Star.
London, England, 1808-12-05 00:00:00

Lflr INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 2.
o'si astir w. ivttsou.
This was an action brought against Bail, for the recovery of
Ism'. %Odell the Plaintiff had been awarded in a former suit;
and the present pka was, that the Plaintiff was an alien enemy,
living and trading within the realm of France, and as such could
slot recover iiran action within the jurisdiction of Great Britain.
Mr.ATTORNay GENZRAL, for the Defendant, said that it
had been laid down, that if a man was domiciled in France,
though born in England or Ireland, he %ens nevartheiesif a French
subject, and was not within the reach of our Courts. If the
Plaintiff were to recover this money, it would go to enrich an

• mussy's gate.
Mr. PARE, for the plaintiff, contended that he was a fietitital
and an American, and that therefore this would not be the ease.
William Deblois proved his knowledge of the Plaintiff, from
1796 to 1802; he had s: en him generally in Paris, and in eon-
versations with him, at which the witness was present. The
Plaintiff always spoke of himself as an Irishman. Upon his cross-
examination' he said he did not know that the Parisian Govern-
ment had desisted from prosecuting the Plaintiff for an assault,
in consequence of his being an American.
Mr Skipway, late an American Consul in France, knew the
Plaintiff for 14 years there, where he sew him in September last.
He understood him to be a man in trade 14 years ago; but did
Dot know what he was now. 'Upon his cross-examination, he
said that the Plaintiff had always been considered by-himself and
the Ambassador man American citizen.
Mr. Palm, in reply, said that it was probable that the Plain-
tiff called Ireland his country !n his conversations, because his
parents were of that country; but Lord ELLENDOROUOR was of
opinion that he meant the osual acceptation of the word Irish-
man, and that the Plaintiff's Counsel had not clearly made out
their case. Upon this intimation, Mr. PAR* said he thought
he could remedy this, and chase to be nonsuited.
DOT ON Tilt Detain OF ALLAN v. HOLLAND. •
This was an aciicn brought by the Plalnt!ff, a widow, who
- lets lodgings in Oxford-road, to recover posiesslon of a first-floor
let to the Defendant, who had notice to quit by Michaelmas last,
but who was at present in possession. On the part of the Plain-
tiff, it was proved by several witnesses, that the Defendant had
told Mrs. Allen, in a conversation which they had overheard,
that he would quit at Michaelmas : but, on the part of the De-
fendant, it was proved by one witness, that he added to this as-
sertion, a proviso, if he could suit himself elsewhere by that
time. it clearly appeared, however, that these were swo diffe-
rent conversations, so that each party might have told the truth,
and yet a different story.—The Jury found for the Plaintiff.
When the cause was over, Mr..Avroester. Gzstrtaa, Coun-
sel for the-Plaintiff, informed the Court. that immediately upon
ono-of the PLthatiff's witnesses (Louisa Snow) quitting the Court,
the Defendant, Holland, had Seized her, and violently shaken
her, telling her to go home, and sleep upon her tonsciefsee.-
.ord ELLENIOROUGH took the depositions of Louisa Snow and
Ms's. Allen upon these facts ; and, with a severe reprimand,
fined Holland lOL for the contempt of Court,Which he paid.
Tile VINO ro. W AXEFIELD.
Ths was an indictment against the defendant for an assault
tpnn a female of a most indelicate nature
Mr. Laws, however, when the indictment was calh ti, said the
defendant bad no wish to take up the time of his Lordship un-
- necesearily, and would consent to a eerditt of Guilty being record-
ed against him.
Mr. GA aROW said, be hoped tbe defendant would prevent, by
his conduct, the necessity of calling him up for judgment. It was to
We interest that she ease should not again be brought into court.
DEC. 3.-90LOMONS ro. WARNI.II.
This was an action to recover a ompensation in damages for
the injury which the Plaintiff bad sustained by his wife's arm hav-
ing been broke thcnugh the negligence of the Defendant's ser-
vant in overturning she Hertford stage coach.
The Avroancr-GENIRAL stated, that the Plaintiff and his
wife were people in an humble situation of life, and got their
bread by travelling about the country, and vending differtad
kinds of merchandize. This circumstance rendered the injury
the greater to the Plaintiff, inasmuch as the wife had been for
antis, twelve months confined, and during that time was at-
tended by a surgeon. The Defendant and others engaged in con-
cerns of the same kind, got large profits, and when accidents of
this kind occurred, through the negligence of their servants, they
should makehandsonse remunerations to the injured party, for it
treat a part of the charges attending the carrying on of their trade.
