Star.
London, England, 1813-02-20 00:00:00

DUBLIN. FEBRUARY Id.

We have received information of a most melan-
choly occurrence on the coast of Donegal, by which
a number of lives have been lost. For some time
past a very abundant take of excellent herrings, had
continued to reward the industry and enterprize of
the fishermen on the Oast. in and contiguous to the
harbour of Killybeggs. On Friday night last, a fleet
of boats, induced by the prospect of greAter success,
having ventured too far from the shore in search of
fish, encountered on their return a strong gale, when
many of those most deeply laden, unhappily perish-
ed, with all their crews, amounting to between 40
and 50 persons. This most unfortunate event has
plunged an entire county in the deepest distress,
and in its consequences, will involve a number of
poor families in utter rain.

One of the effects of the late high south western
gales has been the deslruction of the southern spire of
the remains of Reculver Church, on the coast of Kent.

The gale of Thursday blew down Old Gorleston
steeple, at North Yarmouth, which has weathered
many a storm, and been a land-mark for seamen for
centuries past in corning into Yarmouth Roads. Its
height was computed to be 33 yards.

LAW INTELLIGENC.R_

ADMIRALTY PRIZE COURT, DOCTORS COMMONS

rLBRUARY 19.
THE HOPE AND OTHERS.

This was the ease of the Hope, and three other
American vessels, captured in December last, in the
prosecution of a voyage to Spain and Portugal, with
cargoes of provisions. A claim was given by the
owners, on the ground of the vessels being exonerated
from the character of hostility, and protected from
condemnation, by having on board letters from Mr.
Allen, the British Consul at New York, and Admiral
Sawyer, Commander on that station, purpottipg to
licence them for the voyage, and intended as a safe-
guard and protection to them throughout it. A
va-
riety of objections were urged at great length by the
captcir's Counsel, to the nature and extent of the pro-
tection, deducible from these documents ;—and the
cases stood for the deeisron of the Court this day,
upon the validity of those objections.
Sir WILLIAM Scott observed, it was difficult to
give any precise designation to the letters which, it
was contended, furnished the protection in these cases;
a great part of the previous correspondence being
lett out of sight, the Court was left to guess at the
contents ; it was therefore only fair to infer, that it
contained a proposition to Admiral Sawyer, that the
business should take the course it since had. It was
perfectly clear, that there must have been such a pro-
position, from the evidence of the subsequent facts.
'file papers could not, abstractedly, be considered as

-

afforaing nay priteetron ; thoie who gave them not
being invested with a competent authority to give them
that effect. Exemptions from the consequences Of hos-
tility, are amongst the highest acts of power; they are
the acts of the Sovereign alone,and must flow direetly
from him, or those in official situations tinder him.--
It was not to be contended, that Mr. Allen, the Vice:
Consul, was clothed with this authority in the present
case ; and an Admiral, though he may have conoi-
derable power with respect to the forces under him;
cannot grant an exemption of this nature beyond the
' limits of his own command.. The only question,
therefore, was, whether there has not sinte been an
Act of the State, ratifying those acts which the law
calls spurious; whether, in fact, the Government has
not given them an authority they did it( t before pos-
sessl It appears, that Mr. Foster had been in the
habit of granting licenses of this sort ever since the
Order of the British Government of October 13,1812;
and that he had been authorised, or recognised, in so
doing, by that Order. Thus the policy of the measure,
and the mode of adopting it, had both been sanc-
tioned by the British Government; when Mr. Foster
retired from the country, and the transaction then as
sumed the present shape, certainly an awkward one
and not entirely trusted tp by the Americans themselves.
The direct course, however, cannot always be adopt-
ed—difficulties *ill occur to prevent it; and the Court
saw no reason to presume, that under the difficulties
which existed in the present cases, the course adopted
by Mr. Allen and Admiral Sawyer might not be the
t best. It had been said, that Admiral Satvyer might
have granted them, personally, and sent them to
America by way of Halifax ; but there may not, per-
haps, have been any safe and direct communication.
Mr. Allen appears to have acted with every degree
of fairness, in the four instances which gave rise to the
present question; and as the measure is, in substance,
precisely the same as that resorted to by Mr. Foster,
varying only in its form, that informality could nbt
be a fatal objection to the principle of the measure it-
self, as recognized by the Order of the 26th of Qcr.
1812. Taking the whole of the sates therefore toge-
ther, he was of opinion that they clearly came within
the meaning of the Orders In Council. He would
ask, if the documents produced were not of the na-
ture of certificates and passports, what were they ?
mere nullities; and the Order would be inoperative.
He had therefore no hesitation in decreeing restitu-
tion of the ships and cargoes ; but as the captors were
justified in their detention under all the circumstances,
it must be subject to the payment of their expenses.
COURT or KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 18.

