Star.
London, England, 1819-07-24 00:00:00

VESSELS ENTERED FOR T:IE 4AILI:10 MATED, ON 'TOR

29TH JULY, 1819.
Names. Owners.. Tens. Distinguishing Flag.
Fidelity ....Thomas Francis
Ranger..... James Day' 27...81ue.
Fox F.dw. Stephens ....31...Uni0n Jack.
Favourite...John Caws

Alert. ;lobs ,Anginvell and Width genital
Nelson Jeremiah Wa11i5...2.6...111ue and White, horizontal.
Trai:3ler George Judd ......24... White. ' •
Ranger James Harvey .Hine,itttil Yellow Croik
GIGA FOR THE ROWING MATCH, 2€14.11 JULY. 1819:
Bows. Names. Owners. Staersinen. Fad= .
Eclipse Henry Francis...Jas. Winglower...Rgd•
Smoknsko Thos. Scriveu .... Robert Clarke .” Blue.
Pegasus John Godsell ....G Cooke,
_ White:"
Waterloo J.hn Robertore.:.Walttar Dzishi..l.7nion JIM
Waxy John Ward ......:J,>.: Bascombt.i: Ye Bow. ' •

...

The two sureties for Sir CHARLES WOLSELEY aro
JOHN LAWTON, of Stockport, grocer and • EDWARD
SANDERSON of the same place, shoemaker.
The Duke and Duchess Of 'RUTLAND left their
house in Arlington-street on Wednesday, for France.
Viscount and Viscountess DOWNE have left their
house, Charles-street, Berkley-square, for their sent,
Cowick hall, Snaith, Yorkshire. •
SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.—At the latter end of
last month, as a cat belonging to Mr. W. ALLwatte,
of Goudhurst, was prowling through the meadows,
it was observed to kill a partridge, and on examining
the spot a nest was found, containing eighteen eggs;
which were taken up and that evening t.cposited in
an oven that had been recently used. On the follow-
ing morning, when the oven was opened, the whole of
, the eggs were found hatched, and the young ones rutP,
in aEont, but in catching them three were unfortn.
tautly billed; the remaining 15 were put into the nest,
and placed in the meadow where it was taken from
on the preceding evening. In a short time the old
cock partridge was attracted to the spot, and in a
few minutes it departed ith the whole brood, in the
presence of several persons ; since that time they
have been frequently seen by the gamekeeper cf
T. WALLIS, Esq.
Box vc.—.ltorday a battle was fought at Lutes, tray Ckitt-
ham, in a twenty-four feet ring, hetweeu.Peter Stylosof caat-
ham, and John Walker, a Mach, from Loadon. The battle
lasted titirtrone mir.utes, and concieed of eighteen rounds, anew
victory was declared in favour a Style.. There were oil the
ground several.theattand of speetators.
• rgoammarms.--crirp, thelmiller, is about to updettake,l
walk to Ycrk, an.) back again (400 miles) in less time than the
lite FOster Powell ei4; fivc days and Whours.
PIRVI.-.:At three O'clock., ytosterday morning, alarming fire
broke ouronehe premises et ftleurs. Snabblin anti; Higgins, bete
makers, In Holland-street, Blackfriars-road. • The fereily Las;
retired to rest some hoprs, anfi were awakened by. a 'wise re-
sembling the cladding of wbod, and a strong smell Of smoie,
which induced them teleet when they discovered that tie
'whole of the battens part was sm•fire. They threw up the win-
dows, and loudly called pc ambiance ; a female waaso terrified
that she fainted away whilst leaning out of the window, and fell
into the street with great violence, by which she was seriously
:hurt. The rest of the inmates were saved by means of a Wider;
they had scarcely got into the street •before the whole building
was on fire. The flame, communicated to the shop of Mr. Clark,
chandler, next door, which., together with the whole of the in.
tensive premises of Nlessrs. Nkubblin and Higgins, was completely
levelled with the ground. The first endeavour on the pert of
the firemen was to prevent the communication et the fames.with
the large gas manufactory adjoining, but whilst so employed $
third house, kept by N r. Mathews, was burnt, and the wail
falling, with a dreadful crash, buried a boy in the rules, wbr,
hoerever;wastitken cot with some signs of life, and conveyed to
the limpitaL Five other houses were more or less' damaged.
Yesterday morning an alarming fire broke, out on the pre-
mises of Messrs. Wasktt and Co. farmers, of Walthamatow,
which did considerabk damage to the hay and premises.
Another fire brOkd out ih the house of Dir. Dyson; of Totten,.
am, at an early tour yesterday morning, which did considerable
damage.
Late on Thursday nights fire was discovered in one of the
bed rooms at the Crown tie
.Woodbridge. By great exertion
sod proinpt antra of the 'ejogines, it was got under without
doing much mischief. .oke•ef• the dim is getting out the tnr
glees. lad his ieg,brokai..

