The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-11 00:00:00

PROM LLOYD'S LIST.

Fat.stownt, JuLY 7.—The Hope, Comor, from Newport fof
this place, has been brought in by the Albion, Morris, with loss of
fore-topmast and the head of her mainmast.
PLYMOUTH, Jut 7.—Arrived the Lord Collingwood, Ulsine
from Chiorzi ; and the Colombia, Walsh, from the Downs, lue;
Van Diemen's Land.
PORTSMOUTII, JULY B..,—Sailed the Alfred, Meade, tot
Guernsey, and the Jane, Tricker. for Lisbon.
DEAL, Jute ll.—Sailed the Bliza and Mary, Fail, for Leghorn;
Remain the Hannah, Shepherd, for Bombay, and the Provident*?
front Sierra Leonne. for Lynn ; the galliot Cadiz packet, Merrick;
from Ostend, for Cadiz, laden with flax and liden; wets toddle
wrecked on the Goodwin Sands, this day, crew and passengers
saved, and landed at Ramsgate.
Dove a, JULY B.—The Jannet, of and for Nortlkiopitig, Ape
pellgven, from Marseilles, was this afternoon supplied with provi.:
mons off this place, all well.
RAMSGATE, JULY U.—The Cadiz packet, Nieryng, of arA
from Ostend, ran on shore this morning on the Goodwin Sand, at d
was abandoned by her crew, who landed here, as the vessel Is sunk,
and will be wrecked.
GRAVESEND. JULY 11.—Arrived th E Maria, Brown,
Dantrie; Isabella Maria, Tante, from Stralsund ; Swift, White&
bead; Charlotte, Broun ; and Cordelia Sophia; Moker, from
Rita; Flora. Harris, frorn Sweden d Lively, Oraw, from Wismar.
Sailed the Bephir, Arrowsuthh, for Yutatan ; Albino, Hayden?
for Berbice; Cicero, Frierd, and Blizabeth, Hopi', for queba.
Melville Watson, Purtly, for Petersburgh ; Ann, Delvitte, for bit
John's, New Brunswick; Swallow, Junker, for Stockholm:
CARDIFF, JULY 7.—The Mary Barry, &LIM, bound to P 24
lermo, iri going out caught the ground, and remains heaped io tect
mud.

Brftozw. Ju ?ye 10.—The Martha Elisabeth, Berentsen, bound
to Newcastle, and the Amelia, Rogge, bound to L'Orient, Met
put back leaky, and must discharge their cargoes.

on
nTBle
ith JClulennet,aoniter.
s,ydatlfeirve,d a al
at r
gAe r
p
water ; on her stern, " Hermit, of lireet.ork; a schooner had ben
pe,enwafroterm.loCgagede ,Dmrecesthtrl'y Puandrerl
in tow.
VEssELs SPOKEN WITU—The Haw, of South Shields, I'lrtf
June, and Terra Nova. Potter, Newfoundland for Mentrenl, sth
June, near Anticosti; Oth, off Cape North, Lord Wellington. of
Newry, with passengers; 21st, brig John, of North Shieltlii, horn
Belfast, with paseengere; by the Quebec packet, attired at Aber:
• deer Jean. of and from Dublin tor Quebec, with passengers;
10:h Jtme, all well, br the Glentanner. arrived at Abeerdeen.
merara packet, Venables, Demerara for bondou, 20th May, by the
Royal Charlotte. lititlaos, arrived in the river. Hingdove, 4/porta
1 Ibe Newfoundlaoll, 13th ult. by the Stroller. arrived at Milford.
Nepos, TradetwAlesandria for London. 2thh ult. off Cape nowt
tense. by the Mary Brown, arrived at Falmouth. Fisher, of Bee,
Aswan. Bth alt., 'Eliza, Liverpool for Miramichi, 24th ult.. by the
Stamper, snivel from .Aliraraiehi. Pomona, Liverpool. foe
Rio Janeiro, sth ith.. lead Nephrite, East Imbue= to, by lb*
' Alartin, Drummond, itetW ih the

.11

ROBSON Y. CAMERON.

RAART-R V. WRAY.

