Star.
London, England, 1802-11-04 00:00:00

11maRto4 p;r. is.

On rriday fe'nnight above lo men, mounted
on horfeback, and armed with mulkets, &c. went
to the houfe of Mr. Bansow, proaor, near Kaput%
con, and fired a flux into his dwelling.
Lail Thurfday night a large body of armed in-
furgents attacked the houfe of five yeomen belong-
ing to Capt. Turn ties corps of cavalry, took the
arms from three of them ; the two others having
ferreted their arms, were feserely flogged for not
delivering them up.
On this night, fo near to this city as Balline
curra turnpike,, nine Ibots were heard to be fired;
and on Tervoe road two (hots, fuppofed to be done
by the above party to intimidate the landholders
from any purfuit.
The fame body, as is fuppofed, forcibly entered
the houfes of feveral labourers belonging to Mr.
Vatic maw, near Kilpeacon, all of whom they flog-
ged on the naked backs unmercifully; at the fame
time clire&ing that they fhould quit. that part •of
the canny, or be murdered next night.

A man of 7s years of age, and a girl of isoip-
Vearing in Chatham Church, on Friday laft, to
be married, and the Minifter finding it was only a
-trick of the girl's parents to obtain the old dotard's
mciney, he refuted to perform the ceremony, and
they were obliged to return home in dudgeon.
The marriage ceremony between a young couple
of Holdby was put a glop to laft Thurfday for
Tome time, by the bridegroom, a Tailor, abruptly
declaring that be did not care how much better his
wife might turn out, but he had pre-determined if
the ever grew worfe, to difpofe of her as Coon as
he could, and would tell no lies in Church about
it. No argument would prevail on hhn to plight
his troth, till the father of the girl engaged to take
her home, and love and cherill her for the hufband,
in cafe the really grew worfe after marriage.
A farmer's labourer, near Hereford, has received
a medal from the Agricultural Society there, for
raring in habits of hone" induftry so children.
About two o'clock laft Saturday morning a fire
broke out on the ground floor of. the Black Lion
tavern, Yarmouth, but by timely affiftance, it was
in about four hours time completely got under.
On Tuefday evening laft as Mr. Blanchard, of
Norwood, was returning home, he was flopped by
three men, near .the Horfe and 'Groom, on the
Streatham road, and robbed of sl. in money.
A Gentleman near Leominfter lately difcovered
a quantity of arfenic, mixed with cheefe and curd
lard, difperfed in feveral places near his refidence.
A great number of his turkies and fowls who had
eaten of it died foon after. The perpetrator of
this villainous as is unknown.

Oa .Monday fe'nnight the Hon. Captain BLACK-
WOOD and Captain Dims, of the Apollo, were
thrown out of a fingle horfe chaife at Gorport ; and
we are lorry to fay, the latter Gentleman was very
much hurt.

The lots of the Alliance, Beim has occa-
coned the death of two, perfons.—A manila the
teighbowitood of Ravenslafs, who (it is prefumed)
had been watching the tide for wreck, was found
one day laft week fniothered in a fand-heap ; and
another, farther to the weftward, died from the
immenfe quantity of rum he drank. The coro-
ner, returning to Lancafter, (after holdinig an
inqueft on the body of the latter,) was in imminent
danger of his life in crating the Sands.—lt is Paid
he loft both his gig and horfe.
On Monday fe'finight the body of a man was
picked up an the beach near Pevenfey ; in his
pockets a gold watch and fourteen guineas and two
dollars in calls, were found, with feveral papers,
from the contents of which he is fuppofed to have
been the mailer of a finack belonging to Rye, and
which probably has foundered at fea.

Thurfday night, as Captain Scoss, of the
Sarah, of Yarmouth, was going with his wife on
board the above vele!, lying off the Tower, about
eleven P. M. in attempting to hp from a yeti
alongfide the Sarah, acrofs the interveaing (pace,
Mrs. Sco-rs miffed her fiept and fell between the
two (hips into the River. The Mate of the Sarah
(Captain Score's brother) although ht could
not &rim, infiantly precipitated himfelf into the
flood, in hopes of fairing her; the Captain alfo
plunged in, but owing to the darknefs of the night,
and the tide fetting firong, the humane exertions
,of both proved abortive. The unhappy woman
and her hnfband were both drowned; and the mate,
almoft exhauftod by fatigue and the quantity of
' water taken in, • was re(cued from the deep merely
by the efforts of the crew of an adjoining veffel.
On Sunday evening, between fix and (even
L o'clock, as Mr. Williamfon, of Caftle-fireet, was
.returning home from Bedfont, accompanied by
Mr. Reed, of the latter place, in a fingle bode-
ehaife, a man jumped up behind the chaife in Hol-
born, nearly oppofite the George and Bins Boar,
and Role therefrom a box belonging to Mrs. Reedy
r which la behind Mr. Reed, in the head of the
chaife ; at the fame time giving Mr. Reed a blow
on the arm ; and before Mr. Reed, who was much
furprized at receiving fo unexpected a falute, could
give the alarm or get out of the chaife, the man
was out of fight.

