Star.
London, England, 1808-07-06 00:00:00

nr-:•-r..11.1)tetT,07-1EINCI BENCH, MN
JUDGMENTS.
The Proprietors and Primers of The if Et-
raid, Ledger, Traveller, London Packet,
Post, and Selector, who we:c under prosecutiun fur •
a paragraph reflecting on tit... Jury who acquired
Chapman, the slave-ship Captain, and had saffereil..,
judgment to go by default, appeared yesterday in
Court to receive sentence, when, after a suitable ad-
monition from Mr. Justice GROSE, they ware ordered
to be discharged, upon paying a fine of 251. each.
THE KING V. EDWARD HAWK/NS, ESQ. CL4IMZNu TO BE
AN ALDERMAN OF THE BOROUGH OF ssLrasit.
The Court, after stating the Charter, the Manda-
mus for the election of an Alderman, the ineligibility
of the Defendant, as insisted upon by Mr. Carpenter,
the-Annual Indemnity Act, the Special Verdict found
by the Jury at the last Assizes for COrnwall, and a
variety of cases bearing upon the points contended for
by the parties, gave judgment of owter against the•
Defendant; the consequence cf which ibthat Captain
Spicer, the other Candidate for the office, is the legal
Alderman.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION*.
_ _

Mr. TOPPING applied for leave to file a criminal
information against George Forrester, Esq. Tin mo-
tion was made upon the affidavits of the Rev. Mr. War-
del, who had been joint tenant with the Defendant of
a manor in Worceorershire. This instrument stated,
that some time since M'r. Wardel, the Rector of a
parish in that county, proposed to sell his share of the
manor:to Mr. Forrester, who agreed to pay him for it
thesum 0f16,0601. Subsequent to this contract, dis-
putes arose between the 'parties respecting the pay-
ment, when Mi. Wardel was compelled to file a bill
in the Exchequer, and in March last he obtained a•
decree iu his favour, ordering the discharge of the
debt by Mr. Forrester. After this proceeding, Mr.
Forrester appeared in Church, while the Prosecutor
was performing Divine Service, and insulted him by
making grimaces' at him, in the view of the whole
Congregation. • Mr. Wardel then went to London,
and, during his absence, Mr. Forrester, having the
whole manor under his controul, attended by one of
the Churchwardens, ofthe name of Bayles, who was
entirely devoted to his interests, and about thirty per-
sons, with ribbons in their hats, on the 19th of March,
issued from his own house, proceeded to the Church,
broke open the doors, and, by means of new ropes,
(Mr. Wardel having directed the 'old ones to be re-
moved) and the ringers of a neighbouring parish,
sounded a merry peal, in triumph of a supposed vic-
tory gained over the Reierend Clergyman. It was
here, amid this disgusting scene of profanation and
riot in the Church, that Mr. Forrester pulled a paper
from his pocket, and read the following passage to
the disorderly assembly Scrub (meaning the
Prosecutor), was buried on Monday, at Worcester,"
alluding to the period when Mr. W'ardel had signed
the deeds of conveyance of the manor to the Defen-
dant; A day orawo after Mr. Forrester had thus
,wantonly expressed his satisfaction, he procured a
painter, named Hickey, to inscribe on the walls of
the parish church various passages from scripture, the
tendency of which was either to expose Mr. Wardel'
to derision, or to hold himself up to admiration. One
of these was taken from the Gospel of St. Luke—
" My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it
a den of thieves." Another was taken from the
Psalms—" Thine hand shall find out all thine ene-
mies—thy right hand shall find out those that hate
thee ;" besides many more of the same description.—
Soon afterwards Mr. Wardel returned, and when he
was sitting at the desk, in' the .church, on Whitsam -
day, Mr. Forrester came close up to hirn, and read
in a loud voice one of the passages which he had pro.
cured to be painted upon the walE--,thus personally
insulting the Reverend Clergyman in the exercise of
his functions, and interrupting the performance of
the sacred duties of the day. The motion of the
Learned Counsel was not confined to Mr. Forrester
alone, but extended to Mr. Bayles, the Churchwarden
who had been appointed by him, and two persons who
were principally active during the riet. in the church
on the 19th of March, including also Hickey, the.,
person who had been employed to deface the church •
walls.—Rule granted.
THE KING V. WILLIAM NATANT.

, .

The Defendant was.byntight up to plead to an at.

tachment, for not paying costs of a suit pursuant•to
the Master's allocation.
Mr. Bryant appeared on the floor of the Court, and
requested to be heard. He said, that this proceeding
arose out of an action brought against him by a per.
son of the name of Dixon. It had been appointed by
the Plaintiff for a Special Jury, but it was referred'
before the trial took place, consequently before tbe.
Judge could certify whether the costs of the Special
Jury should be allowed. Afterwards, when. the costs
were taxed by the Master, he, Mr. Bryant, refused to
jay the additional charge of the-Special Jury, alledg-
sng that it had been appointed by the Plaintiff. He
this day resisted the attachment upon the Statutes of
arm 24, George 11. insisting that 18 guineas, the ad-
ditional costs, could not, according to the law then
enacted, be justly required.
The Court concurred in the opinion expressed by
Lord MANSFIELI;O, in an anonymous case, when it was
determined, that where a reference of a Special Jury
cause took place before the verdict was given, it was
implied that each party consented to pay its share of
the additional costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, niLy 5.
ARNETTS Z. ANDERSON.

This was a motion to set aside the nOnsuit, and to
enter a verdict for the Plaintiff. It was an action on
an agreement relating to the sale of a house at Oar-
raway's. It appeared that the premises in .question,
namely, the Rodney's Head Public-house, in Old-
street Road, were put up to Auction, and the plain-
tiff bought the same for 690 L He paid 50L as a
part of the purchase money, but he did not after-
wards obtain possession of the premises. The receipt
e the Anctioneer for 50L was produced at the trial;
but it was objected to, as not being evidence under
the Statute' of Frauds. It was also contended, that
there was no proef of the conditions of sale to which
1. receipt applied, and wider all the circumstances the
Plaintiff was nonsuited. It was contended in sup-
port of the present motion, that the receipt for the
501. w.:5 evidence of the agreement of sale, and that
the signature of the Auctioneer, who had described
the Mouse sold in the receipt, was sufficient to take
th‘.case out of the .Statute of Frauds.
The Court granted a Rule to slow cause.