Star.
London, England, 1824-02-10 00:00:00

•
IPit

TO A SPRIG OF HEATH.

BY MRS. GRANT.

Flower of the waste ! the heath fowl shuns
For thee the brake and tangled wood—
To thy protecting shade she rims,
Thy tender buds supply her food ;
Der young forsake her downy plumes
To rest upon thy opening blooms!
Flower of the desert though thou art !
The deer that range the mountain free,
The graceful doe, the stately hart,

Their food and shelter seek from thee ;
The bee thy earliest blossom greeti,
And draws from thee her choicest sweets!
Gem of the heath! whose modest bloom
Sheds beauty o'er the lonely moor;
Though thou dispense no rich perfume,
Nor yet with splendid tints allure,
Both Valour's crest and Beauty's bower,
Oft bast thou circled, a favourite flower!

Flower of the wild! whose purple glow
Adorns the dusky mountain's side,
Not the gay hues of Iris' bow,
Nor garden's artful, varied pride,
With all it's wealth of sweets could cheer,
Like thee, the hardy mountaineer !
Flower of his heart ! thy fragrance mild,
Of peace and freedom seems to breathe ;
To pluck thy blossoms in the wild,

And deck his bonnet with the wreath,
Where dwelt of old his rustic sires,
Is all his simple wish requires!
Flower of his dear-lov'd native land!
Alas, when distant far more dear !
When he from some cold foreign strand
Looks homeward through the blinding tear,
Flow must his aching heart deplore
That home and thee he sees no more !

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 9.
THE KING V. RICHARD STAFFORD COOKE.

- --- ----
Mr. TALFORD moved that the rule be made absolute.

Mr. CAMPBELL shewed cause. The rule was a very
singular one. The defendant claimed to be Lord Staf-
ford. An indictment was prosecuted against him on
this account, on the ground that the claim was calcu-
lated to defraud Sir George Jerningham of certain
estates in the county of Stafford. The defendant
pleaded in abatement that he was Baron Stafford, Lord
Stafford, at the time of taking the inquisition. The
rule was to quash this plea. It was not necessary to
deprecate the influence of prejudice, for their Lordships
would consider this question precisely as if that illus-
trious Nobleman, the Duke of Norfolk, were described
as John Howard, Esq. If their Lordships quashed
this plea, tne defendant would be deprived of his right
of bringing the question before another Coux t by a
writ of error. It was contended that the patent of.
Peerage ought to have been set out; but there were
many Peerages of which the pateuz could not be set
Out. The Court of Common Pleas had refused to quash
where a plea was alleged to be insensible, stating that,
if it was so, it was at the defendant's peril. This was
not insensible; it was in every way a good plea.
The LORD CIIIEF Jus•rxeL.—We ale not called upon
to find the plea good, but that there is not reason for
quashing it.
Messrs. Scant Err and TALFORD supported the rule.
It was not a bona fide plea, but a plea tor delay.
Mr. TALFORD further urged that it was a plea for the
purpose of collaterally trying the question of the Peer-
age, while the indictment was fir outrages and for,
raising money from Sir George Jerningham's tenants,
under false pretences.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY remarked that the plea did not
set forth that he was a Peer "of Great Britain," or "of
this team."

Mr. CAMPBELL being called upon to shew whether
there was any precedent of a Peer of this Realm being
so designed, referred to the mention of Lord Lovell, in
the Sth of Henry the Sixth.
Mr. Justice Houtoxo read an authority to shew that
Acts of Attainder were private Acts.
Mr. Justice BEST referred to a case, in which it was
held that it was necessary to have described a Lord"
as " a Baron of Parliament."

Mr. CAMPBELL—Yes, my Lord, because he might be
a Lord of the l'i ivy Council, or Lord Mayor of London
—(A laugh ).—But this was not a demurrer; and their
Lordships would not investigate this point upon a mo-
tion to quash a plea.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE—No, certainly. The Court
cannot quash the plea.— liule discharged.

COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 9.
1 ILUBTELL V. BEAUMONT.

Mr. Justice Pent: read his notes of this trial. It will
be recollected that it was an action brought by Mr.
Thomas Thurtell against Mr. Barber Beaumont, as
Managing Director of the County Fire-office, upon a po-
licy of insurance, to recover the amoont of certain
goods alleged to have been destroyed by fire in Wading-
street, in the month of January, ISQ3. The principal
witness upon that occasion was John Thurtell, who
afterwards acquired such unfortunate notoriety, and
upon his evidence, and that of other witnesses, the Jury
returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 1,9001.
(the full sum claimed.) On the 10th of November last,
Mr. Serjeant 'faddy moved fora rule to spew cause why
the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
granted, on three grounds—first, a misdirection to the
Jury by the Learned Judge; and secondly, that a bill
for a conspiracy to defraud the County Fire-office had
been found by the G and Jury of Middlesex against the
two Thurtells, and two of the other witnesses in the case.
'The Court refused the motion on both these grounds;
but granted it on a third ground; namely, that it ap-
peared by the affidavit of James Wrigglesworth, that a
quantity of the goods stated to have been in the ware-
house at the time of the tire, had been ,old at various
times on and subsequently to the 22d of December,
1822, by Juhn Thurtell and J. B. Snowden, to Messrs.
Margraves, of Wood-street, at a price twenty per cent.
less than their first cost ; and ty an affidavit of Joseph
Hunt, that in a conversamn with John Thurtell, the
latter stated in substance that the premises had been
wilfully set on fire.
Previously to the arguments of Counsel for and
against the Rule, the affidavits on both sides were or-
dered to bd read by the officer of the Court. Of those
for the defendant the most material were the affidavits
above alluded to, together with that of a person named
Robinson, who liven opposite to the premyse% and swore
that he could see the plaintiff's rooms when the premises