Star.
London, England, 1805-02-14 00:00:00

nittaill If.

The Court on Monday gave judgment spin!! the
Defen,iant, in the mire of Chambers v. Caulfield.—
tdwarti and Henry Davis, for committing frauds up.
an Ramps, were fentenced, (he former to fix months
imprirotkment and to Anna in the pillory oppofite
Somerret Honk, on a certain any ;the latter to
three months imprifonmenr.
John Sourberden was ordered to be Bruck off the
Rolls of the Court of „Ring's Bench.

Tell 11110 4. staireinvr, SbILVID OTUBRII.
John Herriott, Efq. and John aylor, Efq. pro.
rieror, of the 7rie Brava Newt-paper; Richard
printei, inlet Richard Lathbury, publdher of
the lame paper, received the (entente of the Court
for a libel, reftetling on Earl St. Vincent and the bite
glnard of Admiralty, the particulars of which we
gave on a former day.
Mr. Jake Gann addrelkd the (everal Defen-
dant', and diflinguithed Mr. Herriott from the Ten,
as haring the controul and political management of
ere paper in quedion s Mr. Taylor, although part
pirprietor, haring no mare in the political manage-
ment of the publication, and the other Derendents
being awe fervent' of Mr. Herriote. The lenience
of the Court upon them was, that John Herriott, Efq.
be imptifoned in the King's Be.lch prifon for three
calendar months, and gii.e fecurity for his good be•
batten, for three years, himfelf in :cool. and two
&reties in soot. each. That John Taylor, tfq. do
pay to the King a fine of too marks. That Richard
Harris and Richard Lathbury be each imprifoned in
the fame prifon for one calendar month, and then be
difcharged.'
John fiertiott,Efq. received (entente for three ca-
lendar months farther imprifonenent in the fame pri-
fon for the fame paragraph, copied into the Saw
newfpaper, of which Mr. Hcrriott was role proprie-
tor ; and Wm. Armiger Scripps, publilher, and Bu-
chanan McMillan, printer of the lime payer, were
mitred to be imprifoned in the fame prifon for one
calendar month, and then difcharged.

CRIMINAL INIORMATION.

Mr. ERSKINE obtained a Role to thew taufr. why
a Crimi►. 11 Information thould not be filed againli
Mr. John Sims, for publithing certain letters written
by L:rri to Mr. Philip Sanfon. We (hall (late the
whole of this cafe when it again come) before the
Court.

Mint/ARV 13.

RICHARD WALSH V. RICHARD AND ASR•HAM YOULMIN.

This was an action in the nature of a cnminal pro-
ceeding, for three penalties of 'Sol. each, under the
Statute of the 31a Geo. f. so, by which it is
eratted, that the agent of nqkers aid feaMen in the
navy Mall only be pertnitto to receite flipeftte in
the pound in remuneration for the trouble of receiv-
ing the pay of Inch ()facers and feamen.
Mr. ER3IIIIII, for•thelitilintiff, laid, thiit one dale
molt excellent Ilatute% would be evaded if.his client
(hould not on this occafiontritelvellse verdid of the
Jury. The ohjett rf the `Liw•was, 'to enable feamen
tit recent,: their walLesjo syf to *alienate is.'poition of
them for the maintenattee of their wises and fainilies,
without being fulijctl fo'grielions Otottion. When
the tempell was .howlldk •rolind ourisgads, bad we
limed fearcily protede4 in 4tse .
is dorellings,. it limuld
be 'membered, that the teaniah eapoted to 'all the
fury of the eleilents. The -geteleinen ?rho• are the
Defendants its this anion, had` inflinged*the lalutaryl
provianns of the *astute, ,'to, si in two inllat:ees,
Read of obtaining the 'Led* compentition, bad
drawn from the. pocket of Mg balm client a conflag-
ration equal to about twenty per cent. Mr. Richard
Wall!' was employed from. May, 1796, to Odober,
ISoi, in the moll dangerous*fervice, he hating the
command of a gun brig, and he now fought the pro.
tettion of throe laws, after having defended that
Conititution from which they emanated. Mr. Erlkine
then called Mr. James Englifh Lawton. of the navy
Pay Office, Mt. Forbes, of the Pay Office, and Mr.
• J .11n Walfh, the brother of the Plaintiff, to prove his
cafe; 'tom whole ext;Jence it appeared, that in one
account a turn of five guineas, and in another *fifteen
rine 4 were charged, not authorifed by-the A.t ;
born whence the queftinn on the matter of Falk more,
whether thcfe accounts
.viere charged on the pay of
the officer, or on what are called the Purfery Ac•
comas' of the guriblig Pelter ?

Thelectettbs. Gustaf. (Sir. Grass), admit-
ted' all the faits, by the particular defire of his
clients, as their objet was merely to a& in a cafe
of doubt and difficult-, under the direetion of the
C.ourt. Since the astute of the 3111 Geo. 11. another.
Mt bad paired, ':sy which, for the convenience of
Naval Officers, it was permitted, that they (hould
draw direly on the Tieafurer of the Navy, every
three months for their pay. The agent, it was ac-
knowledged, was allowed to receive sixpence in the
pound, which, under the former circumllances, was
a fufficient compenfatirm, becaufe it was charne.
able on the whole of the pay ofthe officer ; but fince
the new flatute, it would frequently occur, that a
turn not exceeding twenty (billings would be receiv-
able at the Navy Office, for account of the principal,
in which cafe, for the adjullment of a long concern •
with the Board, comprehending many thoufand
pounds, only rsd. would be receivable by the agents.
After fame interlocutory ntfervations, not only be-
tween the Noble and Learned lodge and the Counfcl,
but with the Jury, it was agreed 'to take a verdiet
one penalty, in the funs of Sol. fubjcEt to the opinion
of the Court, on a cafe, touching the conaruelion of
the two A.els of Parliament, with regard to the vmo•
lument of naval agency.

BRAND V. CAMPBELL

This eras an uEtii n upon a jeweller's bill for feven
pounds and upwards ; to which Mrs. Campbell, the
Defendant, pleaded her Coverture, and produced evi-
dence of her being a married woman at the time the
debt was cootrafted. Mrs. C. would have paid the
Plaintiff five pounds, which the faid was the amount
of his demand ; but he infißing upon the whole of
hi►bill, iffue was joined.—Verdiet for the Defendant.

ETRE, Eco V. NOEL AND OTHERS.

This was an aCtion of trefpafs, bionht by the
Plaintiff, a Gentleman of refpeCiability, rc tiding at
Knightfinidge, againit the Def:ndants, who are
Bankers in Pall-Mall, to recover a compenfation in
damages for an injury Int Wiled by him, by realon of
the Defendants having tent an execution into his
honfe for 8001. in May WI, and which the Coutt had
fet afide.

Mr. GAIROW, for the Plaintiff, was about to prove
the injury and damages foilain:d by thz: Plaintiff in
the loft' of his credit and character thereby, when he
was-interrupted by Mr. ERSKINE on the part of the
Defendants, who admitted that the Plaintiff mull ine-
vitably get a verdi& ; and thereicre wifhed the Plain-
tiff to take his verdiet only from the Jury, and let
fome Gentle Men at the bar akertain the damages,
which were laid at 3cool. which was acceded to by
the Plain:dr.—Verdi& for the Plaintiff as above.

Free LOIV DO Pi GAZEq F.IIBIZtI ART 13.