Star.
London, England, 1830-05-13 00:00:00

THE KING.

The Duke of ‘VELLINC;Tux arrived at the Palace
about eleven o'clock yesterday morning, from London, on
a visit to the Kiyn. His Grace ren►aincd at the Palace
1 till half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, when the Duke
left, on his return to town. The Duke of LEEDS arrived
about one o'clock at the Palace, to make his personal in-
quiries after th; state of the KING ; his Grace took his
leave about half-past three o'clock. The Medical Gen-
tlemen were in constant attendance on his Majesty
throughout the day, and would, it was expected, sleep in
the' Palace. At the KING'S Palace, St. James's, the'
bulletin was shown by Lord GLEN LYON, as Lord in
!Waiting, and Mr. FORRESTER (for Sir WILLIA)I
KEPPEL), as Groom in Waiting. Among the inquirers
yesterday were, the VICE-CIIANCELLOR, the JUDO I:
of the PREROGATIVE COURT, the SOLICITOR-GENE
RAL for IRELAND, the RECORDER Of LONDON, am!
the PRESIDENT of the ROYAL ACADEMY.

Prince GEORGE of CUMBERLAND, attended by the
Rev. Mr. .lEur, came to town yesterday mornin., from
Kew. The Prince left town in the afternoon on his re-
turn to Kew.

The Duke of WELLINGTON, after his return from
having an interview with his MAJESTY, at his Palace at
Windsor, yesterday afternoon, joined Earl BATII awl',
the Earl of ABERDEEN, Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, and the
other Cabinet Ministers, at the residence of Earl
RoSSLYN, in St. James's-square. The Noble Earl en-
tertained the CaLinet Ministers to dinner.

On Sunday last a sermon was preached at the church
of St. George the Martyr, Queen-square, by the Right Reverend
Edward, Lord Bishop of Liandaff; far the benefit of the Royal
Dispensary for Diseases of the Ear, Dean-street, bohapuare. A
Report of thin most useful Institution has just been published by
Mr. QM* the Surgeon to the Dispensery, in which be observes,
that Diseases of the Ear, like diseases of other organs, if properly
studied and 'udicially treated, are by no means of so incurable or
unmanageable a nature, as it has been too mach the custom to sup.
pose, foe sines the establishment of the Charity in 111111, upwards of
U 77 patients have been eared or relieved, Weft, several caned
Deaf and Dumb.


THE FRENCH PLAYS.-H4YMARKET.

