Star.
London, England, 1821-11-10 00:00:00

BOXER&-GASLIGHT AND NEAT&

The Sporting World is on the alert respecting the above great
pugilistic match, which is to decide the Championship. The
time is drawing night Tuesday, the 11th of December, and both
of the combatants are in active traiing. The Gas is very fine
already, and as confident of success m If the batik was over;
indeed the knowing MS, the eakolatota, the judges, and almost
all the amateurs. from one end of the fang to the other, pro.
nounce Neate not to have a chance. They laugh at the idea of
a roarer, a fighter as slow as a top, and 4 boxer who does not
like to shew himself in the London prize-ring, as a hero that
can put out the Gas. Asa proof of backing this opinion, a pfe-
mine% of three guineas is only required to obtain You to 100 gui-
neas. use bets are extremely numerous as to lime, from 13, 20,
25, and 30 minutes; and all agree that it will be over In farrier
of Gas before the latter period named. Neate, it is said, is
nevertheless the favourite among his countrymen at Bristol, five
and six to four. "It may be so," observed a first role soca the
other day, at Tattenalrs, • but if they bet at all, It is pots of
heavy wet." Be this as it may, whether Neate has any chance
or not, the above battle excites considerable interest among the
sporting people. and lots a blunt have already been posted upon
the event, which will be decided, at least ditty miles from the
Metropolis. Hickman still keep* in the old tone, that the Gas
shawl go one
JOBll. HUDSON AND THE SUFFOLK CHAMPION.
The second contest, in the otiolon of numerous persons con-
nected with the milling corps, will'be much better than the first
or great battle. Josh. Hudson (the Arlen Bull fightes) is so well
known to the aniauntrs for his possession of ail the requisites
which constitute a good maq, that farther comments would be
out of place; and the St ilk Chontliote (Garret), his opponent,
from the specimens of manhood and out-and-out game he dis-
played in his battle with Juhnson, the Black (with eitraordinaty
long arms), stands upon as high ground as his adversary. 'ki-
ting upon this match, at present, is even, each person attain
one of the heroes according to his fancy. It will be a fine piece
of kirritsony for the Waters of either of them when the word No
is pronounced.

I

H

AN ACREON.

ODE IX. TRANSLATED.

Fair herild or celestial love,
Whither hastene.t thou, 0 dove!
Borne through ;ha air on pinion'd wing,
Who bids thee odorous perfume bring?
What is that thy flight encumbers?
'Ti. the Bard of Teian numbers,
Sends me with his blithest strain
Myrtale, whose silken reign
Weaves round each heart its fairy chain!
Fair Cytherea held me long,
But lov'd too well Anacreon's song,
Who gave bet in return for me
A song of his wild minstrelsy!
Anil now I an, Anacreon's dove,
And hear his letters to his love;
He says he soon will break the hand
Which binds me to a lord's command.
lint I, if he sheuld make me free
Would love a willing slave to be!
For why, o'er mountain or through grove,
Should I an helpless wanderer rove,
Or traverse wild the forest wood
In search of Nature's wilder food?
Whilst now I come at his command
And love to eat from off his hand;
Anacreon's food, Anacreon's wine,
Should he enjoy repast, are mine!
Then in the goblet I'll rejoice,
The minstrel bard my only choice,
When night's dark shades sweet slumbers bring,
I'll veil the Poet with my wing,
And resting on the .hallow'd lute •
I'll guard the strains No seldom mute
Away, vain nun ! in haste depart,
Thou hast the secrets of my heart ;
For thou hast made a simple dove
Tell lohger tales than those of love !

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 9.

IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD AND GIBBS, BANKRUPTS.
Mr. HART requested liberty to again mention this
Petition to his Lordship, wi.lich was for the removal
of assignees. It would be in his recollection that he
had given liberty that it should be heard before his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor, and his Honour had
fixed this day for the hearing. The Petitioners had
since filed several affidavits, which hi:, (Mr. Hart's)
clients, the creditors, who had successful choice of
assignees, had not had time to answer. It would be
therefore necessary for him to ask his Honour to fix
a more distant day for the hearing of the Petition;
but he had another application to make to the Vice-
Chancellor, which he did not think himself autho-
rized in doing without the permission of his Lord-
ship, as he had directed that it should be heard by
the Vice Chancellor for him (his Lordship).• It was,
that his Honour would admit the commission to be
worked pending the Petition ; if it were not, it tnight
be highly detrimental to the estate of the bankrupts,
and if it were admitted, tin injury could occur; for,'
should the present assignees be removed, they could
assign over to their successors in office.
Lotto CHANCELLOR.—I can have no objection to
your making what application you please to the Vice
Chancellor.

