Star.
London, England, 1808-07-09 00:00:00

SPOkrmo imurtoszecz.
SISURY RACES, (LAST DAY) THURSDAY, MY 7..

i

Lord C. Sonwrset's White Rose, lOst. beat 1401Egrestwatb
;raker to Hedley, 9st. 111 b. two miles, 50gs.
MR Hallett's Jewess beat Mr. Rush's Tinse-kaiipil4 1111m;allik
three miles, 50ga.
Lord Charles Somegset's White Rose, Isc. iggb. ilea sir. F.
price's Knee-buckle, 10K. 71b. New Mile, 9.5g5.
Handicap Plate of £50.--.Heats the New Miles
Mr. Biggs's Rosario, 4w. old. 10st. 101 b. - . 1 a
Ld. Egremont's Brother to Hedley, syn. 10st. Mb. 3 2
Sir H. Lippincott's Cbaise-and-One, tyrs. old. lOst. 2 II
mr, price's Knee•buckle, syrs. old - . . lir.
gr. Cope's b. g. Nettle, aged • -.- • db.

NANTWICH RACES, WEDNESDAY, JULY 6.
The Town Plate, value dr 30, for Horses that Dever won tint
value, at any one time (matches and sweepstakes exceptaill,
Charles Smith's (Esq.) b. c. Phlebotomist, 4yrs. *ld a
beneral Grosvenor's b. Lby King ilLtdad, syn. old •

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ADMIRALTY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS.
yesterday the Right Honourable Sir WILLIAM
sear prOceeded to the adjudication of the following
.• case
The Good Agreenient, Hoarens master.—This vessel, laden
with coals, bound from North Shields, to.Londw, was captured
on the 13th of February last, by a French lugger privateer, who
took all her crew out, and whaf'artieles-illey pleased, and (after
wing her cables) it'iandoned her. 'llls .was a claim of salvage
Kt up by the crew tit- the gun brig Charger; and by. persons be-
longing to the Galloper Light-house, for bringing her into Har-
wich harbour. The Court was of opinion that it was a recap-
ture by the gun brig, because the Freuchmen would not have
abandoned her, had it not approached, and accordingly pronounced
salvage to be due to the crew thcruof, and sot. as a maw
aeration to the persons belonging to the Light-house.

COURT OP EXCHEQUER, JULY 8.
THE RIND V. SCHOFIELD.
This was an indictment to recover penllties under
the statute, from the Defendant, a maltster at Ux-
bridge, for using a room for malt, not entered agree-
ably to the Act of Parliament. The penalties, for
different days specified in the indictment, amounted
to upwards of 10,0901. and it also contained addi-
tional charges, for the removal of malt into the room
in question, in three different states of vegetation,
amounting to a large additional sum.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL having stated the case on
the part of the prosecution,
Two respectable witnesses, one of them an Exami-
ner General of Excise, and the other a Supervisor of
Excise, were adduced, who concurred in stating, that,
on a day specified, in consequence of suspicions en-
tertained -by them, they broke into the room in ques-
tion, which was net only not known to the officers,
but was concealed, and required the drawing of a
secret strinp to discover the entrance. They there
found, on tile floor, and sticking against the walls,
particles which they knew from the taste, and from
inspection, to be malt in three enfferent states of vege-
tation. They found no sacks, however, nor any
quantity of malt.
Mr. SCARLET, for the Defendant, set up two pleas :
first, that he had entered at the Excise Office five
different rooms, of which the present was one, there
being only four others in the view of the othcers, un-
less the temporary separatiori Of one of these four, by
a partition reathing only to the chin of a moderately
sized man, could be esteemed a total division. Se-
condly,he purposed to adduce evidence to sheer that
the room in question not only was not used, or meant
to be used by the Defendant, for the purpose of malt-
ing, but that his servants were ignorant of its ex.
istence, and that it was intended as a place where
potatoes might be kept by him, free from any risk
of their being stolen byhis servants.
Three servants of the Defendant were adduced in
support of the latter plea, all of whom concurred in
declaring that they were present when the officers
forced open the room in question.--that nothing was
found in it but the refuse of barley straw, and that on'
sweeping the room not above a quart of different ar-
ticles were collected, consisting chiefly of mice chew.
ings, &c. but in no instance of-a single complete grain.
After an address, in reply, from the SOLICITOR GE-
MAL,
The Loan CHIEF BARON declared the alledged
entry of the room a complete farce, it being essential
to the entry of a malting room that it should not only
be entered, but be known and open to the officers.—
The pretence of keeping potatoes too in this room
raknown, as it was alledged, to the Defendant's ser-
vants, was unworthy of an answer, and only tended to
aggravate the offence committed.. It remained,
therefore, only for the Jury to estimate the degree of.
credit due to the witnesses for the prosecution, who
were persons even in the higher reveaue departments,
and who were only called on to make surveys when
improper practices were suspected, with the statement
of the witnesses for the Defendant, all of whom, in
many particulars, contradicted each other.
The Jury found a verdict generally, for the Crown,
and after a few words, the SODICITOR GENERAL agreed
to restrict it to a single penalty of 2001.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, JULY I.
Calm% v as LA MINT.
The Plaintiff, who is a flour factor had sold ten
mks of &stir to one Lee, for which the Defendant
Promised to pay, he having recommended Lee. The
sole (atzstion in the cause was, whether the flour had
ken told at one month's credit, or for ready money?
The Defendant culled for the production of the Plain-
's waste book, wherein appeared an entry of 44 ten,
'ads of flour to Richard Lee, at 601. per Laurence
' La Hunt." In this entry there was an erasure,
where the word per was inserted.
Two of the Plaintiff's clerks swore that there was
the same word per" originally written there, and.
that the Plaintiff had taken it out on account of a
blot, and written per again. They could not, how-
ever, tell the meaning of the word per in that place,
and it appeared that there were other blots in the
book which had notbeen so scrupulously scratchedout.
On the part of the Defendant, Lee was called, who
said that the corn was sold at a month's credit, and
hiss De La Hunt, who n- --.caged the business for her
brother, said, that she called ?II the Plaintiff and in;
sPected the books,-and one month_was written in the
Place where theivord per appeared now to.be inserted.
The Jury found a verdict for .the Defendant, the
action having been brought before the month had ex-
pired.
The Plaintiff being detected in an attempt to ex-
Flint to his witness the meaning of the word 4, per,"

