Star.
London, England, 1815-11-25 00:00:00

tat AAA,T.

Detachments of the 21st, 71st, 79th, and 91st Re-
giments, from the barracks of Glasgow, Stirling, and
Perth, have arrived in Edinburgh to embark at Leith,
to join their respective corps on the Continent.
The ter:mining part cif the Veteran Battalion is ar-
rived at Chelmsford, from Heligoland..
The West Kent Militia moved from Ferady on
Monday ae'nnight for Dublin.
Tuesday last 150 recruits belonging M the West
Kent Militia, marched from Maidstone to join their
regiment at üblin.
The West Essex regiment of Militia, just arrived
in England, completed the full to m of two years in
Ireland, agreeable to the Interchange Act for that
purpose.
Detachments of ehe 6th and 39th Foot arrived in
Canterbury on Wednesday last, on their route forl
Ramsgate to embark, but in consequence of the:em•l
barkatioa being suspended, have been subsequently
orderedtto halt at Canterbury.
Thursday a detachment of the 57th also reached
Canterbury, and proceeded yesterday to Dover.

L dff INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER t 4.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF HIS ROYALIIIGIINESs THE PRINCE
01 WALES, DUKE OF CORNWALL'''. CERTAIN INHABI-
TANTS OF TIM DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
This was a motion.for an injunction to restrain cer-
tain inhabitant; of Cornwall from digging or carrying
off stones, &c. in or from the common of Kingston-
sown, in that county. Mr. BeLL, who made the
motion, said, that he held in his hand the brief of his
Royal Highness's Attorney-General. and that he was
authorised to state that the consent of the opposite
party had been obtained, to the hearing of that law
officer, in support of the motion that he now brought
forward in his name.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he might be heard
on Monday, but it- must be understood that it was
only by consent that he could be heard in that cha-
ratter either in the Court of Exchequer or Chancery.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 24.
THE KING v. STEPHEN EATON.

The Defendant wass found guilty at the last Assizes
at Lincoln of an assault and battery upon the Rev.
Henry Dolton. The facts of the case appeared from
the report and affidavits to be the following :—The
Defendant is a Banker at Stamford, in partnership
with a Gentleman of the name of Johnson ; in July
last a heavy run upon them and upon two other
bankers in the same town took place, which occasion-
ed the failure of the two latter. On the sth of July
Mr. Bolton, being at"the news-room of Stamford, in
company with a Physician and a Mr. Thompson, an
Attorney; (according to the oath of the latter) used
these or siatilar expressions—is Have you heard of
the trick Eaton played to keep up the credit of his
bank t---when people came into the shop, he took
Care to have some piles of one and two-pound notes
upon the counter, with a 41150 note on the top, to
make people believe that they were £5O notes all the
I way down." This remark reached the defendant's
ears through Mr. Thompson, and the next day Mr.
I Bolton called to explain what he had said, but did
not see Mr. 'Eaton.. Soon afterwards Mt. Bolton
west tourtwatroing place, and did not retursvioe a
month or five weeks, when he met the defendant in
the market place, who immediately accosted him,
saying, that it he did not immediately retract the ex-
pressions which bad been reported to him, he would
pull him (the prosecutor) by the nose. Mr. Bolton
replied, that he had said nothing that be need be
ashamed qf, on which the defendant called him a
liar. The prosecutor retorted by reiterating the ex-
pression as applied to the defendant, who immedi-
ately stepped up to him, took him by the collar, tore
off the flap of his coat, and threw it in his face.—
The prosecutor was at this time on horseback ; the
defendant on foot.
The defend ant being new brought up for judg.
twit, a great number of affidavits were put in on
his behalf. restating the expressions used by the pro-
*cutor as to the trick of Mr. Eaton, and denying
That the defendant had done more than take hold of
the tap of Mr. Bolton's coat, and that by the start-
ing.ot his horse it was torn off. A great number of
testimonials were from the most respectable persons,
of Stamford and its neighbourhood, as to the gentle.'
manly and peaceable character of the defendant.
The Arrottoze-Ganzum, addressed the Court in
I mitigation of punishment. observing upon the pects.,
liar provocation given by the prosecutor, at the ma
ttient.,,whes the whole county had .been alarmed by
the failure olitwo banks at Stamford, and when the
solvency of die house of the defendant Ind his part.
ner was put to hazard. This was one of *those cases
which karcely admitted a question, whether a pet-1,
son would rather be in the situation of prosecutor or
defendant, even in expectation of sentencet
Mr. Serjeant VAUGNIN addressed the Court on the
other side. •
The sentence of the Court was, that the defendant
should pay a fine of £lO, and be bound to keep the
peace in his own recognizance of £lOO.
nix WING v. IL 1104DITIN.
The defendant had been found guilty betiire Lord
Ellenborough of an assault upon a man named Burt.
He was jointly convicted with a Mr. Barrow, an at-
torney, upon which the judgment was not prayed,
which Mr. Edward Holditch was now brought up,
to receive. The defendant, in partnership with his
brother, carried on business in Long-acre, as coach-I
builders. In the course of business some disputes
arose which were carried to extremities, the defen-
dant commencing a suit in Chancel y against his bro-
ther, John Holditch, by his attoriley, Mr. Barrow.
In the commencement of this proceeding, some pro-
cess was to be served upon Mr. John Holditch, which
produced a violent altercation, and was the origin of
the assault in question upon the servant of Mr. John
Holditch.
Mr. PARK regretted that he was compelled to pray
the judgment of the Court in a case like the present;
but it was the only mode lett of preserving the peace,
so much was the defendant exasperated against his
brother.