ODDIE V. THE BISHOP OF NORWICH.
This cause has occupied the attention of the Court
at different intervals for several years. The question
at issue is the construction of a will. The testator,
Mr. Thellu,on, by his will, directed that his estate,
which was considerable, should, after his death, ac-
cumulate for a certain number of years, when it
should revert to the nearest " lineal male descendant"
of his three sons living at the time he framed his
testament ; and in default of -any such lineal male
descendants, that it should devolve to the Crown.—
The property of the testator has accumulated to an
astonishing extent ; and the point to be decided is—
whether the words " lineal male descendants" ale
used to designate descendants in a direct line from
males, or descendants through females. It appears
that there are no descendants of the former descrip-
tion, and the plaintiff Oddie claims to be considered
as the nearest descendant through a female. His
Lordship took a review of the facts of the case, and
stated that he felt it extremely difficult to decide
upon the construction that was to be put upon the
words "lineal male descendants." He said that it
was his intention to send the case to the House of
Lords for ultimate decision: he would again allude
to it to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 9.
HOWARD AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY.
This case having been specially ordered to stand I
for hearing at three o'clock, the Court at that time 1
was crowded to excess. A very long discussion en- I
sued, as to whether the Petition should now be gone
on with, in consequence of the lateness of the time
at which some affidavits had been filed, and also in
consequence of a Mr. Pearce not appearing, whose
debt had been disputed, and which disputation, if
carried, would turn the balance for the choice of as-
signees against the Gentlemen now chosen to fill that
office. It was however stopped by the suggestion of
the Vice-Chancellor, that Mr. Horne should proceed
to state the grounds on which he applied for the hear-
ing of the case out of its regular turn.
Mr. HORNE then stated, generally, that it was the
Petition of the three first-named persons who prayed
that they might be chosen assignees, and others, who
stated that they would be properly chosen assignees
under the commission ; and praying that the Com-
missioners might be directed to execute a bargain and
sale to them. The Court was aware that a former
commission had been superseded by the Lord Chan-
cellor, and a second one issued on the 22d of Au-
gust, and that Mr. Shaw had been one of the as-
signees under the former commission ; and it would
also be recollected, that a petition had been presented
to remove Mr. Cairo% on the ground that his debt
bad been disputed in consequence of a charge of usury.
Mr. HeALD said, the bargain and sale was els° to
admit a Mr. Hermon, who was not before the Court,
and therefore a postponement must of necessity
take place.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the first point to de-
'tide Was as to the hearing of the case.
lioaNs again proceeded.—The former order

of the Lord Chanc !',for had superseded the commis-
sion, and undo' th! new t ornntission there had been
many debts proved, and many attempted to be
proved; and amongst them one by Mr. Carroll, who,
at the same time, g.tve notice that there were more,
which he intended to prove at a future time. The
Commissioners hal refused to admit the claim, on
the ground of usuri, and a refusal to explain its na-
ture; and it wal ri:)w for the Court to consider, whe-
ther, under such circumstances, it would permit. Mr.
Carroll to be chosen assignee, and entrust him with
the custody•of all the books, papers, and writings,
under this bankruptcy? He would not say that Mr.
Carroll would put them to an improper use; but he
would say, that it would be doing that which the
Court always did with the most jealous eye, nor until
a strict inquiry had been made.
Vic E-C ANC ELLoa.—Who are chosen assignees?
Mr. HottNe.,Mr. Carroll is one, Mr. Duff is
another, whose debt only amounts to £92 7s. sd.
and it is expressly sworn that this debt is founded in
usury ; and the only question now is, whether or
not Mr. Duff is a proper person to be assignee? The

other is Mr. Wilkie. - -
Vtoc-CHANCELLOR.—The Commissioners thought
it was not usurious.
Mr. Hoax x.—Yes, Sir, !gait has been discovered
to be so since. The next general objection he had
to make was, that the names of the Gentlemen had
been put in by the bankrupts; and threats had been
used to induce votes for them ; in fact, in one in-
stance this had been carried so far as to influence one
person to refrain from attending. at Guildhall. The
amount of the debts of the co-assignees was £17,739
7s. 10d. . One of the debts that constituted this sum
was that of Mr. Duff; another was proved by Mr.
j Pearce, under the following circumstances:—~~r.
Pearce was one of two partners who claimed a sum
of 4.:1500, and Mr. Pearce gave a warrant of at-
torney, which was only signed by himself, and which
lie contended was not a legal instrument, as though
one partner might prove for both, yet he could not
execute a deed for boll, and consequently the proof
by the attorney for both in the usual way ought to be
'expunged. In fact, the document itself seemed to
have been got up in a hurry, for it was written in the
first person in some parts, and in the third person in
others. The Gentleman in question who voted, was
no other than the son of Mr. Howard, and the bro-
ther-in-law' of Mr. Gibbs; and it was but fair, with-
out meanir?g to give the slightest offence, to feel the
peculiar situation in which he, or any one, would
stand under such circumstances. The Learned Coun-
sel concluded by submitting. that the assignees ought
,on the whole to be dismissed. _ _ _ _