•
while Mt, *Wow was eirapfnint him, his own
Counsel, Mr. PARK, requested him to retire from the
Court.
• PARKER V. REILLY.
The Plaintiff in this case is a respectable merchant
in the City, and had occasion to send out a vessel to
St. Croix, to take out, and bring home, a freight ;
and employed Mr. M'Ghie, a broker, to find him one.
Akccorciingly he did so, and engaged with the Defen-
dant for the brig Peggy, burden about 200 tons ; and
stipulated to pay 3001. outward, and an equal
portion for the homeward cargo ; hut when the char-
ter-party was made out, agreeable to the broker's me-
morandum; he refused to sign it, alledging, that the
Plaintiff was a litigious man'; however, if he got
Messrs. Quinton, Dick, and Co. guarantees, he would
comply with his original agreement. In consequence
of this refusal. on the part of the Defendant, the Plain-
tiff was obliged to charter another vessel, of a greater
burden, and to fill her up he was under the necessity
to ship •• furnaces, potatoes, iron-pots, and pilchards,"
which became a dead loss ,• independent of which the
Plaintiff paid 1001. more for the subsequent charter,
and it was for this amotint that he was advisid to I
bring this action.

These facts were proved by the broker and the
Plaintiff's clerk ; when the case was referred, as to the I,
gumshoe of damages, to Mr. %LLANO j but in the
mean time, a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff, for
1001.

GREG•RY in PARKER
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, who
kept a library at Brighton in the year 1802, against
the Defendant, a Quartermaster in the Army, for
various trifling articles furnished to him and his wife,
amounting to 71.
Against this debt, the statute of limitations was
pleaded—but during the intervening period of Mrs.
Parker's returning from France, which she had left,
her husband had written two letters, acknowledging
the debt. These his Lordship thought sufficient to
remove that case from that statute—Mrs. Parker hav-
ing been one of the parties who had assisted in con-
tracting the debt in question. •
Verdict for the Plaintiff, 71.105.

MALL. V. ODNER.

This was an action brought ►y a relation and part-
ner in trade, against another, for payment of nearly
10,0001. for goods sold and delivered. This sum the
Plaintiff sought to recover by virtue of a judgment
obtained in the Court of King's Bench at Quebec,
and also upon an account previously signed by the
Defendant himself.

A point arising as to how far this judgment could
be deemed final, a verdict was given in behalf of the
Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, to be
afterwards argued upon a special case.

MIXER V. GEORGE.

