Star.
London, England, 1813-11-02 00:00:00

Ler INALLlctittcP,

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 1.
This being the first Seal before Michaelmas Terms
Mr. HART moved, in the following case,

JONES V. DALE AND THOMAS,
for an order to dissolve the injunction obtained by
the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendants from proceed.
ing by action of ejectment for recovery of the estate
of the father of their wives, who were heiresses iu
remainder under a family settlement, and which the
Plaintiff in the present, which was a cross bill, had
taken possession of, and retained for ten years lest
past, as heir to his deceased brother, en the ground
that his nieces, the wives of the defendents,Avere ille•
gitimate, being born at Naples, Sicily, or Malta, and
their father married between the births of his two
daughters, at the peri►h of St. Pancras, in the cc unty
of Middlesex, by license, in obtaining which he swure
himself to be a bachelor.
Mr. JOHNSON followed on the same side, urging,
that as the Plaintiff was non-suited at Hereford, on
the trial of an issue upon the question of illegi
upon which the defendants, or one of them, whose
wife was denizened in this Country, upon a certificate •
produced by the father of her legitimacy, and conse-
quently entitled not only to the possession, but to the
profits of at least a moiety of the estate, and of the
monies now paid into Court, in right of his wife, as
one of the co-heiresses.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, and Mr. %minim. op-
posed the motion, on the ground that an order was
granted 1, his Lordship, for a commission to be exe-
cuted at Naples, Rome, Sicily, or Malta, at some of
which places the plague was then raging, so that
farther time and continuance of the injunction became
necessary for the ends of justice.
Mr. HART opposed this extension of the injunction
on various grounds, in an energetic reply ; upon'
which the Loan CHANCELLOR, after expressing an in-
clination to grant the continuance of the injunction
upon an arrangement secure for the parties, desired
all the affidavits to be handed to him for perusal.—
Judgment deferred.
All the motions of the Seal were disposed of, and
the Court adjourned.

OLD BAILEY.
Yesterday James Louthware was indicted for
ciously stabbing, wish intent to murder ex
James Harris, on the morning of the 21st of 0.4 - -
bor. Both the prosecutor and the accused seemem co
be about 18 or 19 years of age.
Mary Jay was servant to the prosecutor's father,
and accompanied her mistress and her three daugh-
ters to a place near the Old Bailey, on the evening
of the 20th, whence they returned about one o'clock
in the morning of the 21st. In Long-ally they called
at a public-house, where the elder Harris (the pro-
secutor's father) was waiting to accompany them
home. She proceeded before, and observed the eri-
goner with two females. Shortly after she heard be-
hind her the prisoner's companions and her master's
daughters quarrelling, and soon after the prisoner
assaulted Harris. The prosecutor then came out
from their house, which was not far distant, on
hearing his lather's voice, and told the prisoner to
fight with him, and not with his father. On this a
scuffle ensued, and the,prisoner went up a dark alley,
followed by the prosecutor, who soon returned,
wounded in the side.

The prosecutor and his father gave evidence much
to the same effect. One or two blows had passed be-
tween the prisoner and him before he retreated to Me
passage.
The watchman gave an account of his havinefound
the knife with which the wound had been inflicted ;:
it was a common clasp knife.
The Surgeon, 'to whose care the proseCutor had
been committed, stated that the wound had not been
dangerous since the removal of the first dressing.
Baron Tuotarscis "then addressed the Jury and said,
that he had not called on the prisoner for any defence,
because in the statute which inflicted the punishment
of death on the crime with which the prisoner stoat
charged, it was provided in such case as the wound,
if fatal, would not have amounted to murder, then
the prisoner should not. be convicted. Such a Case he
conceived. was that before them, and the Jury could
not therefore but acquit the prisoner.—The Jury ac-
cordingly gave in a verdict of—Not Guilty.
Janus Brown was indicted for stealing a mare, with
a cart-saddle and harness, the property of Walter •
Pritchard.
The facts of the case were, that the prosecutor, on
the evening of the 19th of October, had left the. mare
with its harness in a stable ; on the morning of the
20th the lock was broken, and the mare and harness
gone. On the same morning early the prisnoer was
met and detained by the watch, between Stepney-
green, and Mile-end road, with the same mate and
harness, drawing a cart laden with flax.
The prisoner said, in defence, that the horse had
' been lent to him by the owner of the stable, but he
adduced no witnesses, ana was found—Guilty.'
Brighton Cotton was indicted fur having feloniously
assaulted William Brown, and having taken from him
a watch, value WS, his property.
Brown, the prosecutor (a groom) stated, that on
the 9th of October, about nine o'clock in the evening,
he went into the Wheat Sheaf, a public-house in
Wych-street, Drury-lane, in the company of an ac.
•quaintancea He took a pint of beer, and not finding
a man whom he wanted to see, he was about to leave
the bouse, and in the passage to the door, he was
struck by a man who hit him on the breast, and his
watch was drawn out by this man. At the same time
he seized the man, and closed with him ; the man .
struck him, and both fell. Witness still.kere his hold
till some people -came and drew the man to the front,
door, which they opened, and the man made his
escape. While on tne ground, he held the man by
the toot, and remarked he had a high shoe on. The
prisoner at the bar he could not swear positively to be
the person. He was told by several persons in the
house that be should have his watch on the Sunday
morning.
Hannah Fitzgerald was at the Wheat-sheaf on the
evening in question, and was coming out when she
saw Brown lying in the passage, andantaher man
with him ; she could not say whether it a as the
saner—there were many others pushing gad scenic
to get off the man on the ground whom Brown traci
try the leg.
Benjamin Bennett, landlord of the Wheat.sheaf,
has kept it nearly three months; knows the Irian":

