Star.
London, England, 1825-12-17 00:00:00

THE POET. • - -

Look at that high and marble brow,
The hair thrown back as if in ire;
t.ook at that cheek, how red its glow,.
How bright those eyes with living fire !
Those parted lips—they seem to speak ;
And yet no sounds the silence break !
What are thy thoughts, wrapt mortal? Tell 7—
Thou deignest not unto us reveal.
Do they on Earth, Sea, Heaven, dwell ?
Oh, tell sue, for I fain would steal
Some spark of thine, since we are.—nay. •
crown not—both made of kindred clay !
On Earth—and think'st thou, selfish one,
Fur me no herb or blossoms grow,
No birds salute the youthful sun,
No rainbow seasons tome and go?—
Oft have I risen at midnight deep,
When Nature looked too fair to sleep!
The Sea—l've beard the sailer boy,
sing gaily front the high mast head;
f.ir down the depths I've hailed with joy
The unknown land of the lost dead :
And I have seen and leaded to scan
Thy paths--thou dark Leviathan!
On Heaven—are aU yon stars of gold,
llarshalled by Gen each night for thee?
When be the world's bright chart unrolled
Was no sweet isle marked out for me?
0, thou dost err—those skies so bite,
11 hen I am dead. shall be mitre too!
Then think not, friend, I cannot share
The thoughts that lie too deep for speech,
For though at me no vulgar stare.
The drep.drawb sigh no Lady fetch ;
Still will I hope with thee to claim
The Poet's fortunes and his rage,! -

SECONDARIES' OFFICE; MC=lll4l6.
CASE 01 SLANDER.
SARAH PENN U. WILLIAM BULL STAPLETON.
The plaintiff in this case was an unmarred Lady,
keeping a reputable seminary at Margate, and the de-
fendant the son of General Stapleton, of Thorp Hill,
near Staines, and brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The
defendant having allowed judgment to go by default in
the Higher Courts, a Jury was assembled here to assess
the damages sustained by the plaintiff, in conseerence
of the slanderous words spoken by the defendant.
Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury in support rf
damages, though he stated that the sole object of his
client was to vindicate her character. He then entered
into a history of the last twelve years of her life to
prove that it was irreproachable. The defendant and
his wife placed one of their children, a boy, at her
school, and were so satisfied with the manner in which
he was treated, that they also requested her to take
charge of their little girl. Yet, on the 13th of June,
Mr. Stapleton, after meeting her walking with a most
respectable Gentleman, to whom she expected to be
married, and speaking civilly to her, went to her
house, and in her absence demanded in the most
peremptory manner from her assistant the restora-
tion of his children, whom he forcibly carried away.
He then sent to demand the children's clothes, and as
some of.them were at the wash, and could not be deli-
vered at once, a constable was ordered to get forcible
possession c f them, to whom they were delivered in the
state in which they were. On the nest day, seeing her
at a window at the house of Mrs. Nod, a married sister
of her's, he held up his fist at her, charged her with
. having stolen. his children's clothes, in these terms—
'' You, S.rrah Penn, you I mean, (shaking his fist at her)
you are a liar and a thief, and you have stolen my chil-
dren's clothes." On being reminded by Mrs. Nott of
the weak state of her sister's health—ft D—n her weak
state, she is a and a prostitute," was the only reply.
Not content with the outrage he had already committed,
a considerable crowd having collected about the door,
he pointed Miss Penn out to them" with all the aggra-
vated 'expressions lie had Used. These were the words
and acts for which relief was sought, and for which the
Jury, he was assured, would award prpper damages.
• Witnesses having Iseen examined in sepport of these charges,
Mr. Aein.rmus addressed the Jury in mitigation.
ComaNORIDOS, the Chairman, gummed up the evidence, and
after a shiri consultation the Jury found &verdict of Xl5O damages.
INSOLVZNT DEBTORS' COURT, Dreams /a.
•
Rbbert Brazier Rice, a miller, residing in Sussex,
caw up tone beard on his petition. The-insolvent
having been discharged under the Act within the last
• five years, it was necessary that he should obtain the
consent of three•fourths of his creditors, in number and
value to his present application, before it could be heard
by the Ccurt. With this condition the insolvent had
• complied; but one of the consenting creditors named
Sandford, held as a security for his debt,which amounted
-to between 7001. and 8001. a mortgage of the insolvent's
mills, worth upwards of 9001. A. question, therefore,
arose as to whether this debt so secured was such a debt
as came within the meaning of the Act, and gave Mr.
Sandford, a vote in allowing the insolvent to b bead on
Iris present petition ?
Mr. HEATH, for the opposing creditors, contended
that there was substantially no debt due from the in-
solvent to Mr. Sandford, as the mcrrtgage which he held
for more than its slalue, was tantamount to a liquida-
tion of it; and he, Mr. Sandford, therefore could not
be in any manner damnified by consen ing to the insol-
vent's discharge. Consequently, he had not that inte-
test in the insolvent's affairs,one way or the other, which
it w as clearly the spirit and intention of the Act he should
hive, to entitle him to give or refuse his consent to the
ins-Ivent's discharge. .
Mr. Coots, for the insolvent, argued, on the other
hand, that the mortgagee, totwithst ending he held a
security for his debt, still continued to be a creditor,
whom if the insolvent omitted to enter as such in his
schedule; the Court would dismiss it. The Act of Par-
liament, then, giving the right of consenting to all the
creditors in the schedule generally, without making any
exception, it clearly followed that. Mr. Sandford was
entitled to 'vote with the other creditors on this occa-
sion, and therefore the insolvent had complied with the
necessary condition to warrant the Count receiving
_ his Petition to be discharged..
The Cover was divided issopinion upon the subject;
the Chief Commissioner agreeing with Mr. Cottkc that
the mortgagee was a creditor~ and entitled under the
Act to give an effectual content to the insolrent's ap-
, plication for his discharge; remainder and
majority of .the Court, consisting of Commissioners
Boiven and Law, held the opposite opinion, and decided
tb.o the a.ortgagee. hAd not ..that.interest in' withhold.
ing or grantnsg his consent to the insolvent's disehirge,o
which the Legislature contemplated. .
The Insolvent, therefore, not having obtained the'
necessary consents (independent. of Mil Sandford's), him
case was adjourned until he shell, have done as. . •
Rickard iente.Agl, of London Wall„ cabinet maker,
alma cape up• t.:) be heard on his petition, having been
hel,m disc}arged under the Act itr FCbluol last. This

--

• .

~
yam.,` .. i.F...:~~. _ _
Sl
'•
_ ~YW~wW ~. ___