The Sun. — London, England, 1823-01-17 00:00:00

.t' :TILE LONDON JOURNALS. N.TII.I,CTS FROM TUE D%M R Y MONING PAPERS, January 17, 1813. [VI 14 TIMES.] By the same conveyance which brought 'Fues• drty's ►'rench papers, we received a private letter, which states that the Minister• of Foreign Affairs ws's in hourly expectation- of a courier from 'Madrid., as M,' de La Garde, in his last Note, which reached Paris on Sunday, had promised to send- €►pother communication in two days. We learn also, that M. Pon() di Bprgo has caused the three Notes of Russia, Prussia, and Austria to , be priMed, and intends to publish them imme. diately. They will scarcely repay the expellee oVprinting ; for the circular already published contains of course the marrow of these egregious documents.- .Our correspondent further informs u5..:-that the causes of the King of Spain against Quvrard was called on last Tuesday before 't} Court of Correction4l POlice,,lmt was post. poned till the:2Bth, the day when the Chambers meet. [viouNiNG rosT.3 Paris Journals to the 15th inst. reached us yesteiday, by Express. 'they do not confirm the assertion of the QUOildieWie, that the answer of the Spani.di Government to the French note had been received. The Drapery, Blanc and the other Ultra Papers continne t.Q speculate on the supposed violation of the territory of France, and cannot conceal their delight at the horrors with which they state that occurrence to have been pccompanied, conceiving that the ipnre terrible it appears, the more powerfully it will assist their purpose, and cbntribute to render war between the two countries inevitable,— That the French territory, however, was not violated, has been cleaily explained by the Journal des Daats, which;' from its connection, with the Ministers, must be considered good atilhorify on the matter. And that the act which has been represented as a violation, was,attended with the circumstances of cruelty which have been deseribed, continues to be denied in so many quarters, thn considerable doubt must exist on, the subject. At all events, supposing the worst have been the car,e, the, offence, us it has been Astly observed by an intelligent contemporary, could only be charged on the Officer by whom it was committed, and not on the nation and army to w hich he belonged, unless on complaint having been faid before them, they should have refused to make duo reparation; and should thus have appropriated his act to themselves. Th, more we look at every thing which has hitherto emanated from the Congress of Verona, and at the same time, reflect on the progress made by the variOns , nations of Europe, within the last twenty"years, in knowledge of their po litical,rights, and a correct estimation of the 0h... jects of , GovernMent, the stronger is oar convic. tion that the' I • iighand Allied Powers will not venture on art , open war, against the Peninsula, or march large armies to, any great distance, for the purpose of enforcing' such resolutions as they may bo pleased to adopt in the secret conclaves they now., bold every. year. They may rail. at Spain and Portugal for res(Aving to have Constitu tions and Jaws which the people can understand and apPreciate, and under their own deitiotic GOveluments,,,mey • inveigh, against free institu tions ; but the Emperors of Russia and Austria are too wise to trust their - armies in countries where; 'the, soldiers can, contrast the improved coOtion of the 'people 'with their own Alegre dal bta at home, - or imbibe principles fainurible, to liberty. .The , visit cif the Russian ,CoiSackS to France has introduced a spirit'of free think ing even into their' ra!:iks, that already makes their trlster tremble. The conversations in a. Ilits.Aian camp are not what they formerly ware: , , The , i')lficers, 'as well as . men, ' reason uptiti,:what is riming iwother countries, and feel an interest in the welfare .of people governett on a ',More' equitable- , plan than themselves. In St. Petershorghoit; this , moment, the, idea.: of ltwi sista louring ' in; a crusade against the liberties of Spain , and ~`Portu•gat, is .openly laughed at,— " What: hoe to do," say the conitnon people, " with distant ~ n ations which .never os•lny ham)' They have chosen their (»vti institu tions, 'and •irthey prefer , thern to those, they. for merly :had, why 'should , we interfere ? " :DitilTl4l PR138.1 • ' The' Attorney• General of Ireland, , we .have reason ttplielieve, has' tratistriitted to Lord , Liver. pnal'and to Mr, Peel the particulafs: , which• •in. dured• the informations recently insti, turf d' ; , which particulars, We have no doubt, will flistlose informatien which Will surprise those Who are 'not fully aCquainted With the state of parties in the Sister Kingdom.' We know well the - spirit which actuates'those venal prostitutes 10 APstpinatic corruption, who are at this moment struggling to defeat the purpose 3 of till Viceroy, of who 5e tneasttres e t tlightened policy they so much dread - the operation. It will be 'Most sitigular if We'shotthi discover that those . very persons, whoie-prOfessions of loyalty were otstrageous Majesty's late visit to 'lre land, and lucrative public stations might, in a Meastire, justify their leaning towards excess in this shOW of itlilian - 41 reverence, were Many of them in secret alliance ! with those: who so stre 'nnously Counteract the' :cirtirts, and insult the of,that distimp.dSlied Nobleman ~ vhorn his 'Majesty