Star.
London, England, 1813-12-22 00:00:00

v••

..

_
-

-

• ijiitlintaLlGlATA
41000.•,i Ottiticei iiitscH;blCitaiiiht
ANb Mita? ailitutinrMa,
CIiAS. 3011;
Cavisel ASSiiiii/tAessrat. sod Mr.

. • - - • it
*meta tie Jury, who tetirned 4 verdict--Montt
40ahlliairs• • wows; v. rameson.
This was between the tame parties. According to
the custom of the East India Company, the pl.tintiff,
as carpenter, was entitled tb one tpu froight free, and
had Ilse purchased of the gunner his privilege. The
value- £4OO, were sent Ma craft with softie be-
rialisnilt to the Captain, and other goods and stores
belonging to the Captain of-triother East India .hip,
' then ying near Calcutta. After part tithe Captain's
goods were taken on board, the Captain desired the
craft to be cut awat, and the plaintiff was deprived of
the advantage of freight, is well as loss of his property.
It appearing, however, that the Captio:r, had goods in
the craft worth near £l2OO. which shared a similar
fate; Lord Eta.axannounii observed, that there was
no proof of a Malicious intention.—Plaintiff nonsuited.
These two causes occupied six hours.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARIHAHE.--.-BAR V. DIXON.
This was an action brOtight by the plaintiff, -a
young Lady of respectability, for a breach of promise
of marriage. The following circumstances appeared
in evidence :
The plaintiff, who was an orphan, and pnssessed of
a mall fortune. although highly accomplished, had
formed a strict-intimacy with Mrs. Constable, sister
to the defendant. Mrs. Constable had three daugh-
ters, and the plaintiff, out of friendship, had taken up
her residence at the house of her friend. and became
their instructress. Whilst here, the defend utt became
very particular his attentions towards her, and at
length obliged her to quit the house, to avoid his im-
portunities. He, however, followed her, and at lengtli
obtained her consent to awry tn.her uncle, her only
relative, on the sulaject of marriage. liis propositions
'being approvedol, a day;svas fixed for the marriage;
and on the sth of July last a licence wog procured, a
hoist, haying previously been taken, and all .other
preparations coMpleted. On the evening preceding
the day originally filed for the ceremony taking place,
however, the defendant, found • means to postpone it
for two days ; and; uhiniately, to put it off sine die, '
althongh the ring had been bought and presented to
the lady; and it appeared, that immediately after, if
riot previous to this time, he commenced paying his ;
addresses,to a Miss Woodward, who had succeeded
Miss Barr as instructress to Mrs. Constable's childt en.
On the 25th ofJuly..tlie banns were published, fi.r the
-first time, at Homey Church, and on the 9th of An.
gust following dirk were Mari led ; no cattle whatever 1
being. assigned by the defendant for dins changing '
his mind.
,It was proved that the plaintiff was of a
highly amiable dispo)ition, and that not the slightest
imputation could be cast on her chardeter.
Mr. Pang addressed the Jury in Mitigation, and
iidimitted that this was not akaggrivated case, inas.
I,imich as the defendant had not sought to seduce the''
plaintiff The defendant was a young man, not
Anent circumitances, and heavy datitages would, in
all probability,•-Prove his ruin. . •
His Lordship, after summing up. he evidence, dr,
served, he did MR recommend the iffty,to give vin.
dictive damages ; but it was nexelsary persons of the
defendant's description should .he taught by a Jur.y,
that marriage was the last engagement with which
they should trifle. He did not recommend them to
give viodietive damages, or such as should reduce
the defendant to lasting imprisonment ; but it was a,
maxim in law, if an offender could not pay in his
purse, he must in his person.
' . The Jury, after shortly deliberating, found a ver-
dist for the plaintiff—Damages 3/300.
COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 21.
ITALIAN OPEU.4.....WATEAS TAYLOR.
Subsequent to the decree for a sale of the property
of the Opera House. the plaintiff had put a persoa
into the house, for the protection of the property :
this person was turned out, and then an express order
was made to put him in again. An application was
then made on the part of Mr. Taylor, to rescind this
order ; but the LORD CHANCELLOR this day refused
compliance, as the plaintiff was, "tinder the, circum-
stances, entitled tot see. that the property was takeu
care of. His Lordship also srke to the question of
appointing an interim Manager, and only waited for
certain Minutes being handed up to hint to decide
that point. It he did appoint a Manager, it could
only be one with the powers given to the Manager
by the deeds between the parties.
• COMMON PLEAS,.
Monday, in the Court of Cormuan Pleas, came on
to be tried the cause, in which the Assignees of
Messrs. LATHAM and PARRY were plaintiff's, and Mr.
Da Tangt was defendant. Our Readers may re.

