The Sun.
London, England, 1819-07-08 00:00:00

SHELLEY V. SAME.

This was another action, by the proprietor of the British
'Coffee-house, Cockspnr-street.--Vertiict for the plaintiff—Da•
wages 91. 133.
SIR THOMAS HARVEY rARQUHAR V. SAME.
_ _ _

This plaintiff, residing in Park-place, having also sustained
damage to the amount of sal. 4s. ;id. frein the same cause, a
verdict was found in his favour for that sum.

DAVI3 V. SAME.

This plaintiff being owner of St. Anne's Coffee-house,
Dean-street, Soho, recovered a verdict for 451.

LORD SEFTON v. SAME.

The Noble Plaintiff brought a similar action for the damage
his house sustained in consequence of the violence of the
mob in question, who attacked his Lordship's residence in Ar-
lington-street, on the same day, whilst his Lordship and fa-
mily were at dinner. The
.amount of the damage was
241. 16s. 2d, ; and the plaintiff!: case being proved,
Mr. BLACKBURNE, on behalf of the defendants-, set up a si-
milar defence as in the case of Mr. Wishart, but the evidence
completely failed iu sheaving that the Noble Plaintiff was a
hired to disturb the peace of the City of
member of -Mr. Lamb's Committee, or knew any thing of
any person's
therefore, under the Learned Judge's
directions, found for the plaintiff--:Da,weges 241. 16s. 2d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 7.
LEVY V. ROBERTS AND ANADTHER.

This was an action of trespass brought by the
plaintiff*, David Levy, against the Sheriffs of Lon-
don. The plaintiff was the father ot Lewis Levy,
who, together with Moseley Woolfe and Kinnear,
were recently convicted ot conspiracy, and Lewis
Levy was sentenced to pay a fine of 50001: The
Sheriffs of London proceeded upon the writ, Le-
earl' fluids, to take the goods of Lewis Levy,
and on arriving at his house, they found the
present plaintiff in' possession under a warrant
of attorney. He alleged the property was his,
he Laving, in
.1814, advanced to hi's son 5001.
to assist him in business. _He took a warrant of
attorney for that sum. Evidence was called to
prove it was a bona fide transaction. The tnoney
it appeared remained unpaid up to the time of pro-
secution against Lewis Levy, when the plaintiff,
to secure himself, put his warrant of attorney in
force. •
. .

The Sheriffs having insisted on their seizure,
the present action was brought for the trespass.
The Jury bad to consider whether the warrant of
attorney was fraudulent, or a fair transaction.
The Jury, atter being out for a considerable
time, returned with a verdict for the defendants.

ROLLS COURT, JULY 7.

SAVILLE V. THE EARL OP SCARBOROLTUII AND

OTHRRII.

Mr. Batt. stated, that this was en application
to the Court fur the purpose of having certain
property, which had belonged to the late Sir
George Saville, and which he by his will bad or-
dered to be removed from his residence, in Lei-
cester-fields, to his family mansion at Rufford,
in Nottinghamshire, restored to the said man-
sion. Sir George Saville, whose character had
been well known thirty years ago, having had no
Mlle. was desirous that the family name should
not become extinct, and for that purpose, by his last
will, he bequeathed his pwperty to his nephew,

