Star.
London, England, 1807-11-12 00:00:00

ARRIVED

Off Ramfgate, the John, Thomas, from Riga--Off Dover, Ade -
lai from Cnariattoo—At Pock,
.the Nymph, Turner
Honpee,—Tucker ; and the Elizabeth, Dempfter, from Newfoundland
—At Hoyl-ke, Vine, —, from Oporto—At Lifbota, Bunker,
Holmes, from Live-pool; Gofport, from ti.c Clyde ; Caro.
line, —, and the Voodore,—, from Cork—At Newfoundland,
Two Sifters, Holland, from London—At Prince Edward's Bland,
Friendihip, Beatfon. from London—At Monte Vtdeo, Kitty, Mot-
grave; and Janet, Calder, from London—At Surinam, Time Bro-
thers, --, from. London—At Boa 00, Lydia, Turner; Henry,
Tritte; Filcoms, —; and the Mary and Rebecca, fro n
Liverpool--At Charleffon, Retrieve, from Briffol ; Cal :•
(lonia, Lee, and the Hope, Clark,from Liverpool; ifsbeik,
and the Odlav!a, —, from London—At QLJebee. Swath w
Mountain ; Thompfon ; Either, Jones; EForfct, How r. ,
and the Llly of the Vac', —, from Liverpool—At Ha Ls .
Twill, Marla% from Liverpool.

140r3iVTATLiGANCE.
COUitT bir CHAI4OEtY, NOVO/MA PI

The CRlllft • wa's 'entirely taken tip.;to.day in -t e
reading of evidence 4141 c cd undcra &row Bill,
a cafe of fame impt2rtatafs, ip which. Wry Ticfe ,
the forgiving co-hetreta of Nrilliitti IJ;gatt, We in -
keeper, of Shooter's Hill, is plaintiff, and Dinah
Logan, the widow of the laid William Logan, is
defendant. The Bill prays, that a deed of leafe add
releafe of certain property belonging to the laid
William Logan, in the counties of Kent and Cam-
bridge, which the plaintiff Mary and her filler Eli•
2abeth, then the furviving co-heirefres of William
Logan, had, in the year 1788, executed in favour of
the defendant, fhould be tit afide, and a reconver-
ance thereof mide by the defendant to the plaintiff,'
on the ground that an inadequate confideration had
been given for the fame, and that the parties caeca
ting the deed were kept in ignorance of their Teal
rights.
When the cafe has been fully heard, we !hall lay'
a fiatement of it before our Readers.
To allow this cafe to be farther proceeded in tn.
morrow, it wlts agreed that the cafe of Purcell and
Macnamara Ibould Hand fi.r. Monday.
Several' cafes which flood early in the paper to-
day, were ordered to hand in their place for to mor-
row. •

The Lord Chancellor role at an early hour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOVEMBTR so.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF WM. JEMMET, ESQ._ V. HIE
GRACE THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.

This was an aaion in ejeament, brought to re-
cover the poffeffion of certain premifes in the manor
t f Woodttock, in the county of Oxford, and tried
the laM fummer affizes before Mr. Baron GRAHAM,
when a vxrdia was obtained for the plaintiff.
Mr. DAUNCEY this day moved the Court on behalf I
of the defendant, to fet afide the verdift upon two
grounds. The premifes queftion were copyhold,
and upon the deceafe of the tenant in poffeffion, in
the year 1780, the heir at law not being known, the
Duke of Marlborough took poffeffion, as Lord of
the Manor, and to retained up to the time of enter-
ing the verdia. Upon the trial below, the plaintiff's
pedigree was fully fet out, and his title as heir at !
law admitted ; it alto appeared, that the Duke had
not made the ufual proclamations, or taken the ne- '
ectrary Reps, as in cafes of forfeiture ; and that when
the ftewarA of the manor took poffeftion, he declar-
ed that .he lord held the premifes until the heir
at law came in. But the queftion in this cafe was,
whether the lord of the manor, after a lapfe of so
years on the part of the heir, and a poffeffion by the
lord during the fame period, the latter was not to be
put in the fame fituation With any other perfon,
and be entitled to the benefit of the fiatute of limi.
tations. The Learned Judge who tried the caufe ob•
terved, that the Duke of Marlborough -mild only
confider himfelf as the trance for the heir at law, upon
which the verdift was taken ;but the learned Coun-
fel contended upon this fecund ground, that the ver-
dift was not rightly taken, .for if the Duke was to
be confidered in the -chantofte; of trate for the heir,
then the prcfent aaion was not maintainable, and
the defendant was entitled to a verdift.
CHIEF BARON-4' We mutt confider the declara-
tion of the fieward asbinding upon the Lord, who
merely takes poffeffion, without following it up by
the ufual prtNefs of proclarnation.”—Take your rule
to Phew caufe.

