Star.
London, England, 1808-06-03 00:00:00

SHEERNESS, JUNE 2.

Sailed his Majesty's ship ALAART with a convoy for
Gettenburgh.—Wind S.W.

HARWICH, JUNE g.

Arrived this day the Lord Duncan packet, Captain
HAMILTON, with mails from Gottenburgh.—Sailed
the Diana, Captain Nl,Doivoucil, for Gottenburgh ;
and the Auckland, Captain DEANE, for Heligoland,
both with mails and passengers.

GRAVZSLND, Jima 2.—Passed by the Canton, Ludwig, from
New York; and the Margaretta, —, from Gottenburgh. Sailed
the Industry, Prnton, for Barbados; Ann, Rowett, and Selina,
Owen, for Malta.

HORRID Mnenza.—Early yesterday, as one of the men in the
employ of Mr. Rhodes, the cow-keeper, was going to attend the
cows in the field at the back of the Queen's-head sad Artichoke
public-house, leading to Camden-town, he found a man, gen-
teely dressed, who appeared to have been shot ; be made the cir-
cumstance known, and the body was in a short time after owned
by the disconsolate widow of the deceased. He proved to be a
Mr. Jacobs, of Pratt-place, Camden-town, who had retired
there from business in London with a sufficient property to live
upon. He left his home in the afternoon to visit Mr. Moss, who
resides in Cumberland-place, Lisson-green, and received some
money. When he left Mr. Moss, he said he was going to Salis-
bury-place, where he stopped to eee some persons play at skittles
till a late hour. About half past eleven o'clock, the Landlord
of the Queen's Head and Artichoke public-house heard the re-
port of a pistol and the cry of " Murder !" at which time, it is
supposed, Mr. Jacobs was attacked by some robber or robbers,
and he being a resolute maa, had resisted their attack. In corro-
boration of this, the stick that he had with him was found with
large marks upon it, as if it had given some violent blows. His
watch is stolen, audit is supposed he had Bank Notes about him
to the amount of 10( which it is conjectured the villains had by
some means got informatics of. Yesterday morning a eargeon
opened the body, and found• that a large bullet had entered the
i left side through the ninth and tenth ribs, and passed through the
I heart.

I

_

LAWS" RN:ELL' GENCE.

COtlltT I.l;na's BENCH, MAY 31.
HoW L AN tk.

In this case both .panics were in the business 'cif
tailors. the Plaintiff being employed as shopurrU, and
-the Defendant as -4:*orerran,-16. Mr. Allen, of Bond-
f,treet. Besidt!. that of shoprnan, there were two oe
three clerks in the serviced Mr. Allen. _ . .

It appeare.i that, in the course of this trade, it is
customary at the end of the year for the enstomers to
give Christinas-boxes to those who ',vcre the servants
of Mr. Allen. The Defendant was appointed the
receiver of these boxes, and collected to the a`inotant
of 261. l9s. _

A Vas: number of witnesses were examined, most
of whom were tailors, and those who are called Trot-
ters (an ialcrior char.:cter, who runs from his master
to the customers, &c.), who proved the amount of
.of the receipt by the Defendant.
Verdiit for the Plantiif, Damages 31. 6s. being his
proportion of the sum received on this Occaion.
The Court was :much crowded during this trial:—
The cause was removed into this, out of an inferior
Court.

