Star.
London, England, 1815-11-24 00:00:00

Still keeps that amity, with spite though hip,
That's still assured each morning with his wig;
And feels couvinc'd " his Lordship won't attend
" To the gross ignerance of my learned friend !"
Such friendship is, such is its rise and aim.
All give, all take, all mi-apply the name !
Who sold you that vile nags that risk'd your life ?
Who stole your daughter t who folioed your wife
Who woo your money ? who still makes you lend.
And ne'er repay! ? one answer serves— my friend!
There is one sect, of wealth and worth partaker*,
Who nut abuse the term-1 mean the Quakers; •
For they, benevolent to all, apply it,
And rarely mean one jot of friendship by it !
have some friends too : such this hour demands ;
Whose fav'ring hearts speak by applauding hands.
The best I know—and 'twas our Author's whim,
That sent me here to find tome such for him ;
Wel, then," speak hands for him"..--1 cheering sign.—
But let time heats that prompt them still be mine !

Ze f W 11VM.LLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER t 3.

- - -
EX PARTE TURNER, IN TIIRMATTER OF SIR GREGORY

PARE TURNER.
Mr. HART again mentioned this case to his Lord-
ship to-day. He was extremely happy to be enabled
to state, that the fears of his family and friends, with
respect to the health of the worthy Baronet, were
now completely relieved, they having received a
letter from him, accounting satisfactorily for his ab-
sence, and explaining the causes of it in a manner
which did away all idea of its being occasioned by a
relapse. This, he was happy to state, appeared from
a letter which he had seen last night from Sir Gre-

gory to his confidential agent in town.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was happy to hear
it. When he saw Sir Gregory Page Turner in his
room, previous to his ordering the supersedeas to
issue, he found him in such a state of health 's com-
pletely to satisfy his Lordship that he was thoroughly
recovered, unless, indeed, the apprehensions of his
friends might create a relapse.
Mr. HART stated the facts of the case to be as he
had narrated them. The necessity, therefore, of ap-
plying to his Lordship to suspend the sealing of the
writ of supersedeas, was no longer necessary.
The Loan Citariczei,ort nccordingly ordered that
the same do issue immediately.
COURT OF KING'S peNcti, NOVEMBER 23.
BAILLIE v. WARDEN.
This was a writ of errcr from the Common Pleas,
in an action of trespass and false imprisonment. In
the Court below the names of the parties were re-
versed, Warden v. Baillie, and the facts that apa
prated were shortly these.
The late Mr. Whitbread, as Lieutenant-Colonel
of the Bedfordshire Local Militia, issued an order
that the serjeants and other non-commissioned offi-
cers, whose duty it was to make certain official re-
turns, in order to render them more competent to
their duty, should attend a school, at the head of
which was placed the Adjutant. Warden was a sera,
jeant in the Bedfordshire Local Militia, and with
others was directed to attend thi; school, which he
neglected. For this disobedience he was reprimanded
by Mr„ Whitbread, on the Ist December, but re-
peating it, he was ordered to attend parade on the
2cl December, wheie the Adjutant, Baillie, (the de-
fendant in the Court below), put him under military
krrest. From thence he was conveyed, by order of
the Lieutenant-Colonel, by a military escort to the
public gaol, and delivered into the-hands of the gao-
ler, where he remained until the 24th Decembers
when he was liberated from prison, and put under a
guard in his own house ; from whence he was sent to
Stiiton Barracks, remaining in confinement there till
the 12th March. The action for this assault and
false imprisonment was commenced on the 27th Jun
following. Such was the plaintiff's case ; and on
behalf cf the defendant it was urged at the trial,
that the schorl had been established because the sera
jeants were incompetent Id. discharge the duties
assigned them by*the articles of war ; that when alto:
titer serjeant, named lin Hooper, was admonished ,
for not attending it, the plaintiff, Warden, addressed '
him in these words-0' 1)-11 your eyes Jack, don't•
give up-7(ton% go to school: I will soldier it with'
any body, but 1 will not go to school. I will not be
made a boy of 1 hope they will settle it before post,
that I may write to my father, who will see me
ighted, though it .cost ie200." Upon which a ser.
jeant, usmcd Dmitlt, obServed, that such language
was enough to excite a mutiny. It was also proved
fa the Adjutant, saillie, (the defendant below), that
lie acted under orders of Lieutenant-Colonel Whit-
bread, who, in consequence of the conduct of War.
den, and the language lie had used, wrote to General
Piggott, commanding the District, through whom
Warden was brought to a General Court Martial, at
Norman-cross, and being acquitted, was discharged
on the 12th of March, atter the sentence had been
confirmed.
Upon these facts a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff, in the Common Pleas, and a bill of exceptions
WAS tendered to the Learned Judge, Sir James Mans-
held, by the Counsel for the defendants, in which
three objtctions were stated-Ist. That the Judge at
the trial had declared and delivered his opinion to
the Jury, that the several matters proved on the part
of the defendant, were not sufficient to bar the plain.'
tiff of Ins action against the defendant. 241. That
the verdict ought nut to have been for the plaintiff.
3d. That it ought to have been in favour of the de-
fendant. The bill of exceptions also contained a
detail of all the particulars of the facts above stated.
The question afterwards came before the Court of
King's Bench for argument, and stood over for
decision.
Lord ELLespottouou this day delivered the judg-
ment of the Court, after reading the Bill of Excep-
'lions. The first question that naturally arose from
the statement was, whether the original arrest of
Warden by Baillie, the Adjutant, on the 2d Decem-1
ber, was or was riot legal ? but as the Act of Parlia-
ment required that the action shoull be commenced
withia six months after the cause ot action occurred.
and as the action in this case was not brought until,
the 27th June, it became material to consider whe-
ther any part of the confinement fell within that pe-.
clod of six months? fur "though the limitation in the
statute was. not specially pleaded, yet, under the
general issue, the defendant might take advantage of
it. The arrest under the authority of Baillie took
place on the 2d of December, but it ceased on the
4th, or at furthest on the 24th of December, and
the action not beiug.compienced till the 27th of Jour,,