The benefit of Mademoiselle lama took place at thi. Theatre
last night, are afforded a rich treat to the lovers of the rieVCI.
&met, botl, as regarded the excellence of the acting, and rcleesbrt cf
rice,* fur sepreun tation. Bertrand et Suzette, ou Le .11,tri.v
de &Len, it one of the most popular of the numerous
from the pen of M. Soifer. It abounds in lively ia-zideid 1%4
playful dialogue ; these are most agreeably seasoned by thme
sprightly airs which give a charm to this species of emertain‘nent
among cur neighbours almost unknown to the English stage. The su-
perior advantages possessed by the dratmuic writers of Franco. in this
respect, are fully proved by the frequent recurrence of thus: ut our
own country, to their productions, either for adoption or iiiiitatirni
Although neither& POTIESI,OOr a PERLET, inimitable in their irate,
were among the dramatis per,o.:e of let night, the comic Farts
Were capi:ally sustained.by BE i.ruwr, PELISRIE, and LA TORTE.
Mademoiselle IRINA, and 11'.udeiroiselle FLoftwixt.t, were emi-
nently successful as Suzette and Madame l'inelton. Les Mks du
Maria x de Raison, wlikh to:lowed the first piece, i 3, we be-
lieve, among the earliest ei.says made in Frince, in which the
old system of adhering so pertinaciously to unity was abandon......
—Thc success with which this innovation has been attended, is a
sufficient refutation of all that French critics had said and s titter
against English dramatists, and more exp:cially our " inanortal
bard," for the liberties he took with the unities. Les suit,..r.
mariage de raison, which passes over an interval of three years, is
from the pen of two writers, M. M. BARTOIS and L'HEntit. It
would be difficult to name any recent production of our own stage,
pot stssingtequal merit, and none in which the gay and the sotnbre,
are so happily blended. Tne scene, in which Suselic b: trays
her long-concealed, but irresistible attachment, to Edouard
de Bremen', was admirably performed. The heart.tendiug
emotions and half suppressed sighs of the heroine, who
had sacrificed her happiness from principle, contrasted
with the vehement expression of mingled pasf.ion acne afFcctiee.
di'-
played by Bertrand, was an admirable piece of acting. The song
"Je rentals toujours," which followed, was sung with gm t
feeling and effect by Mademoiselle IRMA. it was, however, in the
last t•rene, that the powers of this actress were nn:, opeciul:z eaibd
fo:tb. Her struggles to resist the entreaties of Pe Bremrot,
and the intense agonies which followed the sudden :glance
of Bertrand, strongly reminded us of the beat t:Thrnr of
Miss O'NEILL. No wonder that such acting, couvhd with a
tine person and highly expressive face, should hare elicit:ll the
warmest plaudits from the audience, which was both numerous shad
fashionable. BERNARD LEON, the FAWCETT, and BARTLE.if,
of Paris, appeared as Mathews Columbus, in Ise Grand, Prieln,•••,
anti k'rappillon, in Le Femme& Ste •sPrrfet, two most i.: t s
ing vaudevilles, also the production of joint authors. IVe r.,ret
that this excellent actor is about to return to Paris. "%Fell seleettd
as the company is, his loss will be severely felt. Were it not for •
the superiority of the acting, and happy choice of subjects, we
should have complained of the long interval allowed to take place
between the acts, and the late hour at which the performance ter.
initiated.

F;

1

F ~:

CHARGE OF FRAUD.
TYLER V. DRAYTON.

. • • • •

• .•

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COtRT, MAY VI
ily FAIMENTo•-ellA ROE OF FRAUD.
9'l'A:44l.n' F. ROBINSON.