has seleetett itS the dep ootory of .his au thbrity, 'We -await with touch anxiety the dis. - elbstirei'iihich, in o'ur opinion, will arise -out of itivestivtion,; to 'which the present pwecit• tion4 %till' load and the . btortling facts which .will 'be -proved'in - . rmonNING Park Werount , ,, w ith Journals 01 Tw.mtiy wt rt. roLeivett ye , ,ftrfiay. One; or i WO .1 °mull Is -pretili that the aoskvvr laf Spain to the *lmo of the- Vrt.nrit Government reached 'Paris, but with out preteudin4 to knowany thing of its coutentL. It is scarcely possible that it could have arrived. The mistake may have arisen from confounding with it the acknowledgment of the receipt, which must have been made without delay, and was forwarded to Paris by the French Ambassador. The chief topic upon which the war Journals vent their political bile is the alleged violation of the French territory. After this !.‘ barbarous and anti-social act," they say, petice or fellowship, between France and Spain Li out of the question. There is, they say, no longer wanting ab act of provocation. It is a plain proof how little, even with the' worst faith, they can charge upon the Spaniards, with the least hope of belief, when they grasp this trifling circum stance as the main prop of their declamations. The statement of it, in its true colour, has already been given in our extracts from the Paris Papers. "An inconsiderable party of the Constitutional troops entered a frontier village of doubtful - ownership—obtained guides, with the sanction of the local authority, and committed not the_ least violence. Even if the Spanish Officer had COM prpmised himself, that would not commit his Go vernmeht—and the total absence of damage or offence would make it a trivial matter of expla nation. The shock which the French Ultrati affect to have received from the mere violation of the soil is rather entertaining. One would think France had an untrodden purity of at least three centuries, instead of having had her soil so re cently trampled by Cossacks. [Nlolt;giNO , CIIftQNICLE.I [SEw The party who have called the Reform Meet ing at York are placed in the. most ludicrous di lemma possible. Without the Radicals they can do nothing ; and with them they will only furnish another triumph. to Cobbett, of sr horn they are as much afraid as a child, is of Raw head and Bloody Bones ! In this predica ment some of them, we are told, have hit upon the notable expedient of. denouncing Cobbett as a Government Spy ! This low and contemptible lie is all that the old Apostle of Radicalism can wish for, to enable, him to tri umph more completely at York than he did at Norwich. The Yorkshire Radicals are far too keen to be taken - in by so stale a' trick; and. Cob bett, who only sneered at Mr. Coke, will lash his new assailants till tln whimper again. For our own part we should certainly enjoy this dog and bear sport, were it not that we fear some truly respectable individuals have been committed by their understrappers. Whoever stands for ward on the hustings to attack Cobbett will, to a certainty, be , rendered utterly ridiculous ; and if this effect only recoiled, OA the mischievous intriguers,who first set the business in motion, our gratification would be pure and unmixed.-- But we shall seriously lament, if any' Noble man or, Gentleman of honOurable feelings ex. pules himself to such a disgrace. It is not but that there are ample grounds founded in. truth on which Cobbett might be held up to uni. Versid reprobation ; bnt these are not the grounds upon which, he will or can be attacked at. York. There he must either reign Lord Paramount, or he must be denounced on a pretence so false and flimsy (bat not a child in the whole CoUtily can believe it. The true state of the case is very simple. A. little Whig-Radical Junto wants to speak in ,the name of a large and populonscomity. It appeals to the prejudices and passions of a mob for that purpose ; but a greater master in the art of exciting those passions and prejudices conies on the stage ; and unless he is knocked on the ,head, err disposed of by some other violent means, to .which it told not be quite safe to re sort, he,must run away with all the glory which these gentry had prepared for themselves. They have already made large sacrifices of principle to catch the Radicals. They have come .down to a disgraceful surrender of almost every point of Coustitutional W big Policy—but lt is all to no purpose. Cobbett will offer ,terms not one whit more knavish in principle, but more di. redly addressed to the knavish propensities of his hearers. It is not a jot .more villainous to, rob Mr. Fawkes of his rents, than to rob an industri ous carpenter of the savings which be has placed in the Stocks: only the former is more tempting, and lies more conveniently to the hand of the Yorkshire Radicals. LAW INTELLIG ENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 16. ,First Seal before Term. LYNN V. ilsAlrtit. • nr: if 00 E begged lease to mentiona misstatement which had;ftitinft Its Way into some of the newspapers,' and by which the public had been given to understand his Lordship as stat. ing that he had received a letter from a person who, as. his Lordship thought, Was a party In the case, and that die letter had considerably affected his opinion, and that it contained im putatitite!tipon'tbe character of the parties. • ' The Unit CUANCEIAOII. said that such a report was alto, /other false, The