; and of their policy." The. fi,rst: A& upon the...subjeet was the 7th and sth c. 22. and tlie section applicable to the tressfisifcif ships to new Owners was the eist, which .began thes " And be it further enaaecl by the authority aforesaid, that no ships name reister ed shall. be afterwards changed without registering such ship de nooct;,'wlllch is hereby- *inked to be deite upon any tratifer of property:to another port, and delivering up the former' certificate to be cancel ed, &c:" Under this when a ship Was s o ld to another port a new registrinion WaSOCCessary ; but the law permitted, its the'case of a partial transfer, in the same port, that it should be made by indorse- Mee on the certificate. With this statute his client had complied, - and therefore, unless the law be ^ova-rietl,.' in the case of such transfer; sir--L' rd Liver pool's Ads, no doubt couldarise. The first of these' Aas'was the 26th Geo. 111. c. 60. -; Mr. SCOTT here discussed' at great length 'the clauses of this Act, par ticularly the 3d, gth, inth, 12th, t,stie and i(th see ; and in summing up his observations on the general construaion; he said, that where the ship is to be tranferred to another port under this aet, there must be a new register, but where a part only was too transferred, the indorsement was the substitute for the new register, for the convenience of trade. This Act expressly preserved the distinction : for, by the 'ifth seistion, it made an amendment in the former Aet, and having completed that obje&, it proceeded to a fresh recital, and then regulated thespeciesof trans fer, which is the - alienation of a share in the same port; and the learned Counsel insisted, that neither the grammatical nor legal construction would admit the extension of the 16th section to any but the case for which it expressly provided. It -contemplated only the indorsernisnt, and not the present case, .which was that 0i . ..1140W registration. Having argued with much confidence that the Ad of King William was not at all varied in respe& to new registrations by the 26th of the King, Mr. Scotr proceeded t o examine.bether any alteration had been made fiy the only titheol6l applicable to the subjea, w kich is the 34th Geo. 111. c. 68. This statute, he contend ed, related Only to what he called the substitutional mode of transfer, as by the indorsement, and had nothinVe do with the new-registration. It confined itself to a transfer of a share in the same port, and enacted as follows : Whereas by 'the laws now in force, upon any alteration of property in any ship or vessel, in the same port to which such ships or ves sels belong; an :indorsement upon the certificate of regiitry is required to be made ; be it emitted, that such indorsement shall, from and after - the Ist day of Jan. 1795, be made in the manner and forM here in after expressed, and.shall be signed by the person transferring the property of the said ship or vessel, by sale or contra6t, or, agreement for the sale there of, or by some person legally authorised by him, her, or them, and a copy of such indorsement shall be de livered tu the person, or, persons, authorized to make registry, and grant certificate of registry,,. otherwise such sale or contra&, or agreement for sale thereof, 'shall be utterly null and void, to all intents and pur poses whatsoever ; and such persons, so authorised to make registry and grant certificates of registry, are hereby required to cause an entry thereof to be in dorsed on the oath or affidavit upon which the ori ginal certificate of registry of such ship or vessel was obtained, and also make a memorandum of the same in the book of registry, and shall forthwith give no tice thereof to the Commissioners of his. Majesty's Customs in England and Scotland, under whom they eespeetively ad." This applied only to the alteration of' property uptin,sbips in the same port, and some inattention to this limitation gave rise to the mistake into which the Court of King's Beach had fallen.