The Sun. — London, England, 1811-11-09 00:00:00

~aj~ i,dlV COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 7. .1 g • . BARON IInNTESQuiEU V. SANDS. This was a bearing an bill and answer. cause was. opened in a brief speech by Sir Samuel Rom - illy. It appeared that the Baren,,Monteiquien was ene of four co-parceners having, right of presentation, in succession; to the living of Hardress coin Stilling ton. Mr. Sands was the Solicitor of Baron Mon tesquieu, and lead, in the year 1803, purchased his right for the-sum of lost. he having at the time a bill of cost against him, ,which was, on its being settled, in part liqiiitlatedby the purchase-money. At, the titre of the. transaaion, the ineumbent on the. tiding was.a Mr. Bei'kentiam,whe recently died, and wa; suer:ceded by.pne of the'cn,•parceners, who pet-Iti to be a C 4160130, and who, being up. Wttrds , of sixty.years of age, 'afttirded 'Mi. Sands, a prospeet of an advantage to which the sum he had paid for it bore no proportion, the whole' produce of the living being 7001. per ann. The grounds upon which the lee.ality of the bargain was impeach ed were, in the first.place, that an inadequate value had been given ; and cdly, that Mr. Sands being Solicitor to the plaintiff, it was his duty to hatre procured the best information he could with. re sped to the. value of the,, reversionary interest of fer, d for sale by his clieet, and to .have - refused to become a purchaser, unless on paying according,.to the result of such inquiry. Rlr. LeActr, for the plaintiff; stated, that,the pro.' Messrs, had been valued by two eminent . calculators, Messrs. Morgan and Penley, and it appeared from their valuation, that what had been purchased for so trifling a, sum, was actually worth ..17001. A ground of defence 'which . . was relied on was, that though t..hete was avowedly an advantage arising,to Sands from the Irogain; yet that. such .advan tage had been given by way of favour; but this. formed no pail of the •plea:at issue upon. the • record,. but, on the contrary, it was sttennonsly .contended, th 4 a full value, considerieg all the circumstances of,theproperty at the time, had, been given. • Mr. Ricastins, for the defendant;. contended, that the purchase his client had,rnacle•was similar in its nature to that at a Lott ery. Ticket; and that the advantage he was now likely '•triederive from it was the result of chance, that thetplaintitr had. not ex ptersedi any dissatisfaaion at ifisrtrargain till the 'fa tality which ()centred, namely, , the. death or ill nt•ss. of Mr. Beckenhans- had raised the value •of the property. At the same timei that. as it was adinitted that his client had been . ',Solicitor to the plaintiff, it 'would be:clearly seen that. h war free from the slightest -imputation .of .frautlf indeed, this was, pow conftnisecl, although the,bilfsentained strengeharges of fraud and misrepresentation; but none having been praaised,' ,tiothing..le•os could in jure t lir: rause of his client Alnto. the establishment by•the Court 'of the pritteiple,.,that no transaction of this , nature, between a 'solicitor and his client, should be',considered as legal. :4-Its (Mr.. R.) did oat 'mean.. the slightest .disrespeet to MCSOI4 Mor gln and. Polley, in saying that they had, not had Sutlicittit data for their respective valuations, and theri-firre it war 110 vvonder7that, as wag the faa, ditferencenot inconsiderable Walk tobe found between them; but neither of them wore,in his opinion ad missible, as would appear trout the faas he could state, The value of ihe living did .nUi .xcee4. .3601. per annum,..o4 appeJed froni ti a eptimate .. of several praatical persons,- but particularly ! Mr. Beckenham's bailiff, a person whose right, ff:Y 'form a judgment could not: reasotjable be called in question. Mr. Beckenham, the him► ;bent, qt,the time of the trans -4 f laction ; was in the 48111 .year