Star.
London, England, 1822-11-21 00:00:00

LODGINGS IN EIHNBURGH.

When looking for lodgings, a stranger will see
Smne custom sacraria to a Soutbrun like me.
law 41 Lodgings" put up, and began to explore
A dirty 'stone staircase; and came to a door,
With a name and a bell and a scraper complete,
'Like the doors which In England we have in the street).

.--rung—and was told there were lodgings NEST DOOR,
S 4 I turti'd, and went down the stone staircase once more;
And I search'd the wart noun for these lodgings of theien,
But discover'd at length that NEXT nooa meant ur STAIRS;
And on the next story I speedily came,
To another street door with bell, scraper, and ;lame ;
And if you go up eight or nine stories more,
Each has scraper, a‘il bell, and a perfect street door!
This custom at first could not fail to create a
Great marvel in ntel for they all live in STRATA I.
Oue over another from bottom to top,
.trd beginning below with a stratum of shop!
And the mixture is such that we often may see an
Undoubted pure stratum, 'twist strata plebeian :
You may call on a friend of some ton, and discover him,
With a shoemaker yenta, and a staymaker over him !
My dwelling seams with a perriwig maker,
I'm CINDER a corneutter, OVER a baker ;
Above the chiropodist, cookery too ;
O'ER THAT is a Lutidress, O'ER HER is a Jew;
A painter, and tailor, divide the EIGHTH fl.tt.
And a dariting academy thrives
.oven THAT ;
We'll leave HIGHER CIRCLIS unnam'd :—Vother night
'My landlady enter'd my room in a fright,
And cried, half in tears, with a face full of woe,
" Your lurn's in a low, Sir, your lum's in a low • 1"
Plaugh'd in her face, for her hasty oration,
To me, had convey'd very small information;
Indignant she havdd, when she saw that I laugh'd,
" Your foolish—your lutun's in a low—the mart's daft!
d' The baker ! the oven !"—I now comprehended,
And join'd in the cry ere the uproar was ended,
."The baker ! the oven ! oh, oh! is it so?
'Ay chimney's on fire! my lumps in a low !"

• Your chimney's on fire.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
•
COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER !O.
BEER V. WARD.
Mr.Ntirrn enELL resumed the argument in this case.
He proposed to address himself rather to the difticul.:
t es suggested by his Lordship than to the arguments
upon the other side for a new trial.
The LORD,CHANCELLOR begged he should not he
understood to speak with severity of the arrangements
of the parties. They might have properly laid their
heads together in order to keep out so formidable an
enemy as the Crown. But the question :nosy was,
that he was to do when the circumstances came to

his knowledge?
Mr. WETHERELL argued at length that Mr. Ward
had only continned to act as the Rev. Evelin Row-
land Cotton had acted before—as committee and re-
•ceiver on the lunatic's estates. 'Was it to be said that
Mr. Ward was to be stripped of his property pro salute
oni,ttee ? A new trial was not surely to be granted
on the ground of imputed delinquency in matters in
which the parties on the other site were ten times
more delinquent? It was proved that the issue tried
had been the choice of the parties, who all preferred
an issue to an ejectment. The issue had been the act
of the Court, as well as of the Counsel. At the time
of the issue, too, Mr. Ward had been abstracted from
every circumstance of connexion with the estates, and
another receiver had been appointed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the Attor-
ney-General had notice of this motion ?
Mr. SHADWELL said he had not, but the Attorney-
General would not be for a new trial when the ver-
dict was substantially for the Crown.
Loan CIIANCELLOR.—I am not sure of that : but,
for aught I know to the contrary, he may be with you.
Mr. WETHERELL continued.—lt would be a viola-
tion of all the laws of the land, if, for an offence which
might be penally or criminally visited, Mr. Ward
should be punished otherwise than by fine or criminal
prosecution. Ile was not to be robbed cf 2,0001. a
year because he had suffered the estates to he mana-
ged as they had been under the Rev. Evc!in Rowland
Cotton. How could a new trial then be granted?--
Why punish him, and not others? If his Lordship
could not punish impartially and indiscriminately, he
would not punish at all.
The LORD CrtaNcEr.r.on.—Mr. Wetherell takes a
view of the case very different from any I take of it.
—lt is not as a punishment that any course is to be
taken. From the year 1796 the estates.of the lunatic
were committed to Mr. Ward. During all that time
the persons next of kin were represented to the Master
with Mr. Ward's knowledge and acquiescence. In.
ordinary cases he would be told,
.when the lunatic I,
died that there was an end of his office of receiver.
It is not the rights of parties that the Court has here.
To consider, but the pi inciples on which the ;Jail's of
lunatics can be securely administered. en() difficulty
had arisen, the estates would, of course, have been
• - delivered to the next of kin as soon as the lunatic died.
I speak of Mr. Wetherell, I need not say, with affec-
tionate respect from circumstances,of past life ; but
whether a new trial ought or ought not to be granted,
is not the mode of arguing this question. It is with
the view of arriving at the right conclusion on this
point that 1 wish the Attorney• General, not only Co
have notice, but at my desire to consider what he is
to do in this case. If he say that it is not the interest
of the Crown to interfere, it n ill be foe the Court to
consider what is fit to be done. Whatever the result:
may be, or in whatever mode the Court may part
with the cause, it will be necessary to guard it from
becoming a precedent. For that reason IE wish the
Attorney-General to have notice.
Mr. SHADWELL said he should address his Lord-
ship now on the same side, but as Mr. Serjeant Bo-
sanquet was kept therefrom his own Court, his Lord-
ship would perhaps hear him next.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR readily consented.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET said• he would not pre-
sume to interfere with die forms of Chancery, or the
law of lunatics, but would only offer a few obser-
vations on the motion for a new trial. On this part
of the subject Messrs. Scarlett and Wetherell bad left
him little to say. The Solicitor-General had made
an impression as if many important documents had
been withheld at the trial, and particularly two affi-'
davits, ane by Mrs. Rebecca Cotton, the other by the
Rev. Evelin Cotton ; but he would read them tohis
Lordship to shew their total irrelevancy; the former,
respecting the perfect satisfaction of all parties with
the settlement of the lunatic's affairs in MO,: on the
death of his father. The latter stated that the com-