The Sun. — London, England, 1822-11-30 00:00:00

~._..•Y~~y dG, 1., r,,,, - *wA t r , ~,,, , ( i - . . „3e, 0kr0,../, 4 .,, .. - i-'-4. GiV4 t 1 I ." 7 - _;„......„ ......,„.,,:y04...._.1._,„,........:_.„. ~.. N. , S' , .. - 1 - • - ~. , , _. 7 .. , ~•• , 6,.......72 ~.,i)% . .. 6. NUMBER 0444. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1822. PRICE SEVENPENCE OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, Nov. 21, 1322. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, tlikr sI . . WA TERLOO - BRIDGE , OTHEBY, at his House, WELLINGTON - STREET , _ STRAND, on MONDAY, De ce!4l3er 2, and Five following days, at Twelve o ' Clock, THE MISCELLANEOUS LIBRARY of a Well-known COLLECTOR, (lately Deceased.) p i " be viewed and Catalogues (piice Is.) to be had at the ace oN k , LAW INTELLIGENCE. house, called out for lights, and broke windows which were re paired at the expense of 5/. IJ s. I Id. Mr. PATTESON watched the case for the defendants. He admitted that there was no defence to the action, as the injury arose before the late statute, which provides that where the da mage complained of is under 30/. the party agrieved shall have a summary remedy. The Loan CIIIEF JusTicE expressed his pleasure that the Legislature had provided against the accumulation of costs by this salutary law. Under his direction, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5/. Ils. Ild. The case of Carlile v. Parkins (lid not come for trial. The Recorder of London and other city officers were in attendance, subpcenaed by the defendant. He said in answer to other questions that he had written his name at times. He could read, but not write, except a very little. In answer to another q ues ti o n, wit ness said he' coup spell his name which he did very distinctly. Kerr was again examined, and stated that the address, 13, . l olin-street, signed on the agreement, was giVen by John Buckeridge, jun., as his own address. • Two witnesses, one from the Court of Requests, Tower Hamlets, and another from the House of Correction, proved that John Buckeridge was committed in execution under a warrant from the Court of Requests. John Buckeridge, the father, was again called for the pur pose of contradicting Kerr. He swore positively that he put his mark to such an agreement as that produced. It was then in a book. -He never was at Prestage's but on that occasion. His son John was not present. Wm. Buckeridge, the son to whom the loom was lent, was called. He proved that he also put his mark to a paper like that produced. His father did the same. His brother John, the plaintiff; was not present. Witness never was at Prestage's but on this occasion. T HE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS of His MA JESTY'S ORDNANCE do hereby give Notice, that Proposals will be received at their Office, in Pall Mall, on or before Monday, the 9th day of December next, front such Persons as may be willing to undertake the LIGEIT ING of the LAMPS for the Ordnance Department at the Tower and Pall Mall, and at the Royal Arsenal, and the Royal Artillery Barracks at froqlwich, for a period of Three Years, terminable at any time after the expiration of the First Year, upon Three Months notice being given by either party. • Far the Terms and Conditiois of the Contract, apply at the Secretary's Office, in Pull Mall, between the Hours of Ten and Four ("Clock, where such Persons as intend to make a Tender for the Contract will receive a Schedule of the !Polk to be perfir med. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 29. The Loup CHANCELLOR stated yesterday at the rising of the Court that he would not sit until next Thursday, except on Monday and 'Wednesday, at eleven o'clock on each day, to give judgments. THE MASTER OF THE ROLL'S COURT. To-day the Master being unable to sit in consequence of ill health, at ten o'clock Mr. Chief Baron GRAHA M took his seat on the Bench, accompanied by Masters Stratford and Harvey, and the Court proceeded to hear cause petitions, mostly unop posed and of little public interest. COURT OF KING'S BENCg, Nov. 29. WAYTE V. CARL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 29. ( Sittings after Term.) Before Mr. Justice PARK and a Common Jury. DAVISON v. DAVISON. sfie - This was an action against Lady Carr, formerly the wife of Mr. Perceval, and now the widow of Sir Henry Carr, to recover damages arising from the-negligent driving of her coachman, by which the gig of the plaintiff was overturned and broken, and the plaintiff sustained personal injury. Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the jUry ina behalf of the plaintiff. The accident took place on the 22d of May last, in the Circus, at the top of .Regent-street; and, as he should be able to shew, arose entirely from the misconduct of the defend ant's coachman. her carriage had been stopping at Swan and Edgar's, and afterwards was driven at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour towards Regent-street. At this time, the plain tiff'and his wife were proceeding up Regent-street in a gig, and on arriving at the Circus, were overturned by the carriage of Lady Carr. The chaise was broken almost to pieces, and Mr. Wayte received a blow on the head which obliged him to resort to surgical assistance. For the repairs of the gig, for the surgeon's charges, and for his