only effect of the letter on his mind was, to make him' postpone hts judgment. AS to bnputations, they were rather- thrown - on thoWounsiel, for- the alleged intlakripis of their statements. lie had said, expressly, that he believed the letter was not written by either'of the parties. VAN v. BARNEI"?. Mr. }lmre moved titni..aill)e4 . WhiCh had been taken into that Master's (Mine lay tjekrr, a. oolicitor in this cause, on the taxation of his costS,.shoulti be withdrawn i'rom the•tile, because ofilte laid paper being slanderous and inmertinent. —The solleiiiino Mr*. Van - had • tiled objections, utta it was, in the, answers to them that the olnlisiv,i inittter was contained. The first paragraph vent to explain the, reasons why the proceedings hail been so pmtracted. There was an 'allusion in it whitli lie 'did not deem it decorous to submit to the Court, r. lon sr': hoped that noneedless delicacy would prewnt n full statement of the circumstance.. Mr. /IA tt't, being silt . prossett, would proceed. The words were—" The business would have Sooner .ended, bad not the. JAW Clinccllbr, from his knowledge thrown every obstacle in the way of, his demand." liu coot plaint 4 of otlieg parts of the. itatement, which were titineees sary, and led to nothing but u considerable enhancement of the expenee. .Ore lantzn Cn A NTT; I. LOR wished to have time to make Watt:- iptittiry of the Master ' for hi;t own information. Mr. 11 on r; filt hitotelflumnd to tarty somethin tar the cell-, duct of hilt Client, l'he paper complained of was necessary, be.: cause the Muster, ,J . .-kylli was in ,such. a state of health, as obliged him to Intve the objections anil. answers given in writ ing. There. weir (Itmlbts rit rtl in tire objections, which it was ttetivtary to rentove l and lie did Hot think the other party had a, titpt 11l cm - 1104in ot.the inanner of duing it. As to the length of the answers, that 11111 it 0c1) , ,!MI Ott die matter which Was the, pbiect'uf thern. A triBll Might put in a few bard word 4, in-tin objeefion which ruight,rettutre frotw atiother, illogitfallainki, kgreat dealolexplanation to do away titer elferts or it. ThaL conblya , no,reas ? fitiik ground of complaint against his client anti 11;!' , i€erned to be none bosides WOrtlty of any attention, lie hillted drat the Court would - 111tve more regard 1 -0- the ills ties- of the case, and the consistency of practice, than... to grant die motion. 111eE01tD CITiNe 11 1. L OR said ? that he ninftt repettt h for; ran. obselvation—he could not decade without knowing more of the affair from the Master. As to 'withdrawing papers which were once submitted as parts of the sub,ject of examination, there must always be very serious difficulties in the way of it. A paper might be offensive and impertinent in part, and yet the offensive or impertinent matter might be so mixed up with information that was useful and unobjectionable, as to render it very unsafe to allow such a paper to be extracted from the cause. Again, as to the practice of submitting the matter of answers and objections in writing or in conversation, his Lord. ship thought the former practice much safer for the judgment of the Court on matters of examination than the latter, be cause a great deal of impertinent matter might pass in conver sation, which it would be impossible to check. Now, he did know how to check the impertinence of written documents.— With respect to the complaint on that head, in this particular case it would be hard for Mr. Jekyll, or any other Master, if the practice of the Court did not allow of any consideration being given to his bodily infirmities, while suffering under the dispensations of Providence. Respecting the scruples which had for the time withhejd that part of the proceedings which was supposed to reflect upon - himself, all he would say was, that if, after sitting there to administer justice for three and twenty years, he could not find a sufficient defence in his con thief against any such imputations, he must be very unfit for his situation. But though ha felt nothing whatever on his own account, he thought something better was due to the general dignity of the Court ; and as motives of decorum had for a time kept back a part of the allegations, the game motives should have-influenced the parties to a much greater extent. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 16. THE MORNING HERALD NEWSPAPER. OLASAINOTO; , ./. v. THWAITES AND OTHERS. The VIC Lo a, on taking his seat, proceeded to give judgment in this case, which was argued at considerable length before the holydays. The substantial object of this motion, his Honour observed, was to restrain the proprie. tors of the Morning Herald from, lending the use of their types in the composition of the English Chronicle. When this motion was first submitted, his impression was undoubted ly stronger in favour of the injunction, but upon consideration, he entertained great doubt whether that first impression was correct. In cases of injunction, the Court ought never to grant the application if doubt was entertained, because it led fleets. sarily to irreparable mischief to property. In the present case, it appeared that the application was made by Mr. Glassington, who became proprietor of the Morning Herald some time be. fore Iwo- It did not appear at what time precisely in that year he became proprietor, or what was the extent of his into rest prior to 1816. Sir H. B. Ihnlley the