Star.
London, England, 1822-02-19 00:00:00

Ai.-
NAVY ES74IM7LTES.
...
An Estimate of tho Clone of Wages, Victuals, Wear .0101
Tear, and Ordnanceofbr 2 ,000 mkn. incloding 8,000 Royal Ni*
fines, to save in, Mai 's Fledt, for thirteen lunar maths,
hbi
commencing the Ist day unary, 10!!:
For the Wages of 21,000 men, at AIL Es. Id a man
amonth - - - - - -
For the Victuals for the said men, at ,21. 19s. a
man a month

For the Wear and Tear of the Ships in which the
said men are to serve, at Al. Is. a man a month
For the Ordnance for the Sea Service, at 7s. a
man a month - -

.

£1,781,525
INTIMATE 01 TIM IXPENSZS FOR THE TEAR 1822•
For the Ship's in the King's Yards - - ,C550,57$
?or the Ships building in the East bidles - 60,000
Towards Improvements in the Yards, ace. ... 154,200
----

Total for the Navy

For the Victualling Department
For the Transport Department

Grand Total

£764,77$
065000
231,000

A 1,260,778

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

MOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 18.
Lord Survieto took the oaths and his seat.
Mr. Bur, from the Bank of England, presented Copies of
the Applications made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
the First Lord of the Treasury to the Bank for Advances to
Government.—Laid on the table.

APPEALS.
JEAN Iltrurmarr, residing in Lymitigton (in forma r auperie,
Appellant—JAMES Atrium, Stocking-maker in Wallacetown,

Respondent.
This was an appeal from the Jury Court of Scotland.—Tt ap-
pears that the appellant having, in January, 1813, been delivered
of anillegitimate male child, of which she alleged the respondent
was the father, brought an action against him before the Justices
of the Peace for the County of Ayr, for its maintenance until it
should arrive at the age of fourteen years, together with the
costs of suit. The respondent having denied being the father of
the child, the appellant removed the cause into the Court of
Session, where the Lord Ordinary objected to the admissibility
of the appellant as a witness—a decision which was afterwards
confirmed by the whole Court, from which this appeal was
brought, and the judgment complained of affirmed.
Wir.i.iam,isstes, Gent. one of the Attornies of his Majesty's
Court of King's Bench, Plaintiff in Error, r. BENJAMIN Row-

LEY, Defendant in Error.
This was a Writ of Error btought from the Court of .Exche-
quer Chamber in England ; axd, upon a motion of Mr. ADAM,
as Counsel for the defendant in error (no Counsel appearing for
the plaintiff in error), the judgment of the Court of Exchequer
Chamber (affirming a judgment of the Court of King's Bench)
was affirmed, with £136 costs.

Toe IiFFNEIFNTATIVES OF THE LATE SIS HENRY VANE TEMPEST,
Appellants; Brims axe °Turas. Respondents.
This was a writ of error front the Court of Exchequer Cham-
ber in Ireland, affirming a judgment of the Court of King's
Basch there, by which certain large estates in the County of
Antrim had been decried to the defendants in error, as having
right under a bond with warrant of attorney for confessing judg-
n.c:n in the penal sum of £7445. es. 11d. granted by Randall
Earl of Antrim to Messrs. Burton and Harrison, Bankers in
Dublin ; on which judgment was entered in the Court of King's
Ibn.:11 in Iceland, in ililary Term, 1; IS. The several estates
of Earl Randall having come to be vested in his co-heiresses,
A:in Catherine Countess of Antrim and Lady Charlotte Ker,
or in Sir henry Vane Tempest and Lord Mark Ker, their hus-
bands (plaintiffs in error). the defendants in error in Hilary
Tuns, 1806, issued a Kin :Ness ',reviving the judgment of 1718)
against the plaintiffs in error and the tenants of the estates.—
The plaintiffs in error pleaded payment to the scirefuci is, on
which issue was joined. They afterwards, by permiss:on of the
Court, pleaded nun-resat in Earl Randall, the Conusor of the
original judgment, upon which, plea also issue was joined ; and
both issues came to be tried, in Easter Term, 1809, at the Ilar
of the goon of King's Bench in Ireland, when a verdict was
found for the defendants in error. A bill of exceptions to the
opi lions and directions of the Court upon the trial, respecting
certain matters offered in evidence, was tendered by the plaintiffs
In error; but these having been disallowed, judgment was given
for the defendants. The plaintiffs thereupon hrouziit their writ
grrror in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, where the judo-
sent of the court of King's Bench having been affirmed, they
brought the present writ of error returnable in Parliament.
On the lath iest. the cause came on to be argued,when, upon
b-aring Mr. ll.ssi for the plaintiffs in error, the Judge-, gave an
ssr.animous opieiun that there was error in the record ; and, this
d..y, upon the motjon of Lord !trouser s LK, it was ordered, that
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber and judgment
e the Court of King's lknch be reversed ; and that the Court
of Brach do issue a venire de nano.