Star.
London, England, 1805-11-30 00:00:00

COW PDX.

Dr. Planta has lately been prefented with the
Freedom of the Cit? of London, in a fuperh g 'ld h-x.
of too guinead.viltse, enriched and ornamented wiill
upprr,priate emblems. In an oval on the top is the
goidefs Hygeia, in the figure of a dairy, or milk
maid, prefenting the Doctor to the City of London,
which is reprtfemel by an elegant figure, with a
mural crown on her head, the anus of the City on
her Ihield, and the cornucopia, bee hive, and other
erarafteriflic accompaniments around her. The God-
deli of Health has in one hand the Erculapian Rod,
and points with the other, in a graceful attitude, to
some Coss grazing in the back gmund ; Dr. Jen-
NYR is reprefented receiving, in a dignified manner,
the Scroll of riccdoro. In the front of the box are
City Arms and Supporters tafiefully arranged.—
At one end, thi fe of the Lord Mayor ; and at the
ther, thofe of the Doctor. Behind is a Cow, deco-
:Ater' With a votive chaplet ; and at the bottom of
the box is this infcription

eg Prefentel to Esseaan Janne', V.D. !A.D. &e. by
-Cat Corp4ration of London, as a token of their (cafe of bis (Rill
an.! perfe:crarct in the ditcovcry of, and bringing into sound
ufe, the Vaccine inoculation."

elegant box is entirely made of gold, richly
ettilroffell ; the defigns are moR taftefol, and the
whole execution matierly. Thofe who have teen it
pronounce it one of the moll fplendid donations of
the laud, and worthy cf the Great City that has
prefented it. We underßand it is the work of Mr.
Hausa, of FlectAreet.

L.IW IN7 E LLIGLNCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, N0V.28.
TERRY 'V Hiltlttliit.

The Plaintiff, in this cafe, is proprietor of an effete
and corn-mill at Merton, in DuTrey, and the Defen-
dant is his leffee of a certain portion of land, called
.Ikewer'sinead and Little mead, which he contended
h.ve a right of waterinz by means of three pipes,
tdrawing from the water of the river Wandle, flowing
filcugl the corn-mills of the Plaintiff. In September,
itto.i. the Defendant drew off large quantities of
seater, from what he termed the furplus of that ap-
lied to the Plaintiff's mills, after the water came to
a certain height. The Plaintiff, finding this train
detrimental to his property in the mills, and injurious
to the fupply of the public markets ; and confidering
alto, that he had no right to do fo, either from ufage,
r agreement. tiled a hill in Chancery againtk him,
and obtained an injunction againfl his drawing off
water from the three iluices, until the quefliou of
eight, at Joe between them, Mould be decided. The
Defendant then, after taking upwards of twelve-
months to make infinities, at lall brought in his an.
Ewer ; and this day, applied to have the injunnion dif-
fdred, upon affidavits, that he believed he had a
-Tight to draw off this water from immemorial 'liege,
and from what he colleted to be the opinion of level al
old inhabitants. In reply to this, leveral contradie•
tory affidavits were urged on behalf et. the Plaintiff,
and a leafe was exhibited, by which the right of the
leffee was rearined to a tingle flake.
After the cafe had been argued at great length,
in fupport of the injnnticn, by Marrs. Romilly and
Nretherall, and nn the other fide by the Attorney-
General and Mr. Richards,
The Loco Cuattesttost laid, that the principal',
difficulty aroft from the ownerfhip of the mills, and
the grounds, through which the river or Bream
-flowed, being in the fame perfon. As to the ;mine•
anorial ufage, he thnoght it vefy doubtful whether it
could have exifled in the tenant; inflead of being
confirmed by the leafe then before the Court, the
coantity of water was reflrined by it. It was, how-:
ever,impoffible for him to decide at orient on ohich:
lide the :inflict or the cafe really lay. If the Defen-
dant had done wheat he had no right to do, and what
could be (hewn detrimental to the property, and in-1
jurious to the right of the Plaintiff, perhaps a (port
remedy might have been had, in another place, by
an anion .if damages ; but he could not fay that he
Neas fo good a judge of there matters, as to (late that
•with confidence. As the cafe now flood, he was not
-fore that it would he drift jnflice, either to sliffi.lee
the injunnion, or order it to be continued till the cafe
Could be determined in that Court ; but what he re-
commended to the Attorney General was, to thape for
client, the Defendant, a Chart iffue, to be tried
elle where, referring to the one, the chatatter of an
owner, and to the other, that of a 'die, but confin-
ing it to this particular quellion. In the mean time,
the injunnion Mould be continued until that ifue
ilsould be determined.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOT. 29.
THE KING V. BRETT.
This was an indictment, as our readers will reool-
lea,from a flatement which we formerly gale of it,
charging Henry Brett, alias Britt, with the crime of
perjury, he having (worn that he was prefent on the
Iluflings at Bi endord, on the fecond day of the lafi
eleCtion for the Cooney of Middlefex, and did 1;:e I
and hear one Thomas Price, then and there poll as
a freeholder of the County of Middlefex, under tile
"lame of John Wright, cleferihing his freehold as he-
tg No. A, Bell Yard, Gray's Inn-lane—which was
sjfe. Alf°, in having (worn, that the whole of a
written paper or memorandum, which he held in his
band on the trial of the Paid Thomas Price, except
that part whin!' was rubbed out, was in the hand-
writing of him, the raid Henry Brett, and was writ-
ten by him on the huffing', at Branford, at the time
—which was alfo falfe.
The cafe on the part of the profeention being open-
ed by Mr. Clitfixd,
Mr. Ea vs/ as followed on the fame fide, and in a
very luminous and perfpietions manner pointed out
the numberlefs glaring contradidions which appear-
itd in the cootie of Brett's depofition on the trial of
Price—from his original deCiaration, that he faw
him (Price) poll, and anfwer quettions, but what
he faid, he (Brett) would not take on him to (wear,
down to his fell but gradual affertion, that he heard
him poll as " John Wright,i4o. h, Bell Yard, Gray's
lnn•lane." The Learned Connie' afro dwelt on the
palpable perjury which the painter had incurred, in
'Rearing that the whole of a memorandum, exhibit-
ed by him on the trial, and held out by him as a cor-
roboration of his evidence, thongli chain** written
by diff"rent hands, and in different (hacks of ink,
was all written by him at one time, and out of the
f tine ink bottle. The Learned Canal-el Paid, be was
rslw in a condition to (►ew, not only that the pan-

