The Sun. — London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

us ',_, -' , l 'i 45 . '--- - CIIA, fAc . .t.. - v 01;' ' --.-- , -p,, 1 ~., ...t: :1 \ 14 i , . . ii..e , k r. - I. b e l ie: - -- - - - - - - --1:17-- _ ri , n E. 7 _......,,,. ::a7 ....., A , MP l iz i ~,r i r_ . : ..--,---40' ... _ . :-L. •-----, Ar , • A s. - :,, ,, e ~,,---. , '-' : . (cF4 u-rto w NO 7 7 / 4 7 IT 0 ap-i tai" L / d r i i :/,- 4 //2 6" iratt. 0 1_ , ''‘` ag /I 7') NUMBER 9449. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1822. PRICE SEVEN PENCE. LAW INTELLEGENCE. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, Nov. 22 , t 82 2. THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS of His MA JEsTrs ORDNANCE do hereby give Notice, that P roposals will be received at their Office, in Pall Mall, °4 or before Monday, the 9th day of December next, from ' 4c h Persons as may be willing to undertake the LIGHT-, of the LAMPS for the Ordnance Department at the "Wer and P a ll Mall, and at the Royal Arsenal, and the it ° Nat Artillery Barracks at Woolwich, for a period of 2'4 ree Years, terminable at any time after the expiration of th e First Year, upon Three Months notice being given by e " h er party. For the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, apply at the S e cretary's Office, in Pall Mall, between the Hours of Ten 4 ' 4 Four o'Clock, where such Persons as intend to make a 2 elider for the Contract will receive a Schedule of the IP Oik to be performed. T he P*vvorata 'must be delivered, sealed up, and endorsed Proposals f o r Lamplighter's NVork ;" but no Proposal can 6 € admitted after the 9th day of December nex', at Twelve ` li elock a t N oon , ne ith er w ill any Tender be noticed, un i(.4. the Party making it, or an Agent in his behalf, 114 11 attend. _ _ voured to bastardise their issue ? Would not there have been some members of the family who had witnessed it ? The mar riage of 1742 was represented to have been solemnized between William Cotton, bachelor, and Rebecca _Webster, spinster, which of itself excluded the idea of a former marriage. With respect to the charge against Ward, of keeping the Court in ignorance of the illegitimacy of the lunatic, all the advantage arising out of that fraud had been reaped by the plaintiffs, who were themselves accessary thereto, and who now came before the Court to make it a matter of formal complaint. On the part of Ward it was a mere venial offence. I* matters of lunacy, it was of course when the case was in the Master's Office, that it should be ascertained who was the next of kin ; but, in the present instance, the plaintiffs had been content to receive the money, without daring to have their• title investi gated. therefore hoped that the Jury, after they had taken all the cir cumstances of the case into consideration, would give the plain.: tiff little more than nominal damages. _ The CHIEF JUSTICE, having summed up the evidence, ob served to the Jury, that although the sum which had been paid to the servant employed to fill the place of the plaintiff's niece had not been proved; yet it was clear that some person had been employed for that purpose. The surgeon and the mid wife had sworn to their respective demands; their bills must therefore form part of the damages they should be inclined to give. The question, howevar, would remain with them as to the compensation the plaintiff was entitled to receive for the injury he had sustained. COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 5. LYNN V. BEAVER. Mr. HORNE moved for an injunction to stay the trial of an issue in this case, expected to come on to-morrow, which had been ordered by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor. It appeared that a bill had been filed for administering to the testator's estate, and an inquiry was directed to know whether the plain tiff was the testator's next of kin, and the Master found that a person named Foster, a stranger in the record, was the next of kin • but the defendant h a d laid hold of the whole of the per sonal estate El.' his own use. It came on again on exceptions and further directions, and the plaintiff' still persisted in his claim, and his Honour directed an issue to be tried to decide the question ; and the executor had appealed against the order made by His Honour, to go to trial with a person who had been found by the Master to have no interest in the estate, therefore this motion was made to stay the trial until the appeal could be heard. A" he ed 'The Jury having retired for about half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 251., Costs 40s. - The LORD CHANCELLOR—If the representation now made by Ward had been laid before him at the time of his directing the issue, which it was alleged it was, his Lordship certainly had not done his duty. Mr. PEPYS concluded—He apprehended that the Court never sent a case to a new trial, unless satisfied that the addi tional evidence, which was alleged to have been withheld, would in all probability alter the former verdict. If the ques tion were to be tried twice, his client might probably move for a third, and so the case might go on, till in the end there was very little property worth trying left. Mr. PHILLIPS (from the Court of King's Bench) argued on the same side. Mr. HART replied—Whatever regret he might feel in his Lordship being obliged to hear him instead of the Solicitor-Ge neral, yet he did not consider in the performance of his duty, that he should have been justified in rejecting the task. Ile had not the advantage of hearing in what. manner the Solicitor-Ge neral opened the case, but he had heard the arguments of the Gentlemen who opposed it. He had read not only the evidence of witnesses who were examined, but he had looked over the va rious dociunentary evidence, and he humbly submitted that the case was not presented to the Jury with such a view of the subject as the production of some of this evidence which had been witheld would have presented. Independent of this, the refusal to produce the proceedings in this Court would alone have been fatal to the verdict. The Learned Gentleman bent on to argue for a new trial until the rising of the Court. DIOT.