Star.
London, England, 1822-12-18 00:00:00

a petition against the bankrupt's certificate, forwarded
in the paper, and set down for hearing before his
Lordship. The reasons for this application were, that
the bankrupt, who was the father of ten children,
might •be kept in prison no longer than was fleets-
sary.;,. for, if it were to be heard before the Vice-
Chaocellor, the petitioners would most probably ap-
peal against the judgment, though it should have no
other effect than -that of detaining the bankrupt
in custody. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could not but
feel for a person so circumstanced: at the same time
he must use great caution in entertaining those feel-
ings, -lest he should open the way for very.many ap-
plications from persons suffering the same hardship
under very different circumstances. For this reason
he wished to have the papers handed to him to read
over before he gave any opinion, which he hoped to
be able to do to-morrow morning.

BEER V. WARD.
Mr. HART informed the Lord Chancellor that he
had made inquiries as to the production of the papers
.in the Master's Office, to assist the inquiry into the
nest of kin of William Cotton, the lunatic. He had
discovered that there had been some neglect in pro-
ducing some of the papers ; but there was no neglect
attributable to the Master in any stage of the inquiry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had been
misunderstood. There had been neglect of a •ery
culpable nature ; but he did not intend to throw any
blame on the Master, who had been imposed upon in
common with the Court.

NelLpea said
. payment
out the production of those documents. _
that 'there must be some decree in the•case, as the
Master had reported specially upon the incunibrances.
Mr. BaIDOILR said that there was no objection to
the order for the sale of the estate being rescinded.
The VJcs•CHANCILLOR directed that the motion
should stand till next Seal, when the necessary docu-
menu might be produced.