ufrlik age, and to per. •fea...healt h.. Now ,t he I , robable :duratoo of such a life would be calc.ulateil limn the tables without he sitation,, but • in such tf'calculation. no regard would be had to a very important ,circtunattinee, the strength • (Witte, party's constitution,: and with 30 material an Omission no one could, censcientiouly say whether the: life was fairly ,valaid or otherwise. An old l a d y , a Nb a . D e nman, was also living at the time of .the purchase, who was dile of the.co•parceners, and lad 'the right, of presentation on the demise of Beck . etrharni !' and ,it was. known - to be . her inteutiowto presentio the henetice,, if the opportunity occurred, ayening-man, named. Gregory, who, however, was • 'net eligible 'till hehad,reachothhis..24th ,year. .This - Lady died befor tharperiod, and , of on Mr. llockeithern!s.cleatho:the present incumbent succeed- The plaintiff had not iatfaed the property to t he defendant till lie had first endeavoured to , dispose of • it' to othets, and found , that lie could not get. more ' for it than what was ultistrately given ; Jae bad; in oflered. it: to a person possessing the manor on Which the living.was situate, and to whom it - would; of necessity, be! inure valuable than any. other per- - son,; ,and, those circumstances went to ascertain the • value ranch mote etfedually than the calculations of • any professional Men. In the course' of the trans . action there was,no confidence whateter placed by • the'. laintiff in Mr. &MIN, hut, every iencase within his reach Were had• recourse t0.,m0 , order to obviate tlte.ttazard of Making an improvident haraain nor ~could it be reasonably contended; OW Mr. Sands, on ,being (detect the property, ant.i,in duty botand to refrain front ,:tecepling it 1111 ho had put his clivrif, who had ample means of Informing:himself without loo k to the, ex,penss of a format valuntiert.-', ; 4115fit was a reluctant purchaser, ,and had only con. sewed to become a pnrehaSer lft all upon` its being propO4(4:by 4.0101) MonteSqUieu-that the debt he ; • would hus should bxliquideted.by his bill o f o ,,at, so t Ot. Cile01001(0et t in Net, strength eurdr rotherAhan enfeebled the cause of his client.— Th e bovin2 . was Made. •in ,1103,-and the writings w - ere riot).Liecuted 1800 the lapse of , • tinparientx was evine;d to close the trars:imcirri by his cheot, nor any doubt of i ts f a i r . • - nets by. theplainiitf. In 180t3, the deed of coilvey :,. *nce.was`signed, and the, bill .of cost discharged, Ittnonoting„in all, to 1451, and the charges of which •_ it consisted were.of 80 moderate a nature, that it was • onloter of surprise with_ bitn bow the,business of t • pl a i ti titi could be performed at so ch ea p a rate. All he this passed without the smallest demotion_ the p ar t oillaron Montesquieu, and should be . construed into a tacit. coriseut of the 'fairne9 of the original transadion ; nor did , he ever hint his regret till alter (erred.' The depositions in the eAuse being read, Mr. HART' followed en the side of the defence, and his Lordship , having signified his intention of withholding his decision till Friby, nit er a fcw un important motions, the Court rose at three o'clock. FRIDAY, NOV. S. The, arguments from. the bar in the above singu lar and important .case were finished this day at twelve o'clock, when Sir S. RoNtt.t.y, with his usual ,earnestness and, force, Condo . * his elaboyate reply. Fie Nit t h e raew and important case•npon thesrynnds of public policy, as well as its Own intrinsieMetit.:At - ; , was, not the amount of the purchase-money,,gi‘en by th4clefer.dant, an Attorney, to.his.Clietn,„the for ,the presentation to the expe:iancy, hich then was known to the pnrchaser to he almost re duced to a present possession, for one-Sevent h part of its just value, at a time when six, times that sum was offered by another, that he most disliked