Star.
London, England, 1824-01-27 00:00:00

A SONNET.

No longer morne for me when I am dead ;
When you shall hecre the sullen [surly] bell
Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world with vilest worms to dwell!
Nay, if you read this line remember nut
The hand that writt it, for I love you so
That I in your sweet thoughts would be forgott,

If thinking on me then shall make you woe !
,0! if f I say) you looke vpon this verse
When I (perhaps) compounded am with clay,
Doe not so much as my poore name reherse,
But lett your love even with my life decay ;
Least the wise world should looke into your moone,
And mock you with me, after I am gon !

.SIIERIFF'S COURT-THIS DAY.

SERVANT'S WAGES.-SMITIf V. ANDREWS.
This was an action against the defendant, k Gentle-
man of fortune, residing in Princes-street, by his ser-
vant, to recover £22. 7s. 6d. for wages.
The defendant appeared in person to defend the ac-
tion, finding that the Solicitor in the cause had lent
himself as licitness in the suit. _ _

It appeared, in the statement of the case to the Jury,
that the plaintiff was in the capacity of groom and
footman, on bard wages; that he lodged out of the
house, and had paid upwards of £lO for lodging, ex-
clusive
of hoard.
Mary Prideux deposed, the plaintiff lodged with her ;
she knew hQ was servant to the defendant, and on board

wages.
Elizabeth Twyford was servant in the defendant's em-
ploy,knew the plaintiff well, he was not on board wages.
The Solicitor for the plaintiff here observed, that as
his evidence failed him in supporting that, he would beg
to put in the bill, and be would himself prove the de-
fendant's admission for 4/. 5.5. 9d. upon it.
The solicitor was here sworn, and stated, that he had
frequently waited on the defendant, who had made his
own deductions from the amount, and admitted the
above sum was due.

The defendant here rose, and with a very gentlemanly
demeanour, said that when he came into Court, he was
aware that there was not a tittle of evidence that would
warrant the Jury in finding a verdict against him; but
seeing the Solicitor lend himself as a witness in a most
shameful cause, which by his own credulity he had
forced into Court, he would withdraw his protest to the
inquiry and appear before the Jury; and, with every
deference, be submitted to the Sheriff that the paper
conld not be received, only- subject to the evidence that
might be given thereupon ; when he admitted the 41. it
was expressly subject to the deduction of '21.1'2.5.6d. and
11. which the plaintiff had obtained upon credit in his
name, 41. he tendered the solicitor upon these condi-
tions ; and though he did not intend to go into warfare
against his servant, he had the greatest reason to main-
tain hostilities against him, for, during the time for which
he now claims wages, he kept him from mere motives of
humanity, while he got another place, having discharged
his carriage and horses upon his marriage, in June last.
After an address from the Sheriff, wherein he para.
calarly mentioned that servants should be particular
to have agreements—The Jury assessed the damages
at 41. ss. 9d.

A WARD IN CHANCERY.—CARTWRIGHT V. HOLDEN.
This was an action upon a writ of inquiry to assess
the damages.
Mr. PARK stated the case. The action was brought
to recover the sum of 2621. lOs. for the use and occu-
pation of a house in Moot fields, from Lady-day, 1817,
to Midsummer, 1823, at forty guineas per year. The
house was formerly the property of a MISS Jones, then a
ward in Chancery, but who has subsequently married
the plaintiff, Mr. Cartwright ; consequently they became
jointly the plaintiffs in this action, which is brought by
Mr. Le Blanc, an attorney, who was appointed receiver
for Miss Jones by the Lord Chancellors order. The
house has also been cousidetably dilapidated, which
h.: should call a surveyor to speak to; after which, he
had uo doubt the Jul y would award such damages as
in their discretion they cintsidered the plaintiff entitled to.

Mr. Samuel Robinson, surveyor, deposed that he
knew Miss Jones, since Mrs. Cartwright, and surveyed
the premises in 1817 for dilapidations ;repairs were then
done to the amount of 1:40. The house is well worth
40 guineas a year, and witness of his own knowledge
can swear that the defendant had the use and occupa-
tion of it for the time above stated. Mr. Le Blanc was
named to look after the premises and receive the rent.
Here ended the plaintiff's case, and a long contest
was expected for the defence, by Counsel ; the verdict
was, therefore, delayed nearly an hour, but no one ap-
pearing, the SHERIFF said, it was for the Jury to say
if they were satisfied with the evidence—they were not to
consider any of the legalities or illegalities of Chancery,
when no one appeared for the defence to make the ob-
jections, and the time of one Counsel could not be
thrown away in staying for another such a length : he
put it to the Jury, it a verdict ought not to be taken?
The Jury shortly considered the case, and assessed the
damages at 2621. 10s.

SECONDARY'S COURT, JANUARY:Is.
BARRETT V. TUE EARL OF EGbIONT.

This was an action to recover from the Earl of Eg-
mont the amount of a baker's bill.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS opelied the case to the Jury. It was
one, he said, which would impose little trouble on them.
The plaintiff was a respectable tradesman of Charlton,
near Woolwich, and the Jury would no doubt be sur-
prised to hear, that he had been compelled to institute
these proceedings for the recovery of his bill, amounting
to COOS. bs. 10d. being the sum total of the expense in-
curred by the defendant for the supply of bread and flour
to his family during a period of nearly four years. Ile
should prove to the satisfaction of the Jury that the
bread had regularly been supplied, and as it had not
been paid for, he would be thus entitled to their verdict.
. .

' Elizabeth Batty said she had lived with the Earl of
Egmont's family from 1819 to the close of last year,
and they resided at blackhead' during that period.—
The defendant was then Viscount Percival. The house
was regularly supplied with bread and flour from Mr.
Barrett's. Bills were delivered every Week to witness,
and she invariably found them correct. She remem-
bered Mr. Barrett's son delivered a bill, the amount of
Ulrich was 300/.85.101 No objection was made to it.
Frederick Barrett, the plaintiff's son.—l fiequently
delivered bread and weekly bills at Lord Egmont's, and
the bill to which Mrs. Batty has alluded I delivered to
one of the dorneitics. It was, by Lady Egmont's desire,
enclosed to her Ladyship. Its amount was 300/.Bs. Md.
Lillian this evidence the Jury, under the SecoNDAßv's
directions, found a verdict for the plaintiff, 3001. br;.