CLARK V. CLARK.
This was an application,by Mr. lIRALD, on the
part of the plaintiff, Mr. James Clark, to have a re-
ceiver appointed with the usual directions for ma-
nagement of an estate. The facts, as stated by the
Learned Counsel, were shortly these :—James Clark,
the present plaintiff, had a brother, George Clark, a
man of considerable fortune. George Clark had an
only natural daughter, Mary Clark Turner, and
executed a will, leaving the whole of his property _to
this child. After the execution of this will, and be-
fore his death, George Clark purchased an estate
worth upwards of 5,0001. but died without altering
his will with respect to this estate. George Clark
died on the 3d of October, 1820, and the plaintiff,
by law, of course became the heir la the estate.—
About ten days after the death of his brother, the
plaintiff, who is a labourer, was working in some
fields, when a Mr. 6kb:in, the uncle of the illegiti-
mate child, came to him, and desired him to go to
his brother's house, to have some property settled
upon him. The plaintiff accordingly went with Mr.
Bitton, and found there Mr. Margison and Mr. Bur-
ton, two executors of his brother's will. The plaintiff
(as he now swore in his affidavit) was there asked
whether he was willing to give up this estate upon a
consideration of 50/. a-year for life? The plaintiff
answered that he knew nothing about the matter, but
imagining that he should get nothing if he did not
accept the offer, agreed to the bargain. The conse-
quence was, an agreement was signed, transferring
the estate to the plaintiff% brother's daughter, Mary
Clark Turner. Subsequently, he executed a more
formal instrument to the same effect,. and in the Ja-1
nuary following executed further deeds, giving up
all his interest in the estate. The plaintiff had since'
filed a bill Cu be released from the effect of these
deeds; and the foundation of the bill was, he was
wholly ignorant that he bad a right to the estate in
question. The two executors had filed affidavits,
swearing that it was distinctly explained to the plain-
tiff at the time he executed these deeds, that he had
acquired a full right to the estate. Another affidavit,
put in by a Mr. Utting, an attorney, who had been
previously employed in other transactions by the
plaintiff, stated that at the plaintiff's request, he
looked at the instruments in question, and swore the
plaintiff perfectly well knew what he was doing.
-The Learned Counsel (Mr. HEALD) contended that'
the affidavit of the plaintiff was sufficiently strong
to overturn the allegations in the affidavits filed by
other parties, and hoped therefore his motion would
be granted.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without troubling Mr.
Wingfield, who was Counsel on the other side, was
decidedly of opinion that there was not sufficient pre-
sumption against the legal effect of these deeds to in-
duce the Court to grant this motion. The strength
of the evidence was in favour of the deeds executed
by the plaintiff', and the Court must take it for granted,
that in signing them he acted under a sense of moral
duty towards his brother's child. -
Mr. WINGFIELD made an application for costs, but
it was immediately refused.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 17.
HALL V. BOOT AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for infringing a patent granted
on the 3d of November, 1317, to the plaintiff, Sa-
muel Hall, for improving lace and every description
of net-work.
It appeared from the specification, that the object
of the invention was to remove super floors threads
which give a woolly appearance to lace. This is
effected by eiposing it to the heat of inflammable
gas, and passing it, by means of rollers, with such
velocity as to destroy the woolly excrescences, while
the intense heat is forced upwards by a current of
air, se as to pass through the meshes of the lace with-
out injuring its texture. The novelty of the invention
consisted in cleansing the interstices from the woolly
fibres, whereas before, by the process of singeing, the
edges only could be rendered free from the particles.
Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Edenborough, Mr. C. W.
Nunn, and Mr. John Johnston, Gentlemen acquainted
with the lace trade, proved that the invention, which
they believed to be new, added greatly to the clear-
ness and transparency of the lace, and that in con-
sequence the home consumption of British lace had
increased, and that an increase had also taken place
in the quantity of the article exported. There was
a great demand for the gassed lace in France ; and
scarcely any lace except that gassed was purchased
by foreigners.
The LORD CHIEF Junto' asked Mr. Johnston
whether this lace so exported to France did not very
often come back as French lace ?—(A laugh).
The witness replied in the affirmative; and Mr.
GURNEY stated that a Norwich manufacturer had
lately exclaimed against the wickedness of importing
French lace, when the piece he was moralizing over
had been manufactured five doors from his own.
Mr. Arthur Aikin, Secretary to the Society of Arts,
said be had devoted great part of his life to scientific
investigations. Before he saw Mr. Hall's invention
he knew of nothing similar ; the only thing approach-
ing to resemblance was singeing muslin by passing it
over a red hot cylinder, after which it was passed
between two others to prevent it from burning. Mr.
Hall's apparatus appeared to be completely effectual.
The process applied to muslin, it; adopted as to lace,
would clear the surfaces, but not the interstices. The
witness explained how the application of the flame of
coal or charcoal would fail of clearing the fibres
from the interior of the net, and how the current of
air produced by the machinery of Mr. Hall was es-
sential to the purpose. He had no doubt either of the
originality or the utility of the process. The specifi-
cation coincided with the process..
Professor Brande, Mr. Children, Mr. Donlan, Mt:.
Fereday, who assisted Sir Humphry Davy in the