— The grammatical construction was perfectly clear ; it related merely to the case of indorsement ; for the Act could not have directed any thing so absurd as to put an indorsement upon a certificate which was to he burnt the next moment, for the former certi ficate was to-be cancelled. If any thing so strange had been within the purpose of the Legislature, it would at least have been explained in language that was intelligible. , Sir hoses' MANSFIELD—" Do they contend ott the other side that not only a new registry is ne cessary, but also the indorsement ?" Mr. HALL.----" No, my Lord but lam to argue that all that ought to have been done under these several Acts should have been performed at New castle.' Mr. SCOTT proceeded to say that the moment the sale was made, the ship vested in the put-Chaser, who was the Plaiutiff in error. The Learned Counsel having gone through the principal . clause;; of the three Acts, drew this conclusion, that nothing iu the 26th and 34th Geo. 111. varied, the 21st sec. o f 7th and Bth William 111. I4e next endeavoured to fortify his case. by the usage at the cusom-house afLoadon,.and explained that the uniform piactice ARTICLES of 'rim PEACE. Joseph Wriffin; a Wiltshire farmer, preSented arti of the peace against Thomas Sutton. They stated, that the Complainant was in constant fear for ills life, in consequence of the repeated 'threats of Stittton ; • and that ou the.lBth of January last, 'the Miter stiid he would stab hith with a carving . knife. On the Bth of Febrnary folloiking, as Wittin Was returning home rate at night, on horseback, Sutton flung a large 'stone at Complainant, which hit WS horse, and lamed :the animal. On the 13th of the same month he repeater:l . 6e like violence, and from that' time to the preSent had 'put the Com plainant in continual dread. Lord ELLF.NBOROUGET. --" The, last instance of any personal.danger is as long agy as February, and, therefore, the Complainant cannot have had. much to tear, or he would have preSented himself sooner. He may either go.before a Magistrate, or proCee4by iudittment." COURT OF EXCIIUQUER, TUNE 13. HUBBARD V. JOHNSTON Ati'D OTHERS. This -was a proceeding in errnr from the King's Bench, before the Jades of the Common Pleas and -the Barns of the Exchegner. Our Readers may perhaps repikel the - statement of . this case, - under the title of Heath and Hubbard, and. Bloxam and Hubbard, but they'Will find -a more detailed account in Mr. East's' Reports, in the 4th and sth vols. • In that Reporter several -13ointS.. wine before the Court which were not on` this occasion examined, the simple tinestion before their Lot -i d - Ships being, whether the Plaintiff in error had a'good title to a ship called the Fishburtie, under a registration 'novo, or whether the ship rested in the Assigneek - of the Bankrupt, - Ward; on account of the non :compliance with the direetions 'in 26 Geo. 111. e. CO, and- '34 Geo. M. c. f - 58 ? - Mr. SCOTT, for the Plaintiff in. error, said, that this was an aftien of trover which was brought by -the Assignees of Ward, to 'recivs...r one-fourth share -of,the7.ship , named, which '_was pUrchased by his "Client of the Bankrupt. The. wilterial fads were .these: the Piairititrin: . error residing in' London, int:chased this vessel of Ward, living at Newcastle, ,w,frile sire wits at sea. As soon as she arrived in the .plirt of London,: the buyer took oat a new regiSter, ..aud*,ilo.transfer of-the ship appeared in any. of the (!ocunwnts in'the Custom kitinse at,Newcastle, and ki , totsvnent., was. ever rilaie opon the certificate. Sir What should have btep indorSed ?" , _ LONDON Bri i ,t u l by RICHARD .HARRIs t of No. 4, Maitlett.court. Bow-street ; At the . SOtiz ol vice • No: lii! - ,Sti'and; IWlCertt ildvertist4nents, oifiers of the Counnis:iioners . cOitietilt d with' ,% hat had been done in the present instance. Sir JAMES MANstrIELD.-:--". The nsarre is not' to influence our judgment. If - the Custtirn House should persist- in a pruaiiie inconsistent with law; such r)erseVerance will not alter the Fawßifthe Coun try. It would be most extraordinary to . construe . an Act of the 2tith or 34th Geo. 111. upon usage:" Mr. SCOTT concluded with lob4erVing:, that the policr_of the laws, as explained -11ythe judgment in the Court ed King's Petich; could Lot over-rule their grarothatical construction andle insisted, that the Conn had entirely 'Mistaken_ the objedt and policy or those taws. Oti these grOttils, he contended; that the Plaintiff ,iti error hid correctly complied with the Statutes, and Was entitled to `the property` in this vessel. . Mr. HAL:L, on behalf - Of - the Defendants in error, argued, itiat,thejudgtrent given was well founded, and that the property in the 'ship ‘'ested in the' As signees. 