own personal sufferings, he now sought compensation at the hands of a jury. A carpenter named Butler, who was employed by Mr. Lam bert at the north-east corner ofi the Circus, stated that as he was at work lie saw Mr. Wayte's gig coming up Regent-street, and Lady Carr's carriage standing at Swan and Edgar's. There were hackney-coaches passing in the street. Lady Carr's car riage set off at the rate of 10 or 12 miles an hour, and proceeded in a direction for Carlton House. The carriage struck against the gig, which was immediately overturned; and the persons seated in it thrown into the street. This was an action to recover the value of certain articles of furniture ordered for the defendant by the plaintiff. The plain tiff is the defendant's uncle, anti sent him the amides in ques tion from the warehouse f . the Messrs. Pringle. When the bill - was sent to the defendant, he resisted the payment, on the ground that he had not authorized his uncle to buy so much. Subsequently, however, he rested his defence on the ground that the articles were overcharged, and he paid 521. lOs. (which he considered their value) into Court. The value charged was 641. ls. The Messrs. Pringle now proved that they had furnished the articles at their fair value. _ _ On his cross-examination he said the . paper he signed was put on a book. He would not say it was in a book. Mr. Serj . eant VAUGHAN replied to this additional evidence. Mr. Seajeant PELL replied to the whole case. Mr. Justice PARK summed up the evidence; and the Jury, after consulting together for about ten minutes, returned a ver dict for the defendant. The case occupied from an early haul- of the day` till half-pasi 5 in the evening. The P irptuni3 must be delivered, sealed up, and endorsed " Proposals for Lamplighter's Work ;" but no Proposal can be admitted after the 9/1i day of lecember nes', at Twelve o'Clock at Noon, neither will any Tender be noticed, nit.. less the Party making it, or 'an Agent in his behalf, shall attend. For the defence two witnesses (brokers) swore that they bad valued the furniture, and that it was not worth more than 52/. 10s. CONSISTORY COURT, Noy. 29: I THE. PRINCIPAL AND ANCIENTS OR GRAND BROTHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF STAPLE-INN (BY THEIR SYNDIC` AGAINST THE CHURCHWARDENS OF TILE PARISH OF ST. ANDREW, HOLBORN. By Order of the Board, R. H. CREIr, Secretary. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 12!. ls. over and above the rrictney paid into Court. BUXERIDGE V. PRESTAGE.-ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROYAL-EXCHANGE ASSURANCE OFFICE, November, 1822. THE COURT of DIRECTORS of the ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE do hereby give Notice, that their TRANSFER ROOKS will be shut, from THURSDAY, the 12th of December next, to TUESDAY, the 7th of January following, and that the ANNUAL GE NERAL COURT appointed by their Charter. will be holden at their Office, on WEDNESDAY, the 18th of December next, at Eleven o'Clock in the Forenoon, rind that a Divi dend will be considered of at the said Court. SAMUEL FENNING, JUn. Secretary. i~ ~~. FALSE IMPRISON BIEN T. * * *The Chair will be taken atTwelve o'Clock precisely. N. B. Attendance is given, daily, at the said Offices, and at their Office in Pall Mall, fur the Assurance of Buildings, Goods, Merchandize, and Ships, in Harbour, in Dock, or while Building, from Loss or Damage by Fire; and also for the Assurance of, and granting Annuities on, Lives. lac r$ ate PrY 1 0 P' CO' ;fir' 7 ,. 15 ' ,UCED FARES, and UNEQUALLED TRAVELLING, ta a -s ,, R OVER, DEAL, RAMSGATE, MARGATE, AND " i TERBURY. ,4411 R INSIDE COACHES, AND KEEP GOOD TIME, By HEAD MOUNTAIN and Co. • .‘kcEN's INN, SKINNF.R•STREET, SNOW HILL, LONDON. r rirlE following LIGHT POST-COACHES, &c. set out from the above Inn:— 1 3; 111 0 .: II Telegraph," DOVER, Deal, Ramsgate, Margate, Pa g ;!tairs, Canterbury, Feversham, and Sandwich, new In Z 'each—every Morning at a quarter past Seven o'Clock. Loa n seauence of the decided preference given to the above tia t ,, the Proprietors are determined no expence ,shall be ad, to render it the first conveyance on the Kent road. iIa t ."AIMPTON, Chatham, Rochester, Gravesend, Stroud, la ar in gbourn e , Rainhatu, and Ospringe, every Morning at a past 7, at Reduced Fares. t e " Royal Eclipse," FALMOUTH, Plymouth, Exeter, Peuryn, Ashburton, Totness, Weymouth, crchester, Dartmouth, and Salisbury, every morning at la c t s j et t 1 through Honiton, Axminster, Bridport, Blandford, -8 1 ,.. - "Tnid g e, Basingstoke, Hartford Bridge, Blackwater, and - 11; t i :Le only D a y Co ac h t o WEYMOUTH, (driven through Ita k t Two Coachmen only) i through Bagshot, Blackwater, t h rtstoke. Overton, Whtchurch, Andover, Woodyeats, Vej atn "e, Salisbury, Blandford, and Dorchester, at Five I• the in the Morning. 1)1;e, E_Thioo," SOU'f HAM rroN, Lymington, Lyndhurst, Basingstoke, Hartford Bridge, Black water, and S h .' 4l h , t, :'yew Four Inside Coach, every Morning at half-past rrit'es at the Coach and Horses, Southampton, by is a most t delightfuull Conveyance to the Isle of Guernsey, St. Maloes, Havre de Grace, Cher - ta a : ; ''", &c.