in the transaction but the dangerous precedent of an At torney, under a claim of some favour an prefer, ence from the vender, his-Client, taking a purchase on such under Value. The Learned (..,,qmsel sa id, he could not charge the defendant's aflida‘it with, being stri6tly false, but With :being inconsistent and inexplicable. Without. establishing a mischievous and most dangerobs precedent subversive or the,fifst principles of equity and justice, such a purchase as the defendant here made was not to be sustained in this Court. The right belonged to the Baron in . right of the Baroness his Lady, and the several contin, gencips which had occurred at the time of the con. trael, reduced it to an almost immediate certainty what the vale.. ought to be, and the. husband ought not to be bound by such an .unequal bargain, al though the evidence on either side was flue as corn. plete as h might have been. The .Loab CHANCaf.LOR regretted that his at, tendance was now desired .M another place, at a Ca binet Council, as he was prepared to give judgment in this important end novel case but as many prin. ciples of justice were involved in and connected o, ;tit, the question on which as pyrlitninarias be felt it his duty to pronounce his opinion, there was a .neces sity for postponing 'his judgment. ;ill the next iiitin& of the Court.—Adjouined. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. L KERNE V. DOIiMAN. -Mr. Serjeant Sit EPtiElto moved' fora' rule to shew cause why, the verdid for the defendant ire this case should not be set aiide, win new trial.grVecl• It was an action under the Ael , of the 3tti . Of.Eli - zabeth, cap. -4, by which persons are prohibited from " set ting up, occupying, Using or exetetsing any craft, mVstety, oy'occopation, then used or uceopied'wil in the realm of England or Wales . ; except he shall have been brought up therein seven yea's at the least as an apprentice," &e. The defendant had lately taken a- mill, and began exercising the trade of a miller, solely for his 0 ' profit, and adVantage, liaVine never been brought up to rhartiade. — For this Offence' an action- was •brought • agalest which came on to 'be tried by his Lordship at the fait Assizes. The principal - witness examined was a person of the name of 'Oret?n, who immaged the defendant's business as a miller, and who positively swore that -the profits of the-trade belonged to the defendant,. though.the witness conducted the- husi miss ,and managed all. the. concerns of the mill, in which the defendant did not at all' interfere. So much, indeed, was thiS the case,. that Green stated, Ahat if at any-time the Mill stopped, the defendant would say to him," If it has stopped, it: is your busineskto set tt in motion; Ido not understand it." • His Lordship, on this evidence, was' of opinion that the Statue was not applicable to the defendant, and . the Jury gave a verdict favonr.' Lord ELLE NBOROUG it said, hehad been of opinion on the trial, that' the defendant did Mt come with in the meaning of the Statute;: wide); according to his Lordships's view of it, .was 'never intended to reach such cases as that made out against.the de fendant. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD was aware that had been his Lordship's opinion ; but •he begged,' with great subinission, to refer his Lott:Mil) to the ease. of Hobbs qui_lanzw: Young, in Qd SAkeld, fi to, where the doctrine for which he (Mr. Serjeant Shepherd) must now humbly contend was - completely re - cog.; nised. His Lordship, at the,trial of the cause question, 'seemed to onderstand the Statute as' intending -solely to protect the public against the impostures of persons who might exereise . trades or professions in which they were not sufficiently skilled.. 'ware case to Which he had referred, now ever;as it appeared in Salkeld, the doctrine was car lied a great deal tut titer, • and't Staitate was con - °strafed in a far more extended sense. Theie the , defendant, who was a Turkey-met chant, was charg-. 