'He said, that the statutes not having been complied With, from the abseinCe of the ship at sea , the intervening rights ,of the' Assignees must defeat' the Sale. Two propositiOns heendeavoured to maiti tain,'lst. That what bad been done • was hot 'sbffi cient under the Aas ; and, 2dly, That if more had been pertbrmed,. it would not have been completed in time. This was' not a case which had been lightly considered : it had been examined almost'more than alMos anycase which had come befOre the Court of KingN Bench. Resulting from the causes of Heath and Hubbard, and Broxhim and Hubbard, there had been two long and distinct arguments, and after Mature deliber.ttiiin, the Learned Judges of than Court had decided in fitrour of the - Defendants 'in 'error. It would not be surprising, if, thus support- , ed, he felt some confidence in the cause of his clients. The argument of his Learned Friend pro.-; ceeded upon this broad ground, that they provision's of the 26th and 34th of the King had . no reterchce to the transfer of the entire. property in the ship; It was obvious, that these statutes did make a material variation in the law as it stood in the 7th and. Btli . W. 111. and that. • they .not merely amended that statute, but enlarged . and expounded its provisions. Lord Liverpook :Acts were passe& not only fbr private convenience, Put for great objects of public .policy, and: they!: had. eminently contri4 bused to the prosperity' 'Of British.. commerce.- 7 , The Learned COttnsel here proceeded.to .examine numerous 'clauses of.,,these Acts, to: es'tablish the propositions he Fad said .down, cgi'liparing them as he advanced with the 7th a 44 Bth tr. HI. toshew that they had-materially alterepl that law. He also cited the opinion of Mr. Reeves, in rsupPort of,his - Case, from his Law .of Shipping. and Navigation: One reason ‘illy it was riecesary that the provisions of these A , crts should be.corriplied with at. the port to which the ship . belonged, was' ittorder -that the Custom-house Officers at such port should be able to give information of the'.transfer to the Commission ers of Customs in England and Scotland, .under whose direction records were kept,of such transfers, in order that the state of the shipping and havirtion in the kingdom might be periodically ascertained. In the present instance, nothing had been done by the Plaintiff in error at the Port of .Newcastle ; and if this negligence • were extended to all shipping, these records wonld be defective, and the iiilport;- ant purposes for which they were colleted-would be, wholly disappointed. Upon these and various other grounds, he contended, that the judgment of the Court of King's' Bench ought. to be affirmed. • Mr. SCoTT was.heardin reply._ _ Sir JAMES MANSFIELD askcci if the parties littd employed proper persons to take notes, as a new ar gnment.would be ordered. " You contend," said his Lordship, addreAsing Mr. Scot?, " that there is nothing in these Ads of the Oth and 34th of the King, . that apply .to the transfer of the whole pro perty of the ship. One obje& of the regulation was, by the indorsement to make the transfer a matter of public notoriety." COURT OF CIIANCERY, i 6. PENN V. BARCLAY AND OTHERS. The Plaintiff filed his Bill, in this cause, against his own brother, and the other Defendants, the trus tees under the will of his uncle, John Penn, deceas ed, praying that the sum of 10,0001. stock may be transferred, and applied to the Plaintiff's- use, ac cording to the express provisions of the will. John Penn, wishiog to perpetuate real and personal pro perty to his own heirs and family, in '746 devised and bequeathed to. his /right heir, one moiety, in sovereignty, of the Province of Pensylvania, in North America, which he was - seized and possessed of under and by virtue of a grant from his Majesty King George the - Second, to him and his heirs in tail, male,. for ever ; wishing likewise to pro vide for the next heir, or. heir expeetant to : such heir, he direded by his will, that a purchase should be made of 1 . 