—The Proprietors of the above Coach hope to continuance of that support which has hitherto been F i l'lctic e d sinc e the c o mmencement of the " Union. ' " Champion, " a New light Day Coach to DOR ter '„,''TEIZ, in 13 hours only, through Bagshot, Blackwa- IttirY` , 4 ' 1 ').. - '-tolie, Overton, Whitchurch, Andover, Solis ood.reats, Cashmore, and Blandlord, every Tires -4,,l,Ursday and Saturday, at Five o'clock in the morn fie oprietors of the above Coach are determined no t 'ee shall be Spared to render it the first conveyance on rn Road. Itaa: 'Li and BRISTOL Post-Coaches, through Chipper). •Ot ‘ . ' fte',... s 'aine, Marlborough, Newbury, and Reading, every -uon at one; arrive at Mr. May's, the Greyhound Inn, Bris;',aed the London Tavern, 'Thomas-street, and Swan, early the raext Morning,---Goaches to Wells, Bridge •y' TauntOn, and Plymouth. oa e " Umpire," a New LIVERPOOL Light Coach, only . at o glat co the Road, carrying Four Inside, sets out Daily l'e t a l n e i arrives at Liverpool next afternoon at Five, tht ough lii g „ 4 o;n, Latlibury, Northampton, Welford, Lutterworth, fora`"eY, Atherstone, Litchfield, Stone, Newcastle, Knots 4. W . • ritigton, and Prescot. t oa `IttEWSBURY, Wellington, and Shiffnal, Light Post .l,lo, every Aft ernoon. —G uarde d. 14,e"Union,"WEYMOUTH ; t h roug h D orc h es t er , Bland ly., Salisbury, Andover, Overton, Basingstoke, Hartford tt le,Blackwater, and Bagshot, new Pust Coach, every Af-' Njeon.--Driven th roug h w i th two C oac h men on l y .—Th e Ilaets from Weymouth to Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg, ka.aadoe's, &c. every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon, lit tg „ o :Clock. e veryI'ISTAPLE and Southmolton New Light Post Coach, tVednestlay, and Friday Mornings at 7 o'Clock. ' i tery e a l c . Rockingham," LEEDS light Post Coach, sets out It'es 'tern at Four • and passes through Baldock, Big vas w ade _ Af ternoon i i eetb a Eaton, Buckden, Stilton Wansfurd, Stamford, '''Ortf am a nt,. Grantham, Newark, •I t oxford, Markham Moor, ecia - ":/iawtry Doncaster, and Ferrybridge, to the Golden 44 Leeds, next Afternoon, at Reduced Fares.—Log %tteZge aed Paekagts only ad per lb.—Notwithstanding the tri; 01 1 Expedition of this Coach, it is allowed to be the sane, _A'reeable and complete Public Conveyaftance ou the t14 0 ` 43 „, ad being unequalled by any other. kitOts,,` l- °WGATF, and Ripon nee.' Light Post Coach, every A l t ' u n o at , Four, and Eight its the Morning. eras . , Longtown, Gretna-green, Annan, Dumfries, ri,llll, Thornhill Sanquhar-Kiln, Canmock, Kingswell, 'rt e l .:a . rts of Scotland, , a . ligl . t four inside P w os i t t C h oach da kxpress, ' to YORK, Scarborough, y, Shields, st Newcastle,& Edinburgh, a New light four-inside N,,oach, witty a Guard throughout ; sets out every Morn 'itatight o'clock, by way of Newark, Ret ford, Doncaster, i traf'ridge T. d ; Darlin , ton Northallerton, Durham, l - reth . s a CaS Cr, : ba st Berwick, and ar li rive; at York the next Morn rwelve o'Clock. Passengers finding themselves fa 4tf, ()1 1 the journey, may rest what time they please, ' t‘LBO oceed without any additional Fare. Pr ' A rtRGH and Swindon for-inside Day Coach, ugh OU urn, Reading Latnbourn u to , Porn, Lydi Wigton `4dia',:,vv Aldboootton Basset, ItLisbury, Hungerford, Newbury 1 ). 44 N 1-. ENoRTH, Walsal, Shrewsbury, Salop, and Holy- Light Four Inside Coach, every Afternoon. autrri,, Horncastle, Spalding, Peteiborough, Stilton, rililra;guoll, Caxton, Buckland, and Ware Day Coach, to Ifr b r, Gt imshv, and Hull, Morning, at Six. The t % ril e a l Coach to Boston and Horncastle. ' tplit; Express ," a New Light Four-inside Post Coach to Perith, and Whiteharen, goes with Four lara k - i , and a Guard all the way, passes through Appleby, trt4 , Bowes, Greta-bridge, Richmond, Catterick, Bo kt.,*llt6dge, Ferrybridge, Doncaster, Newark, Bawtry, Stamford, Greetham, Stilton, and Biggleswade. tit tlat ett the Morning, and perfo . ross the journey with the ttt acility. Passengers detained On the Road b . y busi iMat s Pleasure, have the peculiar advantage of their Seats toured in the next. Coach.—The only Coach to Car 114Th a r A r ,4l e „ Lancaster, Preston, Kirby-Lonsdale, Bolton, u linskirk, and Garstang Light Post Coaches, every. 1 ;4 °° ,, n • '.lVp ' „ - '`. ‘ eral Express," New Light Four Inside Post Coach, tltPats`',"l"ooL, Warrington, Prescot, Congleton, Lawton,. t le, Knutsford, Stone, Stafford, and Litch a'ivq"lY One a Night on the Road), every Afternoon; t t the Saracen's Head Inn, Dale-street, Liverpool, 47 1 44. ,,i n , • Af t -FIELD Four inside Post-Coach, every Morning 'ER, Newport, Whitechurch, Tarporley, Nampt ti.4k4lo a °r thwich, and Middlewich Light Post-Coach, every Le y -. BLAND, Stockton, and Yarns Light Post Coach, C.: l oll, ll °r ,ni,ng, to the George Inn, Sunderland. . t a 'n s " Express," to MANCHESTER, Winslow, 4. Newcastle, %Valsal, Wolverhampton, and Knuts t 4 1 ' 0 7 .1 11 r Inside Post-Coach, every Afternoon.—Only .jsa PP o l r E „ )...Yran ß ‘ d o l a t d oili , e , rham New Four-inside Post-Coach called The Express," and also " The 2 4 e 'er at Four in the Afternoon. ,"th "°Yal Express," New BIRMINGHAM Light Post out every Afternoon, carrying Four Inside only; lita Nt lbr aug h Warwick, Leamington, Soot ham, Weedon, ti, l•l4 H6, St( mey-Stratford, and Towcester, to the Saracen's p,,ili. - E 'street, Birmingham, early the next Morning. 43? 