Star.
London, England, 1808-07-16 00:00:00

SPOATiNG lAT.ELLIGENCE.

PRESTON RACES, JULY 12.
FIRST DAY.
On Fulwcod Moor, X5O for Horses, &c that Deter won a Plate.
3yrs oki, 6st. 11,1.; 4yrs old, Bst.; syrs old, 6st. 71b.; 6yrs old
and aged, Bst. I(....).—Two•mile Heats.
Mr. Clif on's br. e. by Sir Solomon, 4yrs. Fad
Lord Derby's br. c. Jacobus, Yyrs. old - -
Mr. Morky's b. f. by Harnbletoniani 4yrs. ofa 4 4•I
Mr. Gillibrand's b. g. by Teleicope, syrs. old - - - 6 4
Mr. Harris's b. f. 3yrs. old
Mr. Jordan's br. g. Gyrs. old
Produce Stakes of Fifty Guineas eacb..--3yr. oki colts, Est. 41.;
• Pies, Bst.—Two Mil.s.

-- 1 1
-- 2 2

Mr. Clifton'i b. C. Voitir)u, by :Sir Peter, out cf Fanny -
Mr. Tarleten's tr. f. Puny Cat, by NIL Teazle - 2
Mr. E. 1.. I:o4igsnn's gr. Eby Shuttle, dam fiy Sir Peter - 3
Sir W. Cerrazd's cit. c. by Hatnbletonizo - - - pd.

L /11V LVTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY IS.
DUFFIELD V. WILSON. '

Mr. Scalumrr opened the plaintiff's case, which
was art action to recover a compensation- upon an in-
surance which the plaintiff had effected with the de- i
fendant, who keeps an office in Leicester-street, Lei-
cester-fields; to insure him from serving in the Militia
under the Act passed last year. The insurance was
effected by the plaintiff at the office of the defendant,
through the,agency of his, the defendant's Clerk, a
Mr. Begbie, who would be called, and if he spoke
truth, would prove that the plaintiff had expressly
asked whether it would indemnify him against all
the consequences of the Act ? to which he replied that
it would. He then paid four guineas premium, for,
which the defendant gave a receipt for that sum, being
for his subscription to the society for providing sub-.
.stitutes, Stc. a for -persons drawn before the Ist of
February, 1808, to indemnify, them_frorn serving un-
der the Act passed in .1807." Under this clause
the defendant meant to rest Ms defence, because, in
fact, the plaintiff was not drawn till after the Ist of
February,--but, said Mr. Scarlett, there is an expres-
sion in the subsequent part of the receipt, which
shews this to be a fallacy, because it gees on to say,that
no person is to_ be entitled to the benefit of the in-
surance who is not drawn under the Act passed in
1807, the ballotting for which will expire before 1808;
and in fact, all, ballottings were directed to cease be-
fore the 31st of January, 1808, but there being some
insufficiency in the numbers of the men raised in the
Parish of St. Giles, in which the Plaintiff, who resides
-in Gower street, was liable to be ballotted for, he was
in fact drawn for a militiaman under the act passed
in 1807. He thee, applied to the Defendant for a
substitute, and he refused to provide one, or even to
return the premium, which had been received. Pre-
vious, however, to the Plaintiff's being drawn, the
Defendant had
written him a letter, stating, that
as they found that the WS:** was to continue three
monthif longer, he thought it but right to offer to
continneihis insurance further, upon payment of a
less sum proposed in the letter. • This, is fact, eaH
plained the whole transaction, for the Defendant/lad
mistaken the'operation of the statute, and supposed
that it must expire by the 81st of January, 1808,
whereas, under some circtiinstances, it continued be-
yond that period. The Plaintiff, who was a Gentle-
man of fortune, now claimed the indemnity to the
full eiaent, or at least a return of the premium.
Lord Fo eNeottotana asked what objection there
waa to the return of the premium ?
Mr. GARROW and Mr. Murryart said, they should
contend, that, by the act, all ballotting was to be
within a limited time, which expired before the 81st
of January, and therefore, ap the plaintiff was not
liable to be drawn under the act, after he was not
damnified, nor had the plaintiff misrepresented the
act, and there was a certain risk run previous to the
31st of January, which would entitle the defendint .
to keep the prey, ium.
Lord Ei.t.et,:nonottois said, if he was forced to in-
quire into it, he certainly should examine into the act,
and pronounce judicially, whether all the men drawn
after the SL, oiJaritiary 1808 were legally drawn or
not ; but that was a question of too great magnituee
to be agitafed upon-aucli an occasion, if that did

not turn critt to be 66 construction of the statiiiei
.I,'`had r

.1?n the defendant k. - made inisreprefintititati ala
:.hough it will true bo h partiet were bound to know
:he 14w) which would entitle the plaintiff to recover
his prern:urn.