The ATTORNEY-GANIZAL lamented that the re-'
commendation of Lord Ellenborough to refer the
matters in difference had been unavailing ; for his
client (the geleadiani) he could say nothing ; the
Court must deal with him as it pleased.
The defendant was about to put in an affidavit,
which Mr. P 41114 eccommended him to withhold, at

it ooittained forthei iiiittei of aggiziation. TLe 4e-
fendait reluctantlt complied. on anderstindin* that
other Wise time would be asked to Answer its contents.

Lord ELmestisottoubit and the rest of the &Ott
-again suggested an arbitration, and in the hope that
WoUld be effected, Mr. PARK offered to postpoofr
judgthent until next term, the defendant entering into
his own recognizance to keep the peace.
Lord EueNtsououou WAS glad !hat this prop s:1
had been made, and he hoped it. would be met weir•
some spirit of Conciliation by the delend.mr. had
not the prosecutor consented to such a p -stpnnement,
the Court would have felt it to be its duty to commit
the defendant till next term, that he might have time
coolly to reflect upon the consequences of his per-
tinacity.

The defendant was di►charged on eying his o.
recognizance in £lOOO to keep the re•tce.

'rise 'MC V. SIIETP.I USON.
The ATTORNEY-Gasictim. d, he had now fur-
nished himself with the inforniation w'.ich the Court
required, when be mentioned this case yew refer.
which their Lordships would it:cliff-ft ..eis a vas ce"
nuisance, for keeping a slaughtei-howe in Maui, k-
lane. He had now got the o-der of Coen and the
award of Mr. Montague, from which it appeared
that the Jury had found A V.1..11Ct of guilty agaitet
the defendant, subject to an order of the Court, re.
(erring the matters in questien to Mr Mnot,eete, ,an
eminent Surveyor, for him ol.view the premiirs, the
subject of prosecution, :eel te consider h.,w the de-
fendant might remove, abate, or qualify the nuisance
complaiiied of, so as to carry on her bus'ne.,s,
out injury to the public ; and that the requisite ale ta.
Lions should be made at the defendant's e pence.
Mr. Montague had surveyed the premises, and made
his award, which stated that the defendant v.,as
longer to slaughter oxen or any other cattle on her
premises, except calves, sheep, lambs, and sw:ae, aed
those for her own use. Such were the termsof the 3 V/ .rd.
He, (the Attervey-General) however, held an a's.-
davit in his hand, setting forth that the del-.e.treit„
notwithstanding this award, still continued to Ma-Jes-
ter oxen for • other persons besides herself ; that, as
formerly, oxen were driven dawn the lane to the de-
fendant's slaughter-house, by eight or ten at a time,
and filth and ordure still continued to be wheeled out
as formerly ; and, in fact, that notwititstandin.; the
verdict, the order of Court, and the award of Mr.
Montague, the nuisance was not at all abated. A
rule for bringing up the defendant for judgment. or a
rule to 'het, cause why art attachment for contempt
should not issue against her, would, perhaps, have the
effect of bringing the defendant to reason.
The Court granted a tole to shew cause why an
attachment should not go against the defendant.
TAYLOR AND OTHERS O. HOMNKSH ASL.
This case came before the Court iu the form of a
demurrer to the replication. The defendant, a tanner
at Canterbury, fell into difficulties, and compounded
with his creditors, who gave him a release, and among
others the plaintiffe (who are bankers), to whom he
was Indebted in the sum of 5e2,148, which, as well
as the amount of the other debts due from the defen-
dant to other persons, was specified in a schedule an-
nexed to the release. The defendant was, however,
co-surety for a man named Harnett, in a bond, which
at the time of • the composition by Homershant with
his creditors. was forfeited : upon this bond the plain-
tifll proceeded against the defendant, and the ques-
tion was, Whether he was exonerated under the re-
lease which had been given by the plaintiffs, and his
other creditors ?

