Star.
London, England, 1814-11-14 00:00:00

CORN EXCHANGE, MARK I.ANE, NOV. H.

Having a short supply of English Wheat this morning, that of
fine quality, as well as the bast foreigo, fully support last Mon
day's prices' and tolerably large sales wrre made. Barley Is It.
prr quarterdeartr ; but few samples appearing at Market, and
for the same cause, White Peas sis'd gs. per quarter higher.
flood Oats are ready sales at au advance of. is. per quarter. In
Brat+, Grey Peas, and other ar.icles, there is Lis altcratlon.—.
Flo.ar is established at 705.. per sack.
OMITHFIELD MARKET, NOVEMBER 14.
Beef 42 111 to Ss ed Veal Os at to 72 8d '
Mutton its Od to 6. Od P.rk Gs Od ro 76 41
Larts g740-11kaep and Lambs 14,260--Calres 140—Pigs 4011
HAY AND STRAW, PER LOAD.

Modow Hay 41 to 51 Os I elver 410sio "I 0
Straw 11 its to 21 0..

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE.

ADMIRALTY COURT, NOVEMBER 10.

Regina Christina, Plymmer master.—This was a
Vessel under Swedish colours, captured in MarchlBl3;,,
by one of his Majesty's cruizers off the coast of Arno
Ilea, and sent to Bermuda. It appeared, in the course
of that voyage the vessel struck upon a rock, and was
lost ; and the question before the Court was, whether
the captors were bound to proceed to adjudication ?
On the part of the claimants, ►t was submitted, that
there was no sufficient cause for the seizure ; but it
appearing that some material papers were at the island
of Bermuda, the further hear►ng was postponed till
the same were procured.
Mary,Goen master.—This was a further proof case.
The ship, laden with corn, after being released under
the Danish embargo in 1812, was captured by one of
his Majesty's cruizers, on suspicion of intending to go
to Norway, instead of Leith, her asserted destination.
The Court gave the claimants permission to produce
still further proofs.
Le Vigilante, Fowler master.—This was a British
vessel, seized in the harbour of Genoa, at the capture of
that city. Two claims were given in, one by Genoese
Merchants, as private property, protected by the Ar-
ticles of Capitulation; the other, by the original British
Owners. The Court was clearly of opinion, that the
Capitulation did not protect it, as being private pro-
perty, and therefore restored the same to the original
British Owners, on payment of the usual salvage.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 10.
PREEDOM !TOM A Ititlf.ST FOB. DEBT.

Mr. CAMPBELL applied for a rule to shew cause
Why a Gentleman named Becker, who had been ar-
rested, should not be discharged, on the ground of
his privilege. Mr. Becker was Resident in this coun-
try as Consul from the Duke of Holstein : and in
that character, Mr. CAMPBELL contended, he was
protected from arrest 14 debt.
Mr. JusTicE Baum, wax not aware the privilege
from arrest extended to Consuls from Foreign Courts
resident here, they being only considered as persons
discharging commercial, and not state duties.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, a case similar to the present
had been agitated in the Common Pleas, but never
decided. There had also been a similar application
tirade some-time since to this Conrt, and in that case
the person applying was discharged, there bciug no
opposition made to it, on production of a certificate
from the Foreign Office, proving that he was residing
in this country as Consul from a Foreign Power. It
was, however,' an established rule, that persons, it-
:Wing in this country, in a diplomatic capacity, were
free from arrest. Mr. Becker was here as the diplo-
tnatic Agent of the Duke of Holstein, and therefore no
doubt could entertained of his right to be discharged.
Mr. Jusrice BAILEY Is the Duke of Hulstem a
Sovereign Priuce E"
Mr. CASIPUELL—" T believe he is, my Lord ?"
Mr. JUSTICE BAILEY-"" Take yt ur rule to shew
Cause."

ASSIGNEES OF STRATFORD v. NICHOLSON.
Mr. °GIME? moved by leave of the Judge in this
case upon the point which it may be recollected was
Made on the trial of the cause at the last Middlesex
Sittings, viz, whether a printer (there being no usage
in the trade), who was employed to print certain
non-consecutive numbers of an edition of the 1311:1.:
(other printers being employed to print intermediate
numbers), for the purpose of -which he was furnished ,
with the paper for each number separately, as the or-
der was given by the bookseller, each number being
considered RS a separate order, and furnishing a sepa-
rate charge in one general bill, running through two
Tears, had a general lien upon all the copies of every
number punted by him for payment of the printing
of each, or only a particular lien upon the copies of
each number for the printing of each.
Lord ELLE&nottouou, at the trial, and now, treated
this as one general employment, and held, that the
printer had a general lien, just as a tailcr furnished
with cloth to make a suit 01 clothes had el licit upon
Ifie coat fur tl:e making of the waistcoat, and upon
the waistcoat for the makin of the breeches.
Mr. GuttrczY answered, that the tailor would not
:have this lien for the making of a coat in 1810, upon
-she seaistcoa‘ in 1811 ; and contenckd, that the ge-
neral liens were not to be favoured : the printer had
suffered the numbers of the work upon which he had
• the particular lien fur printing those numbers to go
out of his hands, and the doctrine of general lien
ought not to be extended where there was no usage
of trade. _ _ _

Mr. Justice LE BLANC—Suppose the bookseller had
ordered first one and then another hundred copies.
Mr. GURNEY—I should have contended, that if a
different parcel of paper had been sent in for each 100,
anJ the press had been set up again, there would have
been no general lien.—Per refwed.