The VICE-CHANCELLOR intimated that Mr. Herne
had very properly stated the several circumstances of
the case, an 4 observed, that Mr. Treslove would, in
all probability, follow the same course.
Mr. Tazst.ovz said, he did not feel it necessary to
trouble his Honour farther, after the able manner in
which Mr. Home had stated the case, and, in fact,
rather under than over. There were creditors to no
less an amount than £16,000, who had not yet voted,
though they had proved their debts; and, with re-
spect to Mr. Carroll's claim, he contended that it was
of the highest importance that he should not have the
custody of the books, since there had been transac-
tions subsequent to the year 181.5 to no less an
amount than £200,000. Mr. Carroll had also given
three different accounts relative to his transactions,
and, after his claim had been disputed by the Corn-
saissionen, was it to be said that he was a proper per-
son to be chosen assignee?
The VICE-CHANCELLOIL—Has Mr. Carroll made
affidavit that he does not mean to prosecute his claim
farther ?

Mr.Teest.osts said, he (Mr. Carroll) had intimated
an intention of petitioning the Lord Chancellor to re-
ceive his claim.
Mr. MONTAGUE said, there was no petiuion as stated,
but there was one for £32,000.
Mr. Hoene.—Your Honour will thus see what an
improper thing it would be to suffer Mr. Carroll to
have the custody of the books, *cc. under the present
bankruptcy.
Mr. BLAKE, in addition to the former arguments,
said, such questions had been put to Mr. Carroll as
he had not deemed it safe to answer, and the Com-
missioners had, in consequence, thought proper to
refuse the admission of them. He contended that
the suffering Mr. Carroll' to have the books would be
fraught with the greatest danger in a judicial view cf
the features that characterised the present case.
Mr. HART, on the other side, contended, that the
only question for the Court to consider was, whether
anything had been shewn to warrant the hearing cf
this cause out of its regular turn ? Mr. Shaw ap-
peared to forget that he had been joint assignee under
the former Commission, with two of the Gentlemen
whom he now sought to displace. If there was any
thing material for the case being now heard, he
thought it would turn on the propriety of admitting
the vote on Mr. Pearce's debt.
A conversation of some length here ensued on the
legal point relative to the grounds on which the Court
would interfere, to remove assignees.
Mr. BELL contended, that there could be no danger
in letting Mr. Carroll continue assignee, as he had
been so for a considerable time under the former
Commission, and could have possessed himself of all
the knowledge he might want to acquire ; and, in
fact, this had been the opinion of creditors to the
amount of £16,000, who remained silent, fearing
no danger.
Mr. Monensue said, the only question was, whe-
ther this cause was to be heard out of turn, or an
interregnum to be suffeled in the prosecution of the
proceedings under the bankruptcy ? If anything (he
observed) is said of this case out of Court, I hope
that it will not be said that all that has been alleged
is true, but that part of it is truth and part untrue.
The Learned Counsel then contended, that Mr. Carroll
was a bonaide creditor to the amount of I:l3,ooo,which
had not even been disputed, and that it had been de-
manded to look into all the proceedings of Mr. Carroll,
to induce the Commissioners not to admit the debt
arising on the three bills. He defended the charac-
ter of Mr. Carroll against the observations of the
Counsel on the other side, relative to the different
answers given by Mr. Carroll, and said he had had
the books in his possession over and over again, and
had had the power, if he thought fit to use it, of
gaining all that he wanted. The law must prevail
here as in other cases, and be would undertake to
say, that the whole of the allegations would be re-

butted. When Mr. Carroll applied to prove the *hole
of his debt, it would be time enough for the Court
to interfere, but at present, he contended, there was
no reason for any removal whatever. After some
further observations, the Learned Gentleman conclu-
ded hy submitting, that there was no reason for stop-
ping the proceeding under the Commission, or hear-
ing the case out of its turn.
The VICE-CHANCILLI.OI4 after reviewing the argu-
ments on both sides, gave it as his opinion, that the
cause ought to be immediately decided ; and at length
Wednesday next was fixed as the earliest convenient
day on which that could be done, as his Honour
could not displace those cases that were entitled to
be first heard, though he had not the slightest objec-
tion to sacrificing his own time after the regular dis-
posal of. other business.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 9.
BIRCH AND OTHERS V. CREWE.
This, it will be recollected, was an action by the
plaintiffs, who are bankers at Stafford, as indorsees
of bills of exchange to. the amount of I:9,000 and
upwards, drawn by ore Birkes, payable to his own
order, and alleged.to have been endorsed by the cleJ
Pendant, the Rev. Mr. Ofßay Crewe, a Clergyman Of
the County of Stafford. At the London Sitting,:
after last Term, a verdict was found lot the defend-
ant, on the ground that the supposed indorsements
were forgeries
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved for a Rule
to shew cause why the verdict should not be s.:l
aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground that
material evidence was now in the plaintiffs' possession
whiCh could not have been procured previously to the'
last trial. Lle moved on payment of costs. The evi-i
deuce to which he alluded was that of Birkes, the
drawer of.the bills, whose testimony, however suspi-
cious, could be corroborated in many material parti-
culars. It would be recollected that Biikes had ab-

