The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-11-11 00:00:00

GISRAI.74R, Oct. 16.

On the 13th.' the Carteret packet arrived from
Vcily and Malta. with the mails fur this place and
wised, in 19 days passage.
tubes the Carteret left hies:bash the French had
of,obled a large tinny so the neighbourhood of
Castle of Scylla. and were only waiting for
(1;r battering tram to commence the siege,
Thee army from Egypt was soon expeited in Si-
iy, orders having been sent fur Me ecacsotiee of
ta country.
All communication between this place and Spain
•,10s, rigidly cut off; and the Spaniards have
isbled the guards in their lines ; and his said that
surge French army is marching towards this place
woe purpose of besieging the garrison.
The greatest discontent and alarm prevail in
ssia at the entrance of the French armies into
a country, and sending their own troops into
many ; which is universally believed to bt a
rotatory measure to the vibversion of the Go.
,went by Bonaparte. Twenty thousand of the
vt Spanish troops are also on their march to Por-
"III, to co-operate with the French army destined
tat country.

LOUIS XVIII.

Its Majesty the French King resembles most
gukingly his unfortunate brother Louis XVI.;
Injure that l?s is grown voty Large and corpu-
hs, and that he is bald, paranoias ty where it will
Macalleded he was marked by the assassin who
:14 at him, he is very little altered from what he
,r:eared twenty years ago. The King appeared
F:ntly delighted with the residence of Gossfield,
saci presented a very craning contrast to the
ganess of the country which he had quitted.
ha Majesty walks a great deal ; but, from his
in, has now left off riding.
The French in this c^untry oirl:o wish to pay
Asir respects to their Sovereign, write tor per-
mission to wait upon him, anti are r. ceiveti agree.
ably t pri7.iity and rank. Their Ser.ne High.
ismer the Piince of Conde, and the Duke of.
Baurb n, irft Gossfirld on Saturday. for Wai.stead.
Bane; and Monsieur and the Duke De Berri,.
,063,:day, for London. Tne names of those of
laws c•iiintry who have yet been received by the
Litt ot Franoe. are ac rtillow :
Non of the oi' of thleans.—The Duke of Orleauoi
sttent 13..1t1:11311.
Irt,ites of the 1-I,nre of C.nde serer,. ILO-
INA At^ Frvie, of ah.l Duke De 13.,urh0.., father of
oe ern-to he-Lout: wed u, t !mem Duk..r. D'k.usheih • the
DAN Granunnia, the D_ke De Setrant, tee Duke Do
Clr...i.ta E. thaw. C.,otpte F. D.F.,cata, Campte
ta!raull, enani.te C...ni.te De Jarnae, Como"
taCitt,r; CileVella Do la 11... err. Mottalcur U. adirea•
t;!.:As.eut De Statv".bir

LIYCIIPOOL. Nuv. 7.
Os Thursday the Right I-1 snourable Earl ami-
no% Mayor of Chester, ;;:eve: n 4 the most
sumptuous and splendid dinners in the lowt:-hall
e4A.sembty-room,at the Exchange, ever witQess-
inthr cry. On this occasion a temporary floor,
Mot tour feet high. was crated in the Town-hall,
a at to be upon a level with the Assemhlproom,
ail the doors of each were taken off, that the com.
psny bight have a di-Ainet view from one room to
Wotan : the lahle in the Town-ball wily laid in
*Wm of a horseshoe, with a table down the cen-
t:s,oa the middle of which, considerably elevated,
tool a noble Baron of Beef, weighing four cwt.
,mounted by the Banner of England. and round
re edge of the dish, " 0 ! the Roast Beef of Old
foglactl. 0 ! the Old English Roast Beef.—Nov.
:307.—G0d Save the King." On the same
this wu also a fine Baron of Mutton, weighing
sormounted with his Lordship's arms, neatly
pitted, and round the edge of the dish his Lord-
nlo's motto. " Nobilitatis villas non stemma c4arac-
ur." Likewise the largest sallad we ever beheld,
nest tastefully decorated, sutetonnted by the City
Ares, and round the dish, `, Prosperity to the
'hide tt the City of Chester." Besides these, the
L,klntr consisted of every rarity the season could
Muni. At six o'clock, about 300 sat down to this
magniticent entertainment. rooms were most
tastefully fitted up for this princely banquet : and
brides a number of chandeliers, they were inuMi-
reed with 3000 variegated lamps ; but what most
Etraded the notice of the company iti this sleport-
melt. was the centre window of the Assembly-
nom, fronting his Lordship's seat, on which were
displayed the letters G. R. in variegated lamps,
which had a Ma elegant appearance ; indeed, the
general effea of the whole was grand beyond de-
scription. The whole of this brilliant illumination
ens under the chieetion of Mr. Alderson, of