from his frequenting his house, and saw him there on I
the night of Saturday, the 9th of October. Witness
saw from his tap-room; on the 9th of October, a bus-
tle In the passage—he was at that time getting nut a
man Who came in with Brown, who was tipsy and
troublesome. When he got into the passage Brown
was returning from the front door and complained
be lad lost his watch. Brown's companion declated,
that he (Brown) had no watch when he came into
the house, to which Brown did not reply—both were
drunk.

Brown was called up again and declared he was
not drunk; he was sure he had a watch, and the girl
could speak to it.
-Harm() Fitzgerald then sail she saw a seal and
key hanging from Brown's pocket.
A const.ble deposed, that on some information he
h3d received of the loss of Brown's watch, he took
the prisoner, whom he met in Covent-Garden; Brown
told him that the man had a buckle. The prisoner
when taken had on ankle-shoe:,

The Judge cautioned him from criminating a per-
son for wearing a shoe a little higher thin usual.
Baron THOMPSON summed up the evidence and the
Juiry found the prisoner—Not Guilty.
On the Jury returning the verdict, Baron THOMP.•
sow told the officer to stand out, and said he hoped
the house where the robbery was committed *as not
suffered to go on. The officer said it was'indicted.
, Baron THOMPSON said, 66 most properly—not one of
those persons shall have their expences, for the Stri-
dence here has differed most materially from that
given bef' re the Magistrates."
J. Griffiths was put to the_ bar for feloniously steal-
Li a watch, value £3, the property of Hum-
phreis, from a dwelling-house.
It appeared. that the prosecutor and prisoner slept
at a public-house in the same room ; the'prosecutor
laid his watch on the chair by his bed-side at night,
and in the morning, it was gone ; and this it was
pioved, beyond doubt, .that it was taken by the
prisoner.
Sit A. CHAMMIE, in his charge to the Jury, said,
that the crime, in the manner in which the prisoner
was charged with it,s6ai capital, under i statute, the
,object of which was M protect those articles which
•every one is obliged to leave in his dwelling without
any other protection. 'Nis statute- was severe but
necessary, for no protection can be too much for a
man's property in his own house. As the statute has
been interpreted, it had. been held that it did net in-
clude those articles which a man had under his own
immediate protection. In this state might be con-
sidered the watch at the time of the theft, being much
in the state of any thing which a man had put on a
table near which he is sitting. Tfiis was a point of
law, and though the distinction was nice, it was
conclusive to overturn the capital part of.the charge.
. Another consideration, if this bad not been sufficient,
would hive been the value of the watch, which, pos-
sibly, did nob come v itbin the value mentioned jn the
statute. They had, therefiire, to.consider merely the
fact of the stealing, of which there could be. little-
doubt, and if they were convinced of the fact they
should bring in a verdict against the prisoner of ouilty
of stealing, but not in a dwelling-house.
The Jury immediately brought in a verdict of
stealing, but not to the amount of 395.
Thomas Ball* was capitally convicted for a bur-
glary in the dwelling-house of Richard Tank, with
intent to steal his goods.