After some Consultation, a verdict was ta!;cn. by
consent, for 41. 4s. the amount of the premium paid •
by the pla;niift.
THE lON° v. MARY ANNE TAYLOR. •
This was an indictment for perjury against the De.
faidant, in sweating the peace before Mr. Reid, the
magistrate at Bow-z teeet, against the Prosecutor, Mr,
Simnel Naylor, who was a person of property, -and
from his infirmities, very much in the pz)wcr of the
Defendant and her husband. Stephen Taylor.
The defendant had sworn that Mr. Naylor assaiii.,ecl
her, and threatened to do her bodily harm, and uprr
the information being produced, it appeared that she
had charged him with assaulting her in Mary-la-
Bonne,' with an umbrella, and that, at-the same, " ;-te
had threatened to cut her down and destroy her with
a pistol." Upon reading the indictment, inNterel of •
the word—" same," it was stated as if the informa.
tion had been "at the same time." The ind:c;rnent
Charged the perjured articles of the peace to
be set out, according to their effect, but yet hii Lard-
ship
thought that they should have set out -the
truly, although the word "same" might have Won
explained by an inuendo, as meaning " sane time:"
The Defendant was therefore acquitted.

Hi aKS' S HALL.
' Yesterday, a man of the name of Ke/so,was brotight• 'lll
up to Hicks's Hall, under a bill of indictment against
him, for assaulting and bating Tapenee, a native 4
Ctaheite, being found by the Grand Jury. Kelso had
been in prison for scme days, no person being willing
to bail him.
Ccunsellor PEAT opened the case for the prosecu-
ticn. He stated in substance, that .Tapeoee Was a
native of the 'society Isles, had come to this country,
, and was supported by Captain A',lsc.n, from whose ' •
protection the Defendant at the Bar seduced him.— i
His object in obtaining porst.tikn of the man's pers-t.
was to obtain subscriptions, and to make the .sarne
advant le of :hewing him about as Pidcock did of
his birds and beasts, his royal lions, and Bengal ttt'ers. - '
Mr. Gilham of Surrey Road, late Surgeon Major
of the Coldstream Guards, a man, well known in the
service of his country, had known this oppressed 17)-
reigncr in Otalreite ; and, under the ill treatment and
restraint of Kelso; Tapeoee had applied to him for
protection. Witlethe feeling of a generous heart, that
protection was given. Mr. Gilham waited on Kelso, 9i
m company with Tapeoee, to obtain his wearing ap- 's;
parel. Kelso not only refused to let the man go, or
to give up his clothes, but collared him, and took up
,a chair, and struck him with it. In the erd, Kelso i
offered to part with Tapeoee, if Mr. Gahm would I
give him 601.
Mr. Gilliam then gave evidence that Tapeoee ap- '
plied to him for protection ; that the man was very
-desirous of obtaining knowledge (which Kelso pre-
1 fessed to teach him,,but he really taught him nothing) ;
and Mr. G. intended to send him to Mr. Lancaster's
.school. He substantiated the charge of assault.
. Mr. Justice MAINWARING addressed the Jury, who
instantly gave a verdict of guilty against Kelso.
Mr. Justice MAIti*ARING then addressed Kelso 2in
a very pointed and sensible admoniti 1,, on the dis-
grace the consequences of his passionate cor.duct had
brought on himself, and particularly laid an injunc-
tion on him, by no means in future to attempt to re.
tain the person of Tapeoee, as he had no sight in this
land of liberty to do so..
. Kelso promised obedience to this injunction, was
fined ar-i discharged, having been in prison above a
week.

Mr. Justice Marewaetwo, seeing Mr. Lancastei in
Contt, asked him some interesting questions respect-
ing Tapeoee •, to which Mr. L. replied-04This,adorn
Otahetien is likely to become an object of publi bet
nevolence, and is how under the hospitable ro• f and
protection of Mr. Gilhaml Surgeon, Blac. foiket
Road, and has the benefit of instruction:at Mr. La.►;.
caster's school."