The inneral of the Archbishop cf Yoet will take
Otte this day in the most private manner.
A most daring robbery was committed at Wcl-
- in the neighbourhood of Hell, on Sunday
tensing last. During Divine Service, some vil-
lains, with a ehissel, or other insttilment of that
enure, forced open one of the windows in the front
of the house of Mr. WI I lAA 61 Pa Ise, entered the
Parlour, broke open a desk. threw the papers it
contained round the rental, and took away several
promissory and ether notes, &c. to the amount of
°"' $OOl. The parlour door being lucked, they
',seed it open. and proceeded up stairs, where they
runiaiaged the drawers, turning over all the gowns.
hart, Ste. belonging to Mrs. Yarns; after which
tSe7 kit the house by the back door. It appears,
ilte robbers had been thirsty at the time, fur they
Lad drawn the corks of several battles of vinegar,
itancheig in one of the roams. but the liquor had nut
barn altogether to their taste. Several silver tea
sad table spoons, a silver cream jug, and other
ar-
*teaof plate, were in one of the closets which they
had ortned. hut these articles were not taken away .
FortunatelY, lite i►ills which were taken away, were
et such a description, that the villains will oat he
Able ut negociate them.
J. Wawa, No. 16, Cornhill, informs the
11olde:s of Supplementary Tickets and Shares, not
4".Tiri; money. that their identical Numbers
be drawn over again is the Supplementaty
I oil.,
- Ts of only 6,000 Tickets, giving them the
ta:4l..:e of the great Prises of 20,0001. 10,0001.
Laos:sands, Five Hundieds, &c. Ate. Ste. with-
er• aly addiri )84 e.tp;ase. or trouble of
thett

LAW INTALLICENCE.

COURT Of CHANCERY. Nev. la.

:011W PICILIT dwd WIWI O. DINAH LOOM,.

This was it bill brought to set aside a deed, cm
entotl.4 Mired*. Ma y, and her sister, Elizabeth
K►iermas, since deceased, without issue, conveying
their right and title to two freehold estates iu
Kent and Catrihridgeshire, for the consideration
of 10471. Plaintiff and sister were of the
poorest class. The husband of one was a la-
bourer, and the husband of the other under sen-
tence of transportation, for petty larceny. They
were perftBly ignorant, and could not read or
write. The first intimation they bad of eaeir being
heirs to this property, "VAS through the medium of
an advertisewer•.t in a Newspaper, making inquiry
after the ',datives of IVilliant Logan. Plaintiff,
Mary, and sister, made their circumstances known to
Mr. ileitis, a tavern-keeper in London, who
employed a Lawyer to undertake the husiness.
They did not know t:ie •alue of the estates at the
time, hut bad since learned they were worth 70001.
Deland:et, wile of William Logan, and only en-
titled to her dowry, it was stated, took :Wean-
owe of the poverty and ignorance of Plaintiff,
Mary, and sister, and prevailed on them to assign
their right and title, as heirs at law of William
Logan, to said estates, at the above undervalue.
. There was a bill to the same 'flea filed in 1 ibtis
but from some mismanagement was dismissed
with costs, which Plaintiff being unable to pay,
was thus delayed in prosecuting her claim.
Sir SAMUEL Romts.t. v hoped his Lordship would
allow the interrogatories in the former cense to be
read as evidence : his Lordship consented. The
lest of the day was occupied in reading them.