THE KI::G V. TiOGIIERTV.
'his case was mentioned yesterday. The affita-
vits run to great length, and the Prosecutor having
annexed the libel complained of to the affidavits, the
Defendant cannot show cause against the rule, with.
out taking an office copy of his own book, which will
Lost him, in the first instance, 501.
The Court have enlarged the Rule, and The Defen-
dant will have to thew cause next term,
WEDNESDAY, JOSE .—MON DEL V. SMITE?.
This was an action of trespass to recover damages
for the following misconduct :—The Plaintiff was a
new-married man, and the Defendant a broker ; the
Plaintiff applied to the Defendant to furnish his house,
which he agreed to do at a nine-months credit. The
goods were accordin7,ly supplied, but. the Defendant
afterwards disliking his contract, took an opportunity,
at the time when the Plaintiff and his wife were at
Margate, to send carts and swept away all the furni-
ture out of the house before the time of credit was
expired.—For the Defendant, Mr. PaRRE admitted
that he had acted illegally ; but in extenuation said,
he had reason to suspect that the Plaintiff would not
pay when the day of payment arrived, as he had been
pawning some cf the goods which the Defendant had
furnished. A verdict teas taken for the Plaintiff, and
it was agreed to he referred what should be the amount
of the damages.
Bov-roN V. BRANDON.

'

Both parties live atWalworth, and the question arose
by the Defendant having lost a mare from his fields
about four years ago ; when, about a year since, the
Defendant met the Plaintiff's team, and claimed one
of the mares as his own, and took her away. It was
proved by several witnesses, that the Plaintiff had been
in possession of the mare for nearly eight years.—The
Jury brought in a verdict for the Plaintiff.—Damages
with costs.
JUNE 2.--STEPHENS v. HENRY 001JLD, ESQ.

The Plaintiff is an upholsterer in -Brook-street,
Crosvenor-square ; the Defendant is a man of fa-
shion, formerly residing at Nash-court, in the county
of Kent, and -lately a fugitive in the Isle of Man, on
account of the pressure of his creditors. This action
was brought for the sum of .0320, being the value of
certain upholstery and cabinet articles furnished at
the residence of the Defendant, in Kent. The plea
was non-age—the replication, that since the Defen-
dant had come of age, he had confirmed the contract.
Mr. P;.nx, for the Plaintiff, said, that the Defet-
dant was possessed of a fortune of about .e 2400 per
annum. On his marriage, he lived in Kent, and the
articles for which this action was brought were for
the maintenance of his establishment near Canterbury.
The delivery of the goods, according to the order,
was proved by several witnesses. It appeared in evi-
dence, that the debts of Mr. Gould, prior to his
coming of age, and undischarged, amounted to
£9336 4s. sd. For the liquidation of these claims,
ernstees were appointed, and a dividend of Ss. 4d. in
the pound was paid, which the Plaintiff had re-
ceived in part of his demand, but had not signed the
deed of trust.
It was admitted that the Defendant came of age
ift September, 11403 ; and a letter which arrived at
the London Post-oflice, on the 17th of June, 1806,
addressed to the Plaintiff, and signed by the Defen-
dant, was in the following terms
" Sir—l will thank you to inform me if you will sign a letter
;..f licence for me, and in that eAse, I will biiid myself to pay you
whet Nash Court is mold. This will enable me to come to Eng-
land, which I cannot do withuut it, and until I come to England
?Sass. Court cannot be sew.-
The letter was dated from the Isle of Man.
Mr. George Gould, the brother of the Defendant,.
deposed, that Nash Court had not been disposed of.
Lord Ef.f.r.xvfonouert—t, This is not an absolute
tat-cruise. It is &pendant upon the tact of the sale of
.-Na-h Court. Then there is a condition, if the Plain-
pfF sign a letter of licence, and the Plaintiff
exec not briUg himself within that condition. This
is a qualified assent—it is an imperfect obligation."
Mr. PAIZK—" Will your Lordship save the point?"
Lcrd FttENnoltotwt—f‘ I cannot save the point,
r,iit you may move it in term. If I save the point, it is
indicating that I have some doubt on the question:"
(;/',,terw.., for the Defilidant—f, The Plaintiff
tit'at-, a. conditional promise, and refuses
tr. comply with the condition."—Plaintiff non-suited.

