Star.
London, England, 1809-11-18 00:00:00

THE KIXO V. WILLIAM GLASTOK.

The defendant was brought up by !Ideas Cortur,
from the common gaol ot the County of LbSCX,
charged with stealing a hog on the 27th of March
last, tor the purpose of his being bailed, on the special
circumstances ot me case.

The Court, after bearing the whole of the evidence,
as returned with the certiorari, by which all the pro-
ceedings before the Magistrate were removed, ob-
served, that as the detendant would have to remain
nearly six months in prison, it nut now bailed, and
as a good deal ot doubt was introduced into tne case
upon the evidence, it was but fair to bail him, and,
therefore, he was bailed upon four persons, beside
himself, entering Iwo a recugniza,:ce in £2O each,
for his appearance to take his trial at the next Assizes
for the county ot Essex.
Mr. GARKOW moved for a rule to shew cause why
Mr. Russell, an Attorney ot the Court, should not
repay to a Client of his, the sum ot a',s,tog,:tner with
the costs of this application. He was desired to add,
" and why he should not answer the. matters of the
affidavit ;" but that was .uperfluous, for il.at he must
do, in sheaving any cause. He moved this
upon an
affidavit, stating, that Mr. Russel, hasi much abused
his character ot Attorney, and it the party complain-
ing could have no redress by the Court, he had nu re-
source for it. It was stated, that Mr. I:usefl was a
confidential Attorney in defending 4 belt for a Gen-
tleman who wanted to raise some money up n a Bill
of Exchange tor ot7o, which he applied to Mr. Rus-
sell to discount ; to Ouch he agrtcd, on having a
warrant of attorney, upon which he made out a hilt,
with the following item, in it :

x. I. 4
Warrant of Attorney' and several cor.ferences relative
to lending this naotle) (that is, cuffs:l...ll,m tvi,ll
sell, fur Lobody elect was to It tal the trwtt, said Ms-.
Garrow

.... .. . ....... . . . . 2 3 4 a

lintaring ludtmetn on Recurd • it 0 0
Ca. Sa. 461. Di.icount lis.

In short, the whole bill upon this occasion, amount-
ed to A:l5. Is. 60. so that the client had i.nly A,Ly;
for his Je7o. Now thtre was no Ca. Sa. issi:J, noir
could there be, or no judgment had ►teen :!niered up,
as it was stated to Kira ; but all this was an expence
by anticipation. Upon such circumstances, if day
were correctly state:, thc present NV:tS a mild mottos
against this professional Gentleman.
Rule to spew cause gr

loie persons who, from the great demand for
Tickets mid Shares in the lateLtittery, were disap-
pointed in obtaining a chance i.
or the smilei of For-
tune, will be gratified to find that the TieLts lin tits
New State Lottery are already upon Sale at the dif-
ferent othces ; the mire particularly so, as the
. Scheme is.nearly the same as the last, which was so
generally approved of, and which liati tlit. good
AftXt or ;ot4ly doing away all insurance, the witolo
Lottery being to be drawn in oue day,

LAW IN rE1.1.10 ENO!.
IN cONTINUATI4N FROM Tlit; PaECEDING PAGE.
•

• •
COl74iE COP COMMON PLEAS, N0V.17.
ouTflifl O. BLACKMMiIe.

An action to recover the sum of £l3 Ss.
The plaintiff is Captain of a vessel trading to Got-
tenbingh, the defendant is a crimp at Wapping, and
had enpiged to plocure for the plaintiff two seamen
to navigate his vessel, outivardbound. The agree.
swat which they entered into was, that the men
should be sent on board, and were to receive F 5 each
per man, being the allowance of one month's wares.
This sum, together with three guineas crimpage Mo-
ney, was paid over to the defendant, the plaintiff hav-
ing taken his receipt ; the men. however, were not
fortherming, and the plaintiff was obliged to make;
his voyage without them. When he returned to Eng.;
land, he sent to demand restitution of his Money,
but the defendant laughed at his messenger, snapped.
his finger, and defied him to recover back the money,
and said, that supposing his witnesses could establish
the case against him, he did not care, for he had ma-
ny of the same sort of charges against him, and
world go to prison sooner than pay, where the plain-
tiff Must pay him sixpence per day.
' The defendant did not produce ;shy evidence to re-
but the plaintiff's case, and the Jury found a verdict
ft.r the plaintiff ‘l3 SS.

.__ _~~ -

V