The Mmer r R of the Rot.i.s stated, that this was a bill
Sled by the plaintiff, calling on the defendant specifically
to perform an agreement, and to deliver up possession of
certain lands in his possession. It appeared that the de-
fendant's father was the lessee of certain lands, which at
his death were purchased from his representatives by Sir
Thomas Stanley ; under this purchase, Sir Thomas en-
te•cd into possession, and it was agreed between the par-
ties: that Robinson, the present defendant, should continue
to be tenant of a certain field, called Hay Field. The
rent of the first two years was paid, but Sir Thos. Stanley
refused to take any further rent. In July, 1824, the
defendant was requested to attend at the mansion-house
of Sir Thomas Stanley, to make some arrangements rela-
tive to this piece of land, and the defendant's claim ; the
defendant accordingly attended, and when he got to the
ir.ansion-house he found two gentlemen there, who after-
wards turned out to be in the law, and professionally con-
cerned for Sir Thomas. The bill alleged, as the fact
was, that the defendant agreed to accept 101. for the
rent and interest in the field in question. The defen-
dant (as it was supposed) was afterwards apprised that
this was not a binding agreement, and wished to
waive the contract. To this, however, Sir Thomas
dissented; and the result was, that an action of eject-
ment was brought by the defendant, to recover pos-
session of this piece of land ; in this action Sir Thomas
Stanley was successful, and a verdict was found for the
defendant. The Learned Judge who tried the cause
was, however, of opinion, that there was a miscarriage,
and a motion was made for a now trial. No new trial
had, however, yet taken place. The present bill was
filed by Sir Thomas to compel a specific performance of
the agreement of July, 1824, and evidence had been
gone into upon the point of the contract thus entered
into by the present plaintiff with the defendant. In this
respect, the evidence of Blunt and Ashurst was very ma-
terial. The defendant was told that 101. was all he ought
to expect, and he was ultimately induced to accept that
sum, although 501. was claimed, and to 121. the defend-
ant was clearly entitled. It was to be recollected, that
there was not a soul present during this conversation, to
assist and protect the defendant. It was in evidence that
the defendant dined on this day in July with the coach-
man and groom of Sir Thomas Stanley, in the servants'
hall. It was clear, therefore, his Honour thought, that
Blunt and Ashurst were mistaken in their law—for by no
means was it possible that Sir Thomas Stanley should re-
sist the payment of the 121. When, therefore, the de-
fendant was told that ho could not possibly recover the
amount, although there might be no intention to deceive,
it was at least clear that these parties had completely mis-
taken the law. There being, therefore, a clear title to
the 121. and a doubtful claim to the land itself, how
could such a proceeding as this be sanctioned ? How
could a Court of Equity decree a specific performance of
an agreement made under mistaken representations
His opinion, therefore, was—that Sir Thomas ought to
be left to his remedy at law, if he could make anything
of it—for equity could certainly afford no relief. It was
clear that an ignorant and unprotected person had been
taken by surprise, and his HONOUR said he should dis-
miss the bill with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY 12.
MARTIN V. NICHOLL.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR on taking his seat, gave his
judgment in this cause. A bill had been filed, and a de-
murrer had been put in, and the single question was,
whether a foreign judgment was binding upon the parties
in this country. The point had been discussed in several
cases ; but had never been fully and satisfactorily decid-
ed. Lord Kenyon and Lord Ellenborough were of one
opinion, and Lord Mansfield differed from both those
Learned Judges. One of the latest cases was that of
Kennedy v. Earl Cassilis, in " Suranston'a Reports," but
that could not be considered as a decisive authority. The
point was, he understood, about to be discussed in the
Court of King's Bench, and it would have been advisable
to have awaited the judgment of that Court, but the par-
ties were anxious for the present decision. Upon a com-
parison of all the authorities, and weighing the conflicting
dicta of the Judges, his Honour thought the preponder-
ance was against the present bill. He would therefore
allow the demurrer, but would give no costs.
His HONOUR afterwards informed Mr. Crompton, who
was Counsel in support of the Bill, that he would give
permission, if the parties chose, to turn the bill for a dis-
covery into a bill for relief.

This cause, which was in part heard yesterday, excited
very considerable interest, owing to the nature of the
case, the facts disclosed in evidence, and the parties in-
terested. The Solicitor-General opened the case on the
part of the plaintiff, and it appeared that it was a bill filed
by Mrs. Tyler, the object of which was to set aside cer-
tain deeds which had been executed by Griffiths Jenkins,
tenant in tail of certain estates in Glamorganshire. The
ground upon which the bill proceeded were fraud and in-
competency on the part of Jenkins. The facts disclosed
upon the bill were these :—Griffith Jenkins was a young
man of extremely dissolute habits, and had been educated
by his grandfather, an attorney at Neath. It appeared
that Jenkins had been kept in ignorance of the real state
of his fortune, and of the interest which he claimed under
his grandfather. He had been taught to believe that he
was entitled only to the reversion of the estates in Gla-
morganshire, whereas it turned out that he was tenant in
tail in possession of the property. It appeared that this
young man and his grandfather had quarrelled, and from
his earliest life the young man had been addicted to drink-
ing, low company, and vices attendant upon it. The
young man at length determined to quit his grandfather's
house, took the best horse out of the stable, and rode
away, clearing every obstruction before him. It was
in evidence that the young man entered the barrack-
yard of the 13th regiment of Light Dragoons, and en-
listed in that regiment as a private soldier. He then
gave vent to his dissipated habits, and it uas proved that
he became acquainted with loose companions, neglected
his regimental duty, was often punished, and be-
came a confirmed drunkard. It appeared that having
bad rather a better education than his companions, he
was frequently excused, and was from time to time
furnished with small supplies of cash by his friends
and relatives. Ho squandered his money in the most
ridiculous excesses, and spent his last farthing among his
comrades, by whom he was also frequently supplied,
under the expectation 'generally entertained that he
would before long be possessed of a considerable for:
tune. Griffith's boon companion and greatest friend was
a man of the name of Peter Perry. By-this man he was
frequently enabled to gratify his propensities to drunken-
ness and debauchery. It appeared that Perry had fre-
quently supplied him with considerable sums of money,
which were spent in the moat absurd and ridiculous
manner. The continuation of this conduct gave rise
to many observations, and GriEths was generally called,