'ed with carrying on the trade of a cloth-Worker. It appeared on . the trial, 'that he employed servants to carry 'on the'work for hiM, and did not himself in terfere, yet he was found to be the trader, and a verdict was accordingly found against him. It was there laid down, " it is not material as to the mas ter,' that the journeymen has served seven years ; for if'the master hituttell hath not servedseVen years; he is restrained by the Statute 'front working, as a, trader, either by . himself' or others; fete the intent of the aet is, to atmex‘ the benefit of trade to such as. uaderwent the hardship of learning it, thereby to encoorige' labour in youth; and few. would undergo the trouble of being apprentice', if they might clo ploy other's to. work for them." On the authority of this decis}on the Learned Serjeant submitted that ttevati lotanded in his present motion Lard ENBOROUGfri :aid, his opinion had been that theAtt'did not api'ily to the Defendant, Who;did not Sutler . his - own ignorance at all to take part in ;he concerns of the 'mill, but confided, that,. trust en-' tirely' to one who bad suffici ent skill to manage' it. The Aa r as be cunceivedit, was , intended to exclude persons who had not sufficient skill in any profession front the exercise of 'that protession, bur he 'presumed to ibitik) that it conid not be its mean ing to prevent any man employing his capital in any lawful pursuit which might . retiound toini own ad vantage and to the public accommodation, —In re spect of the authority retied on; however, he wished the Learned Serjeant to - take his rale.7-- Rule granted. LONDO ) 1 i Printed by RICHARD HARRIS, of No. 4. Martlett-court„ Bow-sr:vet ird p c At tho Burt Ovizos # No. lig, Wood, whore ildvirairestuts, Ora'as for the BUCKSIR AN4Leti. Mr. Serjeaut Best' nosed fora rule to slicw caw!: why the verdict Jar thtk Plaintiff in this. ease shovlri not be set aside, and a new trial 'granted. Our readers will recollect that this was a casepied at the adjourCed Sittings alter last Term, at hall. It was on a policy of insurance on gonctitatto' board the ship Fortuna , to Riga, and the license was' granted to a person named, and to any other 136-: fish or neutral Merchant. Mr. Serjeant Best; at this': trial, contended that the goOds in question 4b-i,s3g=v, consigned to Messrs. P. arid D. Smith, .at. Riga, where they were domiciled, :hey were .not t 9 tie* considered as neutral merchants, Russia being in a state of hostility with. thiS country. Being unable, however, to prove the issuing of Letters of Marque and 'Reprisals, the fatrof the two countries bring in, a state of Itostility,ws not 'eSteeMedtO" sufficiently made out, and ti verdta was funtid foi the ' . Mr,. Stq l jeant 'IMF,. in support orhis:presenfmo.. lion, after reCapitulating the argnMents he had geir on the trial, founded on a publication Which ItaA appeared in the Gazette of 18th'December, 1809,. containing a declaration of certain causea'of coin- - plaint which ills Majesty had agains.t..,the RiiSkVan Government, and on the same day, an Order for • the issuing of reprisals against the sbipi, goods, and : subjects 'of the Russian Emperor. The Learned ._Serjeant was proceeding to argue the Royal Preto ,gative in matters of peace and war, when Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that in the ab `sence of any p.rool of the atinal existence of' hostili ties between the two countries, no tefletlion could attach either to the Court or; Jury for 'the verditt which had been given. But now appeared that such a document as that,on which the Learned Ser. jeant relied was in -existence', :he r was Stift ky . entitled to his Rule.