principal proprietor of the Morning Herald, retired in 1816, and a new partnership was Conned, the terms of which were settled by deed. By that • instrument Mr. Glassington became entitled to I-10th part of the concern of the Morning Herald. At the time when this, treed was drawn up, the English Chronicle was in existence, 1 and had existed mince 1804, for in that year an agreement was entered into between Mr. Radford, the proprietor of the Eng lialechronicle, an& the proprietors of the Morning Herald, by which the latter stipulated to lend their types in the compost. '.tion of the English Chronicle upon receiving a compensation Of 1101. annually. Mr. Radford was afterwards admitted as a proprietor in the, Morning Herald. In 1016 a very consider able alteration was made in the proprietorship of the Morning Herald, and Mr. Thwaites became a proprietor of six shares. The agreement of 1804 continued, and had hsen acted upon ever, since. Mr. Itadfbrd appeared to have quitted the concern of the Morning Herald about 1815, continuing proprietor of the English Chronicle until 1821. In that year he proposed to 'The propriettirs of the Morning Herald, that they should become the purchasers of the. English Chronicle. A meeting was held for that purpose, and Mr. Olassington being present, refused to have any concern in the purchase of that paper. Other proprietors, however, of the Morniog Herald agreed to purchase, and became proprietors of the - English Chronicle. It was not then considered that the change of the proprie torship made any difference with respect to the use of tile types of the Morning Herald and from May, lON, to the present time that agreement had been acted upon. It seemed that, .subsequently sonic disagreement took place between the proprietors of the Morning Herald, and Mr. Olassington was removed from the Editoialtip of the paper. The plaintiff' there• fore filed this bill, insisting that the English Chronicle ought not to he permitted to haVe the use of the types of the Morn ing Herald; and the principal ground upon which this appli. cation was inado seemed to be, that although here there was no Interest adverse. to the general partnership concern, yet,that there was such a. temptation as warranted the interference of the Court, inasmuch as Mr. Thwaites, being proprietor both of the Morning Herald and English Chronicle, was rendered liable to abuse the situation in which he was placed. In other words, that Mr. Thwaites, being conductor of the Morning Herald, might use the inflirmation of the Morning Herald by first publishing it in the English Chronicle, It was, his Ho nour conceived, quite impossible to deny that such temptation did exist; but the question was, whether upon that temptation only the Court could grant this application ? In theory, and abstractedly, every newspaper was a competitor with other pa. peni, and that competition was more immoderate between a I morning and evening paper, especially with regard to country circulation. The majority . of partners could bind the other part ners only in matters refering to the administration of partner ship concerns ; and certainly, prima "'hole, the publication of another Newspaper could not be considered to he a partnership purpose. But, on the other hand, it ought not to be forgotten, that the disadvantage arising from the competition of another Newspaper might admit or pecuniary compensation, and • the Proprietors of the Morning Herald had so considered. But here Mr. Olaasington had decided the question, wh e ther it ought to be considered a partnership coucern, because the, agreement for ti, e loan of the types existed, and was in execution at the time when ho became a Proprietor of the Morning Herald. the 'plaintiff had continued to be a party to the execution of the agreement down to the present time, and ho couhl,not now say that that loan of the types was not an actin the due execution of a partnership purpose. The remaining consideration, there. fore, was, whether it made any difference that• Mr. Thwaites, and other Proprietori of the Morning Herald, were also Proprie tors of the English. Chronicle. lie had already stated what he considered to be the true ground upon which this application was made—viz:, temptation to abusapartnership property. — Then the important consideration was, whether this temptation was of itself sufficient to, justify the interference of a Court of Egitity : AsTar is authorities Went, he recollected no case where it ever interfered to the length which the plaintiff' now requir ed. Every partner was bound to his ea.partner not to engage in any concern which would give him an adverse interest to the general partnership property. But the. situation of Mr: Thwaites, its , proprietor hotb of the Morning Herald and the'. English Chronicle, was not directly adverse to the general port nership concern. If Mr. Thwai tes did his duty to the Morn. ing Herald—and ,a court; of equity had no right to presume that that gentleman would not, do his duty-:..his interest in the English Chronicle was in no way adverse to the concern of the Morning Herald. If the Courf, were to act upon the gtound of temptation only, then it never would be allowed , that a pro. prietor of tine newspaper should become the proprietor of an other. His clear opinion was, that a prop r i etor o f p a newspaper might becoMe proprietor .of another, finless restrained by co venant: Of course it was the interest of co-partners to 'prevent any partner taking: an .interest in another concern ; -but this ought to beguarded egemst by covenant. Mi. Ar a n belieVetr that as to a 'Morning paper, it was usual for partners to bind each other by, such covenant. 