LAW INTELLIGEATE.
1
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jtri.Y 9.
111101 Z e. SLAY 1111 CANAL COMPANY AND
OTHISS.
Tb; motion on the present occasion was made upon a supple.
Mental bill, filed against the Glaniorganshire Canal Company and
other; sal it prayed that the Court would grant an injunction to
restimn die defendants, Messrs. Hill and Co., from cxtendirg the
erection of wharfs, which they have been going on with for sonic time
past, upon this canal, and to restrain the Canal Company from per.
miring it to be done upon their, freehold, es trustees for the public.
Mrs LOIDIII4 le stated, when the motion wasrmadA, that no man
tumid have a greater desire than, lie had to protect Mr. Blakemore
fret befit injured by the acts of the Glamorganshire Company, or
et amp rt• person upon this canal, as regarded tlie water; but
aZzleA•the forms ot the pnknice of the Court were attended to, it
Impeeeltile for the Court to interfere; mid he pA there cemain-
Ip saner difliculy in saying a supplemental bilFagainet indivi.
jeikasilldividllids, as well as against the Company, oa a Company,
holliksbert by tacking t I lose nidivideals to a Auk originall y load-
Una glom the company Miele. Upon this point it would be netes-
met **A into the bills and affidavits; and if upon consideration it
Oppetored that such a bill could be entertained, and from the plead.
Sap it appeared also, that proceeding in what formed the subject of
eftiOsitit, worked or was likely to work an injury to the plaintiff's
suttetory, the Court would unquestionably restrain the extension
of dulletherfs. The defendants stink walls at a considerable
tsueir(one 35 feet at the tor and 50 at the bottom) from the margin
of the tonal ; then they cut away the bank* between such wells are
the wider, immediately converting the walls into wharfs, and by
ea,;ch they of course widened the canal to the extent to which the
Lanka were cut away ; which the plaintiff contends is contrary to the
meaning of the Act of Parliament, although there is a clause in the
Act Authorising wharfs to be erected, and proper and convenient
places shade for boats to lie, turn, and pass by each oilier. This
mooing his Lordship stated that he heel read all the papers again,
and wee of opinion that the point of form with respect to thoeup-
plensental bill could be got over. But the question arising on the
new ease (for a new case it was) would lie thought be best settled
by having a third issue directed upon it; because the question it
raised was rarely a question of law, and therefore the Court would
add lush seism to the two issues already directed. If upon the
trial it turmoil oat that the ttefendsnts have no right to do what they
are atm ileintbite Court would exercise its powers in undoing
wire sbe •ay in the mean time ; but his Lordship would not
grow the iejattetion.
The Sqliettor for the defendants applied for an order to have the
iseire trletl at the approaching Hereford ASlOzeri but
Mr. HEALD, on the part of the plaintiff; stated that there waxen
iodate order directing the issues to be tried in the Court of Can-
ned Pleas in London, and therefore he considered it highly im-
41r anything to have been said on this occasion with ^espect
It to trial any where else.
nip was clearly of opinion that this Ras a east which
* be tried in one of the Courts in Westininstrr-hall, and
he should now order that the trial shall take place in the
VelM= Pleas, in London, on the first Nisi Prius day in next
• st The third issue is to try whether the erecting of the wharfs.
whiclethe defendants are now going on with, arid whether the ob.
mrstedng of, or removing of, the tow ir,g-path along the aides of th,
c Will.. as it may be connected with other lurks, injuriously
i wtongfully prejudice the flow of water to the plaintiff's works.
Alstatemente have certainly gone to the public reepectinrthis
tase, and to the prejudice of the plaintiff. It is now twenty or
thirty years since the Act of Parliament passed, autherising the
canal tO be made, with provision that it ',bottle' be completed in
ewe years. It is supplied with water from the river Taff; which
also supplies the plaintiff's works, and the larger the canal is made,
toe more water it takes from the Taft', and of courve leaves so much
the lees for the 3lelin Griffith and Penfyrch works. In the year
TW3, or beginning of 1824, the Company applied to Parliament
for an Act, giving them power to enlarge tie canal, which appli.
rattan was opposed by the plaintiff, the Marquis of Bute, and
u.Ltrs, which opposition caused the Company to tail in obtaining
their Bill. They subsequently began to widen and deepen it,
concelving they had power sufficient in themselves (under the Act
presioesly obtained) toe that purpose. The plaintiff filed hie bill,
cur platning of what they were doing ; the Court granted an injunc-
tion against the Company proceeding to widen and deepen, until
two issties were tried upon the subject, to know whether or not
thereby the plaintiff' would be injured.

flu LORDSHIP had also looked through all the papers in this
use, and his judgment was, that the eiteep:lon taken to the 3isster's
ronort omit be overruled. His I.ortichip would be sorry it any
more earnse be incurred respecting this question, because, in his ,
unmion, no further inquiry would possibly induce any Judge to
come to a different decision than what has been now come to.