0,0001 - : stock in the fundS, for the use of such heirs presumptive, .s 6 long as they should, each of them in succession, continue in such a state ; with a proviso, that none of them should suffer a recovery, or by. any act dock or bar the entail ; but in case any of such heirs should,, at any time, bar the entail, then, that the stock - and dividends accruing thereon, should go and inure. to the, use and benefit of the person next entitled to the denomination of such heir .presumptive, in suc cession to such preceding heir apparent, at all times, for ever. The testator, made his brother Richard son John Penn, - his • first heir, by and under such Will, passing by the testator's eldest brother, who left no issue ;, he had likewises.a brother nettled John. John afterwards had issue, • sub sequent to the making the will in . question.; • and John, the. Testators's nephew, came into possession of the moiety of Pensylvania, after she Testator's 'death, and continued seized thereof until the same . was, in 1777, confiscated by the ALA of Usurpation, which subjected it to the power of the Legislature of the United StateS of America. The English. Government afterwards passed an. -AO •of - Perna tuent, granting •to this family a perpetual annuity of 40001. a year, and making that :inanity an estate of freehold in tail. Many years after the American Ael of Confiscation, this annuity was, by the A 61,• constituted an estate, of freehold, like those in the county. of Middlesex, and a common recovery had been suffered of-10001. thereof. It was contended tin- the Plaintiff, that the Ati of eonfiscation .amoutit ed to a bar of the intail, and, under•the provision of: . . mat puhlislted by WILL:am Arcsoucsß.Sc.turrs. of 'South MNt for the Paper, I ettcrs for the Editor, zitc. [post-paid), r the will, did- let rd'ilte:Plaintitf a, his ex the 10,0001. su•ck. . . The Defendthitß"-sittnflitted theCiikirl,'and A r willing to atlas direded, being only truste.t s, the: brother, who was a necessary party, but %%lin h no real differencewith his brother, the Plaintiff ; Jie , object orboh being, by this bill,,to.take the Chan cellor'sjudgment, as to the constratiou of tlie . wini and to learn whether either brother could obtain. " . ot transfer the stock. • . . The Qn A MCA.: t0..94.. seemed decidedly.of.opiP.:l9o that the Plaintiff cannot possibly .Chian it with prosped of: success,;, apd won leis coustrudion of that dodrine and,laN.o"littlitations,,this case is a ficgl tingency, too remote., and.subjeet to.too tn.any tingencies in.Jegal possibility (cithough- they kw 4 not aCtually.oocArted iai .thi4. 1 44 1 i1Y). 10 ad tPitOhiis remainder ever to take,, f.#44. The . Testa tor, ,/he saitl, _intended. a •perpetuity, or longintail to his family ; his moaning was obvious ; but the law op the subject, ,as Iniddown, was ,Against thifr,contin gent remaiutier. The tannQt, .at, ereationi.eittend further than •to one (if more Lite. ail lives iu being,at . • the time, and , 2 i years . after r/A death, of sne,h 7 l.ife ; or Here was -no certain fixed period -of: time .when the .re.maincier vp.s; in any party ; there, were too matty_pos,sil i kilities; anti they wereindetinite ,the words he said) .c so long as suit Heirs presumptive shall.continue,. tFoi.ll- tin to time, in smch. : ti state," I.yl . .'re reducit;!e to p{.4 tiuite or deteramate it was all uncert?).inty. From the importance and ditfiqulty of the case, however, he would take ~time, fo-rocatn.Y4i morning, to deliver. his judgmetzt- at the ~ itting,, g ( the Court. „ COURT OF .COMMON jusz, 14. .DE N 4,... BR ETT: U_ ~ v , ~ We' fcirreterly.state'd some Of leading - fats in thicase, the Substance.of , which, was, that a Gen tlemau of the name of Smith, an . AttOrney; havint been eniptoyed by the Plaintitt•Mr. Dean, to rieiase a liond•of AHlllHty granted by the Dkjtendant ya Mr Deal), for the; sum of a000l: after receiving ney, refused to pay it to his Client,-al , ledgina- that he Mr. DeAri, vas not of sound mind, dr pi& 0. a managing his own affairs. Mr, Strjeant SIIEMIF,RD, on hthalf of the Mim tift,'read affida v its of Mr. Dean's two brothers, the surgeon, servants, and people in 'the habit Ofors, ink and conversing with him ; all of whotn.gated; that Mr; Dean • had laboured