Star.
London, England, 1806-06-23 00:00:00

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.

Before dos Hon. Baron GI/MAY and the Hen. T. M. SUTTON.
City of York—July vp, at tke Cattle of York.
Yorketire—Same day, ditto.
Durham—July ap, at the Cal* of Durham.
Town of Newnale upon .Tyne—Augutl 3, at the Guildhall.
Northumteriand—Same day, at ditto.
Cumberland—Auguft 8, at Carlifle.
Weftmorland—Augull z 3, at Appleby.
Laneaoairt—Augoit t 6, at Lantafter.

COURT OF KINCP• BENCH, JUNE 20.
HYMN' V. WIIITINOUSI AND ANOTHIR.

This caufe had been tried at the Lancafter .AlGzes
before Mr. Juftice Roos', and a •erdi@ had gone
againft the Defendants, in the fum of s t tot. Mr.
Serjeant Cockell had obtained a rule to %hew ensile
for a new ,trial, or for a nonfuit on behalf of the
Defendants ; and it was argued, on the fame fide,
by Mr. Serjeant Marfball, Sir Vicar' Gibbs, and
Mr. Littledale ; and for the plaintiffs, by Mars.
Parke, Topping, and Scarlett. The caufe arofe on a
quantity of fugars, a hich were fold by auftion on the
soth of September tall ; on the 2td they were burnt
in the King's warehoufes; and the doubt was. whe-
ther, ander the peculiar circumfiances of this fale, the
property fo deftroyed •efted in the Defendants ? If
the property was transferred to them by the anaian,
then the •erdift was correa ; it it yet remained with
the Plaintiffs, it wasotherwife.

Mr. PAM now Paid, that fome difficulty arofc on
the trial, on account of the religious profeffion of a
Mr. Sill, who was a Quaker, and it was not always
very eafy to ertrad information from perfons of that
perfuafion. From this gentleman, however, on the
prefent occafion little affinanee was wanted ; for the
Learned Counfel relied the validity of this fale on the
cafe of Simon,. Montevois (Sir William Blackflone's
Reports, s. 399) ; and he contended, that the cafe of
Hanfon o. Mayor (6 EaR, 614) did not overturn that
authority. He Paid, that the note of the name of the
Defendants on the catalogue, was a memorandum in
writing, required by the Statute of Frauds (29 Car.
11. Rat. 3.) the auftioneer being an authorized agent.
Next, that the buyer having taken the (ample, had
accepted a part of the thing fold, which, under ano-
ther claufe, brought the contra& within the flatorte.
Sir VICARY Grass relied on the cafe of Stansfield
and Johnfon (Efpinaire t. tot.), tried before Lnrd
Chief Jußice ETRs : alfu on a cafe in Equity, in the
7 Vefey, Init. 345 ;and yet more confidently on the
plain and obvious mearaog of the Statute of Ft auds.
He raid, that the memorandum of the AuCtioneer
was nothing, becaufe he was not an authorized agent
between the parties, and that the delivery of the Imall
fpaarna plo f t chfeMbidulkn ezirhifore
rcherercifiddnDear
rcilatifc
ne
odferliitveery of a
Ranee.
thalit'htewCo uqtut
:I
.1 :lons Ts
arc to,
fief)
ti jzti7dagrrecatiti,:nbroe
fr v
thede)

Statute of Frauds ; t li, Whether what paged between
the parties at the time of the fait and the writing of
the Aullioneer upon the catalneue, was fuch a memo-
randum, as, within the pr ovifiiins of the AO, would
eonflitute a valid tale t and, id, if the buyer could be
Paid to haveaccepted pat t of the goods fold, by taking
a (ample of half a pound of ;he fugars, fo as to com-
plete the contra& ? In the cafe nt Sim •n v. Monte-
vois, in Burrow's and Sir Wm. Black'lone's Reports,
Lord Mansfield had laid down the law, that auttinns
In general were not within the Statute of Frauds ;
but, independently of thefe high authorities, he was of
opinion that they were included within its provilinw,
although a memorandum in writing was abfolutely
necefjary, in order to make the contrad binding
between the parties. It would be dangerous to break
in upon a rule, which would affea all tales among
brokers for their principals. Jt appeared In
Lordfbip that the writing in this cafe was not fuch a
memorandum, as would make the contra& binding,
it was a mere flatement of the Auetioneer, of the
quantity, which could, in no degree, affea the cafe,
and in which no terms were mentioned. As to the
next p _int, whether any part-delivery hadtaken place.
his Lortifitip could not but confider it as a portion
of the goods fold ; it might be a (ample of quality,
but it was delivered as a part of the purchafe. In
the arguments, another point had been likewile made,
whether the fate, under any of the eircumttances.
were valid, as the goods were not in a fituation m be
given to the buyer ? In oppofition to this difficulty,
the Chief Pak: cited the cafe of Tiler v. Robills
(Salkeld t 13), where it was laid down by Lord Hot.r,
that in a cafe, circumflanced like the prefent, there
could be no pretence for aliening that the fate was
incomplete. In confequence of this determination,
the rule frr a new trial made abfolute.

