Star.
London, England, 1822-10-17 00:00:00

BILIOUS AND LIVER COMPLAINTS.'

A 5 a mild and effectual remedy for. all those dis.
AI. orders which originate in a vitiated action of the liver and
Liliary organs, namely, Indigestion, Loss of Appetite, Had-
ache, Heartburn, Flatulencies, Spasms Costiveness, affections of
tLe Liverl&c. &c. DIXON's A NTIBILIOUS PILLS have
rnet wilt more general approval than any other medicine whgt-
server. They unite every recommendation of mild operation with
r:ccegsful effect, and require vo restraint or confinement whet-
s-ivr during their use. In tropical climates, where the conks
cne-!ces o 1 redundant and vitiated bile ate so prevalent and alarm-
ing,
they are an invaluable and efficient protection. They are
likewise puculiarty calculated to eorreet disorders arising Irons
excesses of the table, to restore the tone of tbeotosasch, and to
remove most complaints occasioned by irroodarity of the bowels.
Sold in Boxes at 'is. 9d. 61. 11s. sad nu by Butlers, ate-
mitts, No. 4, Cheapside, and 220, Ilegast.strees„, Loam ; 20,
W.tterleo-plase Edinburgh; 34, Sack.llleastrest, DOW ; an/
by tin priocl;sl 141sodislise Vanden tlieouglisid: lbw Witted