under a liver cono, plaint, which had rendered him continually appre:-. pensive ofdeath for several Ik,.t l, ars -past but thlit his mind, mern4y, and int-derstrinding; were pertilf sound •and unimpaired; and- that , he .was sutficiontlf able to =Manage his own afliarg; .1/P on such eti dence; the Learned Serjeant submitted to th e ir LOrdships, that the .Money vAich Mr..Stnith received from Mr: grett 'ought to be paid over -1e Mr. Dean. Mr.' Serjeant MARSHALL StRUIA; that the money Was inAhe hands If Bankerg, and rind` to be`pttlec whenever it *RS aster mined that 14r. Smith kliotila be safe in doing so ;'. s..D:i , an, to.g...was anxious to receive the money ow of th e li tt vis , of..h er bus band's tigerit, had never yet ventorezi:tn-sweat t.1.64t he-wa , s• of sound intelled,, although she must have had the best opportunity of ascertaining the . faa,--;7 Mr. Smith, however, having been appointed bt Air. Dean one of his trustees, conceived that lit might afterwnrch have•an iroNrsant. , trust to lulfit, and might be made responsible for any rashnsi-df proceiltop ;, he - therefore hesitated till he should know the pleasure of the Con itaii.tO .whom he rd4uid pay the money.. , • . The Court thought that, as 'the soundness of Dean's intelleds was supported by the aiiidavits; of - his two brothers, who were nvxt of .kin;the,money might safely be paid over to' the Pl tilltit . • A proprietor of one of our Lottery Offices IT'Ce ' iVed a day , orlwo since, COmmission from two Gi3llk-le men, in different parts of the . kingdom, for tht same' uumler, in the present Scheme. To . ohlige 'both, therefore, he sent half a share of the Inlinber to each of his correspondents. The rage, in . shozT, for selea numbers, in consequence of what happen ed in the last lottery, increases every day. BIRTIIS On. Sunday the 7th inst. at Sindliag, near 14 vthe, the Lady of WUlilRt Deecks-, Esq. M. for 1-lythe, ofa Daugh ter. 'On the 28t1) ult. Mrs. I). Cairlermi, of Strontiaa, land, was sarely delivered of two gi rls and a boy, who, with the mother, are dc , ing well ; and what is further reih.:•rlt,,,bic,, this Lady has produced seven children at three births. Al 4R R (ED, On Saturday last, at Nliddlewich, Cheshire, cock, Esq. .ot Buxton,: Derbyshire, to oldest 44.1ugMer f of lonn,l3r..band, Esq. at the .harmer place Lardy, George Washington Biggs, Esq. of Belitview, is 7 ti:e•County el&try , to .;vliss Ann - Dickson, dAugiite.r of Saniuel.Dickson, Esq. of Ll llle.l • DIED. On Wednesday last, at his seat, Baynton-riall, W its, la the 73d.yearof.his age, William Lang, Estlf - The s:,tne morning, after a short illness, the Rev. Ti bOll3 if Aquila Dale, Rector of All Saints, 1.-ek - ies, Of* St. Jot, -.n Baptist, in the Latefy, .at Richmond, Surrey,. , Mr. jo 3 m tioneer. • • On Monday, after a long iltuess, Mrs. Pearsall, an y Mr. I Pearstill, Attorney,. of Wintior, Lately, at Louth, in Lincolnshire,; WiggleSlVOTtil, Esq. - He has bequeathed soool. for)he re . liet rd . poor dchtors. On the 44t iiist. at Bangor, Mrs. Dickson, Lady o f Ore Rev. S., Dickspn. . . . . On'Tuesday the 2d inst. at Deptford, 'Att . , W. Wirt;, sets'-'' tin the 17th of December last, at narralif, bei,gal, hi rgth after an illness of three day-, Mr ,Charles Wa- 1 c4):ton. Cadet in the Hon, East-I tuba Compa:Ais S'ervice., el:lest , son o; Mr, Armor Wilroxon, of l. ,, itth:ard-: - .freet.. Lately, at Clifton, Nliss Sarah 'lsainila Cowan, idecor#' daughter of Clotworthy Cowan, Esq. .ot . Sunday' selmight, the Rev.,{,Llovt.i. Vica7bf 144= well : he performed divine service at I-ioly well cluirch the morning and afternoon, in app,;rent goad health, and et 'pited before twelve o'clock the same evening. • Lately, at New-York ; the Rev. Thomas Dutnhletcn, native of Northamptonshire, In England, aged 44 } CaTS. P A ICE 0 .STOCKS ICASTIL Rank Stock, 2 34 Navy per Cent bl,,Llt 5 per Cent. 1797, •1 Iribh per Cent. 4 Pe: C eat. S: per Cent. Red. 63i per Cent Con shut !tank 1.. Ann 17 14.s6ths t j Ditto Short Ann. RDA Y. tritiia Stock; shut I ridia iionrl9, 6s. 7s. pr. South Sea Stock, .shat New Ann. shut • Exchequer Bills. par, zs. 7 1 ' Uranium, t Itnperial 3 per Ce.nt. Ditto Aim. 1 9- r6th.s Cons. tut Opeiling. 64 !I. ton. strect, Grosvenor-square; IlUit be addre;ied,