--Rule granted. JONES, Arc. 4J. DvvvEtt,•&c. The ATTorttqa y-GENER I. moved fora new trial in this case, which Was tried at the last Sittiogs at Guildhall, when a verdiet was givirn for pbin tiffs, who are the assignees . on the estate of Mingay and Nott,, against the defendants, who were, i the brokers, employed by iheplaintitfito sell. for them a 'at g,e quantity of bacons, the property of the hank- rupt estate, fora som of upwards of 6061. A notice had been served on the defendants not to pay over 'to the plaintiffs, the goods being chtiMed by the assignees of another person, also a Wilt:kyr, - of the name of Cotterell. The ground of this claith was, that though Cotierell, who was indebted to Mingay and Nott in a large snm, had, in secwiiy of that advance, given to theM a entitrotil over certain large quantities of hams which, he, had lying at dif. ferent wharfs, by granting , to - them orders, dated'on the ttith December, to have the same transferred to theiroskn names, they had never availed themselves of this right till the 18th July lc:flowing, on Which •day it had come to their:knowledge,' hat •6 check of Cot terell's had been dishonoured.. The at-t of -brink ruptey did not take place till several dajs - -'afti • wards ;- which, his Lordship was ofopininir,did not operate against the right of Miiigay and Noll', who had received' the security, not as one to be iannel diately operated upon, but which they might use When they saw Occasion. The, ATTOII dRY-GRNBAAL, in now moving for a new trial in this case, 1010 on a case eiatily in hi tnilar circumstances, Darkly v. Smith, where the argument he had here/to 'maintain was recognised both in this Court, and in bankruptcy before . .the Mas , er Of the Rolls. He himself had been COUti'' set that case, on the side against which * be had now to contend, atr.ci though he had stated his curse with all the force he possessed, he had been un. succes , ttul. - • " Lord ELLEKBOROUGH said, that' being so; he might take hiti rule.. SHIPWRECKED GOODS. . Mr. Tan moved for a Writ of 'Habeas Corptii, to bring up the .bodiekof three men who had been at Barrow, in Somersetshire, charged under the Ad of the 26th Geo. 11, o. ig.,with stealing or detain ing shipwrecked goods. The punishment, 'if 'tlw offence was of an aggraVated nature, was.. 'capital ; but, if the goods - sttilen were of trifling value, and no cruelty was used,- then the crime amounted only to petty larceny, and was tobe punished accordingly. This motion was grounded first on an impertettion in , the warrant of commitment, the goods being laid as the property of all his Majesty's sUbjqi-ls— and secondly, on the merits, on which the Learned Counsel principally relied: The atficlavits on the :tnerkts stated, that a person 9f 'the name of Crandon had picked up on. the sekshore a Triunity or rum, of which lie bad iuvited the defendants and others to partake, arid they had mistakenly done.so, supposing that, they had a right, the person ; who, invited them having tound it. These defendants, who bore ex charaoers, Were , now in custody on the oaths of two persons, one of ,wborn bore the very name of their invitor, charged with the offence in question. Lord ELLENI3OIIOpGII--" 'You may tale the Ha beas Col'pes and Certiorari ! " . ' • BRISTOL DOCX. COMPANY. • Mr. DAUNCEY Moved fora tule to sheW cause why a Mandamus shouldnet diraied against the Bristol, Dock COmpany, calling on them to show` cause why they should not pay to" Mr. pro prietor of a Duck eallifd Littekiln Dock, thtitinin' of 423'81.. being the damages assessed by .a :fury, as Jae ; to the plaintiff by the operation, of the defendhotsi Docks. The BristOl Dock Company Mt poirittidi out the mode of assessing the' darnages suififinecf'fly, persons itt the situation of the plaintiff, but filee?he Stolid Bridge At, left them without any remedy fur the recovery of the damage's when . ai‘essed.-- . This application was exatily > irrtildr totla one Made inthe case of the Srand Bald& COMpanY Rule to spew cause granted. .. ~.