1d., 1 ,Pre , 5," a New Light Post Coach, to HULL, Lin t°ato•j,`"cave, Bowden, and Doncaster, every Morning at 4.lvl‘te rock, to the Cross Keys, Market-place, Hull ; and Svt'sv.4l3,` R ockingham" in the Afternoon at Four o'Clock. 'VW ° R D, Ware, Ho.ldesdon, and Ch esh u tit Coach, It, i 1 4 .-ps at ,r . If AM and Edmonton Coaches daily, at Eleven, siskA t Fire, and Eight. Reduced Fares to LeedS, York, and Doncaster, tpt•—e'a,..s4lle)rkPa,Fliages at only 2d per pound. gda a uN PAIN and Co. respectfully acquaint their v. 1) (1 the Public hat.thev will not be accountable for lOttaei9s!Passenge'r'S Lugga - ge, Writings, Plate, t li t t Ztt a i9"lve Pounds Valne, f lost, stolen, or damaged, tin;- 'itta t .:" as, such, and the Insurance paid accardiugly, at acres tit'ad'lnti, Skinner-street, Snow-hill, London. LITERARY NOTICE. CATALINE, a Tragedy, in Five Acts ; with other Poems.— By the Rev. GEORGE CROLY, A.M. Author of " Paris in 1015," " The Angel of the World," &c. We have delayed noticing this Play, because we naturally conceived that a work of so much merit would have attracted the attention of our theatrical Managers, and that they possessed taste and judgment sufficient to induce them to present it to the public with all the splendour' of scenic, exhibition, particularly as in two or three instances they thought proper to represent works of the same description without the permission of the respective authors. If we had not been re strained by this supposition, we should have submitted our opinion of the play before us much sooner to our Readers. We had little reason, however, to hope that the Managers would have shewn their discernment on this occasion, as so many wild, crude, and horrific composi tions, under the name of Tragedies, have been represented in our Theatres, some of which were chiefly intended to draw forth the powers of a particular Actor, and having 66 strutted and fretted their hours upon the stage," were soon after " heard no more." Indeed we hardly can wonder that the judgment which could ac cept, and bring forward, such compositions as we have alluded to, should have overlooked and neglected this Tragedy of Calaline. The Author has not so closely followed the Roman Histo rians in the plot of his Tragedy as BEN JONSON has done in his Drama of the same title ; nor has he borrowed from CREBILLON or VOLTAIRE, who wrote Plays on the same subject; but he has drawn with fidelity, force, and charac teristic spirit the Hero of the piece, such as he is transmitted to us by history. He has enriched his work, and though, speaking of a Tragedy, we may say, enlivened it also, by the introduction of characters of his owe creation. These characters diversify the story, without im pairing its general interest. The Roman charac ters, besides CATALINE, are also given as recorded. The new characters ' are chiefly, HAMILCAR, a Moorish Prince, and AsrAslA, a Greek Priestess. They are attached to each other. IlAmir.cAtt is drawn with great spirit, and ASPAsIA with affecting tenderness. Perhaps it may be thought somewhat improbable that a Greek female, with all the refinement and elegance of her country, should be attached to a Moor; but HAMILCAR. is a clever, subtle, animated fellow : and SHARSPEARE has given sanction to the author in a similar partiality.— There are many incidents in this tragedy highly interesting, and some deeply affecting, the fable moves in due progression, and is only suspended by such interlocutions as are necessary to de velope and illustrate the characters. Poetical justice appears to be observed throughout, and the catastrophe is awfully impressive. We are strongly tempted to extract passages from the work, many . of which are eminently marked by poetical beauty, splendid imagery, vivid descrip tion, depth of reflection, and energy of sentiment. But we forbear from forestalling the interest of the piece, in the hope that a tragedy of such striking ex cellence cannot much longer escape the attention of our dramatic caterers, but that it will yet be presented to the public in a manner which a work deserves that is so eminently characterized by historic Majesty, and the splendour of Genius. This volume contains many other Poems, classi cally beautiful, elegant and interesting. We have already inserted some of them, and we shall soon avail ourselves of others, convinced that they will be highly gratifying to every Reader of taste.` Timothy Dunn, a man who was sweeping the street at the crossing, gave a similar account to the last witness, except that he represented the hind part of the carriage as striking the gig. He stated the coachman did not stop at tie time, but stopped shortly afterwards. Mr. Lambert, who employed the first witness, did not see the accident, but described the position of the vehicles. He said that Mr. Wayte was nearer to his own side than the off side of the road. The carriage of Lady Carr was stopped by the by-standers. The porter at the Spread Eagle, and a servant-girl in the neighbourhood, represented the accident nearly as described by the preceding witnesses. The surgeon's charges were shown to be 3/. 