'the Viet:-CIJANcEt.t.on. observed, that that circumstance certainly made the cue ia.lll,stronger. Upon the whole, there fore, althOugh be admitted this to in' a doubtful' question, and although his first impression was in favour of the applica tion, yet upon:cnnsidering attentively the principle upon which alone Allis i njunction , - could be supported, lie thought the re was nothing to justify the in terferente of the Caurt. It would be quite a sufficient reason to refuse' the application, to say that it was a case of too much doubt to grant an injunction upon an interlocutory proCeediag. There was, however, ti circumstance stated in thapleadings; upon which he thought art application might be founded. lit the answer, of the defendant it was admit ted that. Mr. Thweitea had on one occasion made use of and pub halted the info...mat* which .helmigeitao the Mornhig Herald, in the English Chitaiielee If, therefore, to meithin were made for an injunction. to restrain the defendant from publishing in the English Chronicle inform:l6oll acquired at the expence of the,proprietora of die Morning Ileraid, lie did iiot see how be conht refuse it. • Mr. AGAR observed that din information had only once been used, and thit,t some yars back 4 The Victl-Cll,Vtqcti.t.on said, that no injimetlon had been -more4 for on that ground, and theretbre the Court could not now interfere, Alt. Roury.t.t. thou ;lit that the injunction which had been moved for, embraced 'the point thrown out by his Honour. The language of the injunction was 'to' restntin the defendants from ulg any money, property, or etrects7 belonging to the proinietorl of die Morning a erald. 'New he coneieved that the ward " Property" was intended to be applied to ,the Illation acquired at the :;:ipence at' the :Horning Herald. Mr. AGAR Was Satisfied that such an idea never entered the head of the tlentleman who drew up the injtinction.' Thu VIcE-eztAxer.i.Lon agreed with Mr. koupell,. that the information so used might fairly be taken to be included in the wont "property_" Under these circuinstaticeit, he could nut refuse the injunction to that extent. • Mr. AaAR represented that there was no, probability that the infumation belonging ,te, the Morning Herald would bq again used. Besides, the interest of Mr. Thwaites Was nearly . . tiff same as that of Mr. , Glasiingtati, 'The thrtitclant was pro. prietor of half of the Morning Herald, a flourishing concern worth 10,0001. ; and the English Chronicle was a paper of comparatively little valtie. ." :The VICELCHANCELLOR was satisfied that the language of the injunction enabled hint to grant an prder to the extent he had already stated—viz. to restrain the defendants from_publish ins the information actf,uired at the expence of the Morning fferald In the English Chronicle, before its publication in the 11ornin g Herald. Mr. PARKER wished the word " exclusive" to be inserted in the order previous to the information ;" but his Honour refused,^ as he was not justified by the pleadings to make such insertion.' MELLISH V. MELLISIi. Mr. 'WETHERELL stated that this was an appliattion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding in an action at law for the recovery of the sum of 22,325/. The bill was filed by the plaintiff, Miss Catherine Mellish, against her uncle and guardian, Mr. Wm. Mellish, who had raised the action at law. The plaintiff was left an infant only two years old at her father's death in 1798, and became of age in .1817. She was left heir to a large property ; and the defendant, the. testator's brother, was, together with two other brothers, made executor to the will. Upon a balance of. accounts, it appeared that the defendant claimed a sum of 13,1941. 9s. 4d. upon the minority account ; but this was afterwards reduced to 11,3701. 3s. Oil. A sum of 9,0001. had been expended in education, &c, and 14,0001. in the purchase of estates in Hertfordshire, for the be nefit of the pla i ntiff: The action had been brought f or money advanced since the minority of the plaintiff'. The application for an injunction was now supported on two grounds: first,that the accounts during the minority, and since its expiration, were so blended, that it was impossible to disunite them ; and se condly, that the action at law could • not be brought, as it was an equitable, and not a legal question. Messrs. HORNE, BELL,,and HEALD, appeared on the side of the guardians, and at great length contended that the action was brought to recover monies advanced' since the expiration of the minority, when the defendant had acted as agent, not as guardian, to the plaintiff'. The ;ICE-CHANCELLOR ultimately granted the Injunc lion, upon the understanding that the monies advanced to the plaintiff personally; since slit came of age, should be paid into Court. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 16. Before .the 140 RD CHIEF JUSTICE alid a Special Jury. MARTINEZ V. ARBOTTS. This was an action to recover the amount of two bills of ex change, dated the 6th of Sept. 1818, and payable at four and five months after date, for 4871. 