'1

. r'•

throughout the regiment, " Lunatic Jack." On one oc-
casion, it was stated in evidence, Griffiths being supplied
with money by Perry, gave his comrades and others, in
the neighbourhood of Wandsworth, where he was
quartered, a dance ; and one of the fiddler's strings
happening to break, a post-chaise was ordered to
Richmond to fetch another.—This was one of many
lexcesses committed by Griffiths ; and at length this
man became so much indebted, that he was induced to
enter into a treaty with Perry for the purchase of the
whole of his expectations, for a sum of 2,0001. Jenkins
at this time owed Perry 2651; and it appeared that,
in conjunction with a man of the name of Norwood, it was
agreed that 2,0001. should be given for the whole estate.
—This happened in the year 1808; and it seemed that
it was a sort of partnership between Perry and Norwood,
to purchase the whole of the interest. Norwood,
not satisfied with Griffith's statement, went himself into
Wales to ascertain the value of the estates. He then
found that the bargain was a good one ; and, on his re-
turn to London, reported the fact to Perry. At this pe-
riod, the defendant Drayton was brought into the case.
Perry at this time seemed desirous of purchasing a pub-
lic-house ; and Drayton, who was an auctioneer, under-
took to advance the moneys requisite for this purpose.
Perry wished to settle himself at Blackheath, and a pub-
lic-house was advertised to be let, which appeared to be
suited to Perry's purpose. This happened in 1807. A
treaty was afterwards entered into for another public-
house in Wapping, which Perry was desirous of pur-
chasing; but not having money enough for this pur-
pose, Perry mentioned the difficulty to Drayton, and the
latter then undertook to make the requisite advances.
For the purpose of making the requisite arrangements,
a meeting was held at a public-house at Mortlake, which
occupied about four hours. It was there agreed that
Jenkins should have 7001. for his property in Wales.
Jenkins was very desirous that his friend Perry should
leave the regiment at the same time be did, as he had
been constantly supplied with money, and he feared
that these indulgences would not be allowed to him after
Perry had left the regiment. All this was discussed be-
fore Drayton at the public-house at Mortlake, and it was
proposed that Perry should assign to Drayton Jenkins's
debt for 2651. Drayton was to arrest Jenkins for that
sum, and thus would be removed from the regiment.—
On the 18th of September, 1807, Jenkins was accord-
ingly arrested, and taken to the Fleet prison, where he
was lodged within the rules. The debt was allowed to
Drayton in settling the public-house at Wapping. A
formal discharge from the regiment was procured by
Drayton for 75 guineas, which was paid through the
hands of Perry into the office of the agent of the regi-
ment. There appeared to be a second arrest of Jenkins,
by a man of the name of Hollands, for a trifling sum ;
and a third arrest for 201. for liquors, furnished at va-
rious times to Jenkins. It was in evidence that, in the
latter end of the year 1808, Jenkins wrote a letter to his
grandfather, and some offers of assistance were made,
which were refused by the grandson, because the grand-
father had declined assisting him when he most wanted
it. It was added, that a large sum of money had been
promised him ; that he was going to India ; and that he
did not doubt of his obtaining a comfortable livelihood
there. He earnestly recommended his mother to the
care of his grandfather, and subsequently left the coun-
try. It appeared that at this time Jenkins had not
one friend, or legal adviser, except a gentleman of the
name of Bevan, who bad offered his assistance, but it
had been refused. If Jenkins had listened to this ad-
vice, the probability was, that all this disgrace and shame
would have been avoided. It appeared that Jenkins
subsequently left England for India, and sailed on board
the Enterprise tender on his voyage to the East Indies.
From December 1807, to 1815, when Jenkins returned,
nothing was heard of this estate ; but the value of it had
been fully ascertained. It was now estimated at 15,0001.
for the land, 1,1001. for the wood, and 40,0001. for the
minerals. The last conveyance, executed in October,