COURT OF RING'S RI:NWT, Nov. 10.
ACTION'OF TROVER.
JOSZPIS DOW/ON a. WYSS Pa L ASDIN.
The Arroausx-Gusaam. moved for a Itule to
chew cause why • new trial should net take place
in this case, wherein a verdict had been given tor
the Defendant. It was an action of ,rover, brought
against Mr. Pal...kin, a merchant in London, for a
quantity of staves which had been sent by a Mr.
Talpin, from Danteic and Stettin. Mr. Dowson,
the Plaintiff, had been a partner of a house, along
with two others, Thomas Dow son and John Bar-
ker. Of these partners, '1 homas Dowson had died,
and John Berke' had ratite& so that the partner-
ship was dissolved upon the 3d of May, 1806. Jo-
seph Dovethn,however,liaving succeeded to the be-
tracts of the firm, continued to carry it on as for-
inzily t it was intimated accordingly in 7ile
and that all ii-hts of the original concern
were to be settled by him. Mr. Talpin, who had
before sent cargoes of staves to this house, wrtse a
letter, dated lath Nov. ISO 6, which he inclosed in
one to Mr. Palaskin, who was his agent, stating that
he had sent a parcel of stases, which he wi.hed them
to t.ske at a certain price which he proposed, mad
diarelad Mr. Falaskin to deliver the staves to them,
it they chose to accept of them. This letter Mr.
Palaskia accordingly iutimates! to Mr. Joseph Dow-
son, the only remaining partner, open r Saturday,
and, upon the Monday following, Mr. Palasktis
agreed to accept o: them. They were demanded
upon the Stith of December ; but it happened, that
upon the preceding day (being Christmas, upon
which no business was done) the value of staves had
considerably tisen ; and Mr. Palaskin made scale
objections to the credit, or time that was to elapse
between the sale and payment of the goods, as
mentioned in the letter. Upon this, however, Mr.
Dowson, to obviate all objections upon that score,
immediately put down the money ; notwithstand•
ing which, Mr. Palaskin refused to deliver the
Staves. The only question, therefore, was, whether
the Plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Dowson, who had thus
succeeded to the business, and carried it on undet
the original firm, was entitled to the benefit of this
offer made to the house ? The change that had
taken place in the house was notorious, the depar-
t tore ut Barker having been published in The Gawk.
as well as the decease of lhornits Dawson. Palos-
kin himself had ors this offer to Joseph Dawson,
as the person who stood in the place of the house I
so that there was no doubt as to the offer having
been made to the original firm ; and it was upon
that ground that he (the Attorney-General) moved
for a new trial, there having been sufficient evidence
of the change of the firm being known to Palaskin
at home, though nut to Mr. Talpin abroad.
Lord ELtatisoitoucto—" I think I should have
nonsuited the Plaintiff under the circumstances
that formerly appeared, but as it DOW stands, you
may take a Rule to 'hew cause. If a nonsuit had
taken place, I should have doubted whether it ought
to have been bi anted."
MANNINO, ANDIRTOD, and nos•Nieurr, e. rill
CotabliSSlONAlts far ihe Watt INDIA DOCKS.
Mr. &quilt Best moved for a Rule to shew
cause why the verdict pronounced in this case should
not be sat aside. By the AA, 46 of the King,
chap. 102, sec. 9, it was stated, that where questions
of doubt and difficulty orise with respect to the
title of a party to compensation, on account of the
damage occasioned by the erection at the West-
India Ducks, as well as with rasped to the amount
so to be recovered, the Justices are allowed to re-
serve the consideration thereof for the Court of
King's Bench ; and it also direaed, that the motion
for that purpose should be made within the first
four days of the term. Ile now applied to the
Court, in this case, upon the ground of a mis-di-
reCtion of the Recorder. The A& of :h) Geo. 111.
chap. 69, sec. 121, stated, that by reason of
the improvements made for the reception of vessels
and goods at the West India Docks, certain per-
sons might thereby sustain damage, in consequence
of business being divert'd from that neighbour-
hood. and thc.vt..re gave power to these Commis-
sioners to snake to them a just and liberal satisfac-
tion, by purchase, or otherwise ; and in case they
cannot agree, tneu it directs that a Jury should be
summoned, to ogee taio the amount of the satisfac-
tion so to be given. The case of Messrs. Manning
and Co. came before a Jury at Guildhall, and an
estimate of the damage sustained had previously
come before tic Counnissieners, for tea years back,
sheering what property they, during that perital.
had been possessed of.
Afser this had been delivered in to the Jury, it
IMAM@ a question with the Recorder, whtthsr the