• —.a ,Me, oisawoori.
Toe Dateadints=Mr. Pas Ur.. BeaKenos's; Aateriey,fyie.
..,
iL
This was an action fot"tit ibel. The plaintiffs were
colost.tnantifitztnd the defendant a partner iel
a Boossiefette ' - cry and colour works. Beth I
parties live inallistid. gaily in IBIS, the plaintil6.l
levishly circulfstel certain advertisetnents and hand-
bills. elfetintrpiihiti full say per cent. under the ac-
customed pries, add to take off a discount of ten
per cent. I and inthe ileirteaernwat of the 26th June,
they said theyivere in the habit of taking off twenty+
Pc per cent. to those who sold Again. The painter*
lof the City felt themselves much injured by this un-
Warrant-4W attack, and • their hand-bills were an-
swered by a poor paint& on the 17th of Jtitte in the
.04;61 Goitite, stating, that genuine paints, could be
' &Wed at their prices, Ste. The plaintiffs, conceiv.
ins
.% few words in the mannicript were the hand-
a
Writing of the defendant, thought proper to leave the
real' author, who
.they•said was not worth powder
and shot, and bring their action against the defer:
dant. The damages 7 laid in their.decleration were
A:1000.
~ o .6. -. ..•
. .. . . .
'the Arionster-Grxit4 fllirixr ILLIAM GARROWd)
opened the business with his °anal 'eloquence, an .
considering the nature of 'tire cause, certainly made
is much of it as could be expected. ' - -
The first witness culled was J. Whitaker, a servant
of the plaintiffs, who proved he was prodigal, in the
distribution of their handbills. and posting 'them
against the shutters and doors of 'those who sold co-
lours. .. '. • -.
The second witness was Mr. Milh,- Editor of the
Bristol Gazette, who proved the alleged libel was
publiahed in his:Paper. • • '
The third witness,was James Brown, Clerk to Mr.
Mills, who declared, through mistake, that the mai
nnscript was brought to him on the 17th Angtist.
The plaintiffs' Attorney here -attempted to col:
rect him as to the date; when Mr. RAIN ES remarked
that such conduct was not allowed in Lonatim.—
Brown; hosiever, still kept to the 17th of Augest.
The fourth witness was Mr. John Etans, one of
the partne:rs in the Bristol Mercury. He was- asked
if he knew any of the hand-writing. in the mans,-
script ? He said yes, and pointed out the words but,
cannot, and or, which he swore were the defhndant's
hand-writing: On being asked if he had ever seen
defendant write ? He said, ,! ye*, often ;" anti the
Cininsel pressing to know when, and on what nets.,
ton ? -His-reply coax, be had often receivedorders
from himjor advertisements, In his paper. •
Lord. Issuonnuon then requested to see one
of the plaintiff's hand-bills, when he facetionsly criti-
cised on their spelling, and remarked to the Jury, that ;
it was a mere puff, and that he thoughtit was eel
outrage committed on the whole trade, implying that
i they imposed on the public, by charging $0 per cent.
more than they ought • and that the other was only
' a defence, or counter-pk, and that there was nothing
malicious whatever in k. •
The Foreman of the Jury then observed t 6 his
Lordship that they were decidedly of the same opinion.
The ATroatal cateettat. immediately rose and
said, I see, my Lord, I have nothing more to do than
to withdraw a Juror, which being agreed to, heeaved
the plaintiff's paying the defendants cont.
, N. B. The'Coutuel for defendant stated that the
defendant waslully prepared to prove the impossibi-
lity of selling genuine colours, ground in nut oil, at
any thing like their prices, by some of the first and
most respectable painters and coinurmen, both irorn.
Bristol and in London, who had made trial of the
calculations.

