Star.
London, England, 1807-05-29 00:00:00

YORK SPRING MEETING, IkIAY 25.

A Sweep(lakes of togs each, for all ages. 2 miles.
Lord Fitzwilliam's fir Paul, by Sir Peter, oft a
Mr. Garfortir's b e by Beningbrough. Eft rOlb i
Duke of Hamilton' b c Grazier, by Sir Peter, Bft 51b 3
Sir H. Williamfon's b e Maida, by Beniugbrough, Eft tolb 4
Lord Munfon's Cleveland, oft 5
s;r T. Gafenigne's ch f by Harnhletonlan,, 6ft tzlb 6
Mr L. Saville s br c by Sir Solomon, Ott toib - 7
A good race-7 to 4 and 2to 1 agft Paul ;3to 2 agft Garfortb ;
5 to 2 nit Maida ; and high odds agft the others.
Sir H. T. Vane's br f by Shuttle, ,dam by Overton. agft Mr.
Lon'd.sle's colt, by Stamford, out of Comi.ani. n'. dam, Bft each,
tccgs. One mile. Won by the latter.
Two to ton the whiner. Won eafy.
TUESDAY, MAY 26.

Stand Plate of 531. for all ages ; 3 yr. ulds 6a. 4 yr.
( Ids 7(1. 91b. 5 yr. olds Bi. 41b. 6 yr. olds and
aged Sii. tolb. Three and four year old fillies
allowed 41b. Pour miles.
Mr. Wentworth'. b e Centurion, by Beningbroeg`i, 4 yrs old t
Mr. Watt's Fea^der, by Delphini. 6 yrs al
Mr. Garforties h f by Hyacinthus, out of Fl •ra, 3 yrs old 3
Mr. Johnfon's h h Sir Andrew, by Hambletonlin, 5 yrs old 4
Mr. Croft's k c Cardinal Puff, by Cardinal, q Ir. old
Mr. White's b h Mortonian, by St. George, 6 yrs old 6
Sir H. T Vane's bf by Sir Peter, 4 yrs old 7
Duke of Hamilton's h h Governor by l'rumpator, 5 yrs old
Six to t agft Centurion; S to a aeit Fveni.er ; 5 to a aglt Mr.
Garfcrth's b f; 6 to t set Sir Andrew ; S to a againit Sir H. T
Vane's b. f.

Sweepaakes of togs. each, for 3 yr. olds; colts Ba.
31h. filies 811. Mile and 3 quarters.
Mr. Hutton'• b c by Sir Peter, nut of Sasnni s dam g
Mr. Garforth% b c by Beningbrotigli, out of Car4iite $
Lord Titzwiiiianes gr c Knowfley. by Sir Peter 3
Mr. Morky's h c by Hyacintbuq, dam by Pnahunter 4
Sir W. Gerard's b c Wintile, by Beningbrougli 3
Mr. Duncornbeg b c Buffington, by Star 6
Sir H. I'. Vanes b I by Patriot, dam by Plicent
- _ _

~am by , _.Jomenort 7
Lord Widnes b c Governor, by Don tquixotte 14
Mr. !Health's Young Hopeful, by Expedlatlon Pd
Mr L Savilesbr c by Sir &doom - Pfl
Seven to s agft Mr. Hutton 's b c.; 7 to 2 agft Mr. Garforth's
A c; 5 to s agft Lord Fitzwilllani's gr c; 5 to 2 agft Mr. Mtuty's
b c; sto saga Windle.

Sweepflakes of Sop. each, for 3yrs. old fillies, M.
31b.—'The lall mile and half.
Sir T. Garcoigne's c by Timothy, oui of Vi-let r
Lord Fitzwilliam's Paulina, lifter to Sir Paul $
M. Wentworth's Margaret, by Beningbrough, nut t f Rosana s
Mr. Pickering's bby Beninghrough, out of St Ann 4
Mr Ku by's b by Enchanter, out of Vicif4tude S
Mr. Garfortles e by Hyacinthus, out of Yarico 6
Mr. T. Duncombesb by Espeetalfun, out of biter to Maid
of all Work
Mr. Mellifies fir by Hambletonian, dam by Trumpator $
Mr. Grimfton's b by Precipitate, out of Mcr to kfcape yd
Sir H. T. Vanes hr by Shuttle, dam by Overran Pa
Sir M. M. Sykees Harriet, by Precipitate, out of Rubor.' pd
.Zr. E. 1.. Hodgfon's b by Patri-A, oat of Mifs Murton Pd
Mr. T. Rohinfon s br by F.:trimmer. out of Belle Lille pd
Two tot agft Sir T. Garcoigne's c ; a to z and 5 WS; NOD*
Pauline; 4 to z set Margarts; high odds agft the ref}.

11

LilW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 26.
Pf)TTkR V. KAY.

