Star.
London, England, 1809-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

but to award a punishment under the second part n f,
the alternative in the Act. The sentence of the Court,
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOV. 16. i therefore, was, that the Defendant be imprisoned in
iticmums, AIKIN AND co. v. I'IZIE, PHINEAS AND Co. : the Castle of Lancaster, for three calendar months,
The only question of any interest in this case was, and, within that periol. do once stand in the pillory,
whether a creditor having taken a debtor in execution, i at the market place of Liverpool, on a market daj.
and released him upon security obtained, could sup- i THE KING v. HoLBRCKIK. .
port the debt upon that security—he having subse- ! The defendant in this case had allowed Judgment,
quently meddled with, and apparently assented to a i by Default, to pass against him, he being charged
composition, by which the rest of the creditors had : withaeffecting a re-seizure of smuggled goods, from
reason to believe that the whole of the debtors were , the Revenue Officers, at Deal.—The sentence was,
included in the compromise.--.l•he LORD CHANCEL- i that the prisoner be imprisoned in the House of Cor-
LOB decided, that a debtor in the circumstances stated, i rection for Maidstone for twelve calendar months:
had, whether he deserved it or not, an equity arising THE KING v. BRACK.
from the equity of the other creditors who had been The defendant William Brack had been tried on
misled, to refuse payment of the debt for which he an information, hargi • c lcorrupt
had with wilful and
had given the security—and therefore continued in perjury, in swearing at his brother John Brack,
injunction to restrain any proceeding at law upon such who had been impressed into his Majesty's service,
security. I was, at the time, an . apprentice to a person of the
Id &it. the ' so impressed

TYTIIFS.—EYLEY V. FOWLER AND OTHERS.
Sir SAMUEL Romtux applied to the Court for leave
to consolidate several Bills filed by the plaintiff, a I
Clergyman, against thirty-two of his Parishioners, for
non-payment of Tythes. He moved this upon the
ground that the Bills all related to the same matter.
Mr. HART opposed the consolidation, upon the
ground, that as the defendants might have different
pleas, and if all were consolidated, his Client would
be for a long time prevented from having a decree by
perpetual abatements.
Sir S. ROMILLY stated, that it was the practice of
the Exchequer to consolidate, even before answers
were given in.
The CHANCELLOR thought that a strong measure—
but he would consult with the Barons and then give
his opinion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 16.
TILE KING V. HARVEY AND OTHERS.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved for the judgment
of the Court against Thomas and John Harvey, the
Defendants in this case.

Mr. Justice BAILEY read the notes of the Learned
Judge who tried this case, which was an indictment
charging the Defendants, a publican in the village of
Minchinhampton, in Gloucestershire, and his son,
with violently beating and maiming Captain Peter
O'Shochnessy, of the 18th, or royal Irish regiment of
foot, in the course of his march with a party of said
regiment from Gloucestershire to the Isle of Wight,
on the 4th day of July last.

-The evidence on the part of the prosecution, as
Appearing on the notes of the Learned Judge (Baron
ThompsoN) who tried the cause, exhibited a series of
insolence and gross brutality on the part of the De-
fendants, which it required every effort of Captain
O'Shochnessy, who commanded the party, consisting
principally of recruits, not much accustomed to mili-
tary su,ordination, to prevent his men from avenging
in a manner that might have been fatal.
For the Defendants, it was endeavoured to
,be
shewn, on thz other hand, that the Captain was the
aggressor, and that an injury he sustained in the head,
was given by a stick carried by himself, and which
John Harvey had wrested from him, at a time when
he was leaning over iiis father in a threatening atti-
tude. The Jury, however, six of whom were special,
found the. Defendants Guilty.