195., and the repairs of the carriage cost 22/. Is. 6d., in dependent of a new lining; but it was admitted that from the manner in which the gig had been repaired, it was worth 10/. more than it was before the accident. _ Mr. SCARLETT addressed the jury for the defendant. He should be able most satisfactorily to show that the carriage was proceeding at a moderate pace, and that not the slightest blame was attributable to the servant of the defendant. For this pur pose he would call the coachman and the you_ ng gentleman who was sitting beside him, Mr. Perceval, whO was seated on the box, who had never before been in a court of justice, and whom no one could believe capable of uttering a falsehood. Lady Carr would have been happy to make some sacrifice ra ther than come into a court of justice ; but she had never been able to learn the extent of Mr. Wayte's demand ; and was therefore compelled to make that defence which the truth and justice of the case afforded. Richard Siday, the coachman, being released, Stated that he had been five years coachman to Lady Carr. He had come from Ealing on the day of the accident, and had stopped no where. He was not driving more than six miles an hour. Mr. John,Thomas Perceval was on the box, and two of the Misses Perceval inside. He drove along the left side of Piccadilly. At the Circus, a. hackney-coach was on the right of the car riage, proceeding to a stand in Piccadilly beyond the Circus. He had crossed more than half way over the Circus, but saw no gig, till he perceived it coming in front of the hackney coach, when the carriage was nearly abreast, but the coach a little before it. The horses of the . gig might then be five yards from those of Lady's Carr's carriage, coming at a mo derate pace. The moment he saw the gig, he pulled with all his might to stop the carriage; if he ,had not done so, the horses must have come directly against each other. The gig struck on the poll of the carriage, which then was standing still; it went on a yard or two, and then went over on the off side. The gig was struck in the body just above the top of the wheel, as the pulling up of the horses necessarily raised the poll of the carriage. He remained still until he saw Mr. Wayte's horse plunging towards the carriage, and then moved to the middle of the street. The plaintiff came up to the car riage; young Mr. Perceval attempted to speak to him, and , said, " Sir, Sir." Mr. Wayte said, " Don't go away ; I in sist on knowing whose carriage it is." This he said as they were attempting to escape the plunging horse. Mr. Perceval gave the name of the owner of the carriage, which Mr. Wayte said was enough, and went away. The carriage was driven, not down Regent-street, but along Coventry-street. On cross-examination the witness said that the hackney coach was going slowly, and the carriage passing it. He did not see the gig till the horses hail passed the coach. Upon his oath he was not stopped by the crowd, nor did people collect and cry " Shame." Mr. Wayte called out " Don't go away." Wit ness replied, " I am not going away, I have 4one nothing."___ He did not hear the footman answer to the inquiry about the owner of the carriage, " I don't know." Mr. Wayte spoke by the side of the carriage, but the witness did not know to whom. He was 'quite positive that . no one attempted to stop the horses. It was a heavy carriage. ' Mr. John Thomas Perceval said, lam the son of Lady Car. I was on the box of the carriage, and my sisters within. I had not stopped at Swan and Edgar's; it was going to Lei cester-square. As we were passing the Circus, a hackney_ coach crossed on our right-hand side. ,The carriage had gone two-thirds of the way across the Circus before we came up to the coach ; we were going a little faster.—l observed no carriage which would prevent the whiskey from going behind. When we had gone two-thirds of the way, Mr. Wayte's gig came in front; our coachman drew up, but the pole struck the gig so as to raise it up, and the gig still going on wasupset, while we stood still. The pole being elevated raised up the whiskey. The moment the coachman saw the gig he stopped, and could not have denv it quicker. He did not at tempt to go away. Wr. Wayte rose directly, and came to the carriage :he put his hand on the splinter-bar, and spoke ;he then went away, and spoke on the Side of the carriage, and put his hand on the door; I called to him, " Sir, sir," but he was so much agitated he scarcely heard me. I told him it was Lady Carr's carriage, and had never the least idea of conceal ing the name. William Sloper, the footman, who was behind the carriage, heard Mr. Wayte say " Stop, 1 wish to know who you are."-_. Mr. Perceval called to him ; he did not come directly, but took hold of the handle of the carriage-door. Mr. Perceval told him it was Lady Carr's carriage.. The coachman had made no attempt to get away. The witness never refused to give the name of the carriage ; he was never asked particularly. Mr. SCARLETT begged to ask Mr. Perceval whether any one attempted to stop the carriage ; Mr. Perceval answered de cidedly in the nagative. Mr. GURNEY replied, contending that on the evidence of the defendant's witnesses the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, because, though the carriage properly kept on the left side, while passing down the street, it ought to have passed on the right side of the hackney-coach, when it would have been visi ble to the plaintiff, and the accident would have been prevented. The LORD CrirEr JUSTICE left the Jury to decide whether the accident