plan, which he had been enabled to copy by being
introduced into the room bone of Mr. Hall's work-
men. According to the testimony of this witness, the
machine was wotked within a partition in the ware-
house of Jervis Boot, in Mount-street, Nottingham,.
the windows bf which were barricadoed, And to which
' access was obtained by a secret entrance from his
bed-room. The gas was conveyed through a bracket
from the pipe which supplied the ordinary burners in
the outer room. This witness also proved •that an-
other house in Mount-court was taken for another
machine, but the intention was not in this case effected.
—He also swore, that after the final discovery was
made, when he alluded to the danger in which Jervis
Boot stood, he replied, 04 I care neither for you nor
Hall ; can only go to prison, and TB gas again.
The testimony of this man was corroborated
veral circumstances by other witnesses.
Evidence was then given to spew that a machine
was worked at a house in High Pavement, "Notting-
ham, which was shared by both the defendants. It
was shewn that Francis Boot gave orders for the sup-
ply of gas ; that the gas supplied' was far more than
could be consumed by the burners apparently in-use ;
that an alteration had been made in the pipes, which.
could not be accounted for by any visible object ;
and that the attic was divided closely by a partition,
of which the.servant refused to give the key. Two
witnesses, named Fogg and Coleby, proved that they,
by desire of the plaintiff, ascended the roof, took out
the painted skylight, and looked into the recess,
where they saw the machine and the gas-pipe, exactly
as used by Mr. hall. It was further shewn that Mr.
Francis Boot offered a piece of gassed lace for sale;
and that he had taken the house- on the High Pave-
ment, and paid the rates and taxes.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendants, stated, that he
should be able to shew that, long before the alleged in-
vention of Mr. Hall lace had been cleared by flame, and
that spirits of wine and oil, or charcoal, Would equally
produce the effect with gas. He called two witnesses
from Nottingham, who stated that they had cleared
stockings and lace by passing them through a flame;
but it did not appear that they had ever used an ap-
paratus resembling that of the plaintiff.' The Learned
Counsel also contended, that there was no•evidence
to fix any share in the transaction upon Francis Boot.
The Jury intimated that there was no occasion for
the.Socictroit-GanettaL to repty.
The LORD CHtkiJUSTICi said, that there could be
no doubt that the verdict must pass against both the
defendants ; for Francis Boot actually ordered the gas
with which the machine was put in action. As the
plaintiff did not seek for damages, they would find
only nominal damages.—The Jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF HARRIS, V. MASTERS.
This was an action of ejectment,-brought by the
lessor of Sin ing-gardens Chapel, to recover possession
from the lessee, a Clergyman, for non-payment of
rent. It appeared that tholease contained a proviso,
allowing the lessor to enter if the rent should not be
paid within twenty-one days after it became due, al-
though not previously demanded.. At the time of
the demise, the rent was overdue, but there was an
organ, carpets, mats, curtains, and other properly,
hi the Chapel, liable to distress, and more than
sufficient to countervail the arrears. The organ was,
proved by Mr. Bishop, the builder, to be worth at
least 200 guineas: he had agreed to build it for that
sum, but being unable to obtain payment, he suf-
fered it to remain on hire at ao per annum. The
Statute of 4th Geo. 11. which in case of provisos of
re-entry for non-payment of rent, dispenses with a
formal demand %%hen there is no sufficient distress on
the premises, did not therefore apply, and the case
'stood as at common law. It has been decided that,
at common law, a demand is necessary, though not
declared to be so in the lease; but here not only was
no demand stipulated for, but there was an express
declaration that none should be required. The ques-
tion, therefore, was—whether this express stipulation
rendered a formal demand needless?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE recommended that the
point should be reserved ; and the Jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
'Court in a special case.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 17.
HEATHFIELD V. STEERS.
This was an issue from the Vice-Chancellor's Court
to try whether a commission of bankrupt, issued
against a person named Holding, was not sued out
by his own connivance; and in collusion with some
of his creditors.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN addressed the Jury for the
plaintiff, and called witnesses to prove that Steers'
(the defendant's) debt was a fictitious one, and also
that a debt alleged to be due from Holding to a per-
son named Healy was fabricated for the purpose of
getting him (Holding) his certificate. • - -
Mr. Serjeant PELL addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and contended, at considerable length, that
no case had been made out to prove that there ex-
isted the slightest collusion between Holding and any
of his creditors. The commission, he maintained,
was fair and bona, de, and he trusted the Jury would
so consider it.'
Mr. Justice PARK summed up; and the Jury, with-
out hesitation, found a verdict for the defendant,
thereby establishing the validity of the commission..
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DECEMBER 16.
Henry Puckride, who had been heard on a former
day, when his discharge was opposed by a creditor
named Cooke, came up to receive the judgment of
the Court.
. .
,The CHIEF COMMISSIONER briefly recapifblated the
of the case.' The insolvent had been a watch
and clock-maker, and took a house for carrying en
his business, which he employed several of file pre-
sent creditors to fit up in an expensive manner, so
as to give the appearance of a flourishing trade: In
the month of January he Was sued for a debt of £lO,
which be was then unable to pay ; and although he
was absenting himself from his house In the months
of June and Jaly, to avoid being arrested, for that
small debt, yet having his business carried on by his