10s. each, drawn upon Messrs. T. and It. Abbotts, wine-merchants in Skinner -street, Snow hill, by Mr. Chas. Jones, and by him endorsed over to Messrs. Martinez and Co., wholesale wine -merchants, the present holders. The defsndants, from whom a verdict hid been ob tained on a former occasion ; as • they said, by an accident. re sisted the payment of the lax, on the ground that they were given for an usurious consideration. - It appeared from the statement of the SOLICITOR-GENE RAL, WhO was Counsel for the defendants, that Mr. C. Jones, a winenierchant, knowing Messrs. T. and R. Abbotts to be in want of ready money in September, 1818, and considering them to be men of considerable property, offered to let them have a loan of 1,100/. upon the following terms;—They were to purchase of him 21 pipes of wine in bond, at 911. or 921. per pipe, and to pay for them in their bills at 3,4, 5, and 6 months, and he was to advance to them, on receiving their bills, ready money to pay for the duties, which, however, they could pay. or not at their pleasure. The duties amounted to 1,1091., and thus the price to be paid for the wine exclusive of the duties, was about 461. a pipe, its `real intrinsic value being not more than 201. a pipe, as he should prove. This, the Solicitor-General contended, though not an unusual transaction in the wino -trade, amongpersons in embarrasied circumstances, was in point of fact nothing IttOrd thin a cover to enable Jones to take more than the legal rate of interest. Two of the bills so given had ,been paid into the bands of the present plaintiffs; but as they were tainted with usury in their concoction, could not be recovered on, even by an iunocentholder. Mr. C. Jones was callul by the SOLICITOR-OENERAL to establish this statement ; but his evidence by no means bore it out. A verdict was then taken for the plaintiffs in the sum of 1,0201., including the amount of both bins, and the interest due upon them. . PRINCE V.' CLARK. , This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of 69U1., being money had and received for his use by the defendant. It appeared from the evidence, that in April, 1821, the plaintiff had shipped on board the ilja,r, of which vessel, the defendant was master, 14 bales of 'woollen goods to Calcutta, and had Instructed the defendant to dispose' of them there as he best could,.for his (the plaintiff's) advantage, and to apply the precieds arising from them' to die purchase of indigo, silk, and various other stated articles, if they could be Obtained at a stipulated price ;- but if they could, not, to buy bills of Ex. change, and to remit them as soon as possible to him in Eng. land. The defendant gild the woollen goods in India Ihr 8981. ; but finding that the articles enumerated by the plain tiff could not be purchased within 215 per cent, of the p r i ce he hied mentioned, and that the rate of exchange with Eng land was unusually low, did not make the returns in either of the ways suggested by the !plaintiff, but bought sugars, and shipped them .by the raw, to the, plaintiff in Eng. land. The letter, in which the defendant communicated these events to the plaintiff, and which was accompanied by the bill of lading, was written on the 17th of Jan. 1922 and was re ceived by the plaintiff on the 29th of May, 1822. The Fame sailed from Oalcutta on the 3d of Feb. in the same year, and was lost in her voyage hem°. On the 7th of the subsequent August, which was a considerable time atter the period in which • the Fame in the usual course of things ought to have arrived in England, the - plaintiff went a Mr. - Lee, who was the brother in-law of the defendant, and had acted as agent for him in his last voyage, and told him that as he had given no instructions to the defendant to purchase sugars on his behalf, he should not accept 'those Which he had shipped for him by the Fame. At the same time. he desired Mr. Lee to effect an insurance upon them to save the defendant harmless; but to this proposal Mr. Lee re fused to accede, stating that he had no authority from the de fendant to do to. The Bott&ron.GEwEaat, for the defendant, contended that a verdict ought to be returned for his client. The defend. ant had abipped sugars to the plaintiff to the amount of the goods intrusted to his care, and had sent him the bill of lading for, them ' which it appeared had been received in th e l atter en d of May, 1822. Now he admitted, that, under the circumstances, th e plaintiff had the right to renounce tie shipment if he plea-40: but he contended, that if he did intend to renoupce it, he was bid to renounce it immediately,and td notify his intention of so doing with all speed to the defendant's agent, in order that he might ensure it,and thus protect his printipal inlury.•• The' hoWever 'had not idea in this manner r he kept the bill of lading till the month of August, and then, when the Fame had so far exceeded the-time of her voyage as to render it difficult; if not hnpbssible, to 'effect an insurance upon her, had inforMed the defendant's agent that he would not take the sugars, and had 'advised him to effect an insurance upon them: Upon these grounds he maintained that the Plaintiff' Was not entitled to recover any of the iuth he claimed from the de. fendant. Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, .observed that the defendant be. ing intrusted with goods to sell, and being ordered to make the returns In "'one way, had no right to make them in another; neither could any subsequent act of the: plaintiff, after the de. fendant had so made the returns, make that act right in him, which was in itself originally wrong: ThiLonn CI111:1 , .lusTicr told the Jury, that the ques. tion which they had to decide was—first, whether, under all the circumstances of this : case, the plaintiff wo bound to have re nounced this Fhipment iintriediately after he hid received the bill of lading ? It was his opinion, that in general, a person no situated was bound to renounce immediatelyy. If they should be of a similar opinion, then they. would have to determine whether he had notitkd his intention to renounce in sufficient time to Mr. Lee, Who had acted an the defendant's agent, If they thought that he had, they must find a verdictfor the plain. tiff ; but if not, he was of opinion that their verdict ought to be for the 'defendant. The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAW. 16. Adjouined Sittings in London, Before Lord C/ii<•% Justice DALLAS and a.Special Jory. SONIKS. V. JACKSON. This was an - action on a policy of insurance effected on the ship Pilot. It appeared from the plaintiff's case, that the Pilot sailed from England with convic ts for New South Wal e s e ar ly in 1017 p Krfonned that voyage out., she went front Port Jackson to llaiavia. Before her arrival there, on the 16th day'of Fehruary, , lBlB, a new In surance was effected on her for time. The • mull conditions accompanied the insurance, viz. that the ship at the time was sound, sew-worthy,&e.krdui Batavia she made several short voyages, and at length was chartered for Europe. An inspection took place before itio took in the cargo, when she was found to be in such a state t that it was necessary to have her i6 hove - dewn," and newly bottomed and coppered, FOr an average Ins& for those repairs, the pre.: sent action was brought. The facts of the insaranc*.., damage, and, repairs, were proved and the plaintiVs case closed. It was resisted by'the defendant on these grounds—that the damage to the Pilot did not arise from any bad weather or other perils of the. sea, after the insurance was effected, but was owing to the unsound state in which she was &Are that insurance. To p rove this they produced the captain's jour nal, and so me l etters of his dated before Febru a ry 15, 1818, in which it a p peare d that in the voyage from Port Jackson to Batavia ' though ge n era ll y t h ere was not bad weather, the sh i p leaked several spells per hour, that she laboured very much, and could not b e k ept dry.. It was further shewn, that when the ship was ultimate* stripped, she was found to have several parts of her bottom worm-eaten—the copper being entirely worn oft which it was contended could not have been the case if she was sea-worthy when she left Port Jackson on her - WAY to 811 " tavia. It was further contended, that in point of law the tiff could-not recover, as he had not given notice of the.damage ' - within the time limited by one of the regulations of the Party with whom the insurance was effected. The Jury,'after hearing his Lordship sum up, found that the ship was sea-worthy on the 15th of February, 1818,;the time the insurance was effected, and accordingly gave a verdict for the phintitt —Damages to be assessed by reference. OLD BAXLEY, JAN. 16, Thaws,: Clifford was indicted for stealing a silver tea-Urn, the property of M. Levyson. The prisoner described himself as a working silversmith, who had once been in the service of the prosecutor; and by that story he obtained the article in question of the prosecutor , jeweller and silversmith, residing in the Haymarket; his üb. jest being, he said, to work upon it. lie subsequently, how ever, made away with it, in some way, and absconded. Mr. Law (Counsel for the prisoner) asked the prosecuior whether he was not of the Jewish persuasion P Mr. Levyson replied to this question, that he believed &HY' in the existence of a Supreme Being. Mr. Law asked, was not the prosecutor born of Jewish pa rents ? The prosecutor answered in the affirmative " and had ,ne ver renounced the J ew i s h f a i t h . " To a question, as to " who thee he had been sworn on the New or the Old T‘ltsnleu t ' " he answered " on the New :" adding, " that he considered himself equally bound to his Maker by an oath takes on the one as on the other." lie was then asked by the Counsel, " whether he believed either of the Scriptures to be a revela tion from God ? and whether he believed in a future state 91 rewerds and punishments ?" The prosecutor replied, " he had doubts on both the!! points: but he sincerely believed that the Almighty 0 04 would, Its some way or method, punish the wicked.". The RECORDER here said, that the last sentiment uttered by the prosecutor was the found a ti on o f all religion;-"and there fore his oath was good. 'The Jury found the .. prisoner Ife was seven years' transportau on . sentenced to entering the house of Th omas W al k er, and stealing t h ere from. a metal watch-case, the property o f t h e prosecutor.. Thomas Beswick, aged 15," was indicted for breaking a' d On the 24th of December last, about six o'clock in the Oe n ' Lag, Walker who is a watchmaker by trade, was speaking 0 . 