arose from the negligence or misconduct of Lady Carr's coachman. He knew of no such rule of law or of driv ing as that contended for by Mr. Gurney, when carriages were passing in a large open space; but he thought the decision must turn on the question, which class of witnesses was most consistent, and least likely to be mistaken. The Jury retired for an hour, and then found a verdict for the defendant. BARETTO v. BERRY AND ANOTHER. This was an action by a gentleman residing in Portland place, against two of the inhabitants of the Hundred of Ossul ston for the damage done to his house by a mob on the 6th of June, 1820, when the Queen arrived from the Continent. It was proved that a number of persons assembled before the This was an action by the plaintiff' to recover damages from the defendant, for having assaulted him and falsely imprisoned him in the Coldbath-fields prison. Mr. Lawts opened the case. Mr. Serjeant PELL stated it to the Jury. The plaintiff, John Bukeridge, is a journeyman weaver ; the defendant is a master weaver, who was in the practice of letting out looms to hire, for which he charged a small sum per week. The plain tiff's father was also named John. To the brother of the plain tiff the defendant lent out a loom on hire. The father, and a man named Kerr, signed an,agreement to be security for the return of the loom. Theloom was not returned in time, and the defendant summoned not the brotheiXilliam, but the plaintiff, before the Court of Requests, Tower Hamlets. The plaintiff said, he was not the person whom he ought to have summoned, and he, cautioned the defendant against proceeding any farther in the affair. The defendant, however, went on, and had the plaintiff' arrested and sent to Coldbath-fields prison for six days. At the end of that time he was discharged. He afterwards went to Prestage to ask for some compensation for the illegal imprisonment. The defendant said he had better make it up, and the compensation he offered was 4s. per day ; which he observed was as much as he could earn for the time he was in prison; but he would not allow for more than four clear days, as it was late on the Saturday when he sent into prison, a9d that on the next day, Sunday, he could not work if he were out. The plaintiff, not satisfied with such compensation, brought the present action. The plaintiff's father and mother proved the fact of the im prisonment, and that they had both told the defendant that he had arrested the Wrong man, for that it was the father, and not the son John, who had given security for the return of the loom. A man of the name of Knowles corroborated this evidence as to the fact of imprisonment, and the willingness of the de fendant to make it up, by allowing four shillings per day, ex cept fur the Saturday and Sunday. ! - On his cross-examination, this witness adinitted that after the plaintiff's liberation, defendant still said he was the right man, and that he was the security, and not the father. Wm. George Lille, an attorney, proved that in February last he waited on the defendant respecting the imprisonment of the plaintiff; and told him that he had got the wrong man, for it was the father, and not the son, who had given the security. Defendant said he was certain he had the right man, and brought out a file of papers to show that an agreement had been made by plaintiff to be the security. Witness assured him he had the wrong man, and advised him to settle it. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Sergeant \TA Ir G 'IAN, for the defendant, complained of the manner in which the case had been laid before the Court, in piece -meal, or rather patched up to suit a particular pur pose, while the real truth and the entire facts of the case were studiously concealed from the Court. He would lay the whole of the case fully before the Jury. But before he went into the facts, he would just mention what, even if he were not disposed to rely upon the merits of the case, would put the plaintiff quite out of Court. The objection, then, in law to this action was this —thatlby the 19th Geo. 111. cap. 68, (which was an Act for re gulating the Court of Requests, from which the plaintiff was committed)'no action for any commitment or other process from that Court could be brought unless twenty days' notice were given to the defendants, in order to afford them time to offer com promise ; and that ,in default of such notice, that Act could be pleaded in any such action, and the plaintiffnonsuited. He would prove that this notice was not given. He would not, however, rely even upon this. Ile would lay the whole case before the Jury • and it lay in a narrow compass. He would prove that the plaintiff was in fact the person who ought to have been ar rested; that he was the security for the return of the loom ; and he would prove it from the testimony of a witness whom the plaintiff had not dared to call—that was Kerr, who was the joint security with him for that return. He would prove that it was a humane consideration for the situation of the plaintiff's wife, who was just then in her confinement, which induced the defendant to sign the plaintiff's releaie from prison, and not from any doubt of the identity of the person who was the security. If he clearly established this fact, he had no doubt that the Jury would return a verdict for the defendant. He then called James Kerr.