c‘ 7",
brother, eostionia to Winne& ICUs tadefrotek
bir:COoki, wheat 'he tassild have tun tenantable erg
pedant% tifiletng able to pay (dr Me V. • llsiot was-
which. prudent trodeitomi tetra ** likely •
credit thaibi a person huldmit
cavvying•oa:an extensive bur. -
most then k the testittinj to such
R. The judgment of **Coat;
the insolvent .should not be cres...
charged _ tea months ire= the alp of
,his petition. •
Thomas Has7,and was opposed by Hatt and Camp.
bell, tailois, Tavistock-street.
' • Mr. Hart stated,' that in May last the insolvent
was introduced to them by a person of the name of
Clarke. Who was a custorner. and debtor of 'their'si od
whose introduction they gave-him credit. In August
they received a notice from Clarke, that he had pe.:
titiOned the insolvent Court to be discharged. net
then demanded payment from the insolvent, who sai4
Clarke was his debtor, and in consequence of h 4
(Clarke's) insolvency he could not pay, and they sue 4
him: The insolvent states) that Clarke was his debtor
for five pounds, at the time he introduced him to
Hart and CaMpbell, but he had-since given him se-
:Vera! small sums, which discharged the debt.
The CHM! Commissior ER said the probability was,
that Clarke, being in the insolvent' debt, and unable
to .pay him. they had agreed together that he should
introduce him to Hart and Campbell to get a suit of
clothes; by which the debt was to be discharged.
• 'The Collar thought it a proper. case to exercise
the'distretion vested in it by tht 16th Section of the
4,4et,lbackr which they adjudged that the In olvent
should be remanded for sit months from the date of

. .

-........,

A.

his Petition.
John' Lomas, who had been a farmer at Tunbridge,
in Kent, was opposed by Dr. Wordsworth, the licctur
of the parish, for a debt due for tithes.
The Insolvent stated, that in. the month of Mar,
1821, he gage his two brothers a warrant of ittorp.ey
for 9001. he owed them fur money borrowed at s:.-
rious times during a period of fifteen or sixtven cals.
His brothers issued execution immediately, and put
a person in possession, but allmsed the insoivein to
carry, on the farm ostensibly tilt September,
they sold everything he had in the.world. The s.►le
produced 8001. out of which they paZl the rent, but
no tithes.
On examining the Insolvent's balance sheet, it was
found that he had not accounted for his receipts and
expenditure from the date of the .earliest debt in I is
schedule, which the Act requires him to do; and the
further corfsideration of his -case was adjourned, to
give him time to amend his balance sheet.