On Monday afternoon, a carter carelefsly back-
ing a cart of coals to a ship, at the pier oppofite
the Old Church, Liverpool, the tide being then
entirely out, and the launch by which the coals
are conveyed into the asp being in confequence
nearly perpendicular, the cart fuddenly paired over
it, by which accident the cart, horfe, and coals,
were precipitated with an alarming crash into the
dock, upwards of twenty feet.—ln the fall, the fide
of the velfel turned the carl,..by which the horfe
was thrown foremoft into tie !pude one of the cart
(hafts having broke, with lI the contents upon
htm.—ln this Rate the poor aamal remained more
than a quarter of an hour, when by the at:finance
of a windlau in the next vetel, he was, with much
difficulty, dra
.4' d from laisder the coals, and, to
the great t of the beholders, walked
through tbe •to the Ark lapdioS. p4siee• *kb
oo o&r oevotoat hi= 10,100!ilat

LAW IN2 EL LIGENCEs

COURT OF KING's BiNCH, NOV. 2.

CRAMS V. SILL4--.-BiLtS dr
Mr. ERSKINE Rated, that this Was 'an action t,
the Indorfee againft the Indorfer of a foreign hilt
of exchange. It was dated Dublin, February sthi
tBOO, and was draivn by John Chriltie, in favour
of Mr. Curry, it feventy one days after date, for
1911. After various indorfcments it came into the
hands of the Defendant, who indorfed it over to
the Plaintiff. The only quefiion in the caufe was,
as to the regularity of the proteft ; the fads were
all agreed upon by the parties, and Were as folio* :
That the indorfement was the hand-writing of the
Defendant; that the bill was prefented, refuted
payment, and noted, on the xath of April, the
day it hecame due; that it was afterwards In due
time demanded of the Defendant, btit that at the
time of fuch demand no proteft accompanied it,
nor was the bill protefted s but that a proteft
was afterwards drawn up on the 13th of May,
which bore date the day of the noting ; that the
payment of .the bill was again demanded and re-
futed, on the ground that the proteft was not re•
gularly made. On there adiniffions the Learned
CoUnfel Paid he meant to contend that the Plain-
tiff had a right to recover, on the. principle that
the noting *e bill was an at fufficient to fatisfy
the Drawer, upon its being (hewn to him, that it
had been illsonoured ; and that the proteft was
Only a more formal medium of manifeffing its non-
payment, which the Notary might draw up at any
time. In this inftance the bill was noted on the
day it became due, and the protea had a retro-
fpettive reference to that day.
The admiffions having been read,
Mr. Class objedted that it was incumbent on
the Plaintiff to prove the preceding indorfetnents.
Lord Ettanamiotron was of- bpinion, that
when an Indorfee indorfed a bill to another, the
as itfelf was fufficient evidence that all the ante-
cedent indorfetnents were regular, and there was
no necetlity for any further proof.
Mr. GISH then entered upo:i the defence. He
contended, that when the plaintiff called upon the
defendant to pay the bill, upon the refufal of the
Drawee, it was neceffary, before the former could
revert to the prior itidorfers, or ultimately to the
Drawer, that he should be furnifhed with evidence
of tech refufal on the part of the Drawee ; the
only legal evidence of that fact was the proteft.—
The reafon on which the defendant rafted the Pay-
ment of the bill in queftion was, that he had not
that document prefented to him, which would en-
able him to recover of the perfon from whom he
took the bill. He did not mean to fay, that a
party prefenting a bill, fhould have a proteft ready
in his podet to annex to it, but it was his duty to
have it drawn up immediately, nit was the only
evidence upon which the Holder could refort to
the Drawer. It was not fufficient to tell the Drawer
it had been noted on non-payment, and that the
proteft would be drawn up. He thought this was
a queftion of law, which it was not for the Jury to