The plaintiff was a cloth-factor in Basinghall-street. I
and the defendant a wool-dealer and factor in Alder-1
maubury. This action was for goods sold and deli.]
vered. Mr. Alner, being in distressed circumstances,
applied to a relation, a Mr. Waisted, who advanced
hush money, and paid off a considerable part of his
debts ; in return for which, the plaintiff executed a
deed of assignment in his favour. 4 bout this time, I
Mr. Alms sold to the defendant. George, a parcel of
goods amounting to 13001. and it was, agreed that the
receipts for the various payments shOul4 imply, dial
they were for money gratuitously received, so as to
elude his creditors. This being concealed from the
assignee, this action was commenced for the payment
of the whole amount. On the part of the defendant,
hooievb, an account war, produced between'the par-
ties, wh4rein a balance of 201. was struck, in full sa-
tisfaction of all claims and demands, up to the 23c10f
December, 1807.—Plaintiff non-suited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY S. 1
SHUTER V. WILKINSON.
Mr. Serjeant ,Listes described this case to be an ac-
tion by the Plaintiff to recover from the Defendant al
sum of £l5. 16s. 9d. being the amount of brokerage
due to him, for a quantity of staves, purchased by the
Plaintiff from a Mr. Marsh for the Defendant. The:
Learned Serjeant said that the customary rate ofi
brokerage for the purchase of staves was one per cent,
and this was all the Plaintiff demanded. He added,'
that he should prove that staves were always bought
through the medium of a broker.
Mr. Thomas Coxhead Marsh stated, that on the
24th of December last he bought a quantity of staves
of Mr. Wilkinson, which were described to have been
the property of a person named Baker. He was asked
by whom was the broker's commission paid, and he I
answered, by the sellers always. He had bought
these staves at the rate of 251. per ton, and lie
had treated with Mr. Wilkinson only, as he (the wit-1
ness), understood such goods were in the market for I
sale. By some means or other it appeared that the
Plaintiff had been employed as a broker, in bringing
the parties together on the Exchange, and the staves
were paid fur by a bill on Mr. Wilkinson at three
months, the usual credit given in such cases.
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD said he could not see, from
the evidence, any thing that demonstrated that Shuter
had been employed at all. He had done nothing by
desire of Mr. Wilkinson, neither did it appear that he
had been employed by the other party, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. Serjeant LENS said it was always the practice
in the trade that staves should be bought and sold
through the agency of a broker, and that such a prac-
tice accounted for the observation just made by his
Lordship. The ordinary way of sale was by a bro-'
ker who negociated with the vender, and not by
the principals themselves. Sir James Mansfield said ,
. that all Shuter had done, appeared to be-, that he had
persuaded Wilkinson to buy the staves of Mr. Marsh,l
without having any authority for so having dune.
Mr. John Evans, a merchant, was examined.-•
said he...vas accustomed to employ brokers, and neVer
transacted the lousiness of selling staves without a
• broker. He was asked what he thought Shuter had
done—" A good deal !" was the answer. Sir James
Mansfield said that it had been admitted on the other
side, that he had done nothing. Mr. Wilkinson had
given him no directi6n, and it was evident there was
no treaty between him and Mr. Marsh ; all that the
plaintiff had done was to bring Mr, Marsh and Mr.
Wilkinson together on the 'Change. In order to
make out the case, it ought to have been proved that
Shuter had been employed as a broker by Wilkinson
' and that had not been done.—Plaiatif Eoßsuitcd.

- •
• 4.* . •
Nit?.
•RAGE JR.ELA •

The following statement we copy Tabula% e onk
the Dublin Eveing Part of the sth instants, lilliirlope
the circumstances are exaggerated ; hut hovvever this
may be, it demands, and we hope will receive from
Government, the most serious investigation,
~ DUBLIN;JITLY 4.
44 We turn with pain from the subject of forei;v
affairs to one of a domestic nature, calling, we think,
for the speedy interposition of Government. Weliinne
to state, upon unquestionable authority, that on the
23d of last month, some men, %Tomtit, and chadren,
assembled about a mile from Newry, to dance round
' a bonfire, as is customary on St. John': Eve; when in
the enjoyment of their old and harmless amusement,
the poor people were anacked by a number of men,
armed with muskets and bayonets ; one young man
was killed, and others severely wounded. There was
a person arrested at the time, charged with taking as
active part in this shocking outrage, but the assailants
attacked the house in which he was secured, and were
in the act of burning it until he was set at liberty.
" The Magistrates of the town and neighbourhood
of Newry, with a becoming spirit, and indeed as they
ought to do in the discharge of their duty, have come
! promptly forward, and, after stating the foregoing
facts, have offered a reward for the apprehension of '
the persons concerned in this transaction, and in this the
Magistrates are seconded by a number of respectable
resident Gentlemen. The proclamation also states=
i " There is good reason to conclude that the above.;
44 mentioned-outrage wan committed by persons, some
" of whom are supposed to be associated in yeomanry
46 corps." This circumstance makes it doubly in-
. cumbent on Government to institute a strict invests=
gation of this unfortunate affair ; the more so, as the
yeomanry in the same district are accused of the at
tack upon the Excise Officer and the Queen's Bays
near Ardee. In our notice of this affair in our piper
of l'hursday,-d-licacrinduced us to omit any men-
tion of the yeomanry, but in speaking of it the Drog-
heda paper has the following :
" We are concerned to find that this wanton out-'
" rage against the laws of GOv and man, was perpe-
" trated by yeomen, whose bounden duty it was to
" support the Ring's officers ; it is fiirther lainentablc,
i" as they were men of unimpeached character until
" this unfortunate business took place."
The affair at Ardee, alluded to in the above state.
ment, was detailed in the STAR of Thursday last.