COURT OF WINO'S BENCH, NOV. to.
TNII KING V. COLONEL DRAPIII.
Our Readers will recoiled that we freqoently have
had occalion to notice ibis cafe, in its.progreits,fince
the application made by Mr. Gartanw three Terms
force for a criminal information. They will Ws, re•
member various motions made on the past of the
Defendant, by his Colloid, Mr. Maaavarvin order
to poflpone the trial of the caufc from time to time,
on the ground of the abfence of a material witntfr,
Dr. Lynch, then abfeht in the ifland of Trinidad.—
The left -application, however, of this kind, was re-
fitted by the Court in Trinity Term, and the Defen-
dant was found guilty at the following fittings, be-
fore Lord Ett.Exaortonorr.
Mr. DAUNCEY, on the part of the Defendant, this
day applied for a new trial. He laid that the Coui't
would remember that the profecution againfi the
Defendant was for a libel upon Mr. Sullivan, late
under Secretary of State. He admitted the fad of
the publication, and that the Defendant was the
author ; but he applied to the difcretion of the Court
to determine whether, under all the circumllances,
they would not grant a new ttial ? The caufe had
been postponed feveral times, on account of the ab•
fence of Dr. Lynch, who had made an affidavit as to
the fads of a converfation between him and the pro-
fccutor, Mr. Sullivan, with regard to this libel, and
which might tend, in tome degree, to exculpate the
Defendant. The foundation of eke Learned Conn-
Eel's motion was, that Dr. Lynch had arrived (al-
though abfent at the trial) in the month of Septem-
ber hitt. He had made an affidavit, dating his rea-
tons for not before leaving Trinidad, becaufe he
conceived that procefs could be fent oat to that Auld
to take his depofitions. When, however, fie Fecgived
a letter on the 18th of Jane, from Mr. Gloiler, the
Attorney General there, informing him that his pre-
tence in England was abfnintely neceffaty.be fhipped
himfelf on board the next fleet, and arrived-in Eng-
land. Suppcfing Dr. Lyactt were called upon the
new trial, and proved the whole of the convcrfation
between him and Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Danneey was
aware that it would not go to the length of altering
the verdift ; yet it would' be of confidcrable impor-
tance in influencing the minds of their Lordatips in
favour of the Defendant, when he should be brought
up to receive fentence.
Lord ELLENIsOROI.7Gth" As the witnefs, if called,
would not alter the minds of the Jury upon the new
uial, the Court cannot grant the objeCt of this ap-
plication, efpecially as the Defendant will have the
benefit of Dr. Lynch's depofitions when judgment
•is delivered."--Rule refuted.

ruacglAs V MACNAMARA.
Mr. GURNLY applied, on the part of the plaintiffs,
to fet afide a nonfuit. It was an aaion for a malici-
ous profecution for *perjury The ground of the
poduit had been, that there was 'a variance between
the deelarati in and the record, the former Hating
that the Plaintiffs were acquitted en the furrow after

the ltolrTtlnitf, turd thilutter ailhOging that
acquittal wok *min Tuefday nextofter
row of the term Frillier. The Learned Connie' con
tended, thii the nOnftiit The anel Counfel con
tended, that the non(uh Ihould be fet aside, on the
ground that the siairitroliFis riot material • and he
rfupporied bissoglintent upon ahe cafes of R;1111by v.
Watfon (2 BL sop), Frith.s.•Gray, Drury v. Twill,
.and the Icing o. Locker (I'l'. R. 240). He likevrife
;-cited the cafe of Pope v. Fortier (4 T. It. 590) and
'rc Pntended againtt the doilrinethere laid down 'by
Lord Kenyon.—Rule to flie-w caufe granted.