Star.
London, England, 1804-06-08 00:00:00

CD *dye r I I fee to muds Assist euusidit
any prededeat as to their power. that I ant not dif-
pofed to malts any order aim the fuliecla, and as
there is no precedent. and the Coustniffioners theta-
feives do not feels to have any Mi theit
ght about
authority, I nal give so opinion upon it,
"
Upon a fuggeftion from Mt. ROINILLT, the Lots
CHANCILLot girdled a declaration, that be made on
order. becaufe he eras of opinion that he bad no as;
thority over the Comnsiffioocrs In this sefpea.

COURT OF KING'S 31110th. Pitts di.
TIII ZING T. LOOM, WAINWRIGHT AND WWII/ I
In the abfence of the Arroaustr G , Mr.
Gatlin" mentioned that Mrs. Wainwright being
now fufficiently recovered from the indifpofition
which prevented her being brought up along with
the other Defendants left Term, he now prayed .the
ludgineut of the Courts and it was aecordenglyorder-
id that all the Defendants be brought up on this day
fencight.
RENT V. DI M&
In this caufe a conditional Rule was, obseiselos.
a former day, for confolidating into one 'three
for Bribery, commenced againft the Defendant..
Mr. Easaisis &lied caufe this-day ageing, So
Rule : he Paid thefe were Alone For Bribery. on Ara°
late Ayleibuty Eloltion, and there were nuiesette,
than 4o fubßantive penalties in each sition.
Mr. COURT fupPorted the Role for confolidati4
the salons at forme Issgth:. - ---
The Rule was diadiarged. ..
Aker foam farther anima of se enameat, his:
Lordihip fat in 411 Nam , ,•I . 'WV
TWO was on aelionielb;:t:htty one peldleasfli
_Mt, to recover back a hum of al, sos. is
is commonly called Rok Money, which:4l
Plaiatiffe had
ectaid to the Defendant.
It ap the Deaden: bad kept risepn
Bea i-•
lie hoer ie, in Newman-Rrect. wboto be hod kt4t
together fame little property by his itidnacy.
log to retire, he reprefented to 0' Pkintitthainef-
pawns Rate of the le, and the batik eras theihript
on iodated to take it from him.
It appeared to be a general ealtost that the li.
cooks poblican Could pay a him of money to llea
oat rang one, nokoewo to the landlord, wkieb ie
termed Rofe money, that is money paid nadir We

Rafe.
The Plaintiff therefon paid the film before ftated.
From Come cireamaances he repented of his bargain,
and witted to get his money back, alletigip g that he
bad been &caved by the mifreprefentatton of the
Defendant, who had Rated that be drew from eight
to ten butts of thong beer per Month, Whereas
turned out that he fold much Ids.
The Defendant, on his part, proved that the re
prefentation which he had made to the Plaintiff was
grounded in fait.
Lord ELLIIIIOIIOOO a obferved, the only
for the jury was, whether the Plaintiff's espaestles
had failed, or was he really deceived ? whetherfitesilk
ed to decline his bargain from the mifreprefkkillilde
be had atledged, or from his own inabiSty ? • *'? !
The Jury found a Verdia for the Defendant.
Dona v. uonarr.
This was an salon brought upon three Pro
for) Notes of the Defendant to the
; .Flabetiff
Icon!. each. ~. 1 ,roi .1.
Mr. MAILIITOIartd the cafe. •'' ' • 7":
Mr. 13•111.01, it was IlterdyWitil,
to prove the hens:aro( tha at
feat, which was Ont. '‘ •'•
Mr. Easetna later' calk,
parties were fornierlyrtnere and proprietors of
Hotel de la Sablionieve, in beietikerifffsaftt
having agreed to dirolve partnerikip, the beta
paid a large fors of money to the Defendant, for the
relinquishment of his Stare ; aftertholdrolatieatiehe
Defendant took a bade near the Plaisdrs, where he
intended following a Smiler beads s' bat it was ne
cefary be fbould obtain a licence for that pupae.
He applied to the Magiftrates for one, wita the
Plaintiff thought proper to prefer a complaint aping
him, and the bilagiamtes would not grant him a it
• but on condition that he fitoold give the
Plaintiff soot. The Plaintiff then attempted topro c, from the pleadings in a Snit in the Equity Side
of the Eschewer, which bad been ;Miaowed by the
grefent Plaintiff againft the Defendant, that the De.
lenient was indebted to him the film in qnekion, as
part of a fum formerly due. The Plaintiff was now
faked.

COURT 07 COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 6.
COLLINS' O. /WITT.
Mr. Serjeant Barr Ibewed caufe againß a Rule
obtained for difcharging the Defendant out of the
Sherirs cußody, on the ground that the was a mar-
ried woman, and her hufband refponfible for the
debt which Rte had contia&ed. Front the Plaintirs'
affidavit, it appeared that the Defendant *Ent to his
(hop in the Strand, reprefented hetfielf as a fancy
drefs maker, refiding in St. Albas'i-fireet, and pur-
chafed various articles, which the Plaiitiff gave tier
credit for, under a belief that the was unmarried.
A confiderable time having afterwards elapfed, and
no payment being offered, the Plaintiff proceeded for
the recovery of his money in'a legal ways on which
Mn. Rota begged to be allowed longer credit, and
offered to pay, by giving a note, accepted by two
perfuns of refpeflabtlity. The latter propofal was
not acceded to, but the proceedings were delayed
againft her, during which the went away, and the
Plaintiff did not know where the was, until he acci-
dentally met her in Fleet Market : au aftion was
thee commenced, and the was arrefted.
I It was contended, that the Plaintiff had never
beard the Defendant was married during 'the tranf
notion between them ; and had always confidered her
as tingle. Her name and profeffion being an the
door of her honfe, and every other appearance toeon-
firm fuch a belief.
In fupport of the Rule, Mr. Serjeant Ow stow Rat-
ed, that the Defendant was married at St. Juht.'s
Church, Weßminaer, to Michael Roett, who at pre-
fect reticles near Charing Croft. In confequence of
which, he argued, the could not be held to bail.
Sir jamas Mainvtato obferved, if there was no
doubt of her marriage, the scuß be difcharged.—
It was, however, an unfortunate cafe, that the could
not be compelled to remain in rifle s her condutt
was of that defcription which required invelligation
at the Old Bailey.—The Court acquiefeed in the pro-
priety of the rule obtained..