hire ti,
moderate charge.
The. Jury found a verdict for the plald&tai
mages 22i. 16s.—Costs 40s-
RetL M. SLAMS.
• Mr. GURNEY stated this to be the ease of an in-
dictment on the prosecution of certain inhabitants of
the parish of St...Mettle-bonne; against W. Blades,
of Cumbefland•atreet, err die same parish, for keepine
a hotise of ill-fame, No. 1, Cambeetand-street, And
another leriese of a similar description in. the New-
road. The street had been for some time infested
with many nuisances of the same character, but the
inhabitants having United together ao rid themselves
of such neighbours, had succeeded in putting down
every one of their strong holds, with the exception-
of that which was now proceeded against.
Witnesses having been called to prove the charac-.
ter (lithe house, NO. 1, Cumberland-street, and of ita
tenants and inmates, •
Mr. Joicas, who appeared for the defendant,
un-
. • &stook on the part of hi client that the nuisance,
should be.abated.
COURT OF RING'S BENCH, OCTOBER te. Mr. Guesret, on the iinderstanding that the nui-!
FOXWELL O. WEST. sance should be so bonfrpfde abated, was willing to
This was an actinic brought to recover the -value of accede to his Learned Friend's proposition to take a
a bill of exchange for '1720. verd,ct of Gtliltv, by consent ; and if the event should
Mr. Scanzett shouly stated the circumstances confirm the defendant's pledge, he also intimated that
out of which the action arose, The bill was drawn the defendant would not be brought up for judgment.
by Mr. J. West, dated Dorking, &nil 29, and at two —Verdict accordingly.
months after date, on S. Barclay, Esq. a half-pay NIGHTINGALE o. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF WHITE-
Officer, resident at the same ()face, by whom it was ac-
cepted. •At maturity it was dishonoured.; and the
plaintiff,!as he was legally competent to d'., bad Mr.GURNEY, on opening this case, said that' it was
an action brought against the defendants for having
chosen to. proceed against Mr. West, as the drawer.
made a false return to a Mandamus, which had
Tliiiperson, however, had resisted payment on thed issued
ground that notice of the dishonour had not been from this Court, directing a true return to be made
orthe proceedings which had taken place in the eke-
given to him until it was too late for the holder to
recover of him at law. But it would be shown, that tion ..f a sexton for the parish of St. Mary, White-
-resided in London, al- chapel. By -an Act passed in the 58th of Geo. 111.
in point of fact, Mr. West
though nominally in this case resident at Dorking ; (thel Select Vestry Act), it was provided and declared
that all persons
and that the very earliest notice possible was given to paying an annual rent of more than
£5O should
Mr. West, him, by letters addressed by the holder to
rochial vestries ; and so on, according to a• scale
both at Dorking and in London.
Several witnesses were called on behalf of the plain- therein set forward. The plaintiff conceived, that by
tiff, when it appeared that the bill, Which was made excluding the votes of such as were privileged to
tender more than one vote each, a Mr. Wildman had
payable .at l‘tessrs. Woodhead and Co.'s, in the been unduly elected to the office in question ; for the
Shand, and had been indorsed by West to Messrs.
Hickson, was dishonnttred on the 2d of July. It was' Gentlemen of Whitechapel had on a former occasion
sent back on the 3d to the bankers at rethury, come to a resolution that this Act of Parliament did
not apply to them. • The Jury wool,' find, however,
through whom it had been paid to Sir Jame. Esdaile
that in terms it did apply, and it was not the vote of
and Co. London : and having been regularly, and
without delay, transmitted through the several hands a Vestry which could set it aside. The plaintiff, how.
into which it previodsty passed, was at length re- ever, who had most votes including the plural one-,
was not accepted as the returned candidate; and a
turned to the plaintiff.
him-
The LORD CHIEF Jostle e held that sufficient notice Mr. Wildman, who had more single votes than
had been given ; particularly asit took-place on the self;had been declared sexton. These were
circumstancesthe
e under which the plaintiff now sought
4th, his
for the 3d being Sunday, the law would presume lemedy.„ •
that the earliest legal notice bad been transmitted John Smith, the Vestry Clerk of the parish of St.'
subsequently to the dishonouring of the bill. Marv, Whitechapel, said, the office of sexton being
The defence was not gone into ; and the Jury im- vacant,- an election of a candidate ro fill it was held
mediately found a verdict for the plaietiff—Damages on the 11th and 12th of December, 1821, in the
£2l. 16s. (including the interest), and 40, costs. Vestry-room. Mr. Nightingale was one of the can-
ti• CRABS& didates, and had 639 votes; Mr. Wildman, the other,
This was an action to revive compensation for loss had 631. The number of votes given by persons en-
of hire of a cart and horse belonging to the plaintiff, titled to more than one vote each was 167. None of
and which had been seized with a quantity of quick- Mr. %Vildman's frienth tendered more than one vote.
silver, the property of the defendant, by whom the Mr. SCARLETT admitted that there would have
cart had been hired. been a majority for the plaintiff, if the plural votes
Mr. GURNEY, in opening the case, observed,• as it tendered for him had been accepted.
appeared that the quicksilver had been wrongfully The LORD CHIEF Justice under total Mr. Scarlett
seized, the duties having been duly paid, the only to wish the Court to consider (taking the various
question was, whether the plaintiff must seek his re- books of rates, Btc. produced in this cause as read),
medy of the defendant, or of the parties by whom whether the Act, which gave a plurality of votes' in
such seizure had been made. certain cases was or was not operative in this instance
M. Hickman, the son of the plaintiff, proved that —whether the parish was or was, not to be entirely
in September last defendant hired the horse and cart, governed by the Act ?
belonging to his father, to go to East Smithfield. He Mr. SCARLETT said that was his meaning.
put into the cart a great number of bottles, contain- The witness stated that Wildman was considered
ing, as it afterwards appeared, a quantity of quick- to hive been re•elected according to the usual custom
silver. When witness had arrived at the docks, an of the polish. Witness was examined, at considerable
Officer of the Excise came up and desired to see the length, by Mr. GURNEY and Mr. SCARLETT as to the
necessary documents to shew that the duties were principle on which it had been usual to levy the dit-
paid. Mr. Cralthe told him that he could scant satisfy ferent parish rates in Whitechapel. When the dis,
him of that fact, and taking a paper out of his pocket, cu.sion took place as to the application of the Select
accompanied the Officer into a counting-house, from Vestry Act to the election of the sexton (which was
which they soon afterwards came out together, the immediately before that election was held), it was de-
Officer observing that " that would not do ;" and then tided by the Vestry Meeting, that no plural votes
pr )ceeded immediately to seize the horse, the cart, should be accepted. A Mr. Smith (Churchwarden)
and the quicksilver. Witness asked the defendant protested against the decision, as witness believed ;
what he was to jo? The defendant bade him go, certainly he-tendered his balances at the close of the
home and leave the matter to him ; for he would see election, when the plural votes were rejected.
that his father's horse and cart should bo driven back The Resolution of the Vestry was then read, which
in less than an hour. This was Ina done ; but Mr. grounded its dissent from the application of the Act
Crabbe called on witness's father that evening, and of Parliament (58 Geo. III.) on the Bth section, which
assured him that he would take care that the hire of expressly exempts all parishes from its operation that
the horse and cart, for the whole pc: iod of their deten- are governed by former Acts of Parliament.
Lion, should be regularly paid. This promise had not The LL,RD CHIEF JUSTICE said this was evidently
been fulfilled ; and the present action was for the loss illegal. The parish was bound by the Act, of course,
of thirty-eight days' hire, • that period having elapsed if intended by the terms of the Act.
between the seizure and the release which was after- The next Resolutiots was to the effect that the'
wards made. churchwardens should be indemnified for all expenses
Mr. Coasts', for the defendant, had two objections that might be incaried by reason of the election of
to submit in bar of the present action. The first, that sextons being allowed to proceed after the old form,
it was improperly brought; forasmuch as it should and custom of Whitechapel.
rather have been an action to recover in the way of The Lon]) CHIEF JUSTICE held: this to be also'
debt: the second, that-it should in any case have been clea.ly :it was a proposal to indemnify parties '
as against the Excise Officer by whom the seizure for resisting an Act of Parliament.
had been made; the words spoken by defendant, ac- ' A Resolution was then recited regarding the coursel
cording to the evidence of the last witness, nut being to he pursued in the then ensuing election. This was
sufficient to sustain the present .action. declared to be " unanimous."
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the The LORD Cnizr Justice said this was mere non-
words were sufficient to sustain it. The defendant- *lie- The " uniniinous" Resolution just read was
might have told the plaintiff, had he thought proper, ifolloecal by " the protest of T. Smith, Req." against it.
that he would see him paid, and then leave brought ls Mr. SCARLETT then contended, that though the
his action against the Officer, which would. have' hoestion of: the apPiication.of the Statute to the City
enabled him to do so. As it was, he had matle a and, Liberties of: Lemke', one or both of thorn, must
promise explicitly enough to the plaintiff, who, iir far the present be considered as reserved, it was open
consequence of that promise, might have been' pre- to him to shew that the Vestries of Whitechapel were
Named from proceeding at the time (Us he fiethaps Held by custom. The custom was td allow one vote'
would otherwise have done), by rnemorialiaing the• only to each inhabitant householder. Now,- the Bth.
Board of Excise for the release of his horse and cart. Section of the Seieek Velure Act mewed those
The same witness, cross-examined by Mr. Comex,
.parishes' to which amp fames 2tatato,, or reeeivol
*id' that the deli dent Eadleen Charged l'tis a day peculiar. custom applie* ,Seserel Acta had sop-.