Try 1,,04;14 glee t4teir verdict upon a.t average of
thre^ years previous to the pasaing of the act in
1793, or whether it should be taken upon an average
of three years subsequent t-) the opening of she
Docks ! He, for the Plaintiffs, insisted, that their
property was rendered of no use, owiog to the
alterations which had taken place, by the ere.:ii,in
of these Docks ; and therefore he should enil,:avour
to chew, that it was impossible to put that con-
stroetion upon the Ad of Parliament, which the
Recorder had done ; but that their Lordships had a
right to dire& that the value of their properly in
the years 1802-3-4, at the opening of the Docks,
should be taken ints the computation, as well as
that of the years 13078-g. The ptotits that
were likely to be made. were as necessary to be
looked to, as the profits thit had at:Wally been
made at the time the Aft passed. The
Aft did not direct in what manner the average
should be taken; but. in this case, it had been
aw eed by the parties, that the ge of three
years should be adopted ; but the point in contro-
versy was, which three years were mote
equitable, and just, In order to comply with the in-
tention of the Aa!

Cou a T—.." The question seems to he, whether you
are to take en average of the plaits arising from
the Plaintiffs' property, previous or subsequent to
the injury sustained ? Is there any other standard
suggested by the Aft of Parliament, than that of
the value of the property immediately before the
injury ?"
Mr. Besel. The Aft direfts, that the compen-
sation to be given is to be a just and liberal com-
pensation, so that it is a matter left for the Jury to
determine, whether it shall be made by giving the
value nt th:! property, previous to the year 1799, or
the subsequent year. ? It the property had been
valued in the /ear 1799, it would have been for the
Jury to ascertain, as nearly all possible, what the
Plaintiffs might have made of that property during
the next thirteen years: because, if that property
was then to be taken from them, they would be se-
riomly injured by the loss of those profits which
might have accrued.
COUNT—" The time is certainly fixed by the
Mt. You are now asking two advantages, whe.
Cher the docks did exist or not."
Mr. Bur The gradual increase of the tom-
sums of the country, and the imports into the port
Of London, ought alto to be takes into the Itatirlla•
tion, and theretote it is enough to shew the manner
in which the decrease has been produced."

Suppose, notwithstanding the existence
of these warehouses, your property had produced
mealy the same as formerly, then row would not
have been entitled to any thing."
Mr. ilesT—" If these docks had not been ereaed,
we would have been in the receipt of 1501. instead
of 1001. per annum; and therefore they who have
diverted our trade from us, ought to indemnify ut ;
evidence to this effeß ought to have been received
by the Jury."
The &grout vt•Gemsti At. said, that all the evi-
dence bad been received upon the subjeft ; and the
question. as put by the Recorder, was, whether the
Jury were to take the value at the passing of the
AR, or at the opening of the Docks ? and the Jury
were of opinion that it was to be taken at the time
of the passing the A.R.
Mr. Bear Although evidence was adduced
on this subjeft, the Recorder told the Jury that they
were not to pay any attention to the increased value
of the property subsequently, but only its value pre-
viously, to 1799 ; upon these grounds, therefore,
he submitted to their Lordships, that the Recorder
ought to have told the Jury, that it was no; the true
and proper constru Rion of the AR t, put the Plaint-
iffs, in the year 1803, in the situation they were
in in the year 1799 ; and, therefore, they stood is
the same predicament as if the evidente adduced bad
not been admitted."
Lord ELLartionouctu—" I remember a ease
in which a compensation Was given for a ferry,
amounting to 11,0001. being nearly 50 years pur-
chase, upon the idea of its being susceptible of a
prospeßive increase, on account of an increased
population. This, however, brief; upon a subjell
affording a most precarious profi:, it was fortu•
nately got rid of by another construaion of the AR
of Parliament. Ido not life I.ow, in this case, we
can look to any other rule than that prescribed by
the AR in question, which most probably bad in
view, that the valuation iheuld be taken at the
passing of the AR."
Mr. filear if the Legislature had to intended,
they would certainly have mentioned the years prior
to 1799. If a man were selling a tent charge, he
knows shat value to put upon it at all times. and
a compensation for the loss of it *solid not exceed
twenty years purchase ; and suppose a man be
valuing lard for a like purpose, he would allow
snore than its present value, because it would be
likely to produce more at souse future time."
Lord Ettatirsonouou—'. We will do the parties
the satisfaßien to loot. more attentively into the
AR, but it is merely oat of deference pi the quan-
tity of properly at stake, and not from any apparent
doubt we entertain 'as to its true con.trOlion ; we
will therefore take time to consider of it, before we
diva's of this matter at all."
ziss alma, on the Proscenium of Me Right Ncn. Jolts
S6I.LIVAM P. COL. DIAPIIII..
Mr. DAPCST moved for a Rule to thew cause
why a new trial should not take place, or at least be
thought it necessary to make a short application to
the Court. upon the subjeß of some additional evi-
dence which could now be produced. 'Phis matter
had already been before the Court and the public,
and therefore it would be unnecessary for him to
touch upon particulars. He should merely state,
that it was a prosecution for a libel upon M.
Sullivan, which, there was no doubt. was harm-
less in its nature. On a former occasion the trial
had been ;.ustponed, in order to give the Defendant
an opportunity of producing the evidence of a Dr.
Lynch, of the island of Trinidad. That Gentleman
had accordingly made an affidavit in that country,
but it had aftet wards been thought advisable that he
should give his evidence perlionally, in crder to
do away any (*semi:its that might exist. The
ground on which he made this appc.ition was, that
as Dr. Lynch had only arrived after the trial had
taken place in September, he had not yet tv-cn per-
sonally examined, and. thetefore, supposiog the.
Court should think prc•per to indulge tow uiniou,
that 'aim". would then :are ,:pi:atUatty of at