—l know the plaintiff and defendant. I was present with them about the 10th of July, 1820. I went with John Bukeridge the younger, and his brother William. The father did not go. I went at the request of Wm. Bukeridge to be security for the return of the loom. This was about two o'clock in the afternoon. This agreement (a paper which had been handed to witness) was made by John and William Buk eridge with Prestage, and I saw .John and William sign their marks to it. I wrote my own name to it. Since the commence ment of the present action I met the Bukeridges and some of their friends by appointment. Bukeridge the elder said tome Don't you remeniber going with me to be security for a loom for IVilliam ? I said I remembered no puch thing. He then said —" I am convinced you did, and I could take an oath of it." I answered, " All the oaths you can take of it will be false ;" and pointing to his son John, I said, " That's the man, and not you." Upon this, his brother Isaac got up, and said—" I see you (to witness) are a perjured villain, and would take a false oath for a couple of shillings and a meal of victuals." I said that would be proved when the time came. John the younger then asked if 1 would take an oath of this at Worship-street ? I said, " No, but if you go on with the cause, and that I am sworn in Court, I shall speak the truth, and nothing else" Cross-examined by 31r. Serjeant YELL.-I have known the three Bukeridges, the sons : I know the father only by sight. I knew nothing of Mr. Prestage till I went to him with John and 'William to be security for the loom. lam a weaver by trade. _ The agreement (before referred to) was here put in, but was objected to by Mr. Sergeant FELL and Mr. LAWES, as not being stamped, and they contended that it did not come within the exceptions in the 55th Geo. 111., cap. 148, under the head of agreements', which that Act required to be stamped. The Conn.!. asked the value of the loom, and Kerr said he could get a good new loom for 31. The JUDGE then overruled the objection ; but at the request of the plaintiff's Counsel his Lordship took a note of it. The agreement was now read. It was to this effect :—That the parties, Johni Bukeridge, William Bukeridge, and James Kerr (the witness) agreed to return the loom lent without da mage, or the value of it, and whatever might be due upon it at the rate of 4d. per week. To this .John and William Bake tidge signed their marks. John gave his residence as 13, John street, ilackney-fields. Witness did not know where either John the father or John the son lived. Bukeridge, the father, was here recalled, and asked where he resided? He answered, at No. 13, John-street, Hackney fields. His son John did not live there. He lived at No. 4, Three-coal-corner, Hare-street, Bethnal-green, three quarters of a mile away from him. One of the Jury here asked Bukeridge the elder whether he could write ? He answered that he could a little, but not well. Dr. SWABEY opened the pleadings in this curious case, in which the above society are proceeding against the churchwar dens of St. Andrew's for ejecting them from seven certain pews in the said church, which have from time immemorial been as signed to, set apart for, or occupied by the Principal, Ancients, and Grand Brothers of Staple Inn. Dr. Swabey said this was a cause of perturbation of seats ; and then recapitulated the proceedings which had been had upon it. Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINS 01•:, said he had read the libel. Dr. ADAMS appeared as Counsel for the churchwardens, and opposed the admission of this libel. This was a claim set up, in terms, exclusively of the parishioners and inhabitants of St. Andrew's; it was a possessive right set up by the Inn of Court, as against the right of the parishioners generally.' The claim of the Inn was asserted, as appurtenant to the messuage or Inn of Court, being situate out of this parish, called Staple-Inn; and it was quite clear that in the event of the case being proved, it was a claim that was not merely exclusive of the parishioners and inhabitants, but equally exclusive -of the ordinary himself; for the ordinary could have no right in virtue merely of his own office, to assign pews in a parish church to those who paid no parish rates, who d weltnot in the parish, and who, together with. their house or inessuage, were in every respect extra-parochial. This, then, was a claim distinctly against the general lave., which rested the right to seats solely in the parishioners ; and though he was ready to admit the force of particular exceptions founded on prescription, on a faculty, or on other grounds, he contended that those grounds must be erica juris ; distinctly and definitively laid and proved. The Learned Counsel then went on to argue that here neither prescription nor faculty could be shown. The prescriptive right could only subsist with the fact that the messuage to which it might have been at some time made appurtenant should be within the parish. Here, on the contrary; the parties moving the question described them selves as an extra parochial house or society. Again, a prescrip— tive right in these matters, let it ever be so good or valid, presup posed the existence of a faculty. No faculty, however, could be shown