Star.
London, England, 1809-07-20 00:00:00

•Littr INTELLIGENCE.

COURT eV CHANCERY, JULY 19.
• *-911.A.T-9f4ausr TILE ATV E.—MOB/11S v. COLEM AX.
The 'Loan CHANCELLOR said, that the Bill in- this'
case stated a singular sort of agreement between the
parties.e-,that they should be tenants in common of
this property for ever. Before he appointed a Kinager
he thought it right that an instrument should be
drawn up pursuant to this agreement, and he would
order a reference to the Master for this purpose, un...
less the parties agreed that the two gentlemen men-
tioned in the Bill should prepare the instrument.
HOB ROCKS V. AMP.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had read the
supplemental affidavit of Mr. Jupp, and now thought
he might be confident that Mr. Jupp would strictly
attend to the injunction. of the Court in future. He
considered it unnecessary, therefore, to proceed any
farther in the matter at present. Mr. Jupp was dis.
charged from his attendance ; and as to the young
lady, and the minor (Master Peter Horrocks), his
Lordship declined making'any order at this time.

NEWLAND V. CLARKE
A Mr. Robinson had left a quantity of Stock to
Government, for the use of the Public, and appointed
the late Mr. Abraham Newland his Executor and
Trustee. But a dispute arose about the right to
some dividends due and unclaimed. The Defendant
claimed them, as being the Devisee of the personal
property and goods; the Attorney-General claimed
in behalf of his Majesty and the Public ; and the next
of kin claimed these dividends, as undisposed of by
the will :—The Court decided, that they belonged to
the next of kin, and ordered a refetunce to the Master
to tax the costs.

Mr. ALIOLANDRII, on the part of the Attorney Ge-
neral; now applied to the Court for leave to except to
the Master's Report for having disallowed costs, to
which it was alledged the Attorney-General vas en-
titled.

The LORD CHANCELLOR could not see the reasoa
why certain items in the account of the Attorney.
General had been disallowed—but he recommended
it to the Solicitors to give a distinct ttatement of the
account ; for if the matter was sent again to the
Master, the parties would be smothered with expence.
Mr. RICHARDS.--" They are almost smothered al-
ready, my Lord."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 19.
ZAGERRY V. FURNELL.
Mr. G ARROW, for the plaintiff, stated, that the de.
fendant had purchased a cargo of goat-skins from the
plaintiff, which arrived horn Mogadore in the month
of April last. But the defendant haying delayed te take
them out of the warehouse into which the skins had
been landed, they were soon after the purchase all
consumed by fire, save eight bales, which had been re•
moved by the defendant. The action was brought
to recover £4004 the price of the skins.
Lannigan, clerk to the plaintiff, proved, that
on the 12th of last May he and the plaintiff met the
defendant near the Exchange, and Zagerry said to the
defendant, " I wish you would take away the skins."
Defendant replied," as the warehouse rent is only 15s. a
week for the whole, let them remain there, and we
will pay for it ; in the mean time, if you can sell
them for three guineas a bale, do it for me."—(He
himself having-bought them for 575. 6d. per bale).—
Zagerry said, " very well ;. I will draw up bills, and
send them to your countinghouse ;" t,, which the de-
fendant replied, " Do, we will accept them."
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, he
admitted, that his employer (Zagerry) had endea-
voured, after the defendant bought the skins, to sell
them for 31. per bale • but that the witness understood
to be on atcount of Mr.l Furnell.
Solomon Siday, a dealer in skins, proved that
was the regular mode to open every bale, ;and count
the skins before delivery ; and that the bargain was
not good without it.
Mr.Aimwell, the warehouse-keeper, where the skins
were lodged, preyed, that Mr. Furnell came to him cne
day and asked to see the skins ; witness enquired ilk! had
an orderftomtheplaintiff? on which Furnell said,he had
actually bought them. Several of the bales were then
opened tohim,which he counted, and appeared satisfied.
Some days after, Mr. F. came again and asked for
eight bales of the largest skins; witness said he had
only orders from Zagerry to let him have four bales.
F. appeared surprised that no order had been left by
Z. as he said he had promised. The skins were soon
after buint. This witness having also proved the re-
gular mode of opening all bales before delivery, or a
regular bargain, the plaintiff was nonsuited.
PULLEY V. HORTON.
This action was brought by the Executers of the
defendant's uncle, for a sum of 4001. on two bills
discounted for the defendant by the late uncle.
The defence was, that had his uncle been alive he
vwould not have demanded the money.
The Jury found a verdict for the Flaintiff.—Da-
maees £4OO.

BRENTPORlL—Tuesday—Coofrer, a stage-master,
was convicted by the Magistrates in s;x penalties of
101. each, for omitting to have his christian name
painie,d on the door parsnels of his coach.
Twd rather singular prosecutions were tried at the
last General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the
county of Gloucester. The defendant was Mr. G.
Brisac, formerly captain of his Majesty's ship the Iris.
He now resides at Cheltenham. In April last he
procured a set of workmen to erect four tali poles,
with figures hung on them, in front of the villa of the'
Right Honourable Lady Mary Lindsay Cr- lord,
accompanied with a drum and fife playin a gun
firing, and the noise of a rattle. These figures were
left stending several days, to the annoyance of her
Ladyship. Mr. Brisac, and four others, were indicted
for this riotous proceeding, and, after a long trial,
were all found guilty, and fined.ten guineas.
The other prosecution was at the suit of Mr. Robert
Hughes, of Cheltenham, the Solicitor to Lady Mary ,
Lindsay Craufurd, who, having attended, on her
Ladyship's behalf, the fixing of some meerstones in
the ground, to shew the boundary between her lady-
ship's land and the land which lately belonged to
Mr. Brisac, , was insulted by him, who sent for a
loaded gun, and challenged Mr. Hughes to fight
him with anti• fire-at ms he pleased, witnin five pac,.s,
using much opprobrious language, and brandish; •
a cane in the most insulting manner. On this in••
meat, Mr. Brisac was also pronounced guilty, i
sentenced to pay a fine of five guineas.