name of M'Kenzie, anL ,at . fie person . ...,pt,
had never used the sea at any former period in any
capacity whatever. OR the trial it was shewn, that
the impressed man had used the sea as an armourer,
both in the years 1801 and 1805 • also, that at the
time of his being impressed, be had been taken from
on board a ship of which his brother, the defendant,
was Master.
Mr. RAISE addressed the Court in mitigation, in-
sisting on the possibility of the defendant miscon-
ceiving the nature of his affidavit, in supposing that
he simply swore that his brother had never acted as a
mariner. He had also received a most excellent cha-
racter.
After hearing the ATTORNEY GENERAL for the
prosecution, the sentence of the Court on the defen-
dant, as delivered by Mr. Justice Le BLANC, was,
that the defendant do pay to the Crown a fine of
£5O ; that he be imprisoned for two years in the
common jail of Durham, and therzafter, till the fine
of £5O be paid.
THE KING V. SCOLLER AND WAY.
The defendants in this case were found guilty of
deforcing and assaulting certain Revenue Officers in
the Island of Portland, while endeavouring to pro-
cure entrance in.° the house of John Way, since de-
ceased, the husband of Mary Way, one of the de-
fendants, and in which the other defendant, William
Scoller, was shewn to have borne a part.
Mr. Justice Le BLANC declared the sentence of the
Court to be, that Mary Way be imprisoned in the
Common Jail of Dorchester for twelve calendar
months, and William Scoller in the same jail for the
space of six calendar months.
Nicholas Way and Richard Way were brought up
to receive judgment for a similar offence, and were
sentenced to three months invisonment each.
The recognizances as to several other persons
brought up for judgment were continued, for the pur-
pose of insuring their future good behaviour.
THE KING V. JOHN LEWS.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said there were circum-
stances in the case of this defendant which induced
him to consent to let him go at large upon his own
recognizance, to appear when called upon ; he un-
derstanding that he would be punished severely if he
should misbehave hereafter.—Enlarged accordingly.

THE KING V. JOHN ARCHER AKD SON,

Affidavits were now offered in mitigation, but it ap-
pearing that they were impr6perly entitled, the Defen-
dants were ordered to be committed till the return of
the at from the country, and for this purpose
to be brought up again this day se'nnight.

Convicted of having rescued a quantity of cyder,
which a revenue officer had seized for not being duly
entered : these parties were acting in some measure
under an apprehension that the officer had irregularly
seized the goods, because they were not for sale, but
private use ; but the officer was acting legally. But
in consideration of the great age (76) of the father ;
of this prosecution having been nearly his ruin ; his
travelling all the way from Devonshite, to receive
sentence, Etc. the ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the sug-
gestion of the Court, consented that they be enlarged
on their own recognizance, to appear when called for
—and particularly that the young man being of good
behaviour, for he knew his disposition. Therefore
the Court exacted of him a recognizance for his good
behaviour in 4500, the father only £lOO.
ELOPEMENT.

Mr. TOPPING moved for a writ of Habra: Corps: to
be issued, directed to Captain Shelton, quartered at
Manchester, in the barracks, to deliver up a young
Lady to her friends. The Learned Counsel stated,
that this application was made on the part of the
father of the unfortunate young Lady, Mr. Moor-
house, a respectable tradesman, in Manchester; his
daughter was only fifteen years of age ; he had paid
/114) to a dress-maker of that place to insti uct her in
that business ; on a Monday morning she left her fa-
ther's house, to go to that pf her instructress, and in
the evening her disconsolate parents learned that she
had eloped with Captain Shelton, and that they had
gone towards Liverpool ; he pursued ; but, on his
arrival there, he found they had set off for Manches-
ter, which proved to be the case ; as, on his return,
he learned she was at Captain Shelton's apartmAnts
in the barracks ; a person had seen them together,
and their conduct was that of familiarity ; and he had
heard Captain Shelton say, if Miss Moorhouse's friends
attempted to take her frcm-him, he would lose his life
before they should accomplish their object.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII—" Take the wlit."

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. Is.
OUNG V. JONES.

An action to recover the amount of a bill drawn
upon a person named Skingler. The defence to the
action was, that the plaintiff bad exonerated the de-
fendant by proceeding against Skingler; to shew this
Miss Jones, daughter to the latter, was examined.—
She stated that she went at her father's request, about
six or seven days after the note was due; to the plain-
tiff's house, and sent in a message by the maid, that
her father understood that he (the plaintiff) had set-
tled with Skingler; to this the plaintiff replied, loud
enough for her to hear, the door being a..jar—,, Yes,
yes, tell. Mr. Jones I am perfectly satisfied."
Chief Justice MANSFINLD, however, was of opi-
nion, that this intimation did not exonerate the dcfen-
i dant from his liability.—Verdict for the Plaintiff.

A Coroner's Inquest was held yesterday afternoon
at the house of Mr. Duims, the Rose and Crown, in
Dow ning-street, Westminster, on the body of a Mr.
A. ANIIOL r. He went into the house on Wednesday
night and called for six pennyworth of brandy and
water ; scarcely had he tasted it when he was seized
with .t fit of apoplexy, and instantly expired.