--e,-,-,--i-e—rrri4ei.-clefetterertrerarrs7l.. ......,.__ ~. of Dornfries, where they understood the plsititii;:to be at . tha: time. This leiter Was in substatt, thhemat in .consequenee of r information . ceri'.llveil hY Muir.r, a t, they had lesson to suspett a t Julia .', of bring concerned in torgeri4s ;,' that he* had lately !i' left Loudon for liontflies, in order to take posais- ': sion of sir estate devolving to him. in right of 11 in the 3 me' ► t her,. and that he 3.vag suppOsed to be tliti ineighbourhood of Dutufrh:s.. The letter then pro- :4dsattit)ttii:.iitirrtlefbletaAdit:l,3a,lintdrilitel'iattbi3fttlhiee 'ivtitltidtilii. c,xniittill?.:lep, if,tiieoinlcOri,criehda: alinedwiiiti,lpciatii.: close t c o l b sto, co y ri t l i t i i tl l ey.could send a Warrant (0 temove hint from Mini-' fries to Looclun. This letter being :eat accorilinglr, he plaintiffwas arrested; but there was (to leuct evitieare upon the ititil to Prove either , that t loci reached the Alagisr GI e.,of . Dumfries, or that tile "' rest had been eifetted in con Sequence ofltrtTdr'' ' lions limn ' that lslai;istrai.ti. Cel . tein-ii wa'' lh ,',f t no vat rant had .beeri grauted ' by. the Alagis . :r 3te ..„. iDthuattutfirliie;:iebitettrt:ripitialtins'snirserptent i'lquiry'll - alAei'''' ; '' ; ; • tfather handS, it ton; and of course at their, and at the peril of thi e - ilefendants, who had' never commiislonea,,,lll.efu,:: w tio. a tt. upon tl way, i b t y n i t so i r r m o c w a n ns ,; , ; s ' e u le . : to act. The Wlttlt.sq.calli:rd dpoWthe trial to,:1" : the arrest was folio Richardson, .tha Conitable "*l'°, eri . 'ecuted the .wariant. Fle Swore that lie teruil'''' tcluier_acorar,rrii.,tinsetof.rom the clerk of •Mr. Short, ► llle r ` v that the.as. arrested utidl a i,tfor:l, granted by . a - Magistrat e of Kirkcodbriglo, A'. was taken to - gaei, and kept there till licri",:'' liberated by , the Lead Chief Justice Cleli c '„ ' c: ' ,..: Leartsed Seijeatitt hen contended,"; ha t from 0.11.'1':-1, ' circuit stances there was not ping. to in le r.l lie ii.." -I ,Y l ,'„,'' ' Plaintiff-'f"r- was Connty of Doralrio i i of the'delend3uts to answer for the injury, sutf''';', ' , the plaintiff in consequence of the arrestsa,(lol`",, ' for, in the . first place, WIICLI.one wily St•inb i , i h n o 4rtl ' ‘ e l o i n On iint Ilse _another diser e party o ti:a, thedo 0 0 di:ea:lLK:ol3r 11 1 '1,2: 1 11 , 0, I3W presuines a certain cobfidetwe en ; d i taino ~),,,: illegallyWol dbetilliaatrdwiT.ctillie°ll)7rseatall!lsi9r:siniiis-I.:tiriditir:;)l:''lBll:il'':. fable in damages tar B.'s ill , gal titl, v oles; l'ot! Ti ter' cuing link - should prove that 13. 'Aa A l : , s ' in'l :ie , 4 I . l . tent• ' But here there was w;',s no l'''",:i: r 'e tri oit'i Mate proof ; there.: WaS no eVidetict: 01 ''''' , 10 , hating beenatte' , orise , l by the Al igistratoua),\'''.x.. „. 4 (lid not appear that this letter reaelied '11;1t',0;1,,..4 irate ;• rid+ herdid-ir a preat' h o w it hatll4l,l!:;,J,•,ri ands.of Air. Short.. ir-ti.6 itisoniri_eurr,:t.,r., ii" the presuniptiO4l. of d-seret ion w as.:go e ,":,& " la . t . l cases where the person so desitod to da a 1 ,1, - 7 0 ),:, stranger, that the Magi-trate would not b c *;" „'.u , ili to do ass. illegal thing, and that, if he - wlf' , ' ''' it c ,-,4, not do it. A t hi r d vecuhfiriiy in the PI -6 1: i i ,, r wltiell Ittinished.a third grinunl; Avll' , 1 , 1131 :, t i is t"'''i !. was written front, a country whero tit" -v , ;, 1.2. :t t l' i 4*: s k a t:i- i ll e tbe . ii : ' • . t s gbe t ec: ll: Bll , t Qd; t :t o P 1 t6 N I- c 'ert: • t e l i, i '‘- ; e ° a : n r ifT . .. '' t o ss l i t b tll l. jitniell cegPttrtri:to''.,:rn:3t;'.iii:',ll'',3l,l,°,B!)'