Star.
London, England, 1814-03-01 00:00:00

L 419 INTELLIGENCE.
- . ' • ' • .

• COURT OF citIiNGKRY, FEBRUARY 28.
• LLOYD V. I'ASSINGHAM.
. This causegame on for, healing, upon Bill, answer,
and depositions. under the following most extraordi-
nary circuinstances ? -
:The direct object of the Bill was to set aside a cer-
tain deed of Lease and Release, executed in August,
1794, near twenty years, by which the parties Daubs,
ally covenanted and agreed to abide by, ratify,. and
confirm, to one cf. Abe defendants, Jonathan l'ats;ng.
ham, the estates in Monmouthshire, which were the
subject of a Trial at Common Law by a Specie
Jury, on the title of the plaintiff, iti the action ofeject.
merit, then tried at Shrewsbury on that occasion, 10
which the principal fact in issue was the legitimacy of
the claimant, as the lawrirl issue of Mary Lloyd, sister
of Mr. Gwynne Lloyd, who possessed the estates in
tai', and in 1791. devised the same successively in tail
to his sisters, Mory and Elizabeth. The Litter died
without issue, and Mary, the survivor, devised to Jo-
nathan Passiugham, who brought bis ejectment; and
having taken down the Hon. Tao as Easusit, now
Lord EItiKINN, by a special retainer, obtained a vet.-
disct in affirmance of his legitimacy, with so much
eclat, that, in gratitude, he made a present of a ser-
vice of plate to that celebrated Advocate, who was
observed this day in the Hall, at the opening of this
cause, and politely invited to ke his seat on the
Bench with the Lutes CkiAN OR, during the
.iar-
guments. .
The ground of impeachment o he deed of release
was, that the plaintiffs being the. legitimate heirs,
were defrautleAaat the estates. substquently sold for a
sum of about /00.000, by means of forged registers
of the birth of Jonathan Passingham, and of the mar-
riage of his parents, and that such forgeries were com-
mitted, or used cu the trial, by or with the privity of
the defendant Jonathan, or his brother Robert, who
acted as agent for hint on the trial. Tlse case excited
uncommon interest, and at three o'clock the furthee
hearing was adjourned.
CO:MT Of KING'S BENCH, FEB. 214 t
MAYOR V. GOLDSMID•
This was an action against the widow of the late
Mr. Goldsmid, for damaging' the furniture of the
house called Brunswick Pivillion, which she had
hired of the plaintiff, ready furnished, at £5OO for
one year. The statement on the part of the plaintiff
was, that the carpet in the best drawing-room} was
spoiliecl, by having oil spilled upon it ; that the card-
tables were greased, the gilding of the chairs rubbed .. .
414.4.
off, and a variety of other articles damaged bey,* •:..;-.4".
lair wear and tear. On the other hand, several w*
nesses were called, who stated, that they had surver
the furniture, and that it was not' unnecessarily da. -_,
triaged ; that the house smoked, and that it had beets .
...
uninhabited for four years, and the damp had de. °-
:owed a part of the beauty of the furniture.
The .kury, without waiting for his Lordship to sum
up the evidence, said they were satisfied, and found ,
a verdict in favour of the defendant.
4 ‘
CROUCH 10. Win eFLN• -
•
This was an action brought by the drawer of 11
truck against a brewer, to recover damages for an in-
jury he had sustained by the negligence 4 his dray.
men, in driving their dray against his truck, by which
he was forced against a window, and had his right
hand lacerated su that he lost the use of his forefinger.
The accident happened in Botolph-lane, and it was
proved that the draymen men have passed without
running against the truck. The plaintiff was coo!
lined six weeks in Guy's Hospital, and will most pro.
bably never recover the use of his finger.—The Jur,
gave him 'RM.

COURT OF COMMVN PLERSt GUILDHALL.
Saturday, ;_taerson named Taatoa bwitvoht hit
action against Mr,,ROBINSO4a PrqPlietOr of or the
Leeds coacbes, to recover the expeaCea or
a post-
chaise, which the plaintiff had hired taSonssuence
of the place not being kept for him which he had
taken in the defendant's coach. The Jury gavOls
damages, first deducting Taylor's espences for sating
while on the rued.
LIVIE V. ASSIGNEES OF BELE&
This was an issue from the Court of Chancery, to
determine whether there had been usury or not in se-
veral transactions, upon which the plaihtiff sought to
prove a debt to the amount of 420,000 against the
estate of the Dankru pt.
It appeared that Byles had been in possession of
several contracts to supply the shipping on the West
India station with rice and other articlei; and that
he had also shipping contracts at yarmooth and Bris-
tol. The plaintiff afterwards entered into partnership
with him, and made several large advances of money
on account of those contracts, but that afterwards
wishing to withdraw from the partnership, he agreed
to take 5 per cent. interest for the money advanced,
and also I per cent. on several of the victualling bills
then due. It was contended on the patt of the de-
fendants, that this made the transaction usurious.
The evidence of Byles went to prove that the plaint,
tiff knew at t,he time that there had been no profit
upon those contracts, but that they had been losing
concerns ; and that, therefore, the additional I per
cent. was given, in addition to the legal interest, tor
the use of the money.
The pl,tintiff's evidence, on the othet hand was,
that he had no knowledge of, the state of the concerns,
but believed from the representations of Byles that
they were profitable contracts. He; therefore, accep-
ted of the ime per cent. as a compensation for with-
drawing from what he considered a profitable con-
cern, but wl-,ich he thought Byles more competent to
manage.
The case then went to the Jury on the credit due
to the conflicting testimony on both sides. The Jury
found IG favour of Livie that the transaction was out
ustrious.

EIIFIVA!q H4TCHICL ap.
t, to take his trial for the alledged
ui Mont.Fv, Esq. in a duel, the cit.!
which untortunate occurrence are fresh
iind. The Rev. Doctor MflCar, the
. !4r. MONLEY, appeared in Court, and
.al's proceeding, upon The ground that.
had not complied with the rule of the
cases, requiring a previous surrender
)r fourteen days prior to trial. 43411011
aed that Doctor M‘l(at's oblecti ni
:et, .pet. it on the Court, and he could hdt Mu"
his compliance. Of course, Mr. HATCHILL'S trial is
postpone..l till next Curuamstou. He was Salittad
to Lumi.