Star.
London, England, 1814-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 6.

in the case of the CA RRON CONIPANY v. WINDER)
Mr. LEACH obtained an injunction, restraining the
defendant from driving any files in the River Thames
within 25 feet, or any other given distance, which
might damage or endanger the wharf or premises of
the plaintiffs, affidavits having been filed that the
safety of the said wharf had been already put to
hazard.
In a case between KENSINGTON and Co. and STEIN
and Co. an order was made for the exclus'on of all
real creditors from a Jury List about to be impan-
nelled in the trial of a question at law between the
parties.

eestatameo 7.
CONtIISIST OF coVlT—wAap 01 CIIANCRAY-.-AND CON-
SPIRACY AGAINST JURISDICTION.
This morning, at the sitting
-of the Court, Mr.
SHADWF.LL moved, on the petition of the nearest
friend of Miss Ann Wade, a young heiress and a ward
of Chancery, now only seventeen years of age, hut
possessed ot an income of 15000 a-year in her own
right, for process of contempt against Charles H.
Beasley, son of the Rev. Mr. Beasley, anti his ass°.
dates, for breach of an order and injunction issued
heretofore, to restrain the said Charles H. Beasley
from prosecuting his illicit courtship with the ward.
There were previous and private considerations and
proceedings before the LORD CHANCRLLON, to prevent
such unlawful intended union, when the case was
discovered approximating to mitrimony, or publica-
tion of banns; and the order was so full as to prohi-
bit any further intercourse, either in person or by let-
ter, with the ward ; but the ingenuity ot the ardent
lover was found to have extended to the facts now
tlrarged, of conveying a litter through ;he maid.ser.
vat to the young lady, and to the further ch i•ge ..t
having offered a bribe of one thousand pounds Leo ie
ot the Bove -street officers of police for his assistance.
and co-opsratlon in gaining possession of her person,
in direct violation of the order of Court.
The letter was produced and read, couched in the
%sue' terms of love. with an invitation to his arms.
But an obstacle occurred to the present motion, on
the want of proof of the hand-writing, which induced
the LORD CDANCELLoR to direct inquiry to be made
for the late school-fellows of Mr. Beasley, where he
was lately educated, for persons to prove the hand-
Writing, or among his tradesmen or those supplying
him With articles of necessaries, among whom the re-
quited evidence could easily be found, and the motion
to stand suspended for a very few• days for that

per_poSea
His LOrdship regretted this defect, and added on
this occasion that he should shew many their error
respecting the extent of the jurisdiction of this Court
WI such cases, since he felt inclined, on the verification
of the charges in this Petition, to hand over the same
is sufficient to ground a criminal prosecution for a
conspiracy, to the Attorney-General ; the conse-
quence of a conviction on which would subject the
principal and his accomplices to punishment more
serious and afflicting to the feelings of many persons,
than imprisonment, or even transportation, nay, even
death itself—and ordered dispatcit and diligence to be
usod in proving the band-writing, and the motion to
be brought on as quickly as possible.—The motion
vas suspended.

COURT OF 111,01G$ BENCH.
NOTTINGHAM 116.HINNARIN

Th:3 cause was tried on Monday, the sth Duets-
•,er last, at the Slitting' after MichLimas Term, be-
.ore the Right Hon. Lord Eurcsonotruu, Chief
.!stice of the King's Bench, and a Special Jury.
The Plaintiff is a Professional Gentleman, residing
at. East Retford, in the county of Nottingham. The -
Defeadant belongs to the Thames Police Office, and
keeps a Druggist's shop in Holborn. It appeared
'hew parties were brought into contact by the con-
duct of Mr. Richard B. WainEnsui, of Sbipley,York-
shire, an intimate friend of the Defendant, relative to
his wife's separate property. It also appeared by the
declaration, that the action was brought to recover
damages for the injury done to the Plaintiff's cha-
Neter, by the false, scandalous, malicious, and deta-
natory libels said to have been published by the De-
4-ndant, and by the oral slanders said to have been
.ILtered by him on several occasions.
After Mr. TCPPING, the Learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff, had stated the charges he was about to
wake out in evidence against the Defendant, he
s.ured the Ginn and Jury that his client had no
kish to press for heavy damages, he had no intention
1) reap pecaniary advantage from his proceedings ;
is only object was to do justice to his own character,
nd he conceived that could not be more effectually
.ne than by taking such a verdict as would remove
:cry imputation upon his Plaintiff's character, and
x the Defendant with the costs of the proceedings.
'lc, therefore, propoeedlo accept a verdict of 40s.
-MI costs, as between Attorney and Client.
Considerable hesitation appearing on the part of
c defendant, Mr. Tonne° again addressed the Jury
'fith great energy, and was about pressing upontheli
c 'amity of allowing exemplary damages, wiaen