. •
On Wednesday, her MAJETY and the.Pnmcasszs, .
attended by Lady W.:NESTER, fun:Aired the Earl a -d
Countess of MACCLESFIELD with their company at din:
ner at Sherborne Castle. Her MAJESTY and the Yaw:.
CESSES left Windsor Castle at half-past nine o'clock, in
two carriages and four. A change of horses *a.. prr
..
vided at Great Marlow, where the Royal Persona es
arrived at 11 o'clock ; from whence they proceoled
immediately, and were met on the road by a party
of the Earl of MACCLESFIELD'S regiment. On ewer-
ing the park, they were met by a number of Honer,
who strewed flowers before them to the Castle. On
their entering the Castle, a band struck up " G d
save the King," and played on the lawn while her
MAJESTY and the PRINCESSES were at dinner. Her
MAJESTY and the PRINCESSES appeared highly gra&
fled with the Castle, which is delightfully skit rounded
with water. The Royal Party set off on their return
at five o'clock, and were escrrted back, as far as
Stoke Church, by Lord MALTLILSFIELD'S corps: They
arrived at Windsor Castle at hall•-past eight o'clock.
On Wednesday night, or early on Thursday nu ra.-
ing, the parish church of St. Michael, Wood. treet,
, Cheapside, was broken into, and robbed of the Com-
munion plate, surplices, books, &c. to a large amount,
r•
by thieves at present unknown. •
We observe with pleasure that the Microcosm of
London, by ACKERMAN, so far maintains its claim to
public approbation, as to admit the price being raised
after the Ist of August next, 50 per cent to non•sub-
scribers. We were always of opinion the price was
inadequate to its merit. The exertions of the Pro-
prietor has, at least, kept pace with the public ap:.
probation. In some instances they have gone be:
yond it, not only in the Plates, but the inieresting
Letter-press of the latter Numbers, we need only re-
fer to the account of the College of Physicians, ars4
the legal hi:aory of the Constitution, which precedes
the account of the House of Comm ms aid Courts 0
Law, to support us in this assertion. • ..,
FOURTH DAY OF DRAWING —No. 2609, a Prizi
of Twenty Thousand Pounds, was sold by Rio/Antal
son, Goont.uca, and Co. in two Quarters and eight
Sixteenth Shares ;' who also sAd the firsi dr tmia
Prize of Twenty Thousand Pounds, in the present
State Lottery, No. 10,197. in a kiarter, an Eig:lth,
and ten Sixteenth Shares. Uaktrawn Tickets and •
vr.
Shares :ontinue on Sale at th tir Old Offices, --.
Buildings, Cornhill, and Char ng Cross.
~ . -
-Pk, ..

441

i

- _1

I

JOl74iT STOOK vomPAArr4s.

COURT OF COMMON PLtAS, JULY 13.

NorlDni V. WILLIAMSON.
This was an action of assumpsit for work and la-
bour done The plaintiff, who is a carpenter, had
been employed to do some work in the way of his
business, with a view to the erection of an extensive
subscription brewery, and endeavoured to recover the
sum of 9gl. fnim.the defendant, as the person who
h.O engaged him, and was liable for the amount of
his bill.. 'The defendant pleaded non-arrumluit.
The question was,, whether the defendant, a pub-
lican, ot..a man of the name of Pew, who was stated
to be at present in gaol, was responsible to the
plaintiff I
. Se:jean Comm.; for the Plaintiff, called threel
Mr
witnesses, two persons who had been in the Plaintiff'S
service at the time, and a surveyor. Their testimony
went to shew, that Williamson; the 'Defendant, was
present at the comtnencement of the-work, and had,
gir.l.n directions that would amount in law to an im-
plied undertaking.
The labourers stated, that at the Kling of theirst
post,- liquothad been called:-for, Williamson being
present, And that they-had-drank iuccess to the De-
fendant's brew-house or tap-roam* they did-not-recol-
lect which.
Mr. Serjeant Dm; for-the Defendant, called this
AO impudent and scandalous action. The teal. ere-
ditor;.to whom the-Plaintiff, at first lopked- for
meat, yeas was one Pew, who had attempted to form one
of the joint-stock companies, of which so much had
been heard previous to a Ip.te decision in the,Court
of
King's Bench. Pew berng insolvent, the Plaintiff
had turned round upon the Defendant, whom he
knew had neverbecome a subscriber tothis projected
brewery, and only encouraged it in the hopes of hav-
ing the tap when the work was, finished, and in the
mean time of selling beer to the labourers. He then
called a Mr. Smith, the tenant of the ground, on
which the building was to be erected, who deposed,
that he heard the Plaintiff say, that he looked to Mr.
Pew for parnent, and a Mr. Twydale, a partner of
the Plaintiff at the time, who proved that they had
always considered Mr. Pew alone as Fable, and there.
fore on the settlement of their accounts held this as a
bad debt--,Plaintiff nonsuited.

