Star.
London, England, 1806-07-03 00:00:00

7 G TAU ELll7pl2 OF 27/.8 STAR.

I•

Sta—lu the prefent critis of affairs, when the whole
the world kerns about to be deluged afrelh with
blood, and our own country will loon experience
material alteration in her military fyllem, permit a
sell-wither to his country, to offer the following
truths to the notice of fume part of fociety, through
the medium of your moll trainable Paper. Let the
following quotation b directed to filch as fancy that
the whole of difciplide crinfitl, in attention to
drefs ; and who deem themfelves worthy to be looked
np to as fcldiers—if, during a youth r f diffipation,
they (hall have extended their daily campaigns from
St. James's to the end of Pall mall :
Horridum militem rife debere ; nen ccelatum
auro et argento, fed ferro et animis ileum : quippe
" illa przdam Venus, quam arms effe : nitentia ante
•• rem, deformia inter fantrintin et volnera. VIRTU;
•• TIM effe militia decus, et onania ills viet”riam fequi-
•• et ditem hollcm, quamvi. patipci is viantiti pm.
•• minor cite." Titi Listi, lit) ix. cap. 40.
June s 7, !TAT NOMINIS UMBRA.
--•••

LM' INTELLIGEA'CE.

COURT OF KING'S DFNCH, JUNE 27.
inlallTS, CURTIS AND CO. v. JANUS DAWSON.
This was an aelion brought by the Plaintiffs, Mars.
Robots, Curtis and Co. barites in the City, to recta•
ver from the Defendant, ?eliding in Craven-build-
ings, Drury-lane, the film of 401. being the amount
of a bill of Exchange, of which the Defendant was
the acceptor. The bill was at twit months, and was
drawn upon the Defendant by a Mr. Huta, who re-
fides at Come di,tance from the metropolis, in favour
of a Mr. Hervey, and made pa) able to him or his
order ; yet fpecially inducted to Robarts and Co. ban-
kers, of London.
Mr. Payne, a Quaker, clerk to the Plaintiffs, af-
firmed that on the :7th April, he carried the bill in
quellion, which had been fpecially indorfed to Meffrs.
Robarts and Co. and left it at the Defendant's houfe
for acceptance. He did not call back for the bill im-
mediately afterwards, and omitted to do fo till Come
time in the month of May, when it was two or three
days pall due, and when he was reminded by another
of the clerks to call for the bill. He-accordingly
went to the Defendant's houfe, and Saw him. On in-
forming him that he had come for the bill which he
had left for acceptance, and which was now pad due,
the Defendant immediately faid—Then it muff have
been paid. The while's anfwered, it had not, and
was fpecially indorfed to Metirs. Robarts, and their
name was not upon it. Therefore, if the Defendant
had paid it, he had done fo improperly. The Defen-
dant then faid, he would look among the bills which
be had paid, drawing out a number which he faid
mete paid bills, and the witnefs obferved the bill in
quellion among them. The Defendant maintained
that he had paid the bill, and offered to thew the wit-
nefs an entry to that effea in his book+. The witnefs
Paid that would not Satisfy him. The Defendant
then faid the woman in the houfe had leen him pay
it. He called her, when the raid the had teen him
pay a bill like it, but could not (wear that that was
the bill. The Defendant then faid that a man in
the houfe had alfo teen him pay it. A man was
called, and faid exaelly what the woman had done.
—The witnefs then took up the bill, and faid
ask was fo clear that the Defendant had not paid the
bill to Robarts and Co. and as it was to doubtful if
he had paid it at all to any perfon, he thould carry it
home to the bankers. This the Defendant refufed to
allow, infilling that the Bill was his property, and
that the witnefs fhould deliver it back to him. The
avitnefs, however, con'inued firm, on which the De-
fendant threatened to fend for a conflable. The man
who had been called into the room feeming as if in-
clined to fecure the door, the witnefs told them they
needed not be afraid that he had any intention of try-
ing to efcape ; he fhould take a chair, and wait peace-
ably till the tondable came, when he tboold accom-
pany them to a Magidrate or any place elfe they chofe.
—The Defendant then began to think better of the
matter, and allowed the witnefs to go away with the
billoafter fird leaving his name and the firm of his
houfe with the Defendant. The bill the witnefs pro.
duced in Court, which he affirmed was the fame bill
he had left at the Defendant's for acceptance ; that
it was his office to have received it back ; that he had
never been in potreffion of it, nor had feen it from the
time he fo left it for acceptance, till the day he found
it in the Defendant's hands ; and that if it had been
paid, hi. name would have been written on the Bill,
as having received payment for Robarts and Co.
'which was the invariable praulice of their houfe, but
which was not here done.
Sir V. Gums, in defence, dwelt on the improbabi-
lity of fo accurate a houfe as that of the Plaintiffs,
and of fo accurate a perfon as the %Vitnefs, rendered
Shifter even by the profeffion to which he belonged,
allowing a bill to remain in the hands of the acceptor
uncalled for fo many days after it had become due.
He argued that there were various ways in which it
might have been taken away from the Defendant
after being accepted, and again brought to him for
payment, and aftually paid by him, without inferring
:any thing improper agaitift the Plaintiffs or the wit-
fiefs ; and contended the fird indorfsment on the bill
being blank, that it was henceforward negotiable in-
to wh hands it might come by (pedal inclorfe•
ment. He was n't able to prove the payment, but
he argued that the faa of the bill being in the hands
of the acceptor fo many days after it had become due,
prefumptive proof of this fall. •
Lord Estotrisommori afked the Lenned Cnunfel
if he had got the b ll book in which the entry of pay-
ment had been made, or whether he meant r tall
the perfons who believed they f.w the bill paid ?
Sir Vtcsray Glans laid, that he could carry the
cafe no /intim, and relied upon the pdfellion of the
hilt after it became due.
Lord ELLSODOIIOI7OII thought the defendant was
bound to have given all the fatislialion in his
power as to his having paid the bill ; but he left it
with the Jury to confider if they believed the Rory
told by the trims:, for the plaintiff ? If they did, be
&Intik there was little doubt in the cafe. It was
insprobabk that the defpndant Should have paid the
/.ill without a receipt, or without Come fort of evi-
dence to that add. That he had fo paid it. it was
• in ditch circumtlanceit incumbent on him to thew.
Th Jury immediately found for the Pigott
Damages Sol.