•
bec. 18.—nowts v. SIMPSON.
The ATTOIINEY•,GENERAL stated, that in this cause
the plaintif, Carpenter of the Lady Castlereagh East
Indianian, sought for damages against the defendant,
Commander of that ship, for most gross ill.trasment,
in consegience of which, Brown, who had gone on
board fresh coloured and iv good health, had return-
ed home weak anJ debilitated, and, owing to blows
he had received on his loins, by being beat and kick.
ed by the defendant, he was afflicted with inconti-
nence of urine, which would prevent his making any
future voyage.

J. T

lor

sh i p's.

I —-- -
;aptain Bishop, J. Tay i the ails's. cook, John- i collect that a forged acceptance, to the amount of
son the-gunner, and J. Bland the. gunner's mate, i more than £20,000 having been paid by Parry to
detailed the particulars of the assault, and stated, Mr. De Tastet, that Gentleman, instead of seizing
that at the time it took place, plaintiff was perfectly' the person of Parry, who WAS-in his power. suffered
sober. I him to escape ; and, at the same time, obtained from
Mr. Patna, for the defendant, admitted that the him ilarge quantity of and other liquors. The
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, but was convinced assignees under the bankruptcy of Latham and
the Jury would consider the smallest damages suffi- , Parry brought this action against De Tastet for the
cient. After observing upon some rude behaviour . value of these liquors, and recovered to the amount
he had eiperienced from the evidence, Capt. Bishop, iof alt part only on a former trial. A new tt'ial was
which he said was not natural from a fellow-country. granted ; and on Monday it was contended on the
man and a Scotchman, he proceeded to state. that so part of the defendant, by Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, {
far from being a wanton and brutal assault, this al- that Parry having given up the property through
fair amounted to nothing more than that Captain terror, and not voluntarily, this was not such a pre-
Simpson, in a moment of danger. when the ship had :_ference at the law considers to be fraudulent, against
sprung a leak, and the capenter being drunk, persist.: the general creditors of an insolvent person. Chief
ed in affirming that there Were only 10 inches water Justice MANSFIRLD, however, in his charge to the
in the hold, when in fact there were 22 inches there-: Jury, declared his opinion to be, that this delivery of
in ;—the Captain, in the irritation of the moment, ! the property by Parry being done to protect himself
struck him with the sounding-rod ; and that the dis- ' against a prosecution for a capital offence, must be
eider of which he complained had afflicted him in a considered as fraudulent ; and in conformity with
former voyage, arn.l before, he came on board the this opinion, the Jury found a verdict generally for
Lady Castlereagh. • the plaintiffs, the assignees.
Mr: Young and Mr. Phillips, the first and second i COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DUBLIN.
mates, proved that the plaintiff was repeatedly drunk, I MURRAY v. FIELDS.
and that on the night in question he persisted thati Mr. HATCHEL opened the phardings. He stated
there were only 10 ierhes water in the hold, when , that the Plaintiff in this case was Miss Sophia Mar-
, there were fuß 22 inches; that on being desired to ray, and the Defendants were William' Field and
walk along a plank to prove his sobriety, he could Roia Field, his wife. This was an action for slan-
mat walk straight, and was evidently in a state of der' written and published by Mrs. Rosa Field, or
intoxication, and had had his allowance of grog by her direction and authority. The damages were
stopped. ! laid at £5OOO, and the Defendants had pleaded the
Mr. Fox, surgeon of the Lady Castlereagh, stated, general issue,
that previous to the assault the plaintiff had applied Mr. D.RIWOLL stated the Plaintiff's case, and much
to him, having a fever, and also another complaint, . time was consumed in arguing on law technicalities.
which he said he had in a former voyage when in I Mr. H. D. GRADY submitted, that the Conn was
China.
bound
to non-suit the Plaintiff, upon the ground of
Lord Ecimeoaouctr, after alluding to the contra- a variance between the declaration and the written
Piety of the evidence in this case, and- observing that slander t the word ~ or" being contained in the lat-
ibe Captains of-ships would always do better not to ter but not in the former. '
take the execution of the law into their own hands, Baron GEORG]; said the error 1916 fatal, anti. the
._ recapitulated the evidence perepicuotislyt and lefs the Plaintiff was accordingly non-suited.
~

:
. •

. • •