I I

f• I

I

I

; 1

t

)1
~, i i
i i
1 , 1
II
li•
' '•
"Irl i ;
1 i
i i 1
1
,
1 t -
' t
I 1 ,
i,

,
. ;

I

I

) •

1
f
1t

LAIV.INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY ef!.
PUBLICATION OF LAW REPORT:;.

C'.ARKE AND SON V. BROOKE AND swErrn.
Mr. WitruaßEtt rose to move for a dissolution
of the injunction obtained by the Flaintiff in this crux,
from the Vice-t:hancellor, fot the purpo,e of preven-
ting the defendants from printing and publishing the
ti!th volume of Mr. Price's Reports of Cases, which
had been argued in the Court of Exchequer.
Mr; HEALD opposed the motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having attended to the
arguments, observed, that the case seemed to him bet-
ter adapted for the decision of a Jury than for the
judgment of the Court.
JULY e 3.
CURTIS AND OTHERS v. CLARKE AND (-mums.
Mr. Ilsar moved, that the injunction granted by
the Court, for the purpose. of rewaining the defen-
dants from pulling down a certain sluice at Rye har-
bour, called Scott's Float Sluice, should he dissolved.
tie contended that the CoUrthadOo jurisdiction here,
as, if the sluice in question was a public nui.ance,
then the parties had their remedy at law ; but this
Court was not the proper quarter whence relief
be expected.
Mr. SUDDEN followed on the same side; and quoted
a number of authorities, from the 7th Geo. I. down.
wards, to shew that application ought to be made
to a Court of Law, and not here.
The :1.-rtoamey-Geserm, in support of the in-
junction, 'contended, that if it were dissolved, there
would be seven or eight hundred thousand pounds
worth of land ruined, by being overflowed. The
Court had always exercised the pcwer of protecting
parties against the commission of trespass ; and were
that not done here, the consequences would Le ruin-
ous to the parties. The party-applying for the in-
junction Wing dissolved, might have recourse, in the
first instance, to a Court of Law, hut. they had not
done it. The Court had uniformly held, that where..
a nuisance was about to be committed, and which
would take place before an action could, be tried,
dren it would interfere and prevent that nuisance.
He was confident that the Court had jurisdiction, and
that it would be properly applied here.
The.Lonn CHANCELLOR ordered the case to be
sent to a Jury to try, first, whether this sluice was a
pliblic nuisance, and if they fcund it was so, then
to try whether it was a nuisance in 1812 ?—The
Court rose at one o'clock.
VICE-CUANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY '22.
TITE DUKE OF .CABLBOROUGTIS PLATE.

Mr. SHADWELL applied CO the Court for permission
to the Master, to whose care the plate belonging to
the Duke of Marlborough had been ordered to be
entrusted, to deposit those valuable articles, which he
was not desirous of retaining in his custody, in the
hands of Messrs. Child and Co. the Bankers of the
Trustees.
_

The VICE-CIJANCELLOR granted the application.
COURT OF KING:S BI N'CI-L JULY 22.
HILBERT V. ADAMS.