the kyroitNiv-ottiik. leading Counsel for the
defendant, rose, and most handsothely coMplimbnted
the plaintiff on the llbitrality of the proposition, and
took upon himself to accede td it ; he observed, it
was ittipossible for him to justify the conduct of the
defendant, he might probably strip it of some of its
stings, but it was not in his power to pievent the
plaintiff obtaining a verdict.
The Noble and Leatned Judge then declared the
conduct of the defendant could not be justified, and
that the plaintiff (whose moderation he highly ap-
proved) would be entitled to a verdict, which was
taken accordingly for 40s. damages and the full costs
as between Attorney and client.
The costs of.the suit will probably amount to be;.
tween 4 and £5OO.

DECEMBER 6.
GIBBON C. Tilt LONDON DOCK COMPANY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as
owner of a vessel called the Darlington, which had
entered the London Docks to unload, to recover the

• in
value of a pipe of wine,• staved unloading by the
- -

Company's labourers.
J. Lowrey was Master of the Darlington ; she WAS
loaded with wine and cork, and had gone into the
London Dock to unload. The cask of w►ne, which

was staved, was lying in the second tier from the
bottom ; the usual course of nnloading wine cargoes
is to tak off the top tier. Before the Docks were
•established, lumpers were enipl•qed in unloading,
and the master lumper was ioutid to make good all
losses ; but now the Dock Company will not allow
a lumper to enter the Dock. On my arrival in the
Docks, I discharged all my ship's company, except
the carpenter and mate. It is still the practice to
discharge some cargoes in the Thames by lumpers.
If the vessel has 20 pipes of wine on board, or more,
she is obliged to go into the Docks. The master and
his crew may clear the vessel by their own strength,
but if they want assistance, they must have it fit.m
the Company. In the present case, the Company
furnished four men, and none of my men assisted in

unloading.
S. Higley wasExciseman on board the Darlington,
and saw the pir of wine staved. The Mate was on
deck at he time the accident happened, and the wit-
ilia not hear him give any direction as to the
mode ot unloading. Witness told the Company's
men they had got the pipe in a very awkward situa-
tion ; they had upheaded it, and there was nothing
underneath t., break the fall. Witness advised them
to put some ciik under to break the fall of the cask;
the, did not, and almost immediately it fell on an-
her cask, and was staved. The Mate was all this
time upon deck, and did not at all interfere. Wit-
ness heard the foreman say to his men.--,4 You are
unloading in so awkward a manner that you will do
some mischief "

.... -
Lerd ELLENBOROUGH asked the Attorney-General,
who was for the defendant, if he had any witnesses to
contradict this statement ? _

_ _
The ATTORNIEY.GZNZRAL said, he was instructed,
that the four labourers would say, that they worked
under the commit of the' Mate of the Darlington ;
but be doubted whether the Jitry would credit them,
as they were interested witnesses.
Lord ELLENuoaouou observed, there could be no
doubt, either in law or in fact, that the ual"ading
was wholly under the contro►il of the Comp4ny's
,servants; and that the Company, therefore, was
The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
mages sel l 3.66.6 d.

THE KING ,IP. JOHN BAKER.

. -
This was an indictment against the defendant, for
having assaulted and ill-treated Lieutenant Dean, a
Lieutenant in his Majesty's service, at Bow, on the
evening of the 12th of July List, and rescuing a cer-
tain impressed seaman whose name was unknown.
The ATTORSKY.GENERAL opened the case to the
Jury, and called the following witnesses to prove
the facts :
Mr. S. Thurtle, a clerk in the Admiralty, produced
the Prince Regent's Order in Council, authorising
the Lords of the Admiralty to issue press-warrants ;
and also the press-warrant issued to the prosecutor,
Lieutenant W. Dean.
Lieutenant Dean was employed in the impress ser-
vice in 1813, and had the warrant in his possession.
On the 27th of July witness went to Bow with his
men to search for seamen. They went to the Black
Swan, where they found a man in sailors' clothes,
and supposing him to be a sailor, they took him away
towards London. In coming out of Bow, witness
observed a mob olthirty or forty persons assembling,
and heard one man say, a don't let them take him
away." They closed upon the witness and his men ;
and the witness perceiving it was their intention to
rescue the man, took a pistol from his pocket and
presented it at them, intending to intimislate them ;
the pistol was not loaded, but it did intimichtte them,
and they retired a little. The witness then desired
the midshipman to het forward with the man, and
hearing the mob coming up, he went back towards
them, and again presented the pistol at them, when
the defendant Baker came up, seized the pistol, and
with the assistance of another man, who came behind
him, threw him down, and dragged him about on
the ground with considerable violence. This was
about nine o'clock in the evening. They then raised
the plaintiff up, and forced him back to Bow, to a
public-house, where they kept him confined in s
room, pushing and hustling him about for three quar-
ters of an hour. He had in the mean time called for
a constable, and for assistance, but he was told these
was no constable for him. Baker was present an
this time, and was one of the most active amongst the
mob ; some one, witness believes the landlord of the
house, demanded a sight of his warrant, which the
witness produced; witness believed the defendant
saw die warrant; the impressed man was lost in the
scuffle. Baker struck the witness, when in the public
house be learnt his name by hearing some one call
out, a mind what you are about Baker." It was not
quite dark, and the witness was certain the defendant
was the man.
G. Bushman was one of the Midshipmen who was
with the prosecutor; he corroborated Lieutenant
Dean's statement as far as related to their being 'sent
forward with the impressed man. As they were
going across the fields with the man, they observed
the mob coming after them, and hen learnt that
Lieutenant Dean bad been dragged oack to Bow,
and ill-treated ; none of the gang, which consisted
at seven persons, had any weapons not even a stick.
The mob consisted of thirty or forty persons, and