DELAWNY V. STUBBS.
Mr. PARK stated, that this action was brought by
plaintiff, a silversmith, against defendants, coach-
makers, as acceptors of a bill of exchange. In sup-
port of his case, he called the following witnesses:
Kent swore that the acceptance was the hand-
wrivng of one of the defendants.
Quarterly, clerk to plaintiff, swore that he saw Mr.
Burton indorse the bill, who lived, at that tittle, at
No. 3, Southampton-row ; that be was a chance cus-
tomer, and the witness refused to trust him, on ac-
count of the bill, until he had inquired whether the
hill was Stubbs's. That Burton left the bill, the in-
quiry was made, and witness trusted Burton to the
amount of the bill. That two or three days after,
Burton bought a brooch, for which he did not pay ;
and on calling at Southampton-row, he was told that
Burton was gone, and desired to look after his money.
He stated that the bill was not indorsed when sent to
Stubbs's.

Dikes swore that he knew Stubbs, jun. by sight ;
that he took the bill to defendants, asked, was it their
acceptance ? was answered, that it was ; and that it
would be paid. He never saw Burton before this day.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated, that he had a de-
cisive answer to this action, and he hoped that it
would afford a lesson to all persons to avoid that ob-
noel ousbrood, the advertising money-lenders. The
defendants were coach-makers ; the father was from
home attending to his business, and left the c( nduct
of the business to his son, a very yoting man, who,
finding some difficulty in money matters, applied to
an anonymous money-lender. In consequence of his
application a person called at his counting-house and
left a note, stating that Mr. Burton had waited upon
Mr. Stubbs, as to the loan of 8200 or 8300, and
would be happy to see him at No. 3, Southampton-
buildings. The Solicitor-General advised all persons
when they found themselves in difficulties, to apply
to their creditors, and British creditors were never
kri,a4m to oppress the honest when unfortunate. But
if application be, made to a money-lender, ruin,
although it may be postponed, is ineritable. He
then stated that Stubbs, as might be expected, was
punctual to the appointment with the money lender,
who prevailed on him to accept two bills of 8100
each. The moneylender of course took his bills to
a silversmith, who would sell him goods at an exor-
bitant price, knowing that the goods would be in-
stantly taken to the next pawn-broker. For his trou-
ble, Mr. Burton modestly charged X2O. On his ar-
rival, the elder Mr. Stubbs was arrested for the
amount of one of those acceptances; he made every
enquiry as to Mr. Burton, but he was not to be
found—on enquiry, he heard that the other bill
was in the hands of a Mr. Manning, and that Mr.
Manning was in the King's Bench prison. On
Mr. Stubbs, junior, going to that prison, he was
astonished to find that Mr. Manning and Mr. Burton
was one and the same person. On the subject of one
of those bills Manning had been brought as a witness'
in custody of the tipstaff, who, just before the trial,
implored the Solicitor-General to have it put off, as
Manning had, on tipstaff turning his back, made his
escape in company with a Jew attorney. The tipstaff
made every etertion to discover Manning, but for
months was unsuccessful. At length, having learned
that some person had swindled the people tot. Ply-
mouth to the amount of several thi•usand9, it mew-
red to him that this must be Manning ; he was cor-
rect, and took him into custody. The Solicitor-
General stated that he would call him.% that he had
two good defences, the one usury, the other forgery.
He • hoped he would not be considered as wasting
their time in opening at rather more length than
usual such an atrocious case, since it gave a warning
to the unfortunate not to apply to those scourges,l
Advertising Money-lenders. He then called Win-
ning, who objected to answer any questions, as tend-
ing to criminate himself, and appealed to his Lord-
ship ; who said, he would take care that he should
not be asked such questions as would tend to cr mi.
sate then said, he lived, in March,

M

One, at some eaa in the New Road, it might b
Southampton-phce. [The note addressed to Stubbs,
jun. in the name of Burton, was put him his hands.]
He said he could not swear as to the hand-writing—
would•not swear that it was his hanJ.writing.
Lord ELLENBOIIOUGH thought that this examination
tended to criminate witness, and that it was unimpor-
tant, as defendants would be liable to plaintiff as ac-
ceptors of the bill, although drawn in a false name.
The SOLICITOR GliNkitAL said. that the examina.
tion went merely to the usury, and it was not the bill
that was in question.
.Manning again said, he could not sirear to the
writing ; he could not tell whose hand.writing it was.
It might probably be his, he could not say it was not.
Lord ELLENBOROUOII said, he did not think the
witness would give way ; if it were from impedes.
liin of memory, his memory might be helped, bat
that was not the case of this witness.
Manning Swore, that he saw Stubbs, jun. at his
lodgings, he believed, in consequence of a note. He
believed the meeting was about money transactions :
he had nb belief upon it : he could not swear as to his
own hand-writing.
Lord ELLIENIOROUGII said, they were in progress
to destroy the credit of their witness, and appeared
likely to destroy it entirely ; and asked,: what service
that could be of to them