• 41E3A7.-:.‘ ' •

• 11-,.... ...
leis 'hewing the ttr.th of Ws f river ama ...
'ri
.which he hdd sworn to abroad. He should nor
say, that that would operate as a justification piths
publication of the libel, Amt as the trial had WO
postponed, on account or that gentleman's 'absentia,
Ihe hoped he did not miecondud himself in oil:mita.
ting his arrival to ehe Come, in order flat they'
I might judge, whether any Luther havestigatioadi
would be necessary.
Lord ELL crJaoaouoa-dt As the testimony of
that Witness cannot go to alter the case, there caG,
be no rearm for a new trial, but I think be may be
allowed to come into Court, upon the pronouncing
of judgment, in order to stale what he further.
brows of ill.: matter."
Mr. GAn a ow, in absence elf the Attorney-Gene-
ral, stated, he had no 'Vacuity in consenting to it.
atabOltfus ritusECUTION.
Peace:t o. arictiasikee•
Mr. Cyan sv, on behalf of the Plaiotift Mies
Purcell, moved for a Rule to thew car re wily the
nonsuit obtained in this case should hot be set asides
and a new trial granted. The allegation in the
declaration stated, that an indictment had been
preferred to be moved in this Court, at the suit of
the present Defendant, against the present Plaintiff:
for perjury, but in which the then Plaintiff, Mr.
Macnamara, not appearing, was nonsuite4. In eon-
sequecce of this, the present action had been brought
by Miss Purcell agaiust Mr. Macnamara, for a ma'
liciuus prosecution ; but owing to some inaccuracy in
the statement of the declaration, the presume Illesadif
had been also nonsuited. The declaratioelsell Mew
what inaccurately stated, that the party (racoons' • •
Miss Miceli), who had been the Defending l'e do •
former Mkt:intent, was acquitted upon the morrow
of the Holy Trinity ; whereas it appeared upon a
further inquiry, that she was acquitted upon the
Tuesday next after the Term of Easter. This was
a point, however, which did not at all refer to the
record ; the ground upon which he made this apa
plication being, that the day upon whicl That ac-
quittal took place was not material. All that was
rt:quisite ii such a case WM, that an acquittal
should take place prior to the aition. lie support
of this the Learned Counsel cited several cases, and
particularly that of Pope or. Forster, in the fourth
volume of 7erm leVorts, wherein such variances
were not held to be fatal.
Lord ELLENSOIIOUGH said, he thought that the
cars of Pupe v. Foster, alluded to by Mr. Gurney,
seemed to run on all:fours with this one, and there.
fore it would be necessary to consider it again,
and, at all everts, the variance which had created
this nonsuit, might also be further considered, upon
arguing the Rule now granted.

il

-41

J .:1:

I

f

try