-THE KING V. FERE'S. - AND OTHERS. This was a prosecution instituted by a person named Hay ward, against the defendant and other persons, for a riot alleged to have been committed by them on the 30th of May, 1822. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. READER, and the defendant's by the COMMON SER JEANT. ch e a ne Mr. KNIGHT appeared on the same side, and said the mo tion was not only made on the ground of an appeal pending, but because the parties have had meetings from time to time almost up to the present day, and the defendant had been given to understand that a compromise between the partieswould have taken place without going to trial, and he had been surprised in having received notice that the trial had been appointed for hearing to-morrow. Mr. PErYs appeared for the defendant, and hoped the mo tion would be granted, because when the appeal came on for hearing he had the utmost confidence that it would be decided by this Court that there would be no necessity for a trial. Messrs. St: GDEN, JoiiNsols-, and MARTIN, appeared to oppose the motion, and stated, that . his Honour was firmly o f opinion, that the only mode of se ttling the question was to di rect an issue. It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Ferey, a person of consider able property, had taken a coach-house and stable from Mr. Hay ward, at the annual rent of 201. Finding these premises too small to accommodate his equipage, he sent a message to his land lord, to request him to take the premises again into his posses sion. This was refused by Mr. Hayward. Mr. Ferey then in formed him, that if he would not take them back, he (Mr. Ferey) would let them to some chimney-sweeepers. This threat had no effect. Mr. Ferey, a short time after, introduced a black man into the stable for the night. A similar offer was made by the defendant to his chimney-sweepers, but was not accept ed. Soon after the coach-house a nd s t a bl e afforded an asylum to about 20 or 30 Irish haymakers. These Gentlenwit, not be ing so peaceably inclined as the former tenants of the habitation, thought proper to break all the windows in the place, and create such a disturbance as to render the interference of constables necessary. It was on these grounds that Mr. Ferey was treated as a party in the riot. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE recommended the parties to compromise the case. Mr. COMMON SERJEANT said he believed his client had no objection to adopt the course his Lordship advised. A Juror was therefore withdrawn with the consent of both parties. By Order of the Board, R. H. CREW, Secretary. it 5~ CAFE ROYAL TAVERN AND HOTEL, I I rill' • On Monday will•be published, Q , In Three Volumes, Bvo., price 365. A .9II ;COND SERIES of CURIOSITIES of ...j t % i tt4,I I . I ERATURE, consisting of Researches in Literary, I y lc al,Political History—of Critical and Philo ' I nquiries —an-4 of Secret History. By I. D'ISRAELI, Esq. th4-rinting for John Murray, Albemarle-street. 1 14 same time will be published, the Seventh Edition 5 vols. post Bvo. price 355. BRITISH INSTITUTION. P INE SUBSCRIBERS to the PRINT from th e 8: Mr. WEST'S PICTURE of " Our Saviour Healing 14 1 2_ek in the Temple," who have not already received their ihr.nssions, may receive them upon Payment of the Re -Vier of their Subscriptions at the British Institution, Pall 1 5 daily, between the Hours of Eleven and Three. 1 • REGENT-STREET. I\l calling the atention of the Nobility and ne ceSS (l eOtry to this Establishment, JOHN CROSS deems it Sub t Y to state, that the CAFE ROYAL is not a House for si riv se , il hers only, as has been erroneously supposed. It is 01,0114' to the most celebrated Cages in Paris, but on an im e7 e(1 Principle, and combines all the domestic comforts of a -ushouse with the advantages of a first-rate Tavern and ity °te ie l ' The Coffee-room is furnished in the most magnificent k aterials o f elegance, in the French taste, but with superior • t ot e Refreshments consist of Dejeunes la fourchette, Tea, t eth , e , e, Soups, Ices, Confectionary, and Dinners of every de- Of -v4Ol l dressed in the French'or English style. Champagne hoequisite flavour, sparkling and creaming, just imported thefPr, Rhenish, Claret, with all other approved Wines t k finest quality, Liqueurs, Fruits, and every Foreign ~M lle deli whole with fixed Prices a la carte. With Main object of this Establishment is to combine comfort c ode ele gance, and whilst the Proprietor hopes that it will be. 444 Place of Fashionable resort for Foreigners, he begs ia t d to their a ccomm ° assire his English Patrons that every attention shall be n. Jo. English and Foreign Newspapers. of th 'N CROSS begs to announce, that he is also Proprietor kri t C e tedford Hotel, Leamington Spa, which is elegantly A NA .eolll Modiously arranged for the reception of Families. 