This was an action on a breach of contract. The
plaintiff is a young gentleman of fortune, the defen-
dent a coach-maker. In October, 1817, the plaintiff.
gave an order to the dei..endaat: for a bat ouche, which
was to be built of the best materials and superior
workmanship, and the price to h paid for which was
+.:563. The barouche v‘as accordingly built, and sent
home to the plaintilT, in January, The plain-`,
till' had not used the carriage long before the pannels
were discovered to be cracked in several places; and
when the barouche was thrown opea, it was 40 con-
structed that no person could sit in comfort on the
back seat. The sword ease al.°• was discovered to
be made of pannel instead of leather, and there were
several other faults discovered in the carriage, which
rendered the plainliti diisati,lied with it. Appli-
cation was made to the del'eadtint, and he was
remongtrated with on the subject of Lis charges : on
which he engaged to make good all tlie.faults corn.'
plained of, and to throw off £23 in the price. The
plaintiff, upon this arrangement, paid him 1:500,-te-
serving the remaining £4O in hand till the carriage
should be repaired to his satisfaction." The carriage
was sent back to be altered ; and when returned to
the plaintiff all the defects were still evident, and the
present action was brought to recover back the ex-
cess which had been paid.to the defendant beyond
the value of the carriage.
Several witnesses were examined, amongst whom
were Mr. Holditch, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Clark, and
several other coachmakers, who stated, that the car-
riage, although it was composed of excellent mate-
rials, was not turned out of hand in a workmanlike
manner. The cracks" in the pannels (some or them
at least) must have existed before the carriage was
painted., The carriage, in its present state, was va-
lued by several of the witnesses at £250, and by
others at £2OO ; When the necessary repairs were
done to it, which they estimated at from £4O to £6O,
it would then be worth from .£250 to £3OO.
On the part of the Defendant, a number of wit-
nesses were also called, respectable men in die trade,
iyho stated, that, except as far as regarded the split
panels, the carriage was well made and the materials
good. The fault was not in the materials, but in the
yernitmanship ; and.'in this die defendant might have
been deceived by his journeymen. At the rime the
tge in question was built, there was a conspiracy
amongst the workmen, and it was difficult
4 hands ; and, besides this, the plain-
for the carriage, and would have
:.eitain day. •
• hearing a.body of evidence‘on both
tupied the Court from nine in the
in the afternoon, found a verdict
Damages £150; Costs 40s.
i—COMMON CARRIERS.
IT AND CO. V. WILLAN.
:ion brought by Messrs. Birkit and
igainst the proprietors of a stage-
from London to Exeter, to recover
of a parcel which they did not de-
order.
a letter was received by the plain-
to have come from Mr. J. Worthy,
• ;. it contained an order for a quan-
which was sent in a box by the
The defendants received orders to
J. Worthy, of Exeter. The box
Worthy, Exeter." After the arri-
it Exeter, a man named Bicknell,

was desired by a person who met him near the office
door of the inn, to go and ask for the package di-
rected "J. Worthy; he was told the price was 16s.
The man went, and paying that sum received the
box, which the stranger carried away. The property
was totally lost to the plaintiffs, the whole being a
trick played off by sharrers to obtain the cochineal.
No order had been sent by Mr. Worthy, of Exeter.
The question was, whether this was -a delivery cot.-
responding with the direction? It was contended
that the defendants were botfild to deliver the box at
the residence of Mr. Worthy, who was well known
ia Exeter.
The Learned JUDGE laid down the law as applica-
ble to carriers, observing, that they were held to
sti ict responsibility, in order to prevent collusion be-
tween carriers and their se, vants. If a carrier does
net deliver a parcel to the right person, he takes the
consequence. In this instance there was proof of,
negligence. The defendant might have tOund J.'
orthy, but instead of going to the residence of
that person, he gave the box to a stranger.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—Da-
mages, £ll4.
The JUDnE observed, that this verdict would do
good. It would shew carriers how far they were safe
in the delivery of goods..—This was a second trial of
the question.