All the Defendant had paid on this occasion, was a poor seven-
shilling piece, which was paid to a surgeon at Waltham-cross,
who frrst attended the woman at the timewhen the accident hap-
pened. Two witnesses were examined for the Plaintiff, and
proved the coach to have been overturned entirely through the
intoxication of the coachman on last Christmas eve. The acci-
'dent happened on this side of the Waltham Cross Gate. One of
thew witnesses had also sustained an injury, and been confined to
bit bed.
Mr. Gaseow on the part of the Defeadant, whom be stated
every humane person, and who wished to snake every re-
,...othe present eau required, proposed twas, and a juror
accordingly withdrawn.
CRIIRCHWARDENS OF lIORKOHORCII 9. RENTELL.
Defendant, who was the incumbent of the parish, had
. a course of litigation with his parishioners for a long time
,cerning the repairing of a fence to the church-yard.
- present case was an issue out of Chancery. It was now
that all parties should pay their own costs, and the future
of repairs be defrayed by the Master and Fellows of New
, to which the living belongs.
peoceedings in the various Courts at the Quarter Sessions,
Ecclesiastics] Courts, the Court of Chancery, and the
Bench, had cost at least XllOO.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 2.
MILLER AND WIFE V. SCOTT AND WIFE.
was an action for an assault and false imprisonment. The
who is a master lamp lighter and a grocer in Sloane-
ielsea, was returning with his wife and a party of female
from Sadler's Wells. In passing by the hbuse of the de.
t, who keeps the Swan public bowie at the corner of Elm-
, Gray's Inn-lane. a discharge of water from one of the de-
it's windows fell on Mrs. Miller, who immediately went
door, and rapped et it with her umbrella . T)ip defendant
out with a glass and a bottle, or a porter pot in Kis hand, said
old by the dripping maid that he aught to be indicted for
arse water to be thrown out of his house at that hour. He
' that any had been thrown out, and called her a d---41
h—:—h for her assertion. The laity said he was a ditty
• saying so—upon which Mrs. Scott rushed out, crying—
calls my husband a dirty dog ?" and seising Mrs. Mil-
the collar with the left hand, gave her a blow, with her
Upon this Mrs. M. attempted to strike her antagonist .
her umbrella, but one of the spectators stewed in between
1, and preiented the blow's taking effect. The defendant
save the plaintiff's wife in charge to a watchman, and she
dinged to deposit two guineas to appear next morning at
Garden. There the charge was dismissed, and the de-
reproved for his conduct. This was the statement of the ,
stiff's party, and some unbiassed spectators.
.313 the part of the defendant, three witnesses, lodgers of his,
an were with him at the time of the affray, deposed, that Mrs.
diner was the first assailant both in word and deed, having
thuserPthe husband and struck the wife before herself had been
Judge , Jur!, however, saw reason to consider the
of credit as on the side of the plaintiff--aad a verdict was
accordingly—Damages £l0:
ricruKtr.s.i—onnthrm v. criasoNs.
defendant agreed with the plaintiff, a miniature painter, to
miniatures of himself, .his wife, and four children, for six
leas, and specially covenanted that they should be tglerable
,leases. The plointiff agreed to these conditions, and engaged
lter such of the pictures as the defendant might disapprove.--
happened, that three of the pictures, those of Mr. Gibbons,
rife, and one of the childrenovere held.to be no likenessesat
The plaintiff promised to retouch his work, and to toff
. Gibbons' head. and give her a new one. He neverw-
Ar' performed his promise, and when a &mind was Mose-
eguently made'of thirteen guineas on hii parr, payment was of
refused, not only of the overcharge, but of the sum,
. upon, as the conditions had not bun fulfilled.—Plaintiff
Denson: .
Dac. 3.-:-A dittitef ffitelnime of Montgomery:brought bts ac-
toe againft Mr. Beadle, the First Mate of the Sauey P.ast
Ind a-
an, for assaulting him on board the said ship, off Calcutta, in
month of March 1807. The Jury. on hearing the case, gave
ey damages. Whilst the hay were deltberatiag,

~..1..

Ws hed.
Mr. a
to be a ve
paration4
was aceor
THE cal
The
been in a
toneernln
The pr
agreed th
Cxpence
ollege,
'[he pr,
in the E
King's El+
a
This v
plaYntiff,'
street, CI
friends fr
Pendant,
street, GI
frndant's
to the de
tame out
war told
allowing
denied th
f-t—g
dog for s
" who e
ler by th:
right. 1.
with her
them, an
then gave
was oblil
"Hatton t
fendant
CM tilt
who wet
?Miller t
ahusrcrtl
assaulted
The I
weight c
given ac
The 4
pallet In
guisteas,
likruess
to alter
It so hal
Ms wife
all. T 1
Mrs. C
ever, pt
vently
course
Agreed
nonselt
Dec.
Lion sga
Loan, fc
the mot
•,
sue PIO
•
•