4 entlemen attending the Warwickshire and Lord An. triqiunts, will find it a centrical situation, and may depend th e h eet illg with superior accommodation for their Horses at Niedford Mews and Hunting Stables, which, in point of I kty arid convenience for Hunters, will be found equal to .<4tablishment in the Kingdom. I VINGTON'S ANNUAL REGISTER I ,Rt 1 7 for the Y e a r 1821, is p u bli s h e d t hi s D a y, i n O ne vo. price 18s. in ,boards. Wte r , t ( lunie for the Year 1820 (commencing with His S t Majesty's Reign) was publish e d i n J a n uar y l as t, Church-Yard, and Waterloo-place. STRICTURES CURED ( ,_a new .Method the above troublesome "*"„ roPlaint is. entirely eradicated (without the use of tti th nlbir Caustic ), if not constitutional, whether of long t,tl',,Phr,; l auding, ' as - well as all weaknesses generally ae -41,71i10,F it, and in a short time the whole system is re ,,CUlte‘r.; being one of Duke reatest discoveries ever made. vp,,,.1-YNCH, 44, street, St. James's. to Wible references will be given, if required.—All Let „lit,f Post- pa i d. 4 tiw tis t Cure for Bilious Affections and Obstructions in . A t price of the Medicine is Fotir Pound . s.. 11, ( 1 Ilisi"!slietl, price ss. gd. Bvo., the Second Edition of C rICAL TREATISE on NERVOUS, BILIOUS, ( ('%1 1 (1 1 ,!)1 e t ',. 4I ‘.IMATORY AFFECTIONS; with a new Me= `'" , g strictures without the use of Bthigie or tit tn. n'lnt an Appendix on the Diseases. of Women and Sold by John Lync, 44, Duke-treet, .St. mes's. Wm. Cr a wfor d , 124, s CheapsideJa,' The LORD CHANCELLOR—What would that issue con clude ? Supposing the trial was to go on, and a verdict given against the executor, the estate would be ordered by this Court immediately to be given over to the plaintiff ; but would not Foster be at liberty to file a bill the very next day ? Mr. SUGDEN—Foster has already filed a bill. His Lonnsiiir—Then, I should certainly consider, that if it was necessary to try an issue at all, it ought to be tried be. tween the two persons, both contending to be next of kin. Mr. SUDDEN—His Honour has given Mr. Foster liberty to attend the trial ; we have been put to very great expence, and it will be of most serious consequence to us if the trial at this late hour should be put off. His LORDSHIP—What use will it be giving a man liberty to attend a trial who is not a party to the suit ? I should con sider that the best thing to be done here will be to stay the trial, and reserve the consideration of costs until further orders. Mr. SUGDEN—Then I hope your Lordship will name some early day for it to come on, as delay will cause us very great expence, we having a great number of witnesses in town, brought up from distant parts of the country.. His LORDSHIP—If you mean me to appoint an early day for the trial, I certainly cannot do that ; but I will come down any morning at nine o'clock to hear the appeal, which, I think, from the view I take of it, will not last five minutes. Let me know on Monday on what morning you wish me to come down. BEERE V. WARD. Mr. SIIADWELL said the Attorney-General was now in Court for the purpose of answering the question respecting the new trial in this case. He trusted, in the event of Mr. Attor ney not wishing for a new trial, that his Lordship would now proceed with the further hearing. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERA/.--Wheß this case was last be fore the Court, he understood that his Lordship intimated that he (the Attorney-General) ought to have been served with no. tice of that motion. He felt satisfied that such a course ought to have been pursued. As the matter stood, he was perfectly ignorant on what ground the new trial was moved for, not hay ' nig been furnished with the arguments in support of it. But if the ground was that the weight of evidence was against the vet. diet, he must confess that it did appear to him that the verdict was fully warranted by the evidence adduced. He would not say any thing upon any other grounds, because be was entirely ignorant of them, nor would he say any thing on the conduct of the persons who were parties to this suit ; but it did op pear to him that the Court had certainly been very improperly dealt with. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It did not appear that the At. torney-General, or any person on his behalf, had attended the trial on the part of the Crown, at the same time he felt convinc ed, that if the person representing the interest of the Crown thought the verdict of illegitimacy was unsatisfactory, though it was favourable to the interest he represented, still such was the honourable course which was in these cases usually held, that no advantage would be taken of that circumstance. Mr. ATTORNEY -GENERAL—The Crown was certainly materially interested, as the savings were considerable, but such was the manner in which it was in the habit of acting in like cases, that it did not suffer such considerations to influence its judgment. The LO RD CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General thought the weight of evidence in favour of the verdict of illegitimacy, although in opposition to the interests of the Crown, still he would do that Gentleman the justice to say, that he did not doubt but he would act in the same manner as all former At. torneys-General had done. His Lordship thought he ought to have been made a party in the issue, with liberty to have at tended the trial as Attorney-General. lf, however, he was sa tisfied with the verdict, the Court would consider the case as if the Attorney-General had been actually present. Mr. HART thought it right to inform his Lordship, that in the absence of Mr. Solicitor-General, the reply would be thrown upon