Mr. TINDAL. this morning, meceeded with the arguments in
support of a motion for a new trial ; lie argued that the Judge give
a wrong direction, in rejecting the evidence of the declarations of
the lite Mrs. Elizabeth Barker, wh. , if her husband had 'a fee
simple or fee tail, would have been entitled to dower; which de•
.clarations were, that her husband was only tenant for life, with re-
mainder over, for the existence of which his client was contending.
It had been decided in a case, 15 E. 31, that the declarations of a
party which told against his own interest were admissible; yet the
Learned Judge held that all evidence ought to be rejected of de-
chirations, except they were made in the presence of Mr. Barker.
'Be contended that these declarations were gal(' secondary evi-
• dence, and ought to have been submitted to the Jury. The next
point of the Learned Judge's misdirection was, his notice that
the parties had been already put upon their oaths, although, as
their 1111$111CT3 were not before the Court, his clients had not the
benefit of them.

The Logo ChawcaLLoa—There were two issues; one with
respect to tae question of spoliation tithe will ; the other in regard
to ha loss.
Mr. Trims'. continued. It seemed to have struck theLeareed
Judge that it was the duty of the plaintiff's to produce the skeleton
'wills, and that, as they did not do so, there must be something in
them which bore against the plaintiffs, but he (Mr. Tindal) sub-
n.itted that if they were not produced by either party, the Judge
ought not to have noticed them—they ought to have been, with
respect to the Judge, and with respect to the Jury, mere pieces of
blank paper; and tf the defendants had thought the production of
those skeleton wills would have benefitted them, it was competent
to produce them. The whole of the evidence, he contended, was
on the side of the plaintiffs, and unless the defendants could re-
cline that evidence to a cipher, the plaintiffs ought to have the be-
neEt of it. Edmund Barker, at his death in 1782, left two
daughter", one 18 and the other 19 years of age, upon which his
brother, Mr. henry Barker, a solicitor, of Gray's Inn, entered
into the possession of the property, and so continued until his
death in 1820. Now surely time young ladles would not have per..
trotted this if their father had been seized in fee simple, mid there-
fore there was a strong presumption that Edmund Barker was only
tenant for life, with remainder to Henry Barker; tbat will was,
however, now suppressed ; but there were deeds produced which
recited the will of the uncle of Edmund and Henry, wherein it is
stated that that will limited the property to Edmund for life, with
a power of jointeritg to the extent of 301. per annum for every
lOW. the wife tnight have in Mrrune. The uncle held consider-
able nropetty for lives under the Archbishop of York ; and in the
Tear 1718, the year after the death of Edmund, Henry put in a life
an lieu of thedeeeased Edmund • and the steward of the Archbishop
of York, on the trial, produced a letter from Henry, that he
• •elaimed this property under the will of the uncle, but in that letter
be did not yreasely state what was the nature of that estate. The
mutt point was the will of Mrs. Mary Barker, the mother of Mr.
...Beery Barker, and in his handwriting, and in that will it was
'written—" I do order and direct my son, Henry Barker, and the
grandchildren of the late Thomas Barker, shall release their in-
tercet in the plate left to me for life by the will of his late uncle."—
This, said Mr. Tindal, evidently shows that the uncle had made a
will. Then came a deed to 1794, to which Mr. Burden Brown,
aephew and heir of R. Burden, Henry Barker, and Admiral Suther-
qand„ were parties, reciting cettain indentures of lease and release
in 1748, being a mortgage to secure 1,000!. and interest. alio re-
"*. kiting another deed of 1784. Now, It was very remarkable, that
1-the plaintiff had never been able to get this deed of 1784, although
the deed of 1794 had been produced. Yet in all probability the
. •Ottso deeds were tied together in one bundle. That deed of 1784
might have let out a secret, which it was thought proper to conceal,
and in which there was most likely some mystery. This deed of
3784 was an assignment of a mortgage. Now, it Henry Barker
had been seised in fee, he would surely have paid oft the mortgage,
and taken an assignment of it to • trustee to attend the inheritance.
• The proviso in this new mortgage WAS important, ter it provided
'fora re-ennveyance, on payment at the mortgage mnney, to him,
• use said 11. Barker, his heirs or assigns, or any other person who
should be seised of the premises. Surely, ever since conveyancing
%els wade a science, those latter word. would not have been intro-
darad, had Alf. Henry Barker thought himself absolutely secure
td the fee. In feet. since the failure of male issue in the Potter
Newton branch, the will had brew suppressed. He enumerated
many other eirenthetances, to show that the will had been sup.
pressed, and concluded by expreming a hope that his Lordship
would grant anew trial, and that in London or Middlesex.
Mr. WILLIAMS then rose and said, it was a miefortune, not a
f -fault of his clients, as had been imputed to them by the Counsel on
• Lhoer:ltrposite side, that they were very popular, hilt he humbly
that his Lordship would ant grant a new trial. Ile cited a
• ease of }laden and IViotel, 19 Ves. which was an issue directed by
• she Master of the Rolls, and tried at Chester, io which he (Wth
liams) and two of his Learned Friends now no more, were of GOIAS.
• aci for the plaintiff, and the Issue was to try whether certain bonds
of Sir George Wynn had been paid of; and by evidence of die
•• bad state of hie strains the Jeff, found the bonds had not been paid
"soar An application for anew trial was made to Sir Wm. Grant,
who thereupon declared, that having deputed part of his judgment
to i'jary, he could not afterwards impeach it. because he might
himself dffier in opioion from thst Jury. He concluded that it
was on the applies:ion of this principle that his Lordship would
row deckle. He then alluded to the case of Row and Rawlinson,
7 East, whith Lad been cited on the ether aide, and contended that
it bad net application. The use of Cliamose and Cnurnan, 13 East,
teas also cited by the other party, and was equally inapplicable.
Another case of Hymn and Bridgman was at least questionable.
IT, wondered his Learned Friend did not cite Doe and Warren v.
Webb Ohmage. Mat. Any entry by a person ia his book of dis.
• ontrge for a debt, the Calms of Law have admitted as mdllchint
••• evidence of its discharge. With regard to thedularatiou et the
wife of lgtbnitnd, that she was not articled to darer, that pamumes
"tier knowledge of the law of &Apr, of width aka 'mad not Yin sup-
••ltostel a competent judge. He would preasad se die ISIMISIOS that
'fi• had been rnadeupon what his Leataal.Maat mild lb' min-
•- affection of the Learned Judge; and ref a minion.
• • caption of law by a Learned Judge Wes 4n this
use the Judge said to the Jury, " Mit abowfilliallaglaa made foe'
our adop?ion or rejecitiae; if you ge alarr#lllo62lll.lllllll elope
• ern ; and tf you do not, you M• U aejeelealtainffir'nenNeir ateld
• mere entiestent. • • • .4 .
The further consideration of tie *MI wribaiptopaind•