Richard Lumley, upon condition, that if the ,c"—
R ch ar d Lumley should ever become Earl of. Sore
borough, to which Earldom it was probable ".0
would succeed, the property which belonged
the . Saville family should descend to his • nes;e,
brother, and continue without a possibility.ot "
Saville estates being vested in any future Bari cc
Scarborough. Atirid other bequests be directed that
the family pictures should be heir-looms for 1110!-i
of the proprietor of the Saville estates. By the evi I,
there were certain gentlemen appointed trustees'
who were directed to sell such parrs of his periotisai,
property, which, at the time of his death, shout(
be found in the mansion-house at Rufford„
his house in Leicester-fields, as they should thiok.
proper, and whatever they should suppose wort
of preservation was directed to be collected at.
Rufforl for the benefit and use of his heir, Richard.
Lumley. This latter Gentleman had, since
death of his Uncle, succeeded to the Earldom °t
Scarborough, and the Saville property of course•
descended to the present plaintiff, the Rev. J. fj!
Saville. The family pictures were in the posses'
sion of the plaintiff, but the other property, pre
served by the Executors, had been removed by ti's
Earl of Scarborough from Rufford. Front the
context of the will, from the apparent desire elbica,
0
Sir George Saville entertained of preserving ,1'
property-for the benefit and use of the person °I•
possession of his name and property, as well at
from the circumstance of his having particelerlY
specificed the continuance of the family picture',
as heir-looms, it was contended, that the right'
to that property was vested in the proprietor of
,
the estates, and not in the first heir, who }tad
forfeited the possession -by becoming Earl to
Scarborough.
Mr. PEPYS followed on the same side.
Sir A. PIGGOTT coutrn'ndcd the zeal displayed
on behalf of the plaintiff for the preservation of,
the articles which it had been said belonged I°'
Rufford Abbey in past ages, and which bad long
been in possession of the Saville fatuity. Bot.tbe;
words of the will respecting that property, instead
of making it a heir•loom, declared- that it shoeld
he for the sole use and benefit of the heir Richard)
Lumley.
Mr. HEALD also, on behalf of the defentiot•
contended, that, the value of the litigated pro'
perty, as stated in the answer, did not amouut t°
any considerable sum. independent of the see-
eifie words of the bequest being favourable to his
client, the Counsel on the opposite side had not:
shewn that the title to the said property was wester{
in the plaintiff.
The MASTER of the ROLLS rook a Inmitrons view
of the case, and after having dwelt with great
care on each circumstance favourable to the plaits'
t:tf, concluded by stating, that his impression WO'
that the right to that property was vested in the •
defendant. lie would, however, again read over
the will, arid if he saw any reasons for altering hi'
opinion, he would take an opportunity of statiog
it to the parties.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
Before Mr. Baron Wood and Mr. Justice nayley.
County and City of York—Saturday, July 24.
Durham—Monday, Aug. 9.
Newcastle and Town of—Saturday, August 14.
Carlisle—Friday, August 20.
Appleby—Saturday, august 28.
Lancaster,-Wedne;day, September t.

SHOCKING ACCIDENT.--Yesterday evening' 80
Inquest was held at the sign of the Castle, is
Shepherd's-court, Upper Brook-street, Grosve'
square, on the body of Eliza Fox, a child only'
16 months old. It appeared from the evidence
that the deceased was the (laughter of a coach..
man, who occupied apartments in the Mews ad..
joining, and on the preceding day the deceased
was given to her little brother to nurse ; he held
her in his arms near the window, when by a wk.,
den jirk, and he not being strong enough to hold
herohe got out of his arms and fell headlong
into the Mews, where she was killed oti the spot•
Verdict—/iccidental Death.

COgONER'S REPORT.--The Coroner was calla
on Sunday to view the body of Mr. Rom ER, frQui
the Liverpool Theatre. He made his appearance
at our•Theatre on Thursday evening, and put 410
end to his existence the next day, by cutting his.
throat.--(New York Paper.)

COURSE OF EXCHANGE, TUESDAY, JULY 6.
Amsterdam

Ditto, at Sight I i 14
Rotterdam ll 18 t Vs.
Antwerp , le oEr.Slonel
liamburgh
Altona
Paris, 3 Day's sight 25 to a Us.
Ditto
llotirdeaux, ditto
Frankfort on the Main .
Madrid • 37k • • Effectire
Cadiz
Bil boa

sai
Gibraltar 32
Barcelona

-.....•._...
Leghorn
• ••
Genoa . 45 —Venice, Ital. Liv 2.ti - ,
Malta... ..50 —Naples 4O
Palermo
Lisbon
Oporto
Rio Janeiro
Dublin .. ...1bA..... Cork ... 154 per Cent.
Agio of the Bank on Uolland.... 2 per Cent.
BULLION.

Portugal Gold, in. Coin YV
YY
v 1.0 0 9 per 0%.
New Dollars 0 5 0
Silver, in Bars

BIRTH.
On Tuesday, the Gtla hist, at iChcyne-walk, Chelsea, Nys.
Richard Lee, of a son.

MARRIED.

On T.tiesday last, at Mary-le-hone Church, William Yates.
Peel, Esq. ''b '. for the Boiougli of TaMworth, and second
son of Sir i-cdbert Peel, Bart. to the Right Hon. Lady J'
Moore, second daughter of the Earl of Mount Cashel'.