decide _ -
. .
A Notary Public was examined as to the cnf..l
tom of merchants. He timed, that after previous
demand of payment of a bill, the next Rep was to
prefent the bjll, and receive fuch anfwer as the
Drawer might think proper to give, and to record
that anfwer on the bill. It frequently happened
that they took fuch anfwer at fo late an hour that
it was impoffible to make the proteft on the fame
day ; they therefore made it as loon as the Holder
gave them orders fo to do.
Lord ELLSNIOROUGN obferved, that a man
could not prefent a bill with a proteft ready drawn
up : he could not anticipate the refufal of pay-
ment, confequently the proteft mutt neceffarily be'
fubfequent in point of time, though not in point
of date ; it referred to the day of noting, which
might be compared to the incipitur of a judgment,
or the judgment roll to the day of figning, to
which the judgment itfelf afterwards had reference.
If it was thought the fats as they Rood would
raife aapoint of law fufficiently difputable,he fhould
be glad to have it brought before the Court. (bef-
dons relative to bills of exchange could not be too
clearly defined.
Mr. G*s2l Paid, he conceived the point for
which he contended was tenable.
Lord &Len BOROUGH replied, if it was merely a
queftion of the cuftom of merchants, he thould not
withdraw it from the jurifdietion of the Jury, but
the died of a proteft was certainly a queftion of
law, and he therefore should readily confent to
have a fpecial cafe.
Under the dire&ion of his Lordfhip a verdit was
given for the Plaintiff, fubjed to the opinion of
the Court.

11A001CIS AND OTHER?, ASSIGNERS OF MUFF AND

lICH, W. DONOVAN.
Mr. ERSKINE Paid, this action was brought by
the Affiees of Heapy and Rich, who, before
their bankruptcy, were Blackwell-hall Factors, to
recover a furn of about fool. the value of three
bills of exchange, drawn by a perfon of the name
of Bridgman upon and accepted by the Defendant.
The Bankrupts had been in the hali't of difcount-
ing bills for one Woodhoufe, who became indebted
to them in about 4.001. Upon their threatening to
prdfecute him, be brought them thefe bills as a
fecuritj for their debt. lie underflood that the
defence to be let up was, that the Defendant had
not received a valuable confederation for the bills.
Whatever might be the effed of fuch a defence
between him and Mr. Woodhoufe, it could have
none with regard to the Affignees of the Bankrupts,
who had given a valuable confideraii n for them.
Mr. Carrick, the late Clerk of Meffrs. Heapy
and Rich, proved that Mr. Woodhoufe' bad de•
pefited them asp fecurity for the debt le had con-
trolled at their houfe. On his crofs•examination
he admitted that Mr. Woodhoufe was an adver-
tising Moneylender;. that the bills were given
to Mr. Heapy ; and that his partner was to know
nothing about them ; but, on the ,eontrary, that
the witticism,* demand payment of them as his

_

. t
a

able ai

IMPenr—effutg• Advheirstaifibr Meonneeey4L.
t hn ad te irnsf;aid'heourns raadteni.hoof
diitinaion between them. Whether they fubfcribed
themfelves A. B. C. D. or X.Y. they were equally
pelts of fokiety ; add he fincerely wifhed th*t a
penalty of wool.. Mould be inflisted upon the
Proprietors of every Dievirpaper who fufferect
themfelves to be made the inttruments of their
frauds by ittferting their advertifements. The red
Rate of the cafe was this, Mr. Dono.van was a
Gentleman of propetty and terpeetability in 111.
land, and Mr. Bridgeman, who at the time of
drawing the bills, was in a refponfible fituatiori
in life, beihg indebted to him, and not immediately
having the ire ins of fatisfyihg him,had given him
the bills, in order that hemight get them cfircoonted
and pay himfelf. Mr. Donovan had applied to
Mr.Woodhoufe to obtain cath for them, who, ill .e
molt motley lenders, had appropriated theft' to
his own ufe. He was connetied with Mr. Heapy,
who was now in the fituation of a felon, having
never appeared to hisbankruptcy. The tranfadion
h d no connetion with the partnerthip, but was
kept entirely concealed from Mr. Rich. Carrick,
whom he had no hefitation in defzribing as a p rtY
concerned with this nett of fwindlers, was to pre-
tend that the bills were his, and he had a:tunny
applied tcr. Mr. Cobb, an Attorney, to obtain the
payment of theni as his property. After the hank.
ruptcy of Heapy and Rich, when Carrick found
it would be impollible for him, as plain if,
to demand payment of the bills, he tame for-
ward and pretended they were given by Wooe,
houfe to the !Irk He trolled the Jury would,
upon the whole of the cafe, confider this as
a fwinoling affair ; that the bills had been oh-.
tained ivithLut any confederation ; that it was no
tranfaltion with the partnerthip, but, a fraudulent
attempt, on the part of the witnefs Carrick, to im-
pole on the Defendant through the thediinn of
Heapy and Rich's Affignees.
Lord ELLENSORMIGH remarked tb the pay.,
that it was very unlikely, if this was a fair tranf-
aetion, that Heapy fliould have wished to have
concealed it from his Partner. His Lordfhip
went along with the Learned Counfel for the De-
fendant in molt of his obfervations; and the Jury,
with very little hefitation,pronounced their Verdi et
in favour of the Defendant.