SHERIFF'S COURT,RED Ltox-scn-Ant,
SATUIDAT, JULY 9

A Commission having been issued, directing certain Commis.
j sinners to aseertain whether Antonio rontani Romano, formerly of
Alount.sirtet. Giusvenor.attuare, was-chandler' was an alien, •
I Jury were summoned to ascertain that fact ; atid also whether, at
I his death, Le was not possessed of certain freehold. leasehold, and
copytiold property, which had become torfeited to the King.
1 he Cut icy Vox MISSION cn observed, that Van alien becomes
poa‘eased of such property, it devolves to the Crown, as he cannot
legally hold it in this country. It he is a legal tenant it devolves
to the Crown t but if he holds it in trust, it requires some legal pro.
ceedings. because the Crown can take possession of it.
3tary Anil Colesly, who had lived in Alr. Romano's family many
years. said she had heard Mr. R. say that he was a native of Spolito,
in Italy. and that his father was an Italian.
Seversl persons, who were attesting witnesses to certain deeds of
conveyance, were called to prove the signature of the grantor, and
who hail conveyed certain property to Mr. Romano.
The result was, that such properly eaa declared to have been
vested in Mr. Romano; atcl it was, therefore, forfeited to the
Crown.

The next case which was brought before the Jury was respecting
the property of a young man named George Wm. Ilipkins, who
was convicted at the Old Bailey Sessions in April, 1825.
It appears that {Bpi:ins and another youth having received infor-
mation that a gentleman and his son, possessed of considerable pro-
perty, had engaged apartments at the Dundee Arins,Wapping, pre-
vious to their depaqure from London. Ilipkins and his companion
also engaged lodgings in the name bootie, and in the middle of the
eight thee entered the gentleman's room, and robbed his pockets
of •21r P. The young men were tried for the offence, and transported
for seven year:. It further appeared that Hipkins's father, by his
will, left hint t;OC/. ; and, provided the death of a natural child took
place, he was to receive NW. more. The child died when six
months old, and thus this properly, which the Crown now claimed,
became vested in the convict, and by the verdict of the Jury it was
awarded to his Majesty.

WEST3fINSTER ADJOURNED SESSIONS,
SATURDAY, JULT 9.