net could ,rot have lien Thomas Price, or any other
per filo, poll in the name of John Wright, on the fr.
cnnd day of the eleftion, and of courfe that the me-
morandum, befides not being entirely written by
him, was not in any part written by him at the time
he fwore to, but that he, Brett, was twelve miles dif-
tent from Brentford at the time when he milli fo have
fern Price poll on the hollings at . Brentford, in the
name of John Wright. He had witneffes who would
prove, that, fo far from having been on the holt ngs
at Brentford, on the forenoon of the fecond of
the election, lie was then at Bethnal Green, tt a
miner, where he was detained till between twelve -
and one o'clock. From thence he went to a cer-
fon to whom he had a pair of boots to deliver, and
whom he accompanied to the Vineyard Garden, rear
the Chapei in Spa Fields, where he continued till
(even or eight o'clock at night. That the whole of
the memorandum (worn to have been taken by Brett
on the huftinge, ton, was not in his hind writing, in..
fpedion of the writing itfelf was fufficient to denase-
flrate. Proof of that fad, however, would not nit
here. The Learned Counfel was in condition to
thew by whom the °different parts of it were written,
not only by unexceptionable witneffes. but by tto
confeffion of Brett himfelf, which, though not fun.
cient, from the nature of the charge againit him, o
infer any criminality in others, but mutt be conch-
five againft himfell. The Learned Counfel then
proceeded to (tate parts of this confeflion, which
went to accufe certain perfons of being the writers of
the different parts of the memorandum in queltion,
and of 'twing attempted, under various p.omifes, to
induce the prifoner to enter more deeply, even than
he appeared to have done, into their (themes;--but
as thefe perfons were not parties to the etude, and as
the flatement was entirely ex parie, the prokctition
being flopped in liminr, and no opportunity being af-
forded of knowing whether the Itatement en: Coon-
fel might be fupported by evidence ; or if fo fupport-
ed, whether it might not meet with a fatisfaCtory
anfwer, we decline entering more fully into the
fubjed.
The record of Price's trial being put in and read,
The SOLICiTeit GEPeaRAL interiered by obfer ving,
that having an objeftion to (late to the indidtment, it
would be better for him to make it in this nage of the
hufinefs, than at any fntnre period. The indietment
bore, that the convidion of Price had taken place in
the Court of King's Bench, before Edward Louti
Ellenborough, Chief Janice of the laid G-Arrt. 1 his
proceeded from a want of the proper attention be-
tween venire facies and the elPinviar, and from nor
attending to the difference between a trial at bar and
at ni i pita.
Mr. GARROW' on the fame fide, contended that
the language of the indiament fhould have been, Be•
fore his Lordthip, fitting in the Great Hall of Pleas
in Weflminfter Suppofing, as during the
trial of Mr. Halting*, the Lord Chief jutirce had
been locally fitting in the Common Pleas, would the
prefent have been, in fuch a cafe, a proper fpecifica-
non of the locality?
Mr. ASBOTT, alto for the prifoner, Maintained that
the form mentioned by Mr. Garrow was the invaria•
I le language adopted in firth cafes fince the paffing
of the Al of the 18th of Elizabeth, chapter ra, in
virtue of which Aft his Lordthip now fat, and by
which the words 'ince uted were prefcribed. It was
impoffible that by being Lord Chief Janice of the
Court, the room in which the Court was held could
he meant. Such defcriptinn imported that he was
the head of the Judges of the Court, who exercifed
not a locel jurifdietien, but one which extended to
every part of England. As, therefore, a certain lo-
cality was annexed to Ali Pr;zu cafes, it was necef•
fiery that fuch locality fhould be clearly and fpeciri-
(tally alledged, which was not here done.
Mr. Ea zio a and Mr. DAMPIsa maintained that
it was fofficiently clear from the date of the trial, be-
ing nut oT Term, that his Lordfhip molt have been
fitting not at Bar, in full Court, but at AO Prim:,
and as it was to be prefumed that his Lordthip would
net fit irregularly, therefore a fufficient delcription
of his place of fitting teemed to have been given.
Lord Et LE aroaouon remarked, that they mull not
prefume any thing.
Mr. ERSKINE laid, ferely not. It was the Counfel
for the Defendant who fce:atti to ptefoirme that his
Lordthip, contrary to tire tlatute, and, to indulge
fume pleafare of his own, had held his fittings nn an
affirmed authority. This, as they had already (hewn,
was not the cafe, and the iudktment moreever bore
them out in this allegation, as it purported that the
trial had taken place in due form of law, v:hich it
could not have done had his Lordfltip, fitting at Ain
Fries, not fat locally, as prefcribed by the ttatitte of
Elizabeth. At all events, as this was a cafe which
appeard on the record, tl:e Learned Counfel cohn-rit-
ted, if his Lordthip entertained any doubt or. it,
that it ought to be referved, and fhould not operate
as a flop to the