1807, valued the estate at 7001. and of this about 251.
reached the hands of this unfortunate man. In 1815
Jenkins returned to this country in a state of complete
destitution—poor, ragged, and miserable—and rendered
incapable of work by a wound in the hand. During the
interval of Jenkins's absence Drayton had set himself,
to work to discover the particulars of Jenkins's for-
tune. A Commission of Lunacy had, it appeared, been
prosecuted against the mother of Jenkins, and it was then
discovered that Jenkins was himself the tenant in tail of
this property. The effect had been to put an end to Dray-
ton's purchase, by rendering the conveyance inoperative.
When Jenkins again appeared in England the bargain
was renewed, and Jenkins was induced to consent to
certain accounts between Drayton and himself. In
the result a fine was levied, and a fresh conveyance
executed of the whole estate. This took place in Au-
gust, 1815, and a sum of 1,45.51. was the nominal
amount given for the estate, not one farthing of which
Jenkins ever received. When Jenkins first returned to
this country, however, the greatest care was taken of
him. He was supplied with necessaries, and even luxu-
ries, and Drayton allowed him a salary of 30s. a week
until his death, which happened in 1819. Jenkins,
shortly before his death, had married his present widow,
and she had given her evidence in the present case, cor-
roborating the facts stated by the other witnesses. It
was proved that Jenkins was not aware that he had made
an absolute conveyance to Drayton, and he always
spoke as if his property was held in trust for him, and
declared that when a debt, with which he was charged,
was paid off, he should have a large fortune. Jenkins
had prepared a will shortly before his death, which
had been subsequently destroyed. After Jenkins's
death, Drayton went to the widow's house, and searched
for all the papers he could find. These were the princi-
pal facts of the case. The present bill was filed against
Drayton, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr. Knight, formerly
the partner of Mr. Serjeant Wilde, and other claimants.
It appeared that the Learned Serjeant had not now any
interest in the case. By their answers the defendant,
Drayton, alleged that this purchase had been first made
at the instigation of Perry—that there was much doubt
as to the success of the speculation, and that large sums
had been advanced to the mother, and as annuity had
been granted to her up to the time of her death. It was
further stated, that Mr. Wilde had retired from the bu-
siness of Solicitor, and had resigned in favour of Mr.
K night, and had assigned all his interest for 3,3001.
Mr. Serjeant Wilde, in his answer, disclaimed having any
part in the transaction. It was proved further for the de-
fendant, that, at the time of this transaction, Jenkins
was perfectly sober and collected. When the fine was
levied, Jenkins was particularly admonished by Mr.
Serjeant Wilde as to•the effect of the instrument.

Mr. Agar and Mr. Girt!lestone were to-day heard on
the same side with the Solicitor-General.

The Counsel for the defence are Mr. Horne, Mr.
Pepys, Mr. Knight, and Messrs. Sidebottoiu, Jacob,
and Fleather. These- all remain to be heard to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ma 12.

The Court sat in Banco this morning .at ten o'clock,
and were occupied in hearing motions of no public in-

terest till one o'clock, when the Lord Chief Justice sat at
Nisi Prius to try Common Jury causes.

CROWE V. ORME.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
of the defendant the balance of an account for work and
labour. The plaintiff is a bricklayer, and was employed
by the defendant, who has built a number of houses in
the Bayswate-road, to build a number of sewers. Evi-
dence was given of the work done ; and the defence set
up was, that the claim had been settled ; but upon the
production of the receipt on which the defence rested, it
was clear that the whole claim had not been satisfied,
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 12.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Tenterden, and Chief Jus-
tice Tindall, assisted by the three Puisne Barons of the
Exchequer, sat in error this morning.