Star.
London, England, 1822-12-03 00:00:00

AROMATIC SrIRIT OF VINICIPAR.

,rIIHIS agreeable perfumed liquor (the original in-
vention of Mt. Henry) which is of well-known efficacy In
relieving Faintness and Head-ache, and in counteracting the
iolfects of over-boated, close, et isifee;e4 alt, solid/mos to be pre-
pared, in the greatest perfection, by Messrs THOS. and WM.
'HENRY, Manufacturing* Chemists, Manchester. It is sold in
London, wheicsale and Mail, by Multi. Davy* sad BLEW,
Perfumer., Cockspur-itreet ; and Retail, price SW Ild. by one
agent sr mote in every principal Town ; both Cannot be genuine,
artless the names of the above prepares* ave ougteved on the
Government stamp, which is filed over the cork of each bet.
'toyer Sponge Doses are sold by Bayley and 'Blew, as usual—.
As above may also be had, sitbesititased by it skull* sealer,
Ilex v's CA LCIYID MAuststa., La bottles at Shit et, Wkil FA"
toppers, at ts, 641-
- •

Villa D. MAY' AWD DV/WILD.
This wastes attics to recover damages for an ex-
(*Wye distress for rent, and -for oppressive conduct
in levying it.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the case to the Jury.
The plaintiff is a patent revolvinrheel and window-
hlind.manafacturer. In 1841, he resided in Brook-
! street, St. George's-fields, whore be carried his
ilbusiness. In August, in that year, he became in-
debted to May, his landlord, for rent. A distress
was taken, and the property felitid 011 the premises
was and Most part of it sod 'by auction. 'rho
Itecond defendant (Duffield) was the broker employed
on the occasion.
rbe grounds of action were, that the distress was
unreasonable and excessive; the defendants having
di strained property exceeding in value 2001: to satisfy
a debt of 201. that tender of 951. for debt and costs

was made by the plaintiff before the goods were sold,
which was refused ; and lastly, that the distress was
made upon the utensils of the plaintiff's trade, there
being other property sufficient to satisfy the debt.
Lloyd, the auctioneer, proved the sale of the goods,
under a distress. There were two sales. At the first
the goods sold amounted to about $3l. .There was,
however, a second sale; after which there did not
remain more than 231.

On his cross-examination, this witness said that at
the first sale Stubbs, the plaintiff, came and bid for
the goods, and was she purchaser of about 2.51. worth
of them; but he did not take them, tad they were
subsequently resold for IW.
Mr. Browning proved that he went to the de-
fendant, Duffield, and asked, if the debt and costs
were paid before the sale, whether he would' return
the goods ? The defendant replied " Certainly."— ,
The debt and,costs were at this time 281. and some'
odd shillings, exclusive of the cost of removal.
Scott proved that he went the day before sale
and made a tender of 251. for debt and costs, but it
was refused by Duffield.
Stanton, a man who had been in the employ
of plaintiff in August, 1821, stated that at that time
he was in possession of two turning lathes, a chuck,'
-.several dies, and other utensils of his trade, which, if
bought new, would cost 1501.
It was also proved that the utensils were in a very
good state. They bad been in use three years.
The plaintiff's daughter proved that there were
several articles of valuable furniture, besides the
utensils of her father's trade. These articles were
I left untouched.

It appeared, however, from the catalogue of sale,
that the lathes, which were said to be so valuable, did
not bring more than 61. and that the plaintiff himself,
at the first sale, had bought them in at 71. 12s.
Mr. Serjeant Psu., for the defendant Duffield,
.contended that there was no evidence to prove any of
the counts of the declaration as against him, except
that of Scott, which spoke of the tender of 251. Even
upon that, however, he maintained the plaintiff was
not entitled to recover ; for it was admitted that the
debt and costs of levy, possession, &c. exclusive of
the expense of the removal of the goods from Brook-
sueet to near Blackftiar's, exceeded 251. If the Jury
believed that the cost of removal would make the
whole arhount to above 251. which was not unrea-
sonable, then the tender of that sum would not be
sufficient. He then commented upon the absense of
all proof that there was sufficient property to cover
the debt, independently of the utensils of the plain-
, tiff's trade.

•
-fora misdemeanour agiiittei4fika parka'. gild Robert
Hewer, whose convfar.irei•ri,re is
tr;•;.. • • if the Sr** of
yesterday.
The'Grand Jury returned a true bill for a capital
felony against three men, charged with attempting
to scuttle a ship at sea'. tut the trial was postponed,
on the application of Mr. Boudoirs, in consequence
of•the absence of necessary witnesses, who had been
detained in a distant port by contrary winds. -.
There being no other business, the Court adjourned.
DECEMBER 2.