Mr. BARNWALL was in support of the affirmative,
and argued • that the whole ot the release was to be
taken together, in order to ascertain the inrelltiplA
the parties ; if this deed weir so examined, it would •
be found to be a general release of all claims
present and future : the words were, that the parties
released the defendant " from all ciairng, whether at
lave or in equity, which they then had or might here.
after have, or thcir heirs, executors, or administra•
tors," from the date of the instrument. It war, the
case of creditors dealing with the ►state of an insol-
vent debtor, and the release embraced All his present
and future liabilities. In support ot his argument,
he cited two cases, in 1 Slrow, 150, 3 Lev. 273, and
Owen 71, Cro. Elia. 370, in which it had been held
that the general words of a release were not con-
trouledand restrained by the particular recital.

Lord Et.useaortouom.—., ilere is an averment,
which, if it be right in point of 14w, puts an end to
the case. It is averred by the plaintiffs, that this bond
was not included, nor was it meant by them or by
the defendant to be included in the sum which they
released, which in the schedule is specifically set out
to be re 214.8.

Mr. BAIINWALL submitted that the plaintiffs were
not at liberty to explain by averments the- meaning
of the release, which spoke for itself.
Lord ELLIINESROUGH.—Here is an aggregate sum,
being the amount of debt released by the plaintiffs,
and whether this money upon bond were included, is
a fact competent to be averred. The sum of £2144
is released in consideration of .15s. in the pound ; but
for the release of this money due from the defendant
as co-surety on bond, there would be no considera-
tion at all.
Mr. Justice BAYLIY. —Since the decision of Thorpe
v. Thorpe (Ld. Ram. 23:5, Lutw. 249, and Holt.
29), it has been st•ttled that the particular recital will
restrain general antecedent words.

CONSISTORY COURT, NOV. 24.
&EMIL& V. PRICE.
This was a cause of nullity of marriage brought by
E. B. Searle against Sarah his wife, by reason of a for-
mer marriage, the husband of that former marriage
being alleged to be still living. From the evidence, it
appeared, that Mrs. Searle was married to Mr. C.
Price (an Attorney) en the 20th of September, 1783,
at the Church of St. Giles, Cripplegate. They conti.
nued to live together at his Chambers, Bar nal d's Inn ,
and afterwards at Limbeth, and had issue one chit.'.
It further appeared, that the party in the cause was
married to Mr. Searle on the 28th of February, 1811,
at the Church of St. James, Westminster, her former
husband being then and still living. On the part of
the wife. it was submitted that her identity was nut
made out by the evidence produced.
Sir WILLIAM Scarf, after recapitulating the eri.
deuce, and making several remarks on the Datum of
the case, was of opinion that the tact of identity was
not clearly established, but gave the parties an op-
portunity to produce a case in which a second decree
of contron cation had been issued, before it pronounced
its final sentence.