Star.
London, England, 1810-11-28 00:00:00

TEE PACKETS.

REMOVAL otTHE PACKETS FROM FALMOUTH TO
THE PORT OF PLYMuIITH-IDOCIL

,••••••==.

MR. EDITOR-4t is with great satisfaction I observe.
that, in consequence of some late disturbances among
th,: crews of the packets at Falmouth, Government
have thought proper to remove them to Plymouth-
Dock; and that Sir MICHAEL Szviani:ii, in the Nie.
most, with a small squadron under his command, had
brought np six of them, viz. the Nocton, Elizabeth,
Diana, Dispatch, Adventure, and Express ; and that
moorings were preparing for them in Stonehouse-
Pool. The excellence of that harbour is well
known to every person acquainted with the Pot
of Plymouth, being very spacious, with a good de-,,t
of water, safe anchorap,-and good holding gr
I know of no harbour in this country so well adapted
for the Packets, as they lie in safety, vintig ions to
the shore, and can refit, water their vessels, and get
their stores on board in smooth water, the anclionige
being completely land-locked by the peninsula known
by the name of the Devil's Point, and from this an-
chorage vessels are afforded the opportunity of sailing
with almost every wind.
In a great commercial country like this, it affords
great advantages. By the Port-Admiral being on
the spot, in case of mutiny on board a packet, (by
which she might be detained, and which detention
might prove fatal to the interests of the commercial
world), he can instantly check it. and man the packet
with Naval Officers and men, or, if necessary, dis-
patch a man of war with the mail. The telegraphic
communication by which news of importance can be
eoriveyetEto the Metropolis in about two hours, is
also of great importance ; but in the eye of a seaman
there are .ether advantages not lets so.
kis well known that the harbour of Falmouth is
diily filling up, so that the packets cannot now lap
afloat at low water on the spring tides, which 'is of
the most striour consequence, as a 'gravy sea sets in
with southerly winds.

With the winds from S.S.E. to S.F. the advantages
of Plymouth-Dock will appear obvious, when it is
stated,-thit if two packets get under way, at the same
time, the one from Plymouth, and the other from
Falmouth, the latter must turn out of Falmouth har-
bour to sea, to get round the Manacles, while the
former will sail out of Plymouth Sound without
making a tack, and by the time the packet from Fal-
mouth is round the Manacles, she w;11 be as far to
the westward, with the great advantage of being
seven or eight leagues to windward of her. I there.
fore cannot help approving of the wisdom of the Le.
gislature in making this salutary alteration.
The Packet Offiee, I find, is est :Wished, pro tem.
pore, at the Fountain Tavern, in Plymouth Dock,
where the Agent, Inspector, and the whole establish-
-*sent, have arrived, except the Chief Clerk, alto re.
mains at Falmouth to forward the Mails to their new
station.
Attached to the commercial interest of my country,
I sincerely hope (and of which I have little doubt)
that the wise alteration which hes taken place will
prove tif.the greatest utility, I am, &c.
Smola Wonder sc., 1310. M15CA24316, A

.~

" ,

.

LAW INTELLIGENeff.'

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBEit"
CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS. 7 ,
The ATTORNEY GENMIAL moved for a rule to skew,
cause why a criminal information should net be filed,,
against George Polhill and Stacey Coaste, Esqrs.
and Leonard Austin, for resisting the execution of
an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, for
making certain roads in the neighbourhood of Shore-
ham, in the county of Kent.
From the statement of the Attorney General, it
appeared, that the first two gentlemen against whom
the information was applied for were Magistrates of
the County, and. also Trustees under the Act ; and
that the other person was their Clerk, though without
any regal authority. At the regular meetings ap-
pointed by the Statute, a Quorum of the Trustees
had appointed a Clerk in terms of the Act, and he
had again pointed opt the track of -the road, on
which he had placed a number of labourers, to pro-
ceed in the execution Of the work. The gentlemen,
complained on, being interested in the property so
marked, out, had advised the under-tenants, &c. to
push the workmen off the lipe of the intended road,
with the view of provoking trn M assault the per-
sons impeding them, on which the two de(vidants,
who were Magistrates, engaged that they wopl4
tom-
snit the regular Clerk and his workmen. Accord-
ingly, twefity-One labourers so employed had
been 4pplehended, and by the defendants sent to the
Jail of Maidstone, at the distance of nineteen miles.,
One of the:Slifendants, on being applied to by a per-
son Who wished to bail the prisoners, having referred
.lsim to - gooks for 04- cause of the commit-
meat of the prisoners; and 'reusing himself to give
ivy information on that subject.
Lord ELLENSOROMI Malt not convinced that the
Magistrates complained of had been guilty of a con-
tempt of the Legislative Authority : they might have
misconceived the meaning of the Act—they might
even have been impressed with the conviction that the
Act in question had been made the pretext for an un.
authorized invasion of the rights of individuals, and,
in eomequence, might have given the advice imputed
to them.
The Court could not, in such circumstances, grant
the rule.—Rule refused.