CART= V. POT IS.

This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Le
Blanc at Chelmsford, a verdict being taken for the
Plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant Bran now moved to set the
verdict aside on a 'thin of law. The qnestion between
the parties related to the sum charged for building
a foliose. The case was referred to two persons pre-
vious 10 the trial, to appraise the building, who did
so, and gave their award upon an apjwaisement stamp,'
but not on an award stamp. The Learned Serjeant
Low contended, that to render this a valid instrument,
it ought to have had the award stamp, as well as the
appra;sement stamp.
The Court, however, were of a different opinion,
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH observing, that the appraisement
stamp WAS sufficient. lt was an appraisement by
same, but in legal effect an award.—Rule refused.

!MYER v. ANDERSON AND OTHER&
This was an action by the Plaintiff, as Owner of a
*met called the Dart, against the Defendants, as un-
derwriters in a policy of insurance upon that vessel,
on a voyage from Liverpool to Sierra Leone. The
Jury found an asst rage loss, with leave front the Judge
to move the Court to enter a verdict as for a total
loss, subject to the opinion of the Court en the fol-
lowing case. The Dart was commanded by Captain
Wilson, and at the time she sailed was worth 83000.
en the 'llst of January she was captured by a French
privateer, who, after taking out most of her atom,
her sails, and cordage, and, throwing thirteen of her
guise Overboard out of sixteen, made a present of
tke,vest.el, in this dismantled state, to a Portuguese
pained Almeida, who was on board the privateer.
Almeocta took possession of the Dart, and the priva-,
tace quitted soap-any. Soon alter. Captaia Wilma

toot advantage br his superior strength, ant :again
got possession of the command. The vessel then
made for Fayal ; and on her arrival there, the Portu-
guese, Almeida, put in his claim to the vessel, and it
was adjudged to him by the Portuguese Governteens:
Upon this circumstance taking place, Captain Wages'
immediately wrote to his owners at Liverpool, who,
on the 4th April, gave notice to the defendants of a
total abandonment. The vessel remained in the pos-
session of Almeida till a day or two before the •Ilth
of May, on which day, in consequence of the appeal
of Captain Wilson to the Portuguese Government
having been decided in his favour, she was restored.
Captain Wilson, on this, got together a crew, and as
soon as possible sailed for Liverpool, and arrived with
the Dart in the dismantled state which she was left
in by the French frigate, in which state she was not
worth se:100 to the owners. The question now was,
Whether the underwriters were not liable to pay as
for a trial loss, notice of abandonment having been
given w) ilst .he was in the possession of Almeida at
the trial? The c ises of Bainbridge and Easton, and
Persons and Scott, were cited on the part of the de-
fendants as bearing in their favour.
Mr. 'Forma, however, now contended, that these
cases did not apply. In the first case a capture and
recapture had occurred, and notice of abandonment
was given ; but the case there differed from the pre-
sent : on that occasion the vessel earned her freight.
In the second case, the vessel was recaptured on the
19th of April ; no abandonment taking place till the
Ist of May following. At the time of the abandon-
ment, therefore, the vessel was not in the possession
of the enemy, as she was in the present case.
Mr. Justice La 8LANC......." There is no doubt the
Dart was totally lost, and out of the controul of
Captain Wilson at the time the notice of abandon-
ment was given."
Mr. TOPPING.—.." Certainly none, my Lord."

Lord ELLENBOROUGH." No doubt this was a case
of abandonment, and' the voyage was wholly lost,
It is a point which deserves consideration—the best
way of giving it that consideration will be, to mike
a case of it."

Mr. TOPPING.--ge If your Lordship pleases, it
shall he so."

BItOWN V. DIXON. AND FIVE OTHER%
This was an action tried before Mx. Serjeant
MARSHALL, at Newcastle, brought against the defen-
dants for a libel. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
Fifty Pounds.

Mr. RICHARDSON now applied for a new trial, on the
ground that the publication in question was no libel.
Theplaintiff, it appeared, had been engaged to manage
a farm for his mother, his father being.dead. He
continued to manage the business for several years,
when a dispute arose between him and his mother, and
at length the matters in difference were referred to ar-
bitration, the defendants bAng chosen as arbitrators.
In this character the defendant, Dixon, wrote. a letter,
Addressed to himself, in which he stated,. that the
plaintiff was not deserving of any remuneration front
his mother, inasmuch as his mismanagement and
extravagance--horse-racing, gaming, &c. had consi•
derably injured his mother's property. This letter
was signed by three of the defendants, and laid before
Dixon, and the other arbitrators as evidence. This
was the libel complained of. Mr. Richardson now
contended, that this was no libel, but was written by
the arbitrator in the course of his duty.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH-..-" In a course of duty, the
defendant might have been justified in writing a
letter reflecting on the character of the plaintifF, but
in what course of duty did Dixon write this letter to
himself ?"

Mr. RICH ARDSON '.44 My Lord, it was written for
the purpose of laying evidence before the arbitrators."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH Did he write a letter to
himself for the purpose of its being evidence before
himself and another in their character as arbitrat rrs ?
It was a testimonial of bad character."—The Jury
fuund it to be a libsl, and the Court saw no reason
whatever for disturbing the verdict.—Rule refused.