241'

' li..‘.
;"‘ 3;.

ASTLEY'S AMPHITHEATRE.
Mr. CovnEv, on behalf of Mr. IVilliam Davis, ap.
plied for a license for continuing the per formance at
the above Theatre. For many years past the lieente
had been gi anted to Mr. John Astley and Mr. Wm.
Davis conjointly, but last year, when the api.lication
was made for renewing it in their joint names, it was
Cully anticipated that Nlr. Astley'sexiaence would be
but of very short dutation ; and it so happened, that
within two days after it was granted, that Gentleman
died; upon which event the licen,e devolved into
Mr. Davis's hand, as the surviving paltrier, and it
was considered that he alone was entitled to all the,
subsequent profits that were derived from the con-
cern, as it was he alone who had conducted it.-
.\
Ir. Astley appointed executors of his effects (one of
whom was Mrs. Astley), and tbose persons had
takeir the regular steps to posseis themselve-, of his
property, and had actually received from Mt.
Davis the same portion of the rent of the Theatre
as Mr. Astley would have done, bad he been living.
It Was a fact (the Learned Counsel said) well known,
that Mr. Davis was the person by w hose liecuniary
assistance the Theatre had been' Supported for the
last twenty years; and the reason .Why fir: stley's
name had been so long kept before the Public was
becaase it had been conceived that there was a kind
of magic in his n one, which %\ as beneficial to the ht.
wrests of the Theatre. Mr. Davis considered him-
self intitled to 411 the benefil derived front it imme-
diately on the death of Mr. Astley, hut he gene. ously
waned his claim to a considerable extent; and made
arrangements much to the advantage of Mi. Astley's
creditors. By rat the greater part of the properties
of the Theatre belonged to Mr. Davis; and although
he had consented to account for the profits during
the ) ear following Mr. Astley's death, he had under-
stood that it was the intention of Mrs Astley, by her
Counsel, to oppose the granting of the license to him
alone. Some allusion was then made to the peat-
y difficulties of the late Mr. Astley, with the view
to' shew that Mr. Davis was, in fact, the only sub-
stantial. person in the cooce, n.
Mr. EIRAT/I, on the part of Mrs. Astley, replied
to the observations that a ere made telati‘e to Mr.
Astley's difficulties; and said that it the licen,e was
objected to in the name of Mrs. Astley and Mr. Davis
jointly, he should make a motion fOr its being granted
solely to Mrs. Astley. • •
Mr. CownßY continued his argtiment.—He thebghf
that the granting of a license of this description to a
Lady was extremely improper, as a female, what.
ever her merits might be, was not capable of pro-
perly conducting such a concern. Upon the general
law of partnerships, it was contended, that Mr. Davie
was entitled to all the advantages that were to be
reaped from the Theatre; and to spew that he was
really considered the surviving partner, receipts were
Offered to be produied where he was. so described.
It might appear hard' drat Mrs. Astley was not per-
mitted to share the profits; but if the subject was
properly considered, the reverse would be seen, as it
was well known that ,there was at this time the ,
greatest ditficulty in makirg Theatres produce any
advantage, so that 'it would be extremely severe to
compel Mr. Davis to give up a portion of the profits
to a Lady who neither had eapital nor rah any risk;
Under these ciieuntssances, he hoped the license would
be' granted to*Mr. Davis exclusively.
Mr. HsAru contended, that Mrs. Astley's case was
very different 'from partnerships in general, as he was
persuaded that Mrs. Astley's interest in the Theatre
-was not alienated by the death of her husband. The
Learned' Counsel continued at great length to :hew
that attempts had been unjustly Made to deprive her
a her property, with the intention on the part of Mr,
Davis, of getting it wholly in his pc and •
The CHAIRMAH, Mr. Haucr
the Counsel having' continued
tenhe time the. Gedirt at'
shosold bee resod
and Mr. Davis. .

I >‘
.. . .4 “
4-; 4 I). ‘ «
‘ ‘ . -"‘ ‘ '
.

his pcsse.sion and power.
WGER, Mr. T.Alarrow, and •
nued a conversation for
'levet deckle& that' the
cottjoioily to Mil. Asles
•

it; 'i•sZ

•i