Star.
London, England, 1813-07-20 00:00:00

LAM INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JULY 16;
Sittings Id'ore the LORD CHIEF BARON.
MORTGAGEES REFUSAL TO ALLOW PROPERTY TAY.
THE ATTOItVEY•GENERAL t. MILLER.

Mr. Datmery for the Crown, in the absence of the
Solicitor-General, stated this to be a case of repeated
refusal by the defendant to allow the Property tax
on payment of interest of 43C03 lent to a Mr. Wood
on mortgage, for which refusals the information' filed
by the Attorney-General sought to recover a penalty
of £9OO, being treble the amount of the money lent.
The Learned Counsel stated it to be the anxious ob-
ject of the Board of Taxes, by whom this prosecution
was instieuted, to prevent by any possible means the
practke of Mortgagees and Landlords throwing the
burthen of their Pi operty-tax on the borrower and
teilants. The defendant having by his Counsel ex-
pressed a sense of the impropriety of his conduct in
this instance and offered- no defence, a verdict was
taken for sE9CO, past of which was remitted by the
Attorney-General: •

COLLECTORS ON TAXES DETAINING MONIES IN TIIEIR

lIA C A TTORN EY-GEN Elt A L V. ZIOLT.

This information was filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ral against the defendant, x Collector of the Property-
tax in Lancashire, for the recovery of £l9l. 6s. Bd.
collected and detained in his hands on account of the
year 1810. The Counsel for the Crown stated to the
Jury that the present was one of several prosecutions
insituted by the Tax-Office, for preventing the impro-
per use of the public money by Collec►ors, a practice
attended whir considerable loss to the Revenue by the
money being withheld from the public service, and
in some instances with great hardship to parishes, by
eventually causing the inhabitants to be re-assessed
and to pay their taxes over again. The delerid•.mt in
this case ought in a reasonable course to have paid
over the money to the Receiver-General in the year
1811, ins►ead of which he had made use of it for two
years. The facts were clearly proved, and the LORD
CHIEF BARON in addressing the Jury, expressed his
approbation at the conduct of the Crown Officers in
pursuing prosecutions of this nature in aid of the re-
venue and in publ:e justice to parishes.—Verdict for
the Crown io Lt9l. 6s. Sd. with costs and expences.
COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 17.
KINNERSLY V. CLARKE.

This interciAing case came before the Court upon
an Exception to the Master's Report, which was very
ably argued at the Bar on both sides.
The question arose on the last will of the celebra-
ted Mr. Gibbon the historian, who died about twenty
years ago, at Lausanne in Switzerland, constituting
Lady Elliot his heiress, as the nearest relation of his
then living, ex parte taterna, and devised to her, ex-
cept certain legacies to other persons, not only his
own freeholds, but likewise those he held in trust un-
der a friend's will for the benefit of others, if tound
I to be heirs, wits► reversion to him and his right heirs.
The purchaser of one of the trust estates filed his
bill against the vendors, praying all necessary parties
to be decreed to join in making out and executing a
good title to him front the venders.
Lady Ormond is trustee or executrix of Mr. Gib-
bon, and on a reference before the Master, hesitated
to execute the conveyance, on the ground that there
was kt Gentlewoman claiming to be the heiress at law
or next of kin of Mr. Gibbon ; but without having,
in that long interval, taking any step to prove her
claim, or bring any evidence before the Master on
the reference.

The great singulnrity of the case consisted in the
circumstance (and which his Honour much regretted)
' of the only evidence of pedigree or kindred 01 Lady
Elliott to cr with Mr. Gibbon, rested on his will, in
which he 'assigns, as his motive and esteem towards
her Ladyship, the ill-treatment of the %vile of their
common ancestor and grandiatlier. This was ht.ld
to be sufficient evidence of the kindred, and the
Master's Report was confirmed.

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

MORRIS V. COLMAN.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the sitting of the Court,
gave his opinion upon the motion of Sir Samuel
Romilly, renewed on the preceding day. and origi-
nally made on the first day of the p:egent Seal. It
was an application for an order to allow Mr. Morris,
the plaintiff, to hire performers, and contract for all
necessary Means and materials 6o open the Theatre
without the consent of Mr. Colman, the Manager, and
Coproprietor of the Theatre, who refused to do any
thing whatever in the business, by which means the
yet formances weir: wholly suspended at this advanced
state of the season.

The Loun CII.I.NCELLine stated, that he had read
the affidavits c.trefully, and made up his mind on this
important question ; but in tender consideration f
the interests of the ;.:►rties and the concern, desired_
that the plaintiff and dtfindant might once more, on
his recommendation, hold an interview or conference
together, for the accommodation of their disputes,
and the result iliereof.to be mentioned to him—adding;
that if this suggestion should not be attended to, be
shc,old put the management of the Theatre into dd.
fere:ft hands from either of the parties.—Final judg-
malt de :erred.

JULV TILE ITRE..-MORRIS V. COLMAN.