SUMMER ASSIZES:

WINCHESTER, JULY
PORTSMOUTH BANK.

CARTER AND OTHERS (ASSIGNEES OF MINCHIN, CAR-
TER, AND KELLY,) V. TOLLERVEY, SEN.
This was an action brought by the assignees under
the commission issued and awarded against the Ports-
mouth Bank, to recover from the defendant the suns
of 3,4611. is. 9d. the balance of amount due from the
defendant to the Bank The defence of the action
was, that the commission under which the plaintiffs
were appointed assignees was not a valid commis-
sion, on two grounds: first, that the petitioning cre-
ditors. Messrs. Masterman, Peters, Mildred, and Co.
had no debt due to them at the date of the commis-
sion which could constitute a legal petitioning credi-
tor's debt ; and second, that the bankruptcy had beenj
preconcerted between the petitioning creditors and,
'the bankrupts. -
Mr. Serjcant PELL opened the case for the plain-
tiffs, and stated the outline of what was afterwards
'proved; that an act of bankruptcy had been corn-
mimed in London by Mr. Minthin, and by Mr. Car-
ter and Mr. Kelly in the country—the first, by a de-
nial at his then place of residence; and the abscond-
ing, using the word in the legal and not in the offen-
sive sense, by the partners in the country. Ile stated
that the house of Masterman and Co. on which the
Portsmouth Bank drew, weie, as might naturally be
expected, in considerable advance to the house, and
that therefore doubt could be entertained that
there was a valid petitioning creditor's debt. With
respect to the other point, of the bankruptcy having
been preconcerted witb the petitioning creditor, the,
Jury would be sati,fied that no imputation of that
description had any foundation; and with respect to
the only remaining que,tion, the liability of the de-
fendant, that was equally clear.
Henry Bcsant, the first witness, proved the execu-
tion of a mortgage deed for upwards of SO,OOO/. by
Messrs. Minchin, Carter, and Kelly, dated the 9th of
June, ISIS ; and, together with other witnesses who,
weir in the late Bank at Portsmouth, and in the house
of Masterman and Co. in London, and in the houses
-of the Notaries, proved the nonpayment of several
bills to a considerable amount, which hanieen en;
dorsed over to Masternian's, and dishonoured by the
acceptors when due; and also several drafts, which
had been drawn upon the house of Masternian and
Co. by the Portsmouth Bank, which-became due and
payable on cr about the time of the bankruptcy, and
which of course had been duly honoured. There was
also proof of an excise draft for upwards of 14,0001.
drawn by the Portsmouth Bank, having been pre-
seated to Messrs. Masterman and Co. and refused
;by them.— Witnesses were then examined to prove
I the acts of bankruptcy.

Mrs. Bowers, who keeps a lodging-house in How-1
ard-street, Strand, proved that lodgings had been!
taken for a gentleman who was called Mr. Forster,
but who, in fact, was Mr. Minchin. Persons called
'there, but she could not say what their business was.'
He was only there one night.
Mr. Briggs, the Solicitor to the commission, stated
another act of Mr. Minchin's absenting himself.
Martin Shull, the younger, also deposed to Mr.
Minchin's directing himself to be denied, and of per-
sons calling to ask for him.
A post-boy at Portsea proved the hiring of a chaise
at one or two in the morning of the 10th November,
the day on which the commission issued, and that he
,rove Mr. Carter and Mr. Kelly to Petersfield ; and
the servants of those gentlemen proved that they had
left home early on the morning of the lehh, and.that
they did not return for a considerable time after.
The next witnesses proved that the banking-houses
were not opened on the morning of the 10th, not
afterwards, and that persons came to demand pay-
ment for notes.