' • MANDAMUS.
Mr. MARAYATT moved for a Rule to spew cause
why a Mandamus should not issue to the Commis-
sioners of Compensation under the London Dock
Acts, directing,thein to make such compensation to ,
Mr. Whiting, as should seem just, under the circum-
stances.
Mr. MARRYATT stated, that Mr. Whiting having
come into possession of some ground and wharfs on
the River-side, and intending to throw them open i
for public accommodation, entered into a contract for!
building warehouses, and making other additions ne-1
esssary to the premises. There had been two Lon-
don Dock. Acts : the first passed in 1799 ; Mr. Whi.l
sting's buildings were begun subsequently : the second
Act was passed in July, 1800; previously to which!
the buildings had been begun, but were not finished II
until Octcber of the same year.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" Has the applicant any in-
jury
to impute to the first Act ?"
Mr. MARRY ATT...." NO : he only adverts t. the
second ; and by its .operation he was obliged to sell,
at least, one of, his warehouses, for £3OOO, a sum
much below what its value would have been. if the
Acts had not passed."
Mr MARRY,ATT was notable to state the precise
sum which its building had cost. By the Acts it was
provided, that losses to the trader by the chyerbien of
trade, or to the owner by the lowered value ot the
buildings or wharfs from which the trade was taken
by the construction of the Docks, should be compen-
sated. The Learned Counsel contenned, that in this
case thedamage had arisen from the Docks, and that
therefore the claim was fully tenable.
Lord ELLENnoaotrort" The last Act was passed'
in July, 1800, and yet Mr. Whiting went on build-
ing till October. The nuisance did not come to him,
the mischief was yoluntary, he came to. the nuisance.
Why did he not stop ? He began under the encou-
ragement of the first Act, and proceeded under the
excitement of the second. Are there many other ;
tares of buildiisgs undertaken under similar encou-
ragement ? Or, is knot to be asked, whether those
things were not all done with a view to compensa-
tion ?"
Mr. Martavarr" My Lord, these are questions
for a JUry."
.;,ord ELLENBOROUGH---" No, Sir,; they are ques-
dons for the Court who are applied to for a manda-
Mus ; and it rested with the Court whether they
Would ever suffer the matter to go to a Jury."
Mii..JUitice LE BLANC-6f When did you, make
yew R.pplication ?"
Mr: dmutirATT—ig Within three yeark, the time
appointed by the Act. After a variety oftOrrespon-
dence, the Commissioners finally refused aU compen-
sation in October. As to the question which the
Court-had asked, Why Mr. Whiting did not stop his
buildings when the 'second ,Act passed ? one reason
*Might have been, that the Commissioners would have
at once rejected a claim which came upon an unfi-
nished work. He might not have wished to suffer
his buildings to moolder away, and all his expenee to
go for nothing. He might have thought that a long
rime would intervene between the passing of the Act
and its beineput into execution. Since the original
passing of the Act, the Company had been allowed
to extend their capital, and thus raise an additional
Obstruction in the way of individual trade."
Lord ELLEN BO RO The Commissioners ap-
pear to have been perfectly right in refusing this.
tlaim. It it were allowed, there could be no. bound
to claims. Every spot of ground in the neighbour-
hood of the Docks might put in its claim ; for every
spot must have been affected in its value by theiriqr:
oration." Rule refused.