The Somerroa.GEN MAL objected to that principle,
when carried to its full extent, that there was no man
of the character of the present witness, who wodld not
think himself happy to get rid of giving his testimony'
by doing some act to render himself infamous. He
then then the case of Bensted, who placed a boy so
stupid as scarcely to deserve the name of human be.
kg, with a gun in his hand, and desired him, when a
person of the name of Briggs came to feed his cow,
to pull the trigger, which he did, and killed Briggs.
Lord Kenyon first tried the boy, respited the judg-
ment, and got him a pardon ; and Bensted was tried,
convicted, and executed, on the evidence of the boy
that was a stronger case than the present. That the
rule would tend to defeat the ends of justice, and that
the testimony ought to go to the Jury.
Lord ELLENBUROUGIi stated, that he was minus.
derstood ; that lie did not mean to say that the wit.
ness was incompetent, but that every Judge, when a
witness has appeared not to regard the sanction of aft
oath, and has sworn what was false, had charged the
Jury not to attend to such a witness ; that such a
case had occurred before him, and he had left the
evidence to the Jury. stating, that as he bad sworn
what was manifestly false, he was not to be believed.
The case of an accomplice was very different; and
even an accoMplice, without some evidence to sup.
port him, was not credited. That it was for the ift:
term of mankind that such a witness should not be
believed when the interest of others was concerned.
Manning did not recollect making a memorandum
when Subbs was present. He believed it to be a copy
of a memorandum made by StObbs. He believed it
to be in his hand-writing; the upper part he believed
to be in his hand-writing, the under part not.
Mr. PARER then objected, that by the statute of
Ann, he Was liable to imprisonment for taking more
than 2 per cent. for procuring money, but this ohjea•
tion was overruled, as he had not received any money.
Manning then objected, that there was a criminal
prosecution against him for uttering bills, knowing
them to be forged I and again appealed to his Lords
ship, who laid, that however criminal a man Might
appear to be, it was his duty to protect him from
criminating himself, and 44 I think it has a tendency
to criminate him."
Quarterly was then called, and swore, that the
witness was the person who indorsed the bill in the
name of Burton, who directed him to call at South-
ampton-place, and to whom he sold the brooch.'
Lord ELLENISOROUGH told the Jury, that he and
they were ignorant of what was underneath, and
from the evidence they mstat find for the plaintiff.
Verdict fur plaintiff.
The Sotacrroa•GersanaL then moved, that Man-
ning might be committed on a charge of forgery, and
that the note might be impounded.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH declared, that, except in ex.
creme cases, he should not commit on an examina.
tion i he knew, that several excellent Judges, not
noiv alive, had refused to do it in all cases, but he did .
not say that he would carry it so far. The note might
certainly be impounded.
FEBRUARY 19.—OATItS V. BRYANT.

This was an action on a bill of eschangey agaird
the acceptor. The defendant kept as inn at Barna,
the bill was drawn by his son, for IMO, and accep4
ted by himself. The plaintiff had discounted the
bill through the medium of one Stevenson, who pro:
fessed himself a bill broker, and the son, who drew
the bill, stated, that, being distressed for mooey, he
discounted the bill at two months for seven per cent.
with Stevenson.

To contradict this statement, Stevenson was
who proved that no more than the legit discount Wll
paid, with 2' per cent. for his commission; but upon
a cross-examination by the Solicitor-Genend, he
varied in his evidence, and coughing much, the Aoli-
citor playfully offered him some lozenges, to wilich
he said, u Sir, you are a very good doctor."..z." Yes,"
replied the Solicitor, I have given you a sweating !"
61 You have, indeed, Sir," said he, but I wee once
your saddler, and you behaved very well to me then.'°
66 Did I?" replied Mr. Solicitor General, 66 you give
me a good character, I wish I could return the come
pliment I"—After his examination was closed, the
Jury did not credit him, but found a verdict for the
Defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY 19.
HOWARD Q. YOUNO.

In this case the plaintiff, formerly First Mate of
the Lord Eldon East Indianan, sought damages fc-t•
an assault and imprisonment by the dcienilaat, who
was his Captain. The cause of complaint was not
justified. It appeared to have been the result of tin,
just pique on the part of the defendant, and t'aelury
gave a verdict for £3OO damages.

Tte account of the ex :cution of Editb Aforrery,
murder at Hanklow, in Cheshire, wh has apps tied
in the new %papers, 1, nnfohnued—:lie u.th.ipi..) ,J.pnc
being not yet considered in a fit state to unners; the
awl ul sentence of the law.

The report of the death of JOFL 8anc0..., on C-1
26th of December, k re.eated in so n any Ow e-,
that we suspect th Edi or mu.t have b a
misinformed . , -aJe him to piss througa
Stutgard on the 1; • y.

r......r