Star.
London, England, 1807-06-13 00:00:00

THE KING V. WATSON.

• A Rule to th:w caufe why a criminal information
fhould not be filed againfl this defendant, for a vio
lent outrage on General Gwynne, had been obtained
on Friday lafl by Mr. Garrow.
Mr. RICHARDSON this day applied to the Court to
extend the time for the defendant !hewing caufe
againfl the Rule, as he had long affidavits to pre-
pare, and the time would ['non expire.
Mr.Ga 'mow obferved, that the charge Rated again!,
the defendant by him on Friday, was short in Cub
fiance, though it might be ferious in its confequences.
It had charged the defendant with a men grofs and
infulting outrage upon an Officer of high military
rank, in the public Rreets of thi; metropolis ; and all
that the defendant had to do, was either to admit or
deny that faet. He wifhed his Learned Friend to
underftand, that it was abfolutely necetiary for him
to !hew caufe againfl the rule before ►he laR day of
Term, as he (Mr.G.) fhould mon certainly move for
the Rule being m-.le abfolute on that day, unlefs in
the mean time the defendant fhould give fecurity for
keeping the peace towards General Gwynne.
The Court faid it expelled, before the let day of
Term, an anfwer from Watfon to the charge prefer-
red by General Gwynn', and therefore they fhould
grant the motion of Mr. Itichardfon.

.
'nit CV° tr. TN. OfIITFO4I3 cost tarstom its s.
Mr. Serjeant Su arm Lab fbexed cattle againft a
Rule obtained by the ATToltlillr IT a
Mandesays, diretting the Commigioners to fummon
Jot y, and affels compenfition to Mrs. Mary Metcalf.
In this cafe the def ndants %vete conflituted, by
Act of Parliament, to allow compenfati n to certain
pe. f interefted in the lands. &c. adjoi i g that part
of the River Rivenfvrt,- which dtvi,!e. Greenwich
from Deptford, and whereon a bridge has lately
been eretted. For about fiery years pall a ferry has
called, called the Sunday Ferry, and the Com-
pany of Watermen had rented a cei fain part of the
land- at. either fide, to land their paff_t.gers. The
Complainant, Mrs. Mary Metcalf, was the proprie-
tor of the land on the Greenwich fide. In confequenoe
of building the !midge, the ferry was done away, and
the watermen had no longer occafion to ufe the land
let to them by Mrs. Metcalf, who now fought tom.
penfation for the loft of the ferry tolls, &c.
After very learned arguments againft the Manda-
mus, by Serjeants Shepherd, Belt. and Bayley, and
Mr. Garrow, and in fuppos t of the Rule, by the At-
torney General, and SerkantsWilliams and Vaughan,
the Court were unanimoully of opinion, that Mrs.
Metcalf was not entitled to make any claim voltateier
for ferry tolls, her intereft only extending.tothe land
which had been previnufly occupied byllse ferrymen.
The Rule for a Mandamus was confequently dif•
charged.

-JUNG 112.1140NT11R0, D. DS TASTES' AND Cisi
The Plaintiff is a merchant at Lifbon, the Defen-
dants are merchants in London. This was an action
let down for trial before Lord ELLANDOROUGH, at
the fittings after lea Term ; but, before it had ar-
rived at its conclufion, it was referred to Mr. George
Ward, one of the fprcial Jury, to fettle the matter
in difference between the parties in this caufe. It
was an ation brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendant a large fum of money, alledged
to have been loft by the inattention of the latter. It
appeared, that the plaintiff had configned to the de-
fendants a large quantity of cottons to be difpofed
of in this country ; but that they delayed making A
far.: of them, contrary to the directions rhey received,
until the price was fo low that a lots of upwards of
15001. was retained. A verdict was taken for the
plaintiff, to the full extent, fubjert to be reduced by
the Arbitrator. Mr. Ward made his arbitrament,
and decided, that the plaintiff fhould receive from
the defendant the fum of ♦6Ol. only, and that the
verdict fhould be reduced to that funs. This award
Mr. Gaalow, on behalf of the plaintiff, had ap-
plied to let alide, on the ground that the Arbitrator
had exceeded his authority, for that the only quer-
tion referred to him was, the difference of price at
four different periods, when the cotton was in tl,e
defendant's hands, and the price at the time it was
aCtually fold.
Mr. Tom's() oppofed this rule, and laid that the
arbitrator had only examined that evidence which
was produced at the trial. It was objected that Mr.
Ward had taken into his confederation the general
nature cf the tranfadion, and had read the whole
correfpondence between the parties, in order to form
his judgment. This proceeding was norhirg more
than was deceffary and proper, for that coirefpond-
ence had been employed at the trial tr, thew the dif-
ference in the price, the dire& object of Mr. Ward's
inquiry. On the recommendation of the Court, it was
agreed to refer back the queflion to one of the gentle.
men on the panne!.

THe Kiva V. RICHARD WATSON.
We noticed this cafe in our paper of Saturday', the
6th init. as an application at the fuit of Gen. Gwyn,
for a criminal information againil the Defendant, late
a Major in the 17th Regiment of Light Dragoons,
for endeavouring, by moll grofs and improper de-
mcanoor, to provoke the profecutor to fight a duel.
Mr. G*aaow this day moved to make the rule
abfolute on an affidavit of perfonal fervice upon the
Defendant, to which no refillance was made.—Rule
abfolute.