JOYS KING 4. HOPKINS AND WIFS•
In addition to what we have formerly Rated in our
Paper, the following teas were difclofed in this very
fingular cafe. It appeared by the affidavit of Sarah
Perfal Knott, that in the month of Oflober, 1803,
being pregnant, (he applied to Mr. Hough, an atm-
chew, to attend her. The child was born, and was
baptized on the 28th of November, 1603. From the
birth, to the 2tB of Augufl lall, the infant continued
with the mother, but on that day, Peter and Mary
Hopkins leafletted themfelves of the child in the fol-
lowing way t:-Thcy came to her, and defired her to
drink with them, Mary Hopkins taking the child 'in
her arms, with a bottle to procure tome fpirits. She
foon returned, but without the child, which the Paid
was loft. Mrs. Knott being difappointed in her
leach for the infant, went into the country, where
the received a letter, on the 28th of the fame month,
informing her, that the child was with Mr. and Mrs.
Hopkins, at the houfe of Mr. Harman, the father of
the latter. In the beginning of September, Mrs.
Knott came to town, and immediately went to the
houfe of Mr. Harman, when the claimed the child as
her own, and Mary Hopkins inflently delivered it to
her, in the pretence of Mr. and Mrs. Harman, and
Mr. Hopkins. The latter raid, at the fame time—
" I am glad your child is returned to you," and
Mrs., Hopkins laid, " My finer, Mrs. Nicholfon, had
given it out, that the child was her daughter's."
Mr. Gaaaow laid, " The child fu rellored was
Mary Knott's, and the infant of the daughter of Mrs.
Nicholfon is dead. The child remained with the
soother until the moth of January heft, when, about
two o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Hopkins came to
the houfe where Mrs. Knott was, accompanied by
two foldiers, and asked the mother if the had not a
child with her at nurfe ?"
Mr. Jullice LAWIIINCI..-." Does this appear on
the affidavit of Mary Perfal Knott ?"
Mr. GARKOW.-•" Yes, My lord. To that Tier-
don Mrs. Knott had (wetly time to reply in the ne-
gative, when the foldiers broke open the door, and
burg into the room where the child was : Mrs. Hop..
kins directly hurried away with the infant, which has,
to the prefent moment, remained in her power. It is
evident that this is not the child of Mrs. Nicholfon's
daughter, as that had a dark complexion, and dark
hair ; whereas this child is fair, with flaxen hair.—
There is an affidavit of Mr. Hough, which confirms
many of the lies depofed to by Mat y Pedal Knott,
and greatly tends to to ellablilh the identity of the
child."
Lord Ezzviaoitooon - " It teems, that in this
cafe the mother, or rather the perlon called the mo-
ther, for I will not look to leer Tights in that charac-
ter • I fay it appears, that Mrs. Knott had the child
in her poffeffion, undifturbed for a long time i—flie
was then deprived of it by Itratagem ; the regains the
object of her fearch, until the is again difpoll of
it. Then prefuming all in favour of the party fo
quietly having had poffeflion,we think, that in the exer-
cite of our authority, we ought a require, that tl.e
child be put into the fame polfcffion, leaving the tight
to the infant to be decided by the Corot (of Chan-
cel)) to which the fill-ice properly belongs."
MR. PI'MAISION.

A perfon of a very fingular appearance, towards
the concluhon of the bilfinefs of the day, role in the
Jury box, and intreated permiffion to addref► their
Lot dfhips. He faid he was an hilh Barritier, and
with getlieulation the mull animated, Wool alto the
molt extravagant, proclaimed the mi►fortunes of his
pall hißory, adding, that he had every where pre-
ferved his honour and charatier, which wete dexter
'to him than exiltence. He faid he had been com-
mitted to the Fleet irregularly by one of the Leartted
Judges of the Common Pleas (Mr. Jullice litooka),
that the proceeding, was fuperfedabte, and on the
facts Rated in the affidavit, he applied 1.1, a Rule to
(hew cattle, adding, that he would not have petfunally
done this in a way fo contrary to the °Cage of the
Court, had not Mr. Gat row. whom he had before
employed as his Counfel, refufed to appear in his be.
halt.
On prefeming a paper, purporting to be his affi.
davit to the Court, it was difenvered, that it had not
been (worn. Mr. M'Mahnn infified, that he had made
oath to it at the proper race i but if any doubt were
entertained, he would immediately give it that lane-
lion in the pretence of their Lordthip.. He then in-
(lenity hurried down the Reps to the flour of the
Court, and fw,re so the infirument.—Rule granted.

&meeting took place nn Mond.ty laft at Liver-
ponl. to confider the propriety of altering the prefent
hours of attendance on the Exchange. which here
been gradually protraited till five in the afters uon.
it was refolved, in future, to commence bufinefa at
ore o'clock, and to conclude it at three.

„.