111 F 1-)1 K 1: OF NOltl'OLK WORTIIFY.
MI V. as an action by his Grace the Duke of Nor-
folk, -to recover the sum of which had been
paid as a deposit into the hands of Mr. Richardson,
tke attorocy of the Defendant, upon the purchase of
an estate in the county of Sussex, under the following
eircumstancesl—His Grace saw in the papers, an ad-
vertisement of a leasehold estate, to be sold, described
as consisting of 1,56 acres of land, in the county of
Sussex, situate in St. Leonard's Forest, in the road
to Brilnoo, within one mile of Horsham and
upon this descriptienjeleked his agent to purchase it
I hint. Be accorilitiglr made a bidding for it
.by
private contract, and puretased it for £1575, and
paid £3(s) as a deposit: His Grace's inducement to
:he purch4;se Of the estate, was.the contiguity to the
borough of Horsham, in whiclrihisrace has..great
*teyest, and near to whichlielikisSesses,a large estate.
After the :egret meat was signed-r:fri;tlie. faith of the
ahoy.• particulars, th estate iyati.inveyed, and the
dist:l:lce from Horsham was fantod to 'be three miles.
This fact not corresponding- with the description in

?lie particulars, the Duke retased to complete his
purchase, and brought this action for the deposit mo-
ney of 8300. The case being proved.
Mr. Ser;e:int PELI.4 cot- the Defendant, took Sane
kgal objections to the Plaintiff's recovering in this
action, which his Lordship-reserved for the 'opinion
of the Court, without giving any ground to inferthat
his opinion was in favour of the Defendant.
The material objection 'seemed to be, that as the
agreement was made by the Duke's agent) the action
should nut have been in his same ;
But Lord ELLENBOROUGII, C. J. thought that it'
bein action for mosey had and received, it must
be brought by the Duke, whose money., and not that
of the agent, was received by the Defendant.
F.4.IIIBRATIIER v. AINSLEY.

This was an action to recover 4081.
Mr. PARKE stated the case, and observed, that the
Plaintiff was ,an auctioneer, and that the Defendant
had been Sheriff of London and Westminster. The
Plaintiff had been employed by the Sheriff io sell at
auction vutie goods which were seized in execution
in the cause of Tomkins v. Aubrey. The Sheriff,
after the seizure, *as served with a notice from a per-
s,iin of the name of Bland, stating that he was the
owner of the goods, and cautioning him against sell-
ing them ; but the Plaintiff never was served with
such a notice. The Defendant ordered the sale to go
on in defiauce of the notice, and took a bond of in-
demnity front the Plaintiff's Attorney. Bland after-
wards brought his action against Ainsley, the present
Defendant, and the-Plaintiff, in the Court of Common
Pleas, and recovered £4OB, including costs, and an
execution issued, directed to the Defendant, the then
Sheriff, and lie not wishing to pay the money levied
on the property of the Plaintiff, who paid the money
rather than let his property suffer, the present action
was brought to recover the amount of the execution,
2s the Plaintiff only acted by the orders of the Defen-
dant, and could not be made responsible. He then
stated that he would prove the certificate of the De-
fendant, as Sheriff; to the Excise-office, stating that
the sale had taken place under an execution, which
prevented the Defendant from being liable for stamp
duties on the sale, and he trusted that this would be
quite sufficient to convince thsi Court and Jury, that
the Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant,
and if that was proved, theft could be no doubt but
that the Defendant was liable, and the Jury would be
obliged to give a verdict for the Plaintiff.
The Clerk of the Excise Office proved the receipt
of the certificate:
The Under Sheriff proved, that the certificate was
issued from the Sheriff's Office, but added, that it was
a thing of course—that the Sheriff in no instance em-
ployed brokers or auctioneers, they were always em-
p,wered by the Plaintiff or his attorney.
Mr. G.tunow, in a long and able speech, contend-
eJ, that the Defendant had never employed the
Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff would not have been lia-
ble for the money, if it had not been proved, in the
Court of Common Pleas, that he had actually trans-
gressed the law, by entering the window of Bland's
house, to seize the property under the execution, and
concluded by observing, that the action was not sup-
ported.
Lord ELLEMROROUGH was of opinion that it was
not proved that the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant, and ordered a nonsuit.