himself ; and, therefore, with all due deference to the opinion of Mr. Attorney, he felt quite convinced that evidence on many material points had not been laid before the Jury. Mr. HORNE was with Mr. Scarlett, and the other Gentlemen who had been heard against the allowance of the new trial, and he should have considered himself quite unwarranted, after the full investigation which this case had undergone, in trespassing long upon the time and patience of the Court. There was no dispute that a marriage had taken place in 1742, and he did nut mean to say that the proof of that marriage went to establish that a prior marriage had not been solemnized, or to bastardise the issue born previously. It was open to the Con - ft to receive proof of a former marriage, which would establish the legitimacy of these children. No such e v id e n ce , h owever , had been ten dered, but it was sought to be applied on the evidence of repu tation of the former marriage. Now unless it were admitted that this Gentleman went about marrying himself first at one place, then at another ; in fact, that he was also a lunatic ; it was difficult to suppose that such prior marriage had taken place. The qutAion for his Lordship's consideration was this, considering the distance of time ; the evidence gone into (do cument Airy and parole) ; the admission, that it was a case that was only fit to be tried before a Jury ; considering it had gone down to a Jury (all the parties being prepared); it would be for his Lordship to say, not whether the verdict was right to demonstration, but whether he really thought, upon the ver dict, that such palpable injustice would be done to the parties as ought to induce the Court to order a new trial ? He appre hended that it was incumbent on the persons who pressed for a new trial, to shew that some evidence had been improperly received ; or, on the other hand, that some important testimony had been rejected on the former occasion. Mrs SHADwELL followed. The Lone CHANCELITOR said, that one question which distressed his mind was, whether he ought not, after the repre sentation made in the Master's Office, to have , handed the estate over to the persons representing themselves to be the co heiresses, leaving Ward to eject them if he should have thought proper? Whether he ought not to have required Ward, as officer of the Court, to have delivered possession in stead of directing the issue ? Mr. WETHERELL—The other party did not ask for pos session' but for the appointment o f a rece i ver on ly. The LORD CHANCELLOR—In this case there were three parties, the plaintiff and defendant, and the Crown. Mr. HART would not confine himself to the simply praying for a new tris.l,'ls'ut would ask that it might be a trial at bar (a trial before a Jury, the four Judges of the King's Bench pre siding). If ever a case demanded a close investigation of here ditary descent, it was the one before the Court. Mr. PEPYS, on the same side, argued against the case being again sent before a Jury upon the mere objections which had been started, unless his Lordship thought these objections were likely to lead to a different conclusion from the one already arrived at ;—and; again, whether that result would be more consonant with justice to all parties ? If there had been a former marriage, would not evidence to that effect have been produced ? Would the mother and father have concealed it, and thus have enclea. VICE-CHANCELLOR's COURT, DEC. 5. This day being the first seal day, his Honour sat to hear motions. BARNES AND OTHERS v. RHODES AND BRIDGER. Mr. HEALD, in this case, moved that a Receiver should be appointed to the estate of Thomas Barnes, of Hoxton, deceased. The testator, Thomos Barnes, was a man of a peculiar charac ter; he had been no more than a working bricklayer, who, by industry and application, accumulated property to the amount of 10,0001. per annum, which had the peculiarity that it was let out by the week ; it consisted of about 1,400 houses in the neighbourhood of Hoxton and Bethnal green. The property he left equally divided between his two sons, Robert and John Barnes, chargeable with a ground rent and an annuity of 1,2001. per ann. to his widow, 2001. a-year to eachof his two daughters, and 50/. to a niece. The eldest son, Robert Barnes, died leav ing one share of his moi e ty t o hi s b rot h er, and divising the remainder away. One of the sisters also died, and the charge upon the estate to which the plaintiff, John Barnes, became chiefly entitled, were now no more than 1,4001. The de fendants, Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Bridger, were the execu tors of the will, and, in 1321, in consequence of some disputes about it, they filed a bill in Chancery, the effect of which .was to continue the management of the estate in themselves; and now at the end of four years, after the estate had been left, the plaintiff found himself in the same condition as if no estate at all had been left to him. There was no dis pute amongst the family, all were satisfied that the executors shoul' relieve themselves from the burthen of taking care of - the estate: The plaintiff was an elderly man, the competency of whom to take care of his estate was not impeached by any of .the family; and there was some difficulty in conceiving under what pretence the executors could continue to retain possession, particularly as all the debts were paid. It appeared too, that some time since the deceased, Robert Barnes, was continually threatened with bills in that Court, if he did not give up the title deeds to the executors. This