This was an adion fnr 561. 145. the price of t 8 11
• Steep, fold to the defendant. The plaintiff is a mer-
chant, and rents a (mall farm in the county of Mid•
dlefex. The defendant is a butcher in the neighbour-
hood of the farm. The contra& between the parties
was for 18 fheep, at 3 guineas a head, with liberty
of pafturage for a month. In the courfe of that pe-
riod two of the fheep were (Men, and the queftion
was, who fhould be at the lois ? In the progrefs of
the trial it appeared that another condition of the
contract was, that at the expiration of the month's
pafturage the defendant was to pay, with a bill at
two months. The month expired on the 27th of
November, confequently the debt did not commence
till the 27'h of January, and on turning to the record
the adir.n was entitled of Hilary Term, which com-
mences the 23d of January, fo that the plaintiff had
brought his adion four days former than his right of
anion accrued. He was therefore nonfuited.
MOULDEN V. tIENSHAW.
This was an affirm for 51. cos. for the price of 36
gallons of cyder furninted to defendant. It appeared
that the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, Rating that
Mr. Parry had recommended his cyder, and that he
wifhed to talk it, and defired him to fend half a hog-
!head of it. The Plaintiff's flock being out, he fent
in the quantity ordered from the Rock of a Mr.
`Tozer, another dealer. The Defendant objeded to
it, and refuted payment.
Lord ELLFNBOROUGH held, that the contra& had
not been fa;isfied, inafmuch as the Defendant or-
dered the Plaintiff's cyder, and not Toxer's, and that
he ought not to recover. The Plaintiff was accor-
dingly nonfuited.
UTTRILIDGE V HARRIS.
This was an action for the him of a horfe and
chaife for five days, at t zs. 6.1. a day. The Plain•
tiff was fume time fence a publican in the neighbour-
hood of Richmond, and kept a bode and chaift, which
he occafionally let to hire. The defendant's wife
wifhing to attend her daughter to the Clerkenwell
Seflions, the having indided her hufband for ill treat
ment, aßced the plaintiff to drive her to London in
his gig, which he did five days fudceffively, for which
he now claimed to be paid. The defence let up was,
that the plaintiff volunteered the ufe of his chaife,
and, being a witnefs himielf in the cattle, he gave
Mt s. Harris a feat betide him out of kindnefs, and as
a cnur efey, for which, at the time, he candled no
pecuniary town. It alfo appeared that Mr. Harris,
the defendant,. was a lunatic, and it was contended,
that what had paired between the plaintiff and Mrs.
Harris, could not bin 3 the defendant.
Lord Eto.selottotrou laid, there was a very ;tn.
perfed evidence of a hiring ; and when the Rate of
the hufband's mind at the time was confidered, it
mull appear that the thing hired was neceffary,—
Now it could not be Paid that a chaife was necefftry '
on the prefent cccafion, and therefore it would be too
much to bind the hufband with that which appeared
more like a courtefey than a letting to hire.—Verdid
for defendant.
COMET V. •NTO -MAY 27.
This was an adion for board and lodging furnilhed
to defendant and his friend for three weeks. The.
plaintiff keeps a public bottle in Old Gravel lane, and
the defendant is a Ruffian tailor, who took up his
quarters, with his friend Williams, at the plaintiff's
bottle. A witnefs of the name of Hawes was called
to prove the debt, but he could only fpeak to five
days maintenance for defendant and his friend. And
it being proved that the plaintiff had received 41. cos.
for wages due to defendant, the Jury gave a verdid
for the defendant.
ALLFYN V. HEYJELL.
This was an adinn againft the drawer of a bill of
exchange for 491. and a fradion, drawn on one Agat t,
at a month, dated the zoth of January, 1806.
Mr. PARE. in opening the cafe, admit!ed that the
Plaintiff had received a dividend, in part, of the dime
of Agatt, who was deceafed, and that the bill ap-
peared to have been once dated the loth, but to have
been altered to the zoth of January. If this were
dune after the hill xras completed and ifined forth
into the world, it would certainly defeat the Plain
tiff's claim, as a new (lamp was neceffary ; but it muff
be proved its him to have been done after, and not
before it was campleted ; and it would be difficult to
thew that a party had pnlipnned the payment of a
bill ten days which had been fo completed ; the bill
being proved, and the Defendant's hand-writing,
Mr. Geattow, for the Defendant, endeavoured to'
fhew that there was nothing fo extraordinary, where
the cafe was of an accommodation bill, that finding
the party drawing it would not be able to provide for
it at the time, ten days further fhould be given by
altering the bill after it was completely manufaCtured.
That this was the cafe he fhould prove, not by any
living teftimony, becaufe the acceptor was dead, but
by a written memorandum of the acceptor, by which
it appeared that it was an accommodation bill, and
was drawn op the toth of January. The paper when
put in appeared to be an acknowledgment between
the parties to the bill, that a bill dated loth January,
between the fame parties, and for the fame fum, was
an accommodation bill.
I.lld ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. however, refuted to
receive this in evidence. It could not be tolerated,
he fait', that the declarations of the party to the bill
thioad be received as to this point, to deliat the in.
ittument which he had put in negotiation.
MAY 28.

90SEINS AND °TITERS, ASSIGNEES OF DIGHTON, V•
DUPEROY•

We mention this cafe merely to notice a point of
confiaerable importance on the flat ute of bankruptcy,
which is referved for the opinion of the Court. The
defendant fold to the bankrupt goods to the amount
of 2001. for which he had a promiffory note, dated
the i9th of March, at two months, falling due, with
three days grace, on the 22d of May. The day be-
fore the maturity of the note, viz. on the 21R of
May, the commiflion was iffued againft the vendee,
to which the vendor, the defendant, was the peti-
tioning creditor, and the queflinn was, if fuch a
debt c-nflitured a competent claim for the petitioning
creditor under the flatute ?
A cafe of a fimilar nature occurred in the Ccm.
mon Pleas, a (bort time Nice, which was acknow-
ledged to be perfeElly new to the praftice of the
Court; in that inflance, goods ware fold to be paid

for at the end of three !moths, the vendor was the
petitioning creditor, before the expiration of that
term, and it was decided that no fuch claim was fuf-
fictent to enable the vendor to become the petitioning
creditor. The only difference in the two cafes was,
that in the one, a promiffory note was given, and in
the other it was a mere book debt ; but this was ad-
mitted to be a difference without any legal difi:ndion.