sconded to America; from thence he had been since
traced to Bourdeaux in France, and in the month of
September last was apprehended in the neighbour-
hood of the London Docks, where be was passing
under an assumed name. Inasmuch as the ground
of defence taken at the trial was, that the endorse-
ments on the bills in question tad been forged by this
person, his evidence on a new trial would be of the
utmost importance, particularly under the esti aordi-
nary circumstances which cane out at the trial, tend-
ing to prove that an 'intimate connection had subsisted:
between him and the defendant, who, it was admitted,
had had some bill transactions with this person.—
After Birkes had been taken into custody, he was
taken to Stafford Jail, where he now remains, under
a charge allot having surrendered to thecommission
of bankrupt which had been taken out against him.
No charge had been preferred against him before a
Magistrate, and therefore he was not in the condition
of a person actually committed for felony. Consi-
dering the importance of the case, and . the extraor-
dinary circumstances to which lie alluded, he trusted',
that the Court would think it one which deserved
further investigation, on the terms of paying costs.
After consulting with the other Judges, the CHIEF
JUSTICE said-44 We think there ought to be a Rule
to spew cause, but the affidavits upon which the mo-
tion is founded must be filed, in order to give the
other side an opportunity of answering them. Our
doing this, however, is not to have the slightest weight
with respect to any other case that may berried upon
other bills, which' are supposed to have been indorsed
by the defendant. I cannot forbear stating, that from
the situation in which Birkes stands, the absolute
subjection under which some of the plaintiffs, who
are the assignees under his commission, hold him,
whatever conies from him, under such circumstances,
will be received with great distrust."—Rule granted.
BAYNE qui tans v. HODSON.
Mr. JERVIS moved to set aside the verdict for the
plaintiff in this case, and enters nonsuit. It was an
action to recover penalties under the Hawkers and
Pedlars' Act. The Act provides, that it is unlawful
for any hawker or pedlar going from town to town,
with carriage, horse, or on foot, carrying goods,
wares, and merchandise, with license or without, to
open shops for the sale of goods in any of the towns
through which he or they may pass. Every person
offending the provisions of the Act in the above re-
spect, is liable to a penalty of £5O. The defendant,
who is a travelling auctioneer, sold books in a room
at Stourbridge. It was contended at the trial that
he did not come under the Hawkers' and Pedlars Act.
inasmuch as there wks no proof be went about the
country carrying goods with horse or carriage. He
was described, however, to be an itinerant auctioneer,
and the Learned Judge who tried the cause was of
opinion he came under the intent and meaning of the
Act. The Jury consequently found their verdict for
the penalty.
Mr. Jsavls submitted, on this occasion, that the
defendant was not liable, but the Judges held that
the verdict could not be disturbed, and refused the
application.

THE LORD MAYOR.
At twenty minutes after two o'clock, the LORD
MAYOR Elect, the Ex-Lord Mayor, and civic attend-
ants, entered the Court, as usual on this day. The
Chief Magistrate proceeded to the Bar, and Mr.
CommoN SERJEANT made a motion to record some
proceedings connected with the rights and privileges
of the City of London. After the Court had ordered
the same to be recorded, the COMMON SERJEANT, in
the name of the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen,
invited the Judges to dine at Guildhall. The Pro-
cession then withdrew.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 9.
SMITH AND OTHERS V. BELL.

Serjeant PELL, on behalf of the defendant, moved
for a rule to shew cause, why a verdict that had been
given for the plaintiffs, should not be set aside, and a
new trial granted.
It appeared by the affidavits on which the motion
was grounded, that the action was brought on a po-
licy of insurance, which had been effected on the
ship Friendship, and a cargo of rice from Java to
Mauritius, to the amount of £lO,OOO. The action
was brought in the names of Smith, Rickards, and
Bridgeman, and the policy was effected on behalf of
Armit, Robertson, and Wilson.
The Learned Serjeant said the question mainly
turned on the seaworthiness of the ship, on her leaving
Java, and to prove that she was not seaworthy, he
produced on the vial Captain Sobart, who had been
at sea upwards of fifty years; to whom he put the
question, a Are you competent, from the log-book
kept by the ihip Friendship; between Java and tl4ll