A person at —Rochester, near Uttoleter, a few days
ago, who had obtained various credits of-the public,
died, and was buried. A few days after repo' is ere
abroad of his ghost being seen; and suspicions arn,e
on the subject of his decease, on which the coffin wa-i
taken up, and found to be filled with stows. The
defunct debtor is still at la ge, and suspected to Ite
practising on the living in some other place.
A Man; who offered his wife for sale on Tharsd :y,
in the public market at Plymouth, was taken up, and,
with his wife, whom he was, about to part front
" nothing loth," brought before the Magistrates at
Guildhall; and both were admitted to bail to ansnec
for the offence at the next Borough Sessions.
Wostatto—The following curious compliment to
the fair ser is extracted from an old play, entitled
Cupid's Whirligig:—" Who would abuse your sex
that knows if? owoman, were tte not born of you—
should we not then honour you? Nursed by you,
and not regard you ? Made for you, and not seek
you ? And since we were made before you, should
We not live and admire you as the last and most
perfect work of Nature? Man was made when Nature
was but an apprentice, but Woman when she wan skit.
ful mistress of her art. By your love we live in
double breath, even in our offspring after death. Ate
not all vices masculine,
.and virtues feminine? Are
not the Muses the loves of the learned ? Do not all
noble spirits follow the Graces because they ate
women? There is but one phoenix, and she's a female.
Was not the princess and foundress of good arts, Mi-
nerva, born of the brain of highest Jove, a woman?
Has not woman the face of love, the tongue of per-
suasion, and the body of delight? 0 divine per-
fectioned woman, if to be of thy sex is so excellent,
What is it then to be a woman enriched by nature,
made excellent by education, noble by birth, chaste
by virtue, adorned by beauty !—a fair woman, which
is the ornament of heaven, the grace of earth, the joy
of life, and the delight Of all sense, even the very
summum bow): of man's existence." This old play,
written in 1607, and falsely ascribed to SHAKSPEARE,
is rarely met with, and is not likely to have fallen in
the way of Buntis: who, however, in one of his songs
his hit upon the same idea, and almost the same
words as we have marked in Italics, in the preceding
passage. Bolus, speaking of Dame Nature, says,
" Her 'prentice han' she tried on man,
And then she made the lasses, 0 !"

BIRTH.
Thursday, in Berkeley-square, the Countess. D'Asiie, the bre-
dinian Ambassador's Lady, of a son and heir.

COURSE OF
Amsterdam l2 6 C.F.
Ditto sesight..— 12 L.
Rotterdam... l2 7 91.1.
Antwerp, ex-mo. 12 •
Hamburgh... 37 9 2U.
Akona 37 10 IU.
Paris,3day'ssighs2s 55 U.
Ditto 25 85 2U.
Madrid, effective 57

Cadiz effect 36
Barcelona .56
Bilboa, effective 57

PRICES OF GO.

Foreign Gold in Bars ...
New Doubloons

: '

New Dollan»
Silver, in bars,.stiadard.....,

• •
' . • -
14
.-• • •
. ..,
.. - . . - •
. . .
' . . .
..• t •
• . • .. . - 4. *.
:fir- •' ' -so .• • •
, - :'. .'
.- '1 . '. ' :.'• '. :Is3- r. 'eli (,; rreVii 1 .41
.. f ' • .
‘l'l/4'
_
• NJ the Sate •of Mr. WaterO'sidreafaiffififiefiiiii*Mit, fig act* 4ellapr'snil MT. Phillips. brother, be manned to
'* '.... . LAW INTELLIGENCE. =ger-on iii -Alia tertidon lidaitutioN: Mr:Cooke, when be to
don to the present motion. • ...- .-
._ _ 1,- ~
__. •
...ha-44th mi. Agrarist‘ratioion,. kneettlOC peetsttien of being able I
Mn HEALD OilmaiTadt that 1001ZIPPA own paid
• not ism watt in which preden
COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 17. into Court by driblets, in .Consequ . . viteertoo--• s or- Zai'eharcoal, vihieb %hip bad seen used;
'
- • - ' to be induced w give cn
den of the Court. • These orders, hOweeer, ought to answer the purpose of*, machie.
EL•PARTE ACKLAND, IN TEZ MATTER or ROSE" be roduced.
• In order to prove the iefringements oftbei patent iota the appearance of c
. .
. • A BANKRUPT.
Mk HART applied to have this cause, which was The VICE-CHANCILLLOE said he certainly,could by the defendants, Charles. Hart was first called, who ' mit ; and the Coon mu
Si netition arainst the bankrupt's certificate, forwarded make no order for the Plyment of the 5,5001 with- stated that he entered into IA engagement .with Mr.. .means by insolvents.
d_ed nnt the Ittoduction of those document!. He beelieve d Jervis
_Boot for working a machine on Mt. Hell s therefore, was, that the
1.;..5. It• hart enabled to copy by being , charged_ in less dna i