. .
vowel! they Would have the Matt • and, pressing close
upon the witness and his party, they thought it prit,
dent to let the man go.
Mr. P. &mu, for the defendant; submitted to
the Jury that there was no proiif whateiter of the de-
fendant's having been aiding or assisting in the
rescue or even that he Was present at the spot When
it took plAce. He submitted also, that even if it
Should have appeared that he had assaulted the pro.
secutor, he was ignormit at the time of his character
and authority, and therefore, at most, he could only
have been guilty of a common assault. Mr. Smith
then called
Mr. G. Graves, a locker in the Irestlndia Docks,
who was at Bow on the night in question, and pre-
sent in the public-house during the time of the dis-
turbance on account of the impressed man being res-
cued. Witness saw Baker pulling Mr. Dean into
the house by the collar, and desired him to desist.—
Alter some time, Baker let him go, and Mr. Dean
produced his warrant, which the witness read, and
again requested the mob assembled to desist from
violence.

S. Price was present at the Rose and Crown; Baker
was there, but witness did not see him do any tl.ing
except look on, as others did.
This was the evidence on the part of the defendant.
. The Jury, without hesitation, found him Guilty.
LAWRCNCE OBE L.
This was an action of trespass, brought by the plain-
tiff, a widow woman, against the defendant, who is
her next door neighbour, charging him with having
erected a privy in his yard, one side of which rested
on, and was cut into, the plaintiff's wall. Several
witnesses were called, who proved that two holdfasts
bad been driven by the defendant into the plaintiff's
wall. This, the Learned Judge observed, was suf-
ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict.
The Jury retired, and, after an absence of two
h.,urs, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
40s. Costs 40s.
The sittings at Westminster finished.
LONDON Slrl'lNGi, DEC. 7.
Dot ex dim. PITT V. LAMING.
This was an action of ejectment to recover posses-
sion of Grigsby's Coffee-house, Threadneedle.street,
by reason of certain alleged breaches of covenant in
the lease, The first was, that the lessee had not in-
sured the premises from fire. It appeared that he
had effected a policy of insurance with the Eagle
Office, but that that policy had not been indorsed
to his personal representatives, till after the three
months stipulated for such purpose by the printed
conditions of the policy ; for which reason it was con-
tended that the policy was void—but Lord ELLEN.
BOROUGH held the golicy still valid, and that the in-
surance office shouli give better notice to representa-
sives, if they meant to vacate a policy for such a
reason. Another breach was, that the Coffee-house
was an Inn, th at an Inn was one of the buildinos
which the conditions of the policy described as d2ulle
hazardous, and that it ought therefore to have been
insured as such ; far want of which insurance the po-
licy was void—but Lord ELLENBOROUGH held a Cof-
fee-house not an Inn, and that the iniurers only con-
templated such inns as incurred danger from fire, by
reason of the stables, and hay and straw w..ich they
comprised. His Lordship said that Grigsby's .Cot-
fee-house haqipened to be the very first place into
which he entered upon his arrival in London, and
he therefore knew it not to come under the insurance
office definition of an inn. A third breach was, that
the lessee had underlet without licence ; but it ap-
peared that he had only let lodgings, which Lord
ELLENBOROUGH held no breach of the covenant.—
Nonsuit.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 6.
POPKINS V. THORNTON.

This was an action on a policy of insurance on the
ship Experiment, effected by order of the plaintiff
with the defendant. The only question in the case
was, whether there had been any concealment of the
risk ? It appeared that the assured having doubts of
the vessel's safety desired a policy to be effected, pay-
ing, at the same time, an encteased premiurn.of ten
per cent. The Jury, under these circumstances,
found a verdict for the plaintiff.