Mr. S3LICITOR GENERAL, in reply, contenckd
that the words in due form of law cured nn &lea
whatever. If they curb 4 any, they tunfl clue all.
and mutt be equal to &receipt fur every form i-lcon-
vietion.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH laid, his only doubt was,
whether to referee the point or to difpofe of it nt
once. In himfelf, he entertained no doubt, that the
objeaion was fatal to the indiament. The Conn of
King's Bench was a Court of general jutifdiEtion,
which might be held in any county in England. The
term Chief jadice of that Court could only mean
Chief jußice of the Court exacifing that generaljn•
rifdiaion, not confined to any particular place. 13y
the flame of Ctren Elizabeth, a certain local bounds
for fittings et 14 Fria: was appointed, and the only
quaint: was, whether loch locality was here alledg•
ed with rufficient dillinanefs ? Every pet fon prefent
probably, knew that this was the very Spot where
the trial alluded to took place, but fill that was out
to be efleemed fofficient. The allegation mull be
explicit. The only other queftion then was, could
this want be fupplied by the words " in due form of
law ?" If it could, he was of opinion thcfe words
mutt be competent to cure every defee. He was
nut inclined, however, to give them fo wide an in
terpretation. His Lordrhip was theret ,re of opinion,
that the allegation of locality was not fuffieiently
laid; and being of that opinion, he thought the prir-
(otter moll he liberated.

Mr. ERSIttNk then moved that Mr. Lowtcn Gould
continue in the polfeffion of the dlferent papers re
lured to in the caurfe of the trial, which was order-
ed. The Jury then found the er ifcm—Not. Guilty.