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

THE TEAL

'he Soldier braves deAth,
For a fanciful wreath,
In Glory's romantic career;
But he raises the foe,
When in battle laid low,
And bathes very wound with a tear.
If, with high-bounding pride,
die return to his bride,
Renouncing the gore-erintson'd spear;

; All his toils are repaid,
When embracing the maid, •
From her eye-lid he kisses the Tears
Sweet scent of my youth,
Seat of friendship and tnith,
Where love chas'd each fast fleeting year;
Loth to leave thee I nuournl, -
For a last look I turn'd,
But thy spire was scarce seen tbro' a Tear.
Though my vows I can pour, •
To my MALT no more,
My MARY, to love once so dear;
In the shade of her bow'r,
I remember the hour,
She rewarded those vows with a Tear. • ,
By another posscst,
May she live ever blest,
Her name still my heart must revere;

With a sigh I resign_
What I once thought teas mine,
And forgive her deceit itith,a Tear.
- •

- -
ye friends of iny gart,
Ere from you! depart,

• •

MA hope to my breast is most near;
If again we shall meet,
. In this rural retreat,
May we meet, as we part, with a Tear.
Wben my soul wings her eight .
To the regions of night,
And my *arse shall recline on its bier; .
As ye pass by the tomb
Where my ashts consume,
Oh ! moisten their dust with a Tea.
May no marble fiesta*
The apla►deot• of woe,
Which the &Haien of vanity rear;
No Action of fame
Shall blazon my mime-4
Ail I ash, all I wisit,is ►Tear!

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCEkY, baCENIBER S.
EARL LOWTHER U. TENANTS ON THE LONSDALI BiTATE'.
In this case a bill had been filed by the plaintiff,
for having a reasonable arbitrary fine paid by the te-
nanti on the different manors on the Lordship of
Lonsdale, on account of the Lord, who is now a
minor. The tenants pled a customary twenty penny
fine ; and the Master of the Rolls directed an issue
to be tried inthe Court of CommOn Pleas, for the pur-
pose of determining the customs of the manors, in
this respect. The issue was tried before Sir AIMEE
MaNsetato, and the Jury, gave a verdict for the de-
fendants, thereby establishing the twenty penny fine,
• The Chief Justice, whe-tried the case, granted his
eirtificatE,"approv,itirof 'the verdict of the Jury. The
plaintiff, 'however, afterwat ds moved for a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict was contrary to all
thei+ice adduced. For though the tenants had
succeeded in shewing a number of instances in which
the fines were under die proportion of twenty penny
fines, these very instances went to shew, that there
was no fixed customary rate. Besides, this, however,
*re was a decree of the Court. of Chancery in the
year 1661, which had not been produced on the trial
of the issue, which clearly proved the right of exact-
ing an arbitrary reasonable fine.
On: the part of the defendants, the propriety of
granting a new trial was hardly denied ; but it was
contended, that the same ought to be with costs, par-
ticularly on account of the 1664, decree, which had
not been heard of when the former issue was tried.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, Sir ARTHUR PIGGOT, and
Mr. WETHERALL, this day objected to a new trial
being granted, unless on payment of costs.
Sit SAMUEL Roart.t.ut Mr. THOMPSON, &c. conten-
ded gat the Court could not, consistently with the
idea of allowiug the parties to go to a new trial on
equal terms, give the costs of the former issue against
the plaintiff. What was this but saying, that his
Lordship was satisfied •vith the verdict in the former
case, and that it was. nothing but the additional evi-
dence to be produced; 'which ought, on the new trial,
to weigh with the fury' On the decree 1664, the
plaintiff, comparatively speaking, bunt little. It was
principally on the ground of the verdict being con-
trary to all the evidence adduced, that the new trial
was demanded.
The Loan CHANCELLOR did not' bold the decree
1664 as re fficiently conclusive of the custom of the
manor to preclude further inquiry. If the new trial
demanded were to proceed on the ground of this de-
eree not having formerly been before the Jury, he
should have been of opinion that costs ought to follow.
This was upt the case ; and he thought it better,
being satisfied that the merits had never properly been ,
before the Jury, at least never in the way elucidated
by Sir Samuel Romillv, that a new trial should be
•vranted, the question of costs, as was frequent in the
•
practice of that Court, being reserved till it should
be seen how the case should terminate. His Lord.
ship observed, that three different issues had been
tried before pronouncing the decree in the year 1664,
the last of which was a trial at bar. He should leave
it to the Court of Law to sav, whether a trial at bar
should not also take place in the present instance.
bIESSETER v COLONEL WOOD.
Mr. DART moved for continuing 'the injunction
against the Defer dant, in regard to his process at law,
for the recovery (.f the possession of certain lands, ,
which .be parties had engaged to exchange.
t appeared' that the parties had engaged to ex-
ethane their and upon certain conditions.
Sir SAMUEL RONIL.LY, for the. defendant, argued,
that one of these cor.ditions related to Parlimentary,
influence, and, therefore, could not be substantiated,
by. any.-
hr 4.olll,Cuitfe"4ffiPPeateSl4° be et,eb4;oo-
- : 'but raid tie Woina read ever EfieplWitikajid
state his sentiments tomorrow. •