•
begat M t ot, and then bound MO over to ieep rite pace,
for one year. At the end of that time, Mr. Adatnai
was waited on by Messrs, Finch and Brown, at dif-
ferent periods, but he declining to see either of them
but in presence of an attorney, they withdrew with-
out mentioning their business. Mr. Adams went to
Aberistwyth on some private. affairs. Mr. Abberley
on his departure came forward again, posted him in
the coffee-houses at Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Aberist.
Wyth, and other places. He next sent about the
country a hand-bill to the following effect .
" It having been supposed that Captain Abberley has not
adopted the most correct way of obtaining satisfactioa from Mr.
Adams, he gives the following note, under the hands of the gen-
tlemen who waited on Mr. Adams We declare it as our opi-
nion, that having frequently waited on My. Adams, and never
;being able to see him but in the presence of his Attorney, no
other way but that of posting Mr. Adams was left open to Mr.
Abberley. CuatLes Etacti, Lieutenant Bth Regiment.
DANIZL BaowN, Ensign Bth Regiment.' "
Mr. Justice LE BLANC.—" How do you bring that
hand-bill home to these persons ?"
Mr. ABBOT.—" In no other way, as to Finch and
Brown, than their having waited on Mr. Adams, and
obviously with the intention which they expressed.—
As to Abberley, we have affidavits, proving the post-
ed papers to have been of his hand-writiting."
Lord ELLENEOROUGH" Take a rule to skew cause
with respect to Abberley."
CHALLENGE.
Mr. SCARLET moved for a similar rule against
Walter Carr, a General in his Majesty's service, for
provoking William Bateb Esq. of Durham Court, in
the county of Durham, to fight a duel.
Mr. Bates had been out with another person pur-
suing game. The General, who saw him passing
across the field, rode up, and demanded why he dared
to shoot there ? Mr. Bates replied haughtily, and the
General called him an impudent szstproud fellow.
The General called out to his t to take the
gun, but the servant rode away. The language on
both sides was high ; and the result was the Gene.
rays telling Mr. Bates, that he would wait for him it
a place which he mentioned, next day with a friend.
Mr. Bates conceiving that this was a mere burst of
idle resentment, did not go to the place ; and he in
a few days received a letter from the General, saying
that his conduct at their meeting yesterday had in the
first instance been so gross, and latterly so cowardly,
that he could no longer consider the complainant to
be a gentleman,and should represent him accordingly.

Lord gLuvocatouosi.-01-The Court cannot lake
cognizance orsuch an affair as this. General Carr
expressly tells Mr. .Bates that whatever he might
have thought, he cannot any longer consider him as
an opponent. He. expressly says he'will not fight a
duel with Mr. Bates."—Motion refused.
THE KING V. DOHERTY.
Mr. Hugh Doherty came into Court to give secu-
rity for keeping the peace.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that as Mr.
Doherty had been. already bound over for one year,
it would be expedient to make the present term two
years.
Mr. MARAYATT slated some cases to support the
offering of evidence Sgainst the allegations contained
in the articles already exhibited, but the Court were
of opinion that they could not go into the truth of the
articles ; it would, however, exercise its discretion as
to the amount of the sureties and the term. The Court
then directed, that Mr. Doherty should give security
to keep the peace for two years, himself in £5OO, and
two sureties in £250 each.
I'Mr. Doherty attempted to address the Court. He
observed, that criminals under sentence of death
might speak, and that he was a much more respect-
able person.—Lord ELLENSOROUGH said, that no-
thing further could be done.
JACKSON V. CHAPPRONIA.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL shewed cause against a
rule obtained by Mr. Marryatt, to set aside an execu-
tion. He stated, that this was a case more suitable
for a story in a novel than for a Court of Justice.—
The defendant in this cause was a young man who
made a number of people believe that he had been
bequeithed a fortune to the amount of £BO,OOO, and
that he was only waiting to obtain a probate from
Doctors' Commons, to be put in full possession of it.
He was told by several that he ought to assume the
air and manners of a Nobleman, drive a curricle, keep
a town and country house. The plaintiff kept livery
, stables ;' and the defendant was recomtnended to him
by several oblizing gentlemen, and among others, by
the Attorney, Mr. Oakley, who-had the present mo-
tion made. The defendant bought carriages, curri-
cles, tandems, and horses, from the plaintiff; bor-
rowed money from him, and even condescended to
become his tenant in a house in Essex, the furniture
of which he also obligingly bought from the plaintiff
to the amount of A:3500, fur which he gave him a
bend and jud;:ment, with a proviso that he should
I not issue out execution until a month after the defen-
dant had obtained the probate. At last the defendant
came to the plaintiff, and told him he had got the
' probate, and shewed it o bin), and borrowed A 200;
and from that day the plaintiff had never seen hint—
but Mr. Oakley, the attorney, accompanied by
defendant, went down to the house in Essex, and car-
' ried away every thing they well could. But the na-
ture of the pttseitt 'Maim was this, that the plaintiff
issued execution before the month had elapsed after
1 the issuing of the probate, when in fact there was
neither probate or fortune, but a mere swindling
transaction; fie Was not afraid to say it, for a Grand
Jury had found an'inclictthent against the defendant
and Oakely, for a conspiracy ; but what is Oakely's
intention he says, that the defendant, before he ab-
scended, gage-hun 'it bond and judgment f6r £l7O,
'which be will lose if the execution of the plaintiff is
not set aside. Is not this effrontery to excess ?If the
defendant is aggrieved, let him come into Court, and
he should be glad to meet him ; but what right Mt.
Oakely has to move he was at a loss to comprehend.
Under these considerations he trusted their Lordships
would dismiss the rule.
Mr. Palms contended, that at the time the bond
IV as given to the plaintiff,
_Mr. Oakely did not, know