was a strange proceeding, which had, however, been resisted. An enormous number of tenants had been placed in an awkward situation, by notices served upon them not topay the rent to any b u t a receiver ap pointed by the executors, and the plaintiff was compelled in his own defence to adopt the expensive proceeding of putting the estate under the management of that Court, by praying it to appoint a receiver. Mr. BELL said the reason why the defendants retained the estate was, that many covenants had been entered into, which it Would be necessary to fulfil, and they wished to be free from all liability before they quitted possession. They had made ar rangement with persons to put the property in repair, and had received security for the performance of the business, which they had put into a train, and wished to see executed. There was also some doubt on their minds whether the plaintiff was in a proper state of mind, and whether the application was not in reality made at the instance of another person. The deeds had been wanted to satisfy some claims of duty, and inquiries on that account made by Government upon the estate. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after hearing the Counsel thr the devisee, who agreed to the application, said he consi dered that the executors were struggling uselessly . against th e interests of the estate, to w hi c h he ordered that a receiver should be appointed. COURT OF KING'S BENCII, DEC. 5. SEDUCTION. PALMER V. LEGGETT. This was an action to recover compensation in damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's niece by the defendant, whereby he Iciq her services. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. GURNEY and Mr. HOLT ; and the defendant's by Mr. SCARLETT. - Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. He said the plaintiff was a person employed in the family of the Duke of Cambridge, and his wife carried on the business of a straw hat maker in South-street, South Audley-street. His niece was an orphan, who, from motives of charity, had been taken into his wife's house, and occasionally assisted in attending on the loslgers who rented apartments of her. The defendant was a person of considerable property, occupying the first floor in that house, and by that means had frequent opportunities of using any in ducements he might think proper to effect his seduction of the unfortunate girl. The plaintiffand his wife had not the slightest suspicion that any thing improper had ever passed between the defendant and their niece, un on one occasion the latter had given her a piece of bride cake he had received from one of his friends. A present like this from a person in a situation so far above the girl, caused just alarm. An explanation ensued, from which the plaintiff learned the whole of the fatal truth ;—that she was some months advanced in pregnancy by the defendant.— Illness and incapacity to perform her, usual work were of course the consequences. 11Ir. Palmer had been at a considerable ex_ pence in obtaining medical assistance for his niece, and had also been under the necessity of employing another servant to fill her situation. It was for these expences that the action was brought, as well as for the injury the plaintiff had recei ve d i n the seduction of his niece. The Learned Counsel, therefore, hoped that when the Jury came to consider all the circum stances of the case_ , they would think that they o ug h t not to give damages with a sparing hand. Ann Alen, the niece of the plaintiff', proved the criminal in tercourse between herself and the defendant. The particulars of her evidence were too indelicate for detail ; but it did not appear that the defendant had resorted to much art to effect her submission. The Surgeon and the Midwife who had attended her at her accouchement, were also called, and proved the amount of their respective hills, which they had been paid by the plaintiff: Other witnesses were called, who proved, that before the transaction in 'question, the girl had always been modest, and maintained a good character. Mr. SCARLET T, for the defendant, said, that in a case of this description his client laboured under peculiar difficulties, as the principal witness would of course lay the scene in such a man ner that no other person could be called to contradict her testi mony. This action was not brought by the girl herself, for she had her own remedy if she had thought proper to avail herself of it. But the plaintiff was her uncle, in 'whose house she was employed as a servant; the loss of her services, therefore, could be no more to him than if he had been deprived of the *Mist.. ance of any other female servant. It hpd not even been proved what was the sum the plaintiff had paid to the servant he had employed in his niece's place. Besides, it was not probable that the uncle or the aunt shotiM have had no sti§pieiim a any itri_ proper intercourse between the defendant and their niece. lie ASSAULT.-IVOLP V. LEVI. This was an action to recover compensation in damages for an assault, alleged to have been committed by the defendant on the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. 11 u TCIIINSON and the defendant's by Mr. GI! itrz It appeared that the praintiffand defendant were of the .Jewish persuasion, and dealers in old clothes, in Hemming's_row, Rag fair. Some difference having arisen in trade, a quarrel ensued, and the blow which was the subject of the present action was given by the defendant to the plaintiff: Two witnesses, who were passin g through the street at th e time of the affray, proved that they had heard the disturbance, and saw the plaintiff struck. Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, stated, that he did not mean to deny that an assault had been committed by his client, but he would prove such conduct on the part of the plaintiff, that neither Jew nor Christian could avoid resenting if it were in his power. The evidence he was about so adduce, he hoped would be quite sufficient to induce the Jury mwely to give the plaintiff nominal damages. Several neighbours of the parties were called, who proved that the plaintiff had, on the day in question, without any provoca tion, come to the defendant, who was standing at his door, and insulted him in the grossest manner. He had called him a " house-breaking son of a b—;" that " he had defrauded his creditors of 399/4" that " he would be hanged, as his brother was ;" and, at last, finished his harangue by putting his finger in a most contemptuous manner in the face of the defendant. The Loan CII lEFJusTi CE told the Jury, that it was clear an assault had been committed; it therefore only remained for them to decide what d a m ages would be a sufficient compensa tion to the plaintiff. The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff:— Damages—One Shilling. FURIOUS DRIVING.-LOVEGROVE V. EADY. This action was brought by a lace-manufacturer residing near Marlow, against the proprietors of the Blackheath and Green wich stage, for the damage which he had sustained by the mis conduct of the defendant's coachman. The accident for which the action was brought, took place on the 10th April, in Parliament -street, Westminster. Mr. Love grove was driving up to Charing-cross in his gig, accompanied by his nephew, and passing on the off-side of a coal-waggon, when the coach of the defendant, comit ' , towards the brid ge , was driven in contact with it, and c ause d it to be overturned, and the plaintiff thrown into the street. The nephew of the plaintiff; and two persons who were walking along the street, described the accident as occasioned entirely by the conduct of the defendant's coachman, who was driving at a gallop, an d who did not d ev i a t e i n th e least from his course to avoid the gig. On an application being made for compensation to the defendant, he said that the repairs of ' the gig could not cost 15 guineas, and he would rather defend the action than pay such a sum. The repairs cost 13/. 7s. lid. ; but 71. 7s. of this was for new wheels, whereas those broken were old. For the defendant, the coachman, a helper from the stables who was on the dickey, and the foreman of Mr. Place, of Charing-cross, who was riding on the box, deposed that the coach had set down the passengers, and was proceeding to the stables at a pace of not more than six miles an hour. The coachman had no whip, but the man behind had the whip, which the driver said he should not want. These witnesses declared that the accident arose solely from the imprudence of Mr. Lovegrove, in attempting to pass between two heavy vehicles. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was beginning to reply on'be half of the plaintiff, when The Jury intimated that they would not trouble him, and found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101. DAVISON v. JUNES. This was an action of debt against the 'Marshal of the King's Bench prison, for the escape of a prisoner named Botham, in his custody, in execution at the suit of the plaintiff, for 791. It appeared that Mr. Botham having the benefit of the rules, extended his excursions to Clapham Common, where he was at the time when the bill was filed against the Marshal. Mr. GURNEY admitted that there was no defence. The plaintiff was exceedingly fortunate, in obtaining from the Mar shal what he had small chance of ever receiving from his debtor. The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the debt claimed, and nominafdamages. The Court, sat till half-past five o'clock. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DE C. S. QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY.-CURIOUS CASE. JAS. HEAD V. MARY HEAD. ..„. . ... Mr. Serjeant HULLOoK stated, that this . was an issue from the Court of Chancery to determine the question of the legiti macy of the plaintiff, who claimed to be the son of Mr. Wm. !lead, a master carpenter, of Lambeth. Wm. Head married, in 1795, with a young woman, named Eliz. Davies, and after living together for about two years, some disagreement took place, which occasioned a separation. Mrs. Head went to reside, first at Feltham, and subsequentlyat a place called Kent House Farm, where Mr. Thos. Randall, her uncle, , lived. In the same • house resided Mr. James Randall, the 'son of Thos. Randall. Mr. Head frequently called at this farm house, saw his wife, and continued with her for nearly an hour at a time. Mrs. Head left this farm in the latter end of 1798, and in May, 1799, was delivered of a son, who was the plaintiff in the present case.— The question the Jury would have to determine was, whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Win. Head, or the spu rious offspring of an adulterous intercourse with Jas. Randall. He should prove the marriage of the parties, and such opportu nity of intercourse betw een th e h us b an d and wife after their se. paration, as he trusted would leave no doubt iipon the subject. The Rector of Lambeth Church produced the registry of the marriage between Wm. Head and Elizabeth Davies, at Lam beth Church, in 1795; and the Rector of Chiselliurst proved the registry of baptism of th e plaintiff, by the name of J am e s , son of - William and Elizabeth Head, in 17!19. Mr. Williams knew Mr. anti Mrs. Head, the latter before her marriage; they lived together about two years, they then separated; witness went a short time afterward'S with Mr. Iliad to Kent House Farm;. the front door was locked and he went to the back ; he returned about three minutes, and witness and he Went into the Church, where he staid about a 'quarter of an hour; witness and Mr. Head then returned to Lambeth together. cross-examined.