-:"elnL-1,,r.t'5'ee:1i11.4,71)115 Catrie I his.entrus!ed a still larcr shale 01 ° Li to the Magistrate. ; tl,;;i(11' _Sir JASIE riVIANHVIE.I.3I-••" The letter A ; c l i ff, Portant. part of this ca'e; 310 it dotl ,4 1 3 1'"` leti 'c ,, , some how - ' or .other, in consequence of il t , ' lo 1,344 the -plaintiff was astrrstoti. ,fa kvollis "'''' It , tet o; °l p a ) triln.irteeiitlynitfendreitater:prlrierd.tvioctitit:silctiqi Ujiv:rY;d:llll/ClCl:itrtiditlillt3ail-gCtihallt:°getlBll;atlli;;:lirl-: aga.l:ihsit„.,l‘l,"ir; The curntoission is simple, .a fi" sr you , find k• - ,... ', gere 116 LOS,libtp,lfir notes the evidOace of the {role his : lora l nlf Mr.-Setjeant.SHßFAlSßP.'"*" mtit'itnY i '„ sigetlcY is the fate •ot the arrest to he ir° ce " t() ) tilV 0(40 of the - Chief Magistrate .of DarafrieiA" ,r'w, i 4 '‘ gave no instruttions. to -Alr , Slierti l' n- - . p ir ate i' preyed that he acted under,the Chief I‘ll Joy tq Sir J. MANSFIBLD.—=, Phis W3s tar doubt sbe' consider, , mid.they seemed to bav d e v(e r::: , ; 6 lf r i e l : a it p . oi l ea c t a ia n n 't „.. b i la b m ey e a t:h e . e d a f e ro fe m n'd p a r n a l i s s :::: : o ' r 7 l Sllllll' a b: l ii , l'il i tl7oll l .l l V 3 lC6l° vl l abteied:thtirr'yshetiospaiialaicnivtt:ieffsiete): l : o h ch i g cohodtloo°dY \v " l ie ( 4 ' t; were s t6 o r sp l i i c le io re ns. . l. C w e o r o ta ld ill , lY 'all: the 4 r eight of law verydooke chat :Al a r d . I S ll ,. i .r t jeans te d of S i' li t . :P II :It i: P :r .-•" lenfe ' : : :°:o3'rd li vi cei ranted ruguil:1:1511t:li:151.4:113:1 0 : tojssue the Waritint ?" Mr. Justice HEATH*" That . WO ,e v ' t ,", - ,iaStr. o ‘ 4 to the Jury, and they had 140 doubt .th"at t"ri, 1 4,0', Clops cif Alessrs. Kay 'and Freslifod. P"6',,,tate .0 1 Short through the nand): of the Chief I ' 4' ' Dumfries."—Rule retused. 4' ll BIRTHS. On Thursday last, Mrs. I. Iteid, of OW w . "'" a la c k s un er. e t witso(l' These clay, at Brighton , Mrs. l'errY, Perry,' Esti. of a D:tughter. AntlO' Y • ALeE I). ma O c tl k ; n r r u o e t sh 1 . , at St.r.o,:orge's, lianOVer.s43:79tYo°''' t hq. 01 I ortola, to Pili“ ng, ' , fow l -. • ,orstlP: te,_l(f7ll)trie,i, on Wetebclay morning, file W r a j o r t - ce - re ?' tic Viscount And Lady Mar)`'_. Deerhurrit i ' d a c t ow' ' EP t oi i nt a !ti _ t i s l efi l e g, .. , b 43. : : :: :: :::::: ui t ,o l . r a r y i . l i e d : same . i ! ,torte. sitryir.:(o): o il foli_r?..rt r iL s i , l47ll ,si on ruursktay at Chest .r 10:strcet liobro . t ' I ',1 1" beth i 1 J'A, in the COUP . 011 T • ,e ( est o.llightcr of Isaac: COoksoo, Ebq. ,' 4 04uaCrbel,er_Ttay, ttpritilig, ohn Button , I T 5' q' °f I)e. er scil ' l: v on ; daitgliter.l3oi6flTrl,l;esphiteAg‘'eVri,ll"stqlle.roCitl.3tlhlte' Iti.:);!l':lslrSittg' 1 rl prit f a E r on v. s l it.Lr littera toi 3ist a t , his trottierb onti,c L i ! tiei b i j o a y tiv ll 1 1 1° ,7 : t o: ti r lr y i s:alat:gol MarkCeti.."L SMitAipßs'KsoEhT? NoV• g'.NricC• 14e. " 4 ' Ship 3 at Newt;astle . • • Si• ij>s~sold` es. bd. to 5g . , ' Oh, 3 Sunderland • • . 40 , 1' : .1 4 , .5 , " w t Scotch C 03 1.. o • -.5 ' 0" STOCK S g VI A If • 1„,..pf, 13an Stoek, Indis llonds, 1419,; 6 i a r r a nt e l y l 5 5 p i ! (Tat: 9:6; .97.,901 Seoxucthile9S.ol3slr4.;l,. jd t , p i 4 or r as is dis. P2l-314. 4 PC I +. ellt• ;74 7 3 j7° t "". 1 r 3 o et Cwic. 1. tia, :i 6,• 6; $ l, ,P„,' . ) ,: ar . pliS. 1 per Cent. (%ns. 6.4 OSi 0,1 01,101"1,t,;,. L.ent.4,11 Wink L. Ann. t 6 7.,tetlmi imPet''.l ...,1 1 oir , " India Stock, Cu a. tor 1 / ~...0 ----.o,•"'"*"*."wcr. PRICE, 0, Y X 47 COMMON PLEAS. 14UIR V. KAY AND FRESHVOLD, Mr. Serjesnt SHEPHERD moved tor a rule to. shAv i i Cause, why the verditt in this case - should not be set Aside., and a new trial granted ; this was - an aoton: for a false iroprisonMent. The defendants were , . Bank Solicitors, and hatring, as they helievedirstnangl grounds of suspicion. against the plaintiff, they wrore 4bttl by WILLIAM A 2i )IiiIGER SCRIPPS, Soutl.Mo.taw,itriet, . Atotat Lettirs for tba Kd df,, 3to. Wort-pqictl, aioat be addres3vd.