Star.
London, England, 1824-11-16 00:00:00

C. • 14,- *"

. ...

TO FRIENDS AFAR.

Oh, think not that Time, the destroyer, bath blighted
The wreath of endearing remembrance T wear;
Still warm is my theme, and fidelity plighted,
Remains as we parted, unblemisb'd, sincere !
Yes, cherish'd in absence is each recollection
Of days which have pass'd as the meteor fleet,
When selfishness never enslav'd our affection,.
Nor the cup of delight press'd the lip of deceit !
Yet, 'tie not the merit of ruby wine flowing,
In Bacchanal revels, alone to impart,
A confidence tried, the esteem may be glowing,
And truth for a moment may spring from the heart!
the •isit of woe, when each hope Is declining,
And smiles not the cheek of adversity fade,
When amity twines round the bosom repining,
Than, then are ha energies proudly display'd:
It steals o'er tae sense, like the dew upon roses, -
Reviving and raising the languishing flower,
And blest is the being to whom it discloses
Its solacing aid in a perilous hoar !
When Heaven's great ASCWITISCr the formation
. Of Nan, in the semblance Omorroreoce wore,
And Eve in her brightness, iUtured a Creation,

Where chaos and darkness existed before !
Amidst all the virtues her beauty adorning.
Her reason ennobling, her bliseto improve.
Beam'd Friendship, u ehaste,as the star of the morning,
%%lowing her seal with tilt sipturcuE love !

-LAW REPORT.

. •
COURT OF CIIANCERY, NOV. is.

'VELE,* g. WELLER.
In this case, a 111r.,Crainpton had married a' Ward of
Conn, and, according: to the judgment of the I.ord
Chancellor, had committed a gross contempt, and a
subpoena was served upon him to attend the Court this
morning. , The mothery who is the petitioner, and the
daughter,who is defend4nt, were in Cotirt; together with
the youthful bridegroom.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR caused the young couple to
be called before him in his private room. The nature
of the interview was only known to the professional
Gentlemen who attended for the parties, and to the par-
ties themselves.

WILCOX V. RHODES.
This.was an apreal from the judgment of the Vice-
Chancellor.—The petitioner was entitled to a legacy of
personal property, which was guaranteed' in the will by
the leaseholds of the testator. The question had been,
whether the bequest was general, or a specific legacy
cliargeahle upon the leaseholds. The Vice-Chancellor
decreed that the legacy was chargeable in the first place
upon the leaseholds, and those estates failing, then to
be charged rateably with the other legacies upon the re.
siduary personal estate."
The. LORD CHANCELLOR pronounced this decree to be
inconsistent with arty sense which any man could apply
to it with a view to settling the question. He confessed
his entire inability to discover what was meant by
" rateably with the other legacies," in the event of the
leaseholds falling. Suppose the leaseholds paid 10s. in
the pound, wet e the legacies chargeable upon them to
come upon the redduary estate for the deficient 10s. or
" rateably" with the other legacies for 205.? As no one
burthe judge who framed the decree could clearly ex-
plain what was intended by theword, he would take an
oppo:tunity of consulting his Honour upon the subject.
,
IN re HUSBAND AND SON V. BLACILBURNi (PETER AND

ISAAC.)
There were three petitions presented to the Court in
this matter. Husband and Son cashed bills to a con-
siderable amount for Peter, drawn upon Isaac Black- ,
burne. -The two latteeNi er e partners in trade. Of this ,
fact the former were at the time ignorant. The Black- ,
homes became bankrupt, and Husband and Son
claimed upon the separate commission. After this claim
they admitted in a petition that they were aware of the
partnership prior to their claim, and at the it'll"! time
required to make their claim upon a
„joint Commission.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the ad-
mission on the part of the petitioners, that they were
aware of the partnership berme their claim, threw a
con-iderable difficulty in their way. Ile was inclined
to, think they had made their elettion,,and taken a step
from which they mold Dot, recede. His Mina, how-
aver, was pot mulepp ;,he we:44lo'k into the autho-
rities, and give hi. judgment to:morrow.
. -
COURT OF KING'S BENCII, NOV. iS.
STAFFORD BARONY.
THR KING V. J. S. S. COOKS.
This case was called on for judgment, ,but the de-
fendant having been unable to leave his room from in-
disposition, it was ordered to stand over for a week.
. . THE RIVER WEAR.
THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF DURHAM.
This was a conditional rule obtained by Mr. SCARLET?,
calling.on the Justices of Durharn to shew cause why a
mandamus should not issue, commanding them to re-
ceive the appeal of a Mr. Pemberton, against a quay.
line made by lilr..John Rennie, the Engineer, in a map
or plan of the River Wear, whiCh he snrveyed pursuant
to an Act of Parliament (59th Geo. III.) and under the
authority of the Lards Commissioners of the Admiralty.
The question was, whether Mr. Pemberton had power
to appeal, .and consequently whether the Justices could
seceive an appeal ?
The ATTORNE?.GRWUAL opposed the rule. By the
49th of the late King, passed for the improvement of
the liver Wear, certain Commissioners were appointed
for keeping the navigation of that river unobstructed.
Among other things, the Commissioners had power to
direct a survey and fix Meer stones to ascertain high
water mark, and if any person destroyed those stones or
marks they were subject to a penalty, That Act went
on till the .9th of George 111. passed. It was found
that a number of quays had been built within the line
of navigation, thereby obstructing the river. The Lords
of the Admiralty were dhected to fix limits to the navi-
gation, by setting up Meer stones. They had also power
to order a survey. Mr. Rennie was accordingly autho-
rized to ascertain where the Meet posts ought to be,
and make such a line as might be necessary for pre-
serving the navigation. He accordingly made a quay
line, within which all erections were to be made. His
judgment was to settle all disputes; and the plan, when
made, was not to be subject to any opposition. The
ground on which Mr. Pemberton made his application
was, that the quay line was improperly drawn, and Mr.
Itennie bad not done his duty: The Attorney-General
contended that the appeal could not be received.
SCARLETT, in SUPpOlt of his rule, said, unless
Mr. Pemberton could support his appeal, he must take

•
.
• •