—He _was not much acquainted with the plaintiff% thought he was a little like old Mr. Head in features. Mr. Jobn almsley resided at Narrow-wall, Lambeth ; he' knew the late Mr. Head ; after his marriage he resided at Lam beth-marsh; he lived with his wife nearly two years after the mar riage; Mrs. Head then went to Feltharn ; witness saw her there; she went from thence to Kent House in Beckenham; she resided with Mr. Randall, her uncle, who was a fanner there, and whose wife was Mrs. Head's aunt ; witness went to see her there about three months after the separation ; witness believed the cause of the separation was that Head used to go to public houses and generally came home tipsy; he thought there was a likeness between the plaintiff and the late Mr. Head ; before the late Mr. Head began drinking he was a healthy man, but he ! subsequently became a hard drinker; he believed Mrs. Head had some private property; when witness went to the farm house Mrs. Head always appeared to live with the family ; Mr.: Randall had a son who was about 26 years of age. e . Mrs. Eliz. Greenberry, left Kent House Fairni in 1798, she had been there as a housekeeper to Mr. Randall ; Mrs. Head was there during the time; she had also seen Mr. William Head there during the time ; he came there about the end of July, or the beginning of August. 'Mrs. Head was then up stairs with old Mr. Randall, who was then laid up with the gout. Witness went to inform Mrs. Head of his arrival, she came down immediately ; this was on a Suaday ; she after- . wards heard Mrs. Head say she had seen him but witness did 'not see them together on that occasion, as she was very busy about the household concerns ; he came there more than once, twice, or thrice. Cross -examined—Witness was the sister of old Mr. Randall, and used to manage the house with Mrs. Head; no other female was in the house, but sometimes a woman, named Parsons, who used to come as dcharwoman. Mrs. Head came to Kent House Farm about the middle of 1797 ; sometimes the men . servants used to dine in the kitchen, and sometimes in the wash house ; these places were not near each other. Re-examined—The woman who assisted sometimes as char woman never stopped long in the house ; when witness left Kent House Farm in October, 1798, Mrs. Head was pregnant. The witness was cross-examined a second time on the last question. Mrs. Head was about three months advanced in pregnancy • witness had had c hild ren h erse lf . By the jUDGE—Mrs. Head slept with witness, except when witness's husband came to the Farm,when Mrs. Head continued in the same room, and witness went with her husband into ano ther; Mr. Randall and his son generally slept together; their room was not near Mrs. Head's; never had reason to believe that either James Randall or Mrs. Head slept out of the room appropriated for each • never saw any improper f am ili ar iti es between him and Mrs:Head • could not remember whether she had ever spoken to Mrs. Head concerning her pregnancy. The birth of the plaintiff was admitted to have been on the 7th of May, 1799, and the death of old Mr. Head on the 30th of August,. 1800. Thomas Brown, formerly lived at Chiselhurst ; remembered Mrs. Head coming to lodge at his house where the child war born. Witness was one of the godfathers. Cross-examined—A man named King was the other god father. Never saw old Mr. Head, nor either of the Randalls. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Serjeant LENS addressed the Jury for the defendant.— He first observed on the interest and importance of a subject like the present, not only to the parties in this case, but to all parties who claimed by birth a certain rank from which others were unfortunately excluded by their illegitimacy. It was not now necessary to show impossibility of access on the part of the husband, for the old rule of law which held bare possibility sufficient, was now considerably relaxed. Every circumstance proved the illegitimacy of the plaintiff; for, was it likely that a casual visit from the husband, when the parties conversed in a kitchen, liable to the interruption of every man -servant in the farm, should produce the pregnancy of the wife ? Th e child, too, had a l wa y s borne the name of Randall up to the time when he thought it necessary, for the purpose of the present action, to assume that of Head. Every ex- Pence of his nursing, education, and apprenticeship, had been defrayed by :lames Randall; and so little did old Mr. Head know or care about his wife, that three days be s fore his death he made a will, in which was the follow ing bequest :—" I leave 10/. to my wife if she is still living." The opportunities of gratification afibrded to parties, in the situation of James Randall and Mrs. Head were very great, and it was not sufficient therefore for the plaintiff to shew - . that they had never been caught in bed together, for lie ought to have gone further, and have proved that bid' Mr. Head had had such an intercourse with his wife as would naturally have led to the birth of a child. The Learned Serjeant called Ann Southall, a