that imprisonment was clearly not within the sir
months required by the statute, and
.Baillie would
not he liable unless he were responsible for the subse-
quent confinement when he acted under the orders of
Lieutenant-Colonel Whitbread. The-question was,
therefore, reduced to this point, whether Lieutenant-
Colonel Whitbread were warranted by law in order-
ing the imprisonment of Warden, first in his own
house, and afterwards preparatory to the Court-mar-
tial Certain expressions had been proved against
Warden, and it was important to see whether they
came under the description given in the 21th section
of the akticles of war, as " disorderly conduct, to the
prejudice of good order and military discipline." 11
they did (and no doubt could be entertained upon
the subject), Warden might be brought before a ge-
neral court martial, This proceeding would not be
Iless legal, even supposing that the original order of
the Lieutenant-Colonel lor the attendance of the ser-
jeants at the school were not valid ; for an errone-
ous command would not justify disobedience or the
employment of inflammatory language, to the sub-
version of maitary discipline. The only remaining
question then was, whether it was lawful for the
Lieutenant-Colonel to order the arrest of Warden,
that he might be forthcoming at the Court-Marti.d.
This power was given ;.y the 22d Article of War—,
46 in case of the commission of any crime deserving
punishment :" and the Court was therefore of opi-
nion, that the alledged trespasses were covered up to
the 21'tb of December, by the limitation in the Local
Militia Act, and that all the subsequently alledged
trespasses under -the orders of Lieutenant-Colonel
Whitbread, wete justifiable in respect of that Officer,
and consequently in respect to the defendant Willie,
as acting under the orders of his superior Officer.—
The Judgment was consequently in favour of the
Plaintiff in error.

THE KING V. REV. J. T. I.AWES.
The defendant, who is Master of the Grammar
School at Marlborough, WAS found guilty at the lilt
Assizes for Wiltshire, of an assault upon Courtney
Brice, one of his scholars, the son of a clergyman
in the neighbourhood. The facts were detailed at
length in tie notes of Mr. Justice DAMPIER, from
which it appeared, that the boy, the prosecutor, had
brought up his theme iu an improper state, for,which
Mr. Lastres had at first determined to flog him, but
afterwards relented, and only struck him on the top
of his head with his knuckles. Brice had the head-
ache in the afternoon, but continued for six weeks
regularly to come to school, after which lie.was af-
flicted with a constipation of the bowels, and mediol
aid being called in, a sursreon and physician gave it
as their opinion, that the blow on the head inflicted
by Mr. Lawes, was the origin of the complaint. His
head was shaved, and leeches applied ; but two other
surgeons who examined Brice, on the pert of Mr.
Lawes, were of opinion that his health had not been
affected by the blow, and could observe no external
injury or tumour. The boy some time afterwards
was troubled with fits, occasioned, as was contended
for the prosecution, by the same severity of Mr.
Lawes. The Jury found the defendant guilty, adding
that he had no intention to injure, but that the blow'
given was an improper mode of punishment. He
was now brought up to receive the sentence of the
Court.
A great number of affidavits were put in on his
behalf, from medical men, fathers who now had sons
under the tuition of Mr.. Lawes, and from young
men who had been his pupils, now at the University,
giving him a most excellent character for learnirg,
ability, and humanity.
After hearing Mr. Casurnn on one side, an d Mr.
See:int PELL on the other, the Court sentenced the
defendant to the payment of a fine of Gs. Sd.
stIACE JOYCE.
• •
This was a case reserved for the consideration of
the Court, upon a point of practice, viz. Whether
the service of a latitat, directed to the Sheriff of Stir -
fey, was good, by being served at Batson's Coffee-
house, in the City of London, and the Court, upon
a review of the authorities, held it to be irregular,
and made the rule absolute fur setting it aside, but
without costs.

AEI; V. SIATtY SHEPHERD.
This defendant was indicted beture Lord ELLEI

Bonovun fora nuisance, in the ill management ut a
slaughter-house in Warwick-lane, and a verdict ut
guilty was taken, subject to the award Clt Mr. Mon•
Lague, the City Surveyor, who awarded that the nui-
sance should be entire)), abated.
The fruroakav-GaNeftm. now moved for-an at-
tachment against the dekndant, upon an affidavit
stating that the nuisance had ever since been conti-
nued ; but in consequence of an impel iectiun in his
affidavit relating to the terms of the award,
The Court gave him leave to mem ion the case
again, when it should be free from the objection taken.