Star.
London, England, 1802-02-26 00:00:00

TIM RITIO V. RENNET.

This Was an indiflment for perjury. A quan-
tity of falt had been feized in the houle of a gro-
cer at Lynne, on Infpicion of being frmiggled.—
When the trial came on, the defendant's fervent
was called as a witnefs, and fwore to fevcral things
which were now charged to be falfe. After Mr.
Gurney, the 111°n-hand writer, had read his evi-
dence as taken down in Couit, a land waiter was
examined to ellablifh the perjury. He had con-
, traditfted the defendant in feveral material fads,
when Mr. Attorney-General faid he had jult
learned that five or fix other perfons were prefent
during the fearch, who had not been fummoned.
There was no doubt that they ought to have been
examined, and as be could have but one obje4t in
view, which might not in this way be completely
attained, he contented to drop the profecution.
Mr. Jullice Gaose faid, fince the Attorney-
General had behaved with Inch candour and pro-
priety, the Jury would 'acquit the defendant. —Not
Guilty.

MORCIAW qri tam V. SIMSILII.
lhis information was brought againtl the de.
fondant for an attempt to export woollen yain
He is a foreigner, concerned in a very relpeetable
houfe in the city, and was fending this yarn to a
holier in Saxony, for the purpofe of being manu-
factured into finckings. It was entered at the
Cutiom-houfe as cotton, but the fearcher was fur-
prifed to find it In light, and ordered the package
to be opened. The penalty here fought to be re-
covered was three thillings for each pound of wool
which the defendant had attempted to export.—
For this offence, betides the pecuniary muld, the
offender is liable, by an old ttatute, to infamous
corporal punilhment.
Mr. ERSKIN e made an excellent fpeech, not to
eftabliih the innocence of his client, but to thew
that he had been aCting from ignorance, and being
a young man of unexceptionable charaCter, he
ought not to foffer more for his involuntary error.
Mr. E. highly extolled the anxiety of the Lcgifla-
ture to prcferve the woollen trade in all its branches
exclufivdy to this country. I perfonally know,
faid he, that wool manufaCtured as this was to have
been in Saxony, forms a very confiderable article
of our export trade. Having been at Antwerp
with a gentleman highly refpeCted by my learned
Friends on both hands of me, we were deeply af-
teCted to fee grafs growing in the ltrects of that
city, which had once monopolized the commerce
of the world. However, my travelling compa-
nion rushed into the room one morning, and pre-
tended that he had difcovered the manufaCtures
of the town not to be reduced to fo low an ebb as
we had imagined. He produced a pair of excellent
worlied flockings, which he had bought cheaper
than they would have coil him in London. In-
!lead of believing, like him, however, that they had
been knit at Antwerp, I immediately fufpetted
them to be tit!. produce of my native country.—
My curiotity being excited, and withal not being
over well provided with the article myfelf, I went
in perfon to the (hop ; I had nn former faid, Mal/-
fret moi des bar de lainr, id vont plait, than, ex-
claiming en voila, he (hewed me tome, and my con-
jeCturcs were confirmed. However, having highly
praifed them, I asked, fabrigue eon en grand
nombre ai a Anvers ? A Anvers, Mon leur! cried the
Ces ne Aft pas des bas de la fa 4me d'Anvers ;
eels vino offirement d' Aberdeen. And to be fure they
were honeft Aberdeen hole !

The Jury immediately found a verdia for .the
plaintiff, damages 501. 2s. Bd. The profecution
was carried on at the expencc of a fociety of dock-
ing weavers in the North.