COVRT.OF SESSION IN SCOttAND.
SAIMOS OF PRRTis v. JOHN GLOMS AND MUM% 'IL
A case of great importance to• the community has
lately been decided in the Court of Session.
In the year 1800, a number of individuals in the
town ..Md neighbourhood of Perth formed the design "
of baking their own bread. Asvery few of them had
accommodation for baking in their own houses, they
formed themselves into a society, purchased ground in
the neighbourhood of Perth, and out of the jurisdic-
tion of the town, and erected thereon the necessary
buildings for the baking of bread: They purchased
the materials, and hired servants for manufacturing
the bread ; and this bread, when manufactured, was ,
distributed among the members of the society, some
of whom residad within and some without the town

of Perth.
This society was found to answer so well the purr
pose for which it was designed, that a second so-
ciety, of a similar nature, was lately instituted.—
Tbe bread which was baked by these societies was
allowed to be equal to any manufactured by the
bakers, and was got by the members at a com-
paratively cheap rate. In evidence of this, it need
only be mentioned, that while the price at present
charged by tier bakers for the quartern loaf of
wheaten bread is 121 d. and of household bread 9itbl
the members of the societies are supplied with the first
at Bd. and with the second at 71. the loaf.
It will not appear surprisieg that these societies
should not have been very much liked by the bakers.
They suffered the first one, however, to exist for four
Tears' without any challenge ; but at last they
thought fit to complain of it as encloaching on their
exclusive privileges. We have not room to detail the
different pleas urged by the leekers ;it is sufficient to
observe, that they admitted that each inhabitant of
the burgh might bake his own bread separately; but
they contended, that a number of persons were not en.
titled to associate and club together for this purpose.
It was said that such an association wasn mere de-
vice to evade their privileges, and if sanctioned might
end in the annihilation of all the corporations of Scot-
land. The bakers, accordingly, presented a petition
so the Sheriff of Perthshire, wherein they craved his
Lordship to discharge the members of the societies
" from baking bread for the use of themselves." As
the Sheriff (the present Lord Advocate) considered
the question to be of very great importance, he allow-
ed a proof to the parties, and afterwards (Sept. 10,
1806) on considering the proof and whole process,
be dismissed the action, and assoilzied the defenders.
The bakers brought this interlocutor of the Sheriffun-
der the review of the Court of Session by advocation,
and at the same time they raised a summons of declara-
tor for having it found and declared that the societies
in questionewere illegal. These processes of advoca.
Lion and declarator were conjoined, and the Lord
Ordinary appointed the case to be stated in mutual
memorials. On advising these memorials, his Lord-
ship (May 30, 1807) pronounced an interlocutor, dis-
missing the two actions, and assoilzieing the defen-
ders. The bakers having thus lost their cause both
before the Sheriff and Lord Ordinary, applied, by
petition, to the whole Lords, and their petition was
appointed to be answered. On advising the petition
d answers, the Court, by a great majority (May 19,
Os), refused the desire of the•petition. A second
tition was presented by the bakers, and, as the
Curt considered the case to be of great importance in
point of precedents and therefOre worthy of mature
consideration, they appointed the petition to be an-
swered. Answers were accordingly put in to the
petition, and the case came-again to be considdred by
the Court on Tuesday' last (July 5,,,) when the whole
fifteen Judges were present. A considerable time was
spent in deliberating on the question, and some dine..
one of opinion prevailed on the Bench ; but it cattied;
by-a great majority, to refuse the petition. So that it
is now finally settled,, by a solemn judgment of the
Supreme Court of thi% tountry, that the inhabitants
of royal burghs are entitled to bake'read for heir
awn consumption either separately in isompy.