. G pia...
.
CHALLENGE. , • f eitlier the proh, nlff or the defendant, so could not be
Mr. ABBOTT moved for a rule toskew cause why 1 privy to it. the plaintiff admits in his affidavit that
a criminal information should not be filed against he gave his money on the strength of the probate,
Charles James Abberley, Charles
.finch; and 'llsuliel ! at the persuasion of Mr. John Kings Dr. Stevenson,
Brown, for provoking Charles Adams to fight a dewi. I and the defendant, they being confined in the Fleet
Mr. Adams was an Attorney, and Captain otffig prison. He els° contended, that if the plaintiff's
troop of Ludlow cavalry. bl.r, Abberley, who west I. judgment was taken out irregularly, it ought to be set
Captain in the Nottingham regiment, having, in elm- - aside. - - - • •
sequence of some dispute, insulted 41r. Adams at the I Lord ELLEVBOROUOff observed, until they shw the
Theatre, at the head of his troop, and posted him in , defendant in Court they could not do any thing.
the coffee-house at Ludlow as a coward, Mr. Adams Rule refused.

nrutti ittatins,
, Mr. invert moved the judgment of the Court on
George Taylor, and several others, fot a riot at the
Chester Theatre.
Mr. GARROW said he was for the defendants in this
case ; and had trusted that his Learned Friend would
have suffered it to have stood over till next Term.—
This .was a riet of a different description to those
which had been already before the Court ; it had no
particular object ; it was the imprudence of the instant,
arising among a large body of workmen, and those
who had been engaged in it had already suffered pu-
Inishmeat by being dismissed from their employ ; the
disturbance originated in a political quarrel, and if it
were suffered to stand over till next Term, he hoped
such steps would be taken as would prevent the Court.
hearing any more of it.
The ATTORNEY GEN f.t. said, the ocher side con-
sidered the case in a far more serious light than his
Learned Friend seemed to do ; he saw no reason for
its standing over.
Lord ELLENBOROOGIf observed, that if it were to
be brought on at this late period of the Term, it
would be unmerciful to the Court ; and he hoped
Gentlemen would be. as parsimonious of time as
possible.
TheArroaser-GeniikAl. said, after what had fallen
from his Lordship he would not press for judgment
till next Term ; he wished, however, that his learned
Friend should understand, that it was not considered
-as a trifling offence of whicfi the defendants had been
found guilty.
The defendants were, therefore, ordered Ai be
r brought up for judgment next Term.