This trial concluded the Sittings in the Court of
King's Bench.

CRAWFORD AND OTHERS V. STIRLING AND OTHERS.

This was an action, Mr. GAkKow raid, between
two Houfes, of high commercial credit, and there
was no imputation upon the charaCter of either.
The Plaintiff fought to recover the fum of 5211.
ss. 6d. ; nothing turned upon the fum, for the a-
mount of it was admitted; and it was the balance
due to the Plaintiffs.on account of the credit they
gave to a perfon of the name of Kirkpatrick, who
had become bankrupt. The Plaintiffs refided at
Glafgow, and one of their partners Mr. Andrew
Mitchel, had the management of their concerns in
London. Mr. Kirkpatrick had tranfaCtions with
the Plaintiffs and Derendants, and Mr. Mitchel
was guarantee of Mr. Kirkpatrick to the Defen-
dants to a given amount ; and the only queflion in
the Caufe was, whether the Defendants had a right
to fet off what was due to them from Kirkpatrick,
againit this demand made by the Plaintiffs ?—To
this there were two objections; firft, that Mr. An-
drew Mitchel had no authority from the other
Partners of the Houfe to become the guarantee
he did for Mr. Kirkpatrick, and unlefs they adopt-
ed his act, he could not bind them in fuch a cafe,
becaule the becoming guarantee was not with-
in the (cope of any partnerfhip, and indeed that,
and giving bonds, or entering into bail, &c. was
always exempted in the articles of all partner-
thip. The next reafon was, that the demand of
the defendants on Kiikpatrick was uncertain, in-
al-much as it was not known what dividend
might be made under his commiilion, and no
unliquidated demand could, by law, be made the
fubjed of a fet•off.
It appeared in the courfe of the Caufe, that the
Defendants had a fair claim for the fet-off which
th pleaded, for that not only had Mr. Mitchel
become the guarantee of Mr. Kirkpatrick, but
that the reft of the firm of Crawford and Com-
pany had adopted the ad of their Pattner, Mr.
Mitchel; but it was uncertain what might be re-
covered by the Defendants out of the eflate and
effects of Kirkpatrick, becaufe a final dividend had
not been made.

Lord ELLatiaoaoudu laid, that a guarantee
was a contra& of indemnity, and not a debt. If a
Partner chides to guarantee for a ftranger, without
the privit; of his Partners, he goes beyond the
(cope of his authority ; k is not an at done in the
furtherance of trade, and therefore (hall not bind
the Partners, unlefs they adopt it. Here they had
done fo, and therefore this point was again ft them ;
but the other objettion to the fet-off of the De-
fendants was valid, namely, that the fum they
claimed was not a liquidated demand. The Statute
of fet:off, 'Which empowered one perfon to fet off
his demand againft another that was made upon
him, or in other words, to fet up a crofs demand
without bringing an adion, extended only to cafes
in which the crofs demand was liquidated—the
debt muft be certain in its nature. It was not
yet certain what ,the Defendants would receive
under the bankruptcy of Kirkpatrick, and there-
fore, what they will fall fhort of their whole debt
was not afcertained ; for this reafon the demand of
the Defendants on Kirkpatrick could not be made
the fubjed of a fet-off.—Verdidt for Plaintiffs, Da.
mages ssil. gs. 6d.

STH or Nov.—Yerierday, five men and a boy
were apprehended in St. Martin's•ftreet with a cart,
in which was a rude figure as the effigy of Guy
Faux, and one of the party as a prick habited in
a white (mock frock, and a large wig, and the boy
riding on horfeback, as the Sheriff, condudting the
offender to the plice of execution. They were im-
mediately brought befpre Mr. GRAHAM, at Bow-
itreet, when it being proved on oath that the pri
foners were teen to beg and receive money, they
were all, except the boy, committed to prifon as