At the rising of the Court this day, the Loan
CUANcutou gave judgment on this motion, which
stood over to give the pp.rties an opporcanity to come
to scme arrangement or amicable adjustment of their
implacable dissentious. There appeared no syniptom °
of accommodation; but the contrary, which his Lord-
ship niu:ll regretted ; and after detailing the proceed-
ings, and every attention in his power given to the
perusal of the articles of copartnership and affidavits
submitted to him, it was his decided judgment, that
he had no jurisdiction to grant the order moved for,
to avower Mr. Morris to open the Theatre.
It was then pressed by Mr. HART on his Lordship
to do in this• case as he had ordered in the case of
the Opera House, which now stands for finaltearing
in the paper.
Sir Samuel. Rommx, for ;he plaintiff, stated, that
this was a case Coto ealo different, and now standing
in a peCuliar predicament, owing to the strange turn
the cause took, upon the arguments of the exceptions
filed in the cause, one only of which was argued
when that turn took place in January. last, whereas;
the exception that remained to be argued at that time
would prove decisive of the cause in favour Of the
plaintiff.
His Lordship, considering the length of tins be-

fore this cause could in course tome to an heating,
ordered the remaining exceptions to be immediately
argued after the motions of the present seal, in order
to expedite the business and open the Theatre.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, JULY 19.
Cllll4. CON.-...000D/11.1. V. 'LEI'CIIEIt.
This was an action in which the Plaintiff sought
to recover damages from the Defendant, for criminal
conversation with his wife.

The ATTORNEY-GEN MAI. stated the case for the
Plaintiff, and observed, that Mr. Goodall and his
Lady were parties most probably well known to every
one in Court, by report at least, if not personally.-
Mr. Goodall was no less a personage than the cele-
brated Admiral of Hayti, and his Lady had for
many years been a favourite actress in the Metropolii.
The Defendant was an Attorney, and had been the
confidential friend and agent of the Plaintiff, who
had, doting his residence abroad, remitted to him
very large sums of money: he mentioned these cir-
cumstances to prove that this was no common case,
but r c.e,e aggravated by a breach of confidence and
private friendship.
TheArrouscv-GeNERAL than proceeded to state
the facts of the case as detailed in evidence, and con.
eluded by expressing his fu!l persuasion that the. Jut y
would express their sentiments on the conduct of the
Defendant, by giving such damages as would, as far
as damages could do, make the Plaintiff some com-
pensation for the injury he had sustained.--The AT-
TORNEY-GUN ERAL called

Mrs. Nunn, who stated she was sister to Mrs.
Goodall, who was married at Newcastle-undi:r•Lyne,
upwards of 20 years since. Mrs. Goodall had seve-
ral children. After her sister', marriage she went
to perform at Bath, where the Witness was in the
habit of frequently seeing her and her husband toge-
ther ; they appealed to be very happy and much at-
tached to each other. Mrs. Goodall was daughter
of Mr. Staunton, a gentleman well known as the
cundlictor of different provincial theatres. The wit-
ness had not been so much with her sister latterly,
butt had no reason to believe she did not live perfectly
happy with her husband.
Mr. J. Bannister also deposed to the domestic hap-
piness of the Plaintiff and his wife, and to the good
conduct of Mrs. Goodall, previous to the transaction
now the subject of enquiry:
Mr. SCARLET?, in cross-examining Mr. Bannister,
asked him if his dresser, a man named Joe, hid not
on one occasion accompanied Mrs. Goodall home from
the Theatre. •

Mr. Bannister had no recollection of the circum-
stance; but even if it were so, he saw no impropriety
in his servant having accompanied Mrs. Goodall
home, if she were alone, and unprotected, at night.
Several other persons were called, who proved the
previous good conduct of Mrs. Goodall, and also
spoke to. their knowledge of the happy state in which
the Plaintiff and his wite lived.

: .'

'stnce or Mrs. Hopwood, who corroborated the tettl.
mony of Roberts.—Guilty—Death.
R. Ilutimall, the late stock-broker In St. Imes's,
was capitally coavicted of forgi:ig and uttering IL:If:-
stock receipts, and thereby detranding the Public.—;.
The prisoner, it will be remember :d, received tm.itt.y
of several persons, for the purpose of buying in st.,ck,
and, in order to satisfy them, he produced forged re.
ceipts, and kept the money. On the approach of the
day for paying the dividends, the prisoner absconded
and was taken in Wales.

. J. Green was indicted fur stealing in the dwelling.
house of the Dowager-Countess of Ilanloke, plats,
to the value of seventy pounds, and apparel.—lt ha*
been recently stated, in a Punce Report trim Marl.
borough-street Office, that the prisoner had been con.
victed of getting into the sei vice of the prosecutrix
by MUMS of a fictitious characyr. 1.-ttly Hunlolcv
went out on die evening of the 14th of June, and lef:
the prisoner at home, he having complained of
position. On her return, he had goae out, and d d
not return till three o'clock in :ne inertiing, .
the probeeutrix told him, it was the last time lie
should be lit in. In the morning he abscnted him-
self, without his wages, and the plate was
The proFerty has not been recovered.—Gudty—
Death.

J. Clarke, for stealing a saddle ; and Sarah Straw,
for stealing a carpet, were cr nricted et Lii,nirs.
J. IVilale was convicte4 of a rnitdemeatoar, in ob-
taining throe dozen pairs of stecic, gs of Messrs:
Swift and veil by false preztilees.
And six were acqiiiqed, viz. J. Wm. H
Ann Lacey, G. Divis, lsl. D.iley. aii.l fl. N +Om.

Tuesday, at Edinburgh, Lady Anne of a son.
Oa the 17th iustant, the Lady of Capra:a la..les Young, R.\.•
of Bono:lend Hoase,Gloucts:i..rshlre,. f a ttaughser.