widow, sister to Mrs. Head, knew of the marriage'of her sister in November, 1795. Soon after the mar nage her sister and Mr. Head disagreed very much, and the wife seemed to have an aversion for him in consequence of his habits ' of drinking. When Mrs. Head left her husband she came to witness, and then went to Feltham. She did not then appear to be pregnant. She afterwards resided for a few weeks at Edg_ ware-road, and from thence proceeded to Kent House Farm, where her uncle, Thomas Randall, resided ; be was about 50 years of age. She 'left Kent House Farm on .account of her pregnancy, and went to Chiselhurst, where she was delivered. Witness saw her onc e a t Chi s elhurst. In 1806 Mrs. Head married James Randall. Her sister had another child born in Mil, which was named Francis; she lived then in John street, Blackfriars. Witness visited her only once' there, and when she saw James Randall come in she left the place imme diately. Witness knew the plaintiff until he was six years old ; she had not seen him again until within the present year. She did not know by what name he was described. William Arnald, schoolmaster and parish clerk of Becken ham, knew the plaintiff, who came to him as a pupil in 1806, and remained until 1810 ; he went by the name of Randall. Witness was always paid by James Randall, w h om wi tness always considered as the boy's father. He used to go to Kent House Farm for his money. Cross-examined—A son of the last witness was at the school now. Ile did not know whether young Southall was like the plaintiff; he used to think the plaintiff very much like James Randall, and had told him so. Wm. Henry Gibbons, a miller, residing at South-end—he had an apprentice named Randall residing with him ; witness used to call him . Jas. Randall, and he always answered to that name ; he remained with witness four years; he came to witness in 1816. Charles Jemmett, Esq. Coroner for Surrey, summoned a Jury to hold an inquisition on the sth of .January last ; one of the Jury was a Jas. Randall ; witness produced the inquisition with the signatures of the different Jurymen. Mr. Gibbons was recalled—He believed the signature in the inquisition, "Jas. Randall." to be th a t o f hi s apprentice. The will of the late Mr. Head was then put in, by which he gave 101. to his wife, adding " if s h e i s st ill li v i ng. " Mr. Serjeant HuLLocx replied v) this evidence, and after commenting on the absence of proof of an adulterous inter course, he insisted he had entitled himself to their verdict, by shewing opportunities of intercourse between the husband and wife, at Kent-house Farm, sufficient to raise the was on strong grounds of p ro b a bili ty , t h at t h e plaintiff' was the son of Wm. Head. Mr. Justice BURROUGH summed up the evidence to the Jury. If they thought access had not been proved, the plaintiff was illegitimate ; if, on the other hand, they believed that a sufficient probability of intercourse between the husband and wife had been shown, they must find for the plaintiff; The Jury, after a few moments consultation, returned a ver dict for the plaintiff, thereby declaring his legitimacy. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS, &c. Welsh and Dingwall, wood-merchants and joiners, Greenock, to be examined at the Sheriff-clerk's office there, 12th and 26th December, at 12. Creditors of Peter Al‘Lachlan, merchant, Glasgow, meet in the office of John Ferguson, writer there, 19th December at 12. Creditors of Robert Steel, toll-keeper and spirit-dealer, Tradeston, Glasgow, meet in the office of John Stewart, writer there, 18th December, at 1. Creditors , of the late G eo . Smith, manufacturer, Perth will reeceivS a final dividend f rom t h e T rustee, in the Town-Cierk's Office there, 27th December, at 11. I S taus of the affairs of Arch. Cochran of Ashkirk, some time a merchant in Fisherrow, lie with the Trustee.—No dividend. Another awful instance of the carelessness of fire happened a few days ago, in a house in Burns'-street. Leith Links • where the mother had gone out and left some children in the house alone, who, being uncontrolled, ignited pieces of wood, and in carrying them through the house some of the sparks caught the clothes of a bed, which instantly were in a blaze ; by the exertions of the neighbours the conflagration was extinguished without loss of lives. This is the second instance of fire under the same roof in the space of two months ; the former was that of a woman, who kept a tippling-house, and who in a fit of intoxicatio was found in flames, by a spark having caught her clothes.—(Edinburg't Courant.) POYAIS, NORTH AMERICA. OF LANDS, FOUR SHILLINGS PER ACRE. Y Application at any of the Land Officers, GRANTS of LAND may be obtained at the above 4 ce,, by paying the Amount, or lodging a Deposit of 25 per et, ; an advance of price will, however, soon take place.— The Climate of Poyais is mild and salubrious, and Europeans generally retain their health and activity to a good old age. kora es, Black Cattle, Pigs, Poultry, &c. are very numerous , I 4 /nay b e purc h ase d f or St oc k a t a ver y moderate price. The r ee ds registered for Sale are disposed of in Square Miles, of ho, t icils of 640 Acres each, and in Subdivisions of 320, 160, and 40 Acres. A Purchaser, or his Agent, may select his On presenting the Title Deeds at the Register Office at he Town of St. Joseph's. very information may be obtained by applying by Letter izt Paid), or personally, to the Land Agents, in London, b urgh, Glasgow, Inverness, or Hamburgh. p ti ° Yais Land Office, 1, Dowgate-hill, December 4, 1822.