to have been taken out at any time by this society. But what it was incumbent op them on the present occasion to rove was, not so much the right to any particular seat or seats in the church, as the right to sit there at all. Now neither fa culty nor prescription could confer the right to sit there at all on any non parishioner, to the prejudice or constraint, as , to room, of those who were parishioners. This it was beyond the. power of the ordinary, in whom was the distribution of seats to parishioners, according to his judgment of their rank, order, and gradation, to do ; for it would be to take away from pa rishioners a right which the law had conferred upon them. Still less, then, could it be said that the rector and churchwardens could, at any former time, have legally given such a right to the Society of Staple Inn. Parishioners, on the other hand, were in all cases legally thus entitled; and for these reasons, they paid the parish rates ; and especially they paid for the repairs and sustentation of the fabric in which the pew stood. It was dis tinctly laid down in Blackstone (Comm. v. 2. B. 2. c. 17) that " a prescriptisn cannot be for a thing which cannot be raised by a grant ; for the law allows presenptions only in supply of the loss of such original grants.' Why lie.had shown that the ordinary even could not grant that which this society claimed as a right, and he should like to hear what species of tither grant the ingenuity of his learned friends could devise on this occasion, as likely to have been made to the society. A case had been decided by the Court's predecessor (Lord Stowell) from the chair in which it now sat, that bore strongly on the general question here at issue, though not upon the par ticular facts of the case. He meant that of Walter .v. Gunner and Drury." (1 Vol. Dr. Haggard's Rep. p. 314.) There the Judge said, " This is a proceeding against these Churchwardens, calling upon them to show cause why cer tain persons should not be seated in church ; and certainly the case itself very properly goes on the illegality of the trans fer of pews ;" and (p. 3)7) the Learned Judge added " all pri vate rights in pews must be held under a faculty, or by pre scription, which pre-supposes a faculty • and no faculty in the present case was even granted to that effect" (namely, to en able a person ceasing to be a parisnoner or inhabitant of a parish to transfer a pew to another) ; " for the ordinary must have ex erccised his discretion lest he should ttepopulate the church of its own proper parishoners, the inhabitants ; which, however, would have been the case, had he granted such a faculty as to enable this party so to transfer." And again, (p. 319) " Even it' there was prescriptive right, it could not be ex ercised by tranferring it to persons not inhabitants of the parish or. of the house to which it had been made appurte nant." The Leaned Counsel contended from these authori ties, and from the doctrine laid down in " Watson, ch. 39," and " Gibson, p. 197," the dictum of Lord Coke upon the same subject—that of ' Judge Buller in " Stocks v. Booth," (Term Rep. 488), and " Petman and Bridger," in the Arches Court (Dr. Phillimore's Reports, vol. 1. p. 316), that the claim of this society to certain pews in the church of a parish, within which they were not resident, and the rates levied in which they were not liable to, could not be sustained; that therefore it would be needless for the Court to proceed further in the cause, if it should be, as he mated it would be, of opinion that the libel ought to be rejected; and finally, that by its rejection of such libel, the Court ought now to conclude the cause. Dr. JENNER, on the same side, addressed the Court at con siderab,e length. Dr. SWABEY and Dr. Lusirrwclrox were heard in support of the libel given in by the society. Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON! said he should take time . to consider the able arguments of Counsel, and the authorities cited, before he decided as to the admission of the libel. ENGLISII ACADEMY AT ROBIE.---DUTITICT the winter of 1821, the English students in painting and seulp %Ire, resident at Rome, established by subscription among themse an academy for the study of the human figure. They hired a con venient place, and engaged alternately some of the finest models in Rome. This season the English again assembled to renew their studies as before, when they received the offer of 1.00/. from Ms. Hamilton, our Minister at Naples, to meet the ex pences of their Academy. This liberal offer was accepted, and it is hoped that it may become the means of esta blishing a National Academy in Rome, the advantages of which must be evident to every man who has considered its importance, and the opportunities which are there afforded for completing the studies of an artist. GAS LIGHTS.—Four tradesmen in Leeds were summoned before the Magistrates, and fined in a mitigated penalty of one guinea each to the infirmary, for a gross violation of their con tract with the Leeds Gas Company, by unlawfully perforat ing their burners, and thus causing a profuse waste cf, Gas. The penalty authorised by Act of Parliament 50/, but the proceedings were quashed on the submission of the defendar t 3, who were discharged on payment .of the above fine, and the costs of the surnrnots.