LOUD HAIIIOIOI7OH. .
it was generally expected that this Nobleman would have been
put on his trial this morning for the violent assault and battery
committed by his hardship on one of the St. James's watchmen,
.vith • poker, at Stevens's lintel, in Bond-street, and in misc.
q 'once the Court was very lull, but the auditory were disap-
pointed. as the trial has been moved by hi• Lordship, by certiorari,
into the Court of King's Bench, and will crime on next Term.
A LLLGED VIOLENT ASSAULT.
Janus Payne, a sheriff's officer's assistant, stood indicted for
violently assaulting, nn the 12th of Juno la-t, Archibald Brakie,
one of the watchmen belonging to the parish of St. Jamex's. It
appeared from the en'tience of the watchman. that about twelve
o'clock on the ntpffit in question he was on his beat in Regent.
street, near the Quadrant, and stood opposite the house No. 102,
where some goods were removing, when the defendant, without
the slightest provocation, took his stick from him, and on witness
civilly requeoing the defendant to return it, he struck hint re-
peatedly with his lists, felled him to the ground, and gave witness
two black eyes; he was alto kicked while town.
On the part of the 't-fence several witnesses were called, who
proved that the waicanian gave the first offence, behaved in
a most indecent tra-rer, end even charged another person with
the assault. The ,itnesset all dii tared the watchman was in-
, toxicated.
_ _ _

The lIIATIMANT summed up the evidence, and the Jury, with-
out hesitation, aequitell the defendant.
Samuel Levy MSS indicted for a fraud, in obtaining from W'm.
Dolmen Barrington, W. 2*. for a gun. on the false pretence that
the same was made liy Thomas Jackson Mortimer, gun-ranker
to his Majesty.
Mr. ALLEY and Mr. 11OLLAND were Counsel for the prose-
cution; Mr. Anocont:: and 81r. C. PHILLIPS defended the
prisoner.
W. Boxwell Barrington stated, that he is a surgeon in the East
India Company's service; in June last. he went to the defendant's
shop, in Ilemming's-row, and asked hint the price of the gun now
produced, which was then lying in the defendant's window ; the
defendant said the pri-e wan nine guineas; witness looked at the
gun, and saw "310mtner, maker to his- Majesty," engraved on
the barrel, and " 31o,,imet. London" on the lock ; and in conse-
quence, said he would give the nine guineas for the gun, and a rase,
and apparatus. He read what was on the barrel and lock loud
enough tor the defend .nt to hear, butt had no conversation with him
about the maker of the gun. The defendant said he would warrant
it to he a good gun. Witness returned to the defendant's shop in
about a week after he had bought the gun, and Said to him, that he
was come on a very disagreeable business, as lie (Levy) had
humbugged him in the sale of the gull and he expected he would
return hint his nine guineas. 'flue defendant said he was no
gentleman for awaking to him in that manner, and refused to re.
turn the money, and asked how he could expect a real Mortimer
for nine guineas ?
Mr. Mortimer proved. that he has been gun-maker to his Ma.
jesty for about four years; he did not make the gun produced.
There is no other gun-maker of his name at present. His father
and uncle had been gun-makers to him Majesty before him. A gun
of witness's make, the same as that 'produced purported to be,
would sell for 211 or 28 guineas. !lc hed heard the defendant say
that the gun produced was made in Birmingham, that they
were hawked about the town, and he believed no chop WAS with-
out them.

Green proved that he engraved Mr. Mortimer's guns; h_
had not engraved the gun produced ; the name of Mortimer on it
was 3 forgery.

The CHAIRMAN here stated his opinion that the indictment was
not sustained by' the evidence ; it differed from any case of the'
kind he hid ever heard of : there was not one word of conversation
about the maker between the seller and the buyer at the time of the ,
I sale. Mr. Mortimer had reason to complain of the use of his
nante, and the prosecutor had also reason to complain, and either
might probably sustain a civil action, but the evidence did nut sup-
port a criminal information.
Mr. BoLLAED and 3lr. ALLEY argued against the Chairman's'
opinion, and instanced the case of porters charging the amount of
canlage marked on tickets, anti obtaining more than they were en.
titled to by presenting the altered ticket, without saying a word,
which was held to he a fraud
. .

Ihe CHAIR:4AX said the eases were not exactly similar. The
porter took tho altered ticket to a house where he had a just dc.
mend for something, of the amount of which the production of a'
ticket WO the proper evidence. had the defendant been asked far'
a Motimer's gun, then his production of the one in question would'
be a fraud; but the merely selling an article with a different maker's
name than the real one, which. it was known, was n common prac.
t ice in the case of knives, watches, and many other things, was not
sufficient to support an indictment for a fraud.
Mr. A xxey said he thought it kin duty to how to the opinion of
the Court, and would withdraw the prosecution. The defendant
was thaefore acquitted.

L