The last point was, that of notice having been given
to the defendants, calling upon them for payment.
Mr. CASBERD, en the part of the defendants, with
a coixiderable degree of warmth and energy, opened
the defence, and contended that the commission
could not stand for a moment, inasmuch as the Jury
could entertain no doubt, upon hearing the evidence
which he should adduce, that the petitioning credi-
tors were privy to this concerted act of bankruptcy;
and therefore, though the Court of Chancery had
held that a concerted act on the part of the bank-
rupts would not invalidate a commission, yet, with
the privity of the petitioning creditor, such commis-
sion could not stand for an instant.

Mr. Thomas Minchin, the younger, the son 9f one
of the bankrupts, remembers striking the docket ;
was acquainted, and banked at the house of Master-
man and Co. Mr. Mildred was a partner; his father
came to town on Monday, the 9th of November, with
notes and bills to the amount of 18,0001. to cover
the Excise draft of 14,0001. but was told that it had
been refused acceptance on the Saturday, and there-
fore it would be too late to attempt to maintain the
credit of the Portsmouth house. Mr. Mildred ex-
pressed himself ready to do whatever the Mr. Min-
chins thought advisable, but coucciv,ed that nothing
could save the creditors generally from the conse.

cluences- of expected extents but a bankruptcy—to
accomplish which, he gave directions to the witness
to sue out a commission, and to find out acts of bank-
ruptcy in the best way he could. The witness im-
mediately proceeded to Portsmouth, and advised •
Messrs. Carter and Kelly immediately to proceed to'
London, in order to avoid the consequences of the
extents upon their persons. With this advice they
complied, and went off as described. The witness
also directed the managing clerk at Portsmouth to
get persons to demand payment of notes, in order
that a stoppage of payment might be established The i
witness said, that he had no other than general direc-
tions from Mr. Mildred, and that Mr. -Mildred had
never since been informed of what had been done.
His directions were to take out the commission; but
no particular orders were given, nor was there any
,privity on the part of Mr. :Mildred.
Mr. Serjes.int PELL, in reply, contended, that it
was impossible so respectable a house as that of Mas-
terman and Co. who had so little interest, and no other
desire than that of serving the Portsmouth house,
could have intended to have been parties to any ille-
gal proceedings. They supposed, from the known'
insolvency of the parties, that acts of bankruptcy
must have been already committed, and therefore
that it only was to follow up those acts of bankruptcy
for the general benefit of the creditors.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM, in summing up,. took off all
blame from the house of Masternian and Co. but
that of inadvertency. The question for the Jury to
consider was, whether the directions given by Mr.
Mildred to Mr. Minchin, jun. did not make them re-
sponsible for his acts, and made him so completely
their agent that they could not free themselves from
the consequences? The Learned Judge pi aised the
manner in which Mr. Minchin, jun. gave his evidence,
and took a luminous view of the whole case, but
chiefly directed the attention of the Jury to the above
mentioned point.
• The Jury retired, and subsequently followed the
Judge to his lodgings, where they were called in se-
veral times before they could settle the verdict, which
at last was given for the defendants. The Commis-
sion'is thus virtually done away.
The trial lasted till a very late hour, and the Court
was excessively crowded.

4 ' - been dccelvea oy
r. carriage in questioi
• I
• existing amongst ti
• to get any good ha
tiff-totes in a; hurry
it delivued by a ci
.•:
. • The Jury, atter I
sides, which occu
morning till three
for the Plaintiff--1
. JULY az •
• EIRK.II
II CThis was air acts
Co. drysalters, ag
coach running fo
£ll4, the value of
• liver according to
• It appeared that
• I tiffs, purporting tc
a dyer, in Exeter ;
. thy of cochineal,
Exeter coach. TI
celiver it to Mr.
gkik was directed " J 1
val of the same at
•
•.