OLD BAILEr.

YellerJai the Falions cignmenced. when Mars
~an Ryan was c*pi•ally ennviaesi for intoning enun-
te►feit coin, having before been convitied of a like of

knee.
Eioht were conviaed of felony. viz.
j. Rawlins, for flealing nine ounces of tea, the pro.
perry of the Eatt India Company ; Elizabeth Raf
berry, for Ilealing a metal watch, the property of E.
Clark ; Mary Walker, for fleoling a caddy, dec. the
property of S. Williams? Efq. ; T. Britt:tin, for flut-
ing a watch, the property of F. Graile ; Elizabeth
M• Donald, f•rr Ilealing two pint pots, the property of
R Clitter ; and J. Harris, for dealing a quart pot,
the property of J. Stewart.
7. lirffirrt and H. Eafin were indiaed, the Mrmer
for dealing a quantity of flax, the property of his
mailer, Mr. Yates, flax dreffer, in Whitechopel, and
the latter for rctziving the fame, knowing it to have
been flolen. The prifoner Hitfan coiled at the fhop
o•f the other prifoner, and offered the property to
; but a woman whom he knew being in the Ihop,
he returned. Bailin called him hack, Hating, that
all was right, and he portholes the property. The
woman unformed Hilton's matter, and the prifoners
were fecured.—Guilty.
And nine were acquitted.

4
4
IP
1 •