1 customer in his shop, when he heard a pane of glass suddealt smashed in with great violence, and at the sante moment a watch-case was stolen. In a few minutes the prisoner Was brought back to the shop, and the watch-case was fauna upon him. . Beswick said it was his first offence. Guilty—Death. prosecutor and the Jury, however, concurred in recommending him to mercy on account of his previous good character an his yOuth. .1. Thomas, a black, was indicted f or b rea ki ng an d e nterint the house of George Pawson, and stealing 41. in copper eeT , half crowns, and other monies of Pawson's 'property, The .prosecutor keeps the Angel Inn, Back-lane, Shadwell. His wife swore that on th e n i g h t b e f ore the robbery, which was r was found conceeled in a back room of the hots; this on the 3d of January, and about half.past 10 at n when she went in to see if the window was safe. .11e was IPA on a bench With a table over him. She :faked " what he, i ! / there?" Ile replied; ." that he was very elbepv, and down there." she told him to go out, as they had fasten all up. He accordingly went, arid she shut•the door hits. ° 44 , again searched the house before going.to bed: and no noile,w_t heard in the night. But on her coining down next tiOnl l V: about half-past 6, she found three tills, that were safe the o,w; night, and their contents stolen: The windows in front atm!, house were still safe • but a very large pane of glass in a winde at the back part of the house was cut Ckari out, the space bci t i p r ison . e l stadicimt to admit the body of a %water man than priaoner. In the wash-house site found two of the tills empty, and a.pail up-, panted to have been stolen. , • • • • A watchman of St. George's-in-the-East deposed, that the deli of January, at fire in the mor n i ng , he stopped prisoner at the corner of Philip-street, about 150 yards front the Angel inn. Prisoner was goin g in the direction of his'lo4l - . Inv: on his head he had a pail, with u piece of: flank of. heel on the top of it. B e i ng tw i ce asked by the witness what he has got, beat length replied " beef." Prisoner went oh, and kieka" . violently at the door of a butcher's shop : lie told the watchman, that he was to have - a 'party that day on board the flopelt ship to which h e ,beloupAl) the London-docks ; and that,- wanted some pork. The witness, suspecting all was not insisted upon knowing ,where prisoner, got the. beef; priSon offered to chew hint and another watchman the sho and beia,„o ! accompinded by the latter, he did so. In the mean time besides looked in the pail, which was very heavy, and found, Dea' n " - ,, the meat, some money, and piece of printed furniture.. i n the Blatk's return,. he was secured, and taken la . the Ti police-office, on suspicion of having stolen the money. Mrs. Pawson identified the pail, and printed ' fur rliturt' ' • as hers. Prisoner said in his defen ce , th at two M en had employe d hint to cary the pail. Guilty—Death... Mrs. Pawson begged to recommend the prisoner to because he w as pe o e, f r i en dl ess; and a foreigner, and hail edge` ;, no personal violence eith er to h er or her husband. n?: Jane Moo r e w as i n di cte d f or stealing a nuintity of wea rs apparel, bed a nd table-linen, &c., in the house , of her mote ji Captain S. Roberts,. of Alargaret-street, Cavendi s h- squa re.--* " Guilty of stealing un d er t h e value of 405." niercy FRENCIE MA IR 7 AGES.--The fat:l4llla Ov er. tisement app ears i n t h e Petite: Aches of Paris . •.--- 44 MARRIAGES.— Aie offered, 1. Three young ladies, ag e d f rom 20 to 25, with 1,600 francs portion. 2. Four young ladies, .from la to No with 4,000 francs ditto. 3. Two young from 28 to 38, with 8,000 francs ditto, and 2 0 7 0 v" more in expectation. 4. T wo young ladles, fr° .., 'l7 to 18, with whom can be guaranteed fre h " GO,OOO to 80,000 Fra nce . 5. Two young iadle g ; from 18 to 19, w ith 20,00 Q francs. 6. r i l w„, widows, from 45 t o 50, with incomes'of e) 4 ' and 3,000 francs. Addresses to M. Adolid le4 rue Feydeau. (His office is open on Sunday)" BIRTHS.On T Le u w es(l s, ay or it a te t,( l l 4 il th inst. at Southgate, the 1+14 1 7 of eil l ) ' '44' On Sunday last, the toady of Cblenel Robert Ouril9n , 'sl°f" F tague-square, of a sun. 51A1t ;RIED, ; ) I,elPi On Thursday, the lthlt inst., at 3larvieborie church, Et a t Balers, Eq., of New-lodge, Berkhinupsted,.tti daughter of George _Bridges, Esq, of Gloucester.place, ma square. On Tuesday last, at Richmond, Snrrey, (by thsv Alch of Colchester). Henry Dymoke, Esq., eldest. tion and Rev. the Champion Dymoke, of icrivelsby Court t ,Lt county of Lincoln, to E mma, secon d dauglster Nltm." l 7 Esq., of Billingford, Norfolk, and Richmond SurreY• t DIED. At Falmouth, on the Ist Instant, at the advanced B g, years, Arthur Kempe, Esq. Admiral of the Red ? ' 4 i t: TO H, ceased assisted a:, the glorious affair of Quebec., where . t mortal Wolfe fell, and acc om panied C'aptains ",(*"*.. Furneux in their respective voyages of discovery. SO . On Friday last, In Paris, aged 58, Robert Jones _ 4 ; Esq. of Ha! raham, High Shsriff of the. county '110111;, Lately, at the 'Cape of Good Hope, Mr. John k es e ; H ,!,:- R.N., Nun of Mr. ,John*,_liarp, of - London-In-Mg,. ; dermal was on his passage home from the East Indies ti ,Ni i i, • he was unfortunately drowned in attempting to •Teach lj t'fr 1. ..- fra 4Tt ' R ul oin 'th f7r t i, ,Essex, on the instant, Cal)4 ll , i 31owatt, Bprrack-master, aged lid. Ord On Taday last, at the house Of Samuel tines, Esq. , per Gower-street, Mrs. Antletson, Widow, aged 71. i ,f -. 0 8 Latelv, at Gue rnsey , R. B. Fi her Fig. brotllqp-, Lord Bishop of SaliiiinrY. l 127•ter f j e- d o' Printed and PnbliAhed for the PROvitETon*, , sti rue".'• Office. No. 112, Strand, by J. U. CAlivtanat