Star.
London, England, 1814-02-19 00:00:00

." I „i

- • •

COUR 1 • (7.7 4.N FEBRUARY 16.
THE EARL Ok OIIEORD T. CHURCHILL.
The M As-Fen of the ROLii pronounced judgment
this morning in this cause, which was a question of •
construct upon the words chili or cluldrea, as con-
mt-distinguished from the word issue—in a marriage
settlement made in the year 174,5, by Mr. C. Clint-
chill, upon the marriage of 'his eldest son Charles,
' .ssrth Lady Maria Walpole, in which was a clause
settling a sum .of £30,000 upon the first child or issue
of the marriage, subject to some provision theremit
for ycungerchildren-; and in case such child or chil-
dren of the marriage should die in the life-time of
the tenant for lifv, the said sum of £30,0;;O to go to
the grand-children of the settler.
The 'settler survivrd.his min, who kit no mile issue,
and the next male heir, as the great grand.child.rf
the settler, claimed the fund, to the exclution of
Lady Mary Walpole, the4yrand-daughter of the set-
tler, and daughter of the late Lord Orford, who died
in the.year 1812.
His Hos.ouß was of opinion, that the great grand-
child, trader the general term issue, in the preamble,
or introductory clause of the settlement. should n,a
prevail against the specific t,,:rm grand•child'or
chil-
dren, in the enacting or opetative ciauses in a se:de-
ment .or will ; a decision of great importance to
families in general. A declaration was entered that
£30,000, with interest of four per cent. from the
time it was payable, should be decreed to Lady Mary
Walpole, &c. &c.
COUR r OF. KING'S BTNCH, FEBRUARY 16.
It ICH A IIDSON 4r. BLADES.
This was an actioa of trespass, nominally against
the Sheriff of London, but in fact against his offi-
cer; under the following circumstances s—The Plain-
tiff h4vitig entered into an 'agreement with a person.
turned Bagster, to let him have a house of his upon
lease, Bagster agreeing to• give him a ceriain sum
for the lease, which was to be paid by own promio-
sory nate and the acceptanee of a friend. The notes
were paid, and the lease and possession given to
Bagster. Shortly after, however, Bagster d*o-
vered that his speculations in business were not likely
• to succeed, and felt a strong 'desire to get rid of the
house which he had taken, and he accordingly, with
his friend, called on the plaintiff, and offered to give
op' he house. on condition of baying his notes re-
turned ; this offer was soadily acceded to by the
plaintiff, who delivered up the notes and received the
k, y, and immediately took possession of the house.
A few days after, however, two men, who it now
appeared were Sheriff's Officers, and who were in
fact thermal defendants, called out the plaintiff, and
cloaranded the key of the house. This the plaintiff
sefused to give up; upon which they observed, it was
of no consequence—they had the means of getting
entlance. They accordingly went to the house, and
forcing admission, proceeded to takeaway certain
fixtures which were in the house.
. These facts were proved, and also, that the value
• of the fixtures taken were £3O. The Jury, there-
fore, tound a verdict for the Plaintiff-Damages RD,
costs 4Us.

LAWRENCE V, PALMER, GENT.
• This was an action by an Auctioneer and Con-
veyancer of Cambridgeshire, against the defendant,
an Attorney, for a slanderous Publication in the Cam-
bridge Paper, in which the defendant accused tlwre
plaintiff of having reeeived•money of his clients with-
out accounting, and also that he was an uncertificated
bankrupt.
By the evidenie it appeared that the plaintiff and
ch-Lnclant were brothers-in-law, and that the plaintiff
li ,wing been udfortunate in business, had been em-. ,
• ployed in the office of th? defendant. Hee-Afterwards
went-into business for hit-itself as a Conveyancer and
-Auctioneer,. which
,induced the quarrel between-
them, and was the occasion of the publication in
The defendant pleaded a justification,
ar. to the plaintiff having received money from his
clients, and. produced three witnesses to substan-
tiate the facts; but there was no justification pleaded
to the allegation that he was an uncertificated bank
lupt, and which. also was false in fact.
Mr. Panics, having stated. that-the defendant had •
tree ed o.e plaintiff with great.benevolence and kind-
ne,s in his embarrassments, contended, thatAlthongh
ahe justification, was not proved,. yes enough was
proved to cut down the damages to a very small
amount. ,
Sir Vtrit.t.t AM Gaartow on the other hand contended
that this was a most malignant slander, and justified
the plaintlff 'in bringiagbis action in London lather,
.than in Cambridgeshire, where the influence of the
great Attorney would preclude the chance of having
an equally fairttial.
The Jury, after considerable deliberation, returned
a verdict for the Plaintiff.—Damages 4/300.
FEBRUARY 17.—TOWERDINE W. HUD/30N.
This Was an action of Troyer, brought by the 'plain-
tiff to recoyer back certain valuable ire-arms, which
bed come into' the possession of the defendant under
the following circumstances :—The fire-arms in,,ques-
tior, which consisted of a rifle-barreled gun, a pair
of pistols, and a fowling-piece, foreign made, and of
exquisite workmanship, were valued at 1000 guineas,
'and, it appeared, had been put 'into, the hands of a
person namethßeynoldi, a commission agent, for sale.
• Reynolds did not Sell them himself, but took them to
• the. defendant, a tobaccoldst, .in Oxford street, and
lett them there for sale. At the time he left them he
told the defendant they belonged to Mr. Towerdine;
that they were-to be sold for 1000 gnineas ; and that
all they fetched :,t) we that surer, he ( Reyhold.s) and
.the defendant . might divide between them.. Some
time after, they not being sold, Reynolds applied for
bent, but was told by the defendant that a Noble
• Lord ::ad one oP-the pistols, and he hoped would obi-
. ninety buy. them ad. The same and taller evasive
anse'ers were returned to various .other applications
which were trvade,fOr them both Uy Reynolds and the
defendant, anti at lengAtahe defendant said he held•
• them-for a debt due tt, him from Reynolds, and
fad, they had never been delivered to-hirnior sale,
but as security for the debt in question.
41,-letatr, however, was put in, from the defendant
tothe-pfauttiff, in wl4cli he acknowledged leaving the
fire-arnts in his .possession, and applogizesi for nut
having gim.the,m•tip, by, saying they were in the
. bitudt, offacNobleman, who, had them upon view.
. Upon this eiidencetlie;Jury., under the direction Of
• his Lordship, found a verdict for the plaintiff—DA.
mages 1000 guineas.