Star.
London, England, 1827-07-27 00:00:00

EPOETING INTELLIGENCE.

Mreritio.aotim. TATTERSALL:B, Jets 24.
The both -yestaday, though confined in a few horse; was
both brisk mei important. Matoeluke's friendi muster in
any force, and tbo eansequence was that he spin gave way a trilk,
4to 1 having hose kid in four or live instances. The dosing odds,
however, were i to I, end no takers. I. opposition to this, Gmbh/
had • strong pasty, aid the odds quietly fell to S to I, at which
price there were plenty of taller,. Reviewer Opened at 20 to I,
moo tell back to 30 to 1, which Ma taken ; 40 to 1 followed, and
immediately after the coup de grace was given to the add Day, at
SO to 1 ' • he partially recovered before the close, but 40 to 1 are the
present odds, and no takers. Very few others were backed to any,
antbont. At sis o'clock the closing prices were thus-
-1 Thirty goes. Stakes (York).
7 to 4 apt Matilda 6 to 1 apt Moonshine (taken)
Dosecrinsu Sr. Lions.
7to apt Mameluke 25 to 1 apt Lumley!
S to 1 asst Granby (taken) 30 to 1 apt Sancho
It to 1 apt Nonplus 35 to 1 apt Translation
LS to 1 apt Matilda 35 to I apt Antic,*
20 to 1 apt Lanark 40 to 1 apt Reviewer
20 10 1 apt blakk 40 to 1 apt any otter.
6t04 on the eld apt two.

CHELMSFORD RACES, JULY 24.
Hls Majesty's Plate of tongs. for Mares; syr olds, 7st. alb. four,
Sat. Alb. flee, SW. 131 b. six and aged. 9st. 21b. The best of are;
twe-mile heats, starting at a post allotted far the parpate, be-
tween the distance Post and Stand.
Lord Tavistocit's ch. f. Leeway, 4 yrs

Mr. &aides b. C by Whalebone, 3 -yrs .
Colonel Wilson's eh. 1. by Ruben., 5 yrs .
Mr. Pearee's eh. m. My Lady, S vs
Mr. Coleman's eh. va. Rmilia, 4 yrs .
Mr. Hunter's b. f. by Orville, 3 yrs
Lord &eadbrobe's br. f. Memlma, 3 yrs •

1 I

3 2
6 3
I. 4
.11 dr
'4 dr
5 dr

Mr. il. Wilsea's bL f. Emilia, 3 yrs . 7 dr
Mr. Hides br. f. Hertford Lass, 4 yrs . dia.
The AcursOce forth °Wand Etakm was not Harlem to make
a race.

MOM DAT.
Tb. County Cop .Stakes..--Thres folks.
Mr. Maj. Upaa, 4 yrs
Mr. Eawerby s SktQ 4 yrs
Mr. Coleman's Flawrlngo, 4 yrs
Colonel Wilson's Corkscrew, 4 yrs
TM Town Plow—Two ogle teas.

Mr. Sowerby's Lionel /in ;ells
Mr. Feeton's Skirmisher
Mr. Scaith's Conrad .

1 1
0 3
s 3 3

Three oath started, bat were not placed;
Tbe Sweepstakes for bones net thorough bred, was won at two
beats, by Mr. White's b. m. Kitty, besting four others.
The following mantic, are tanks place on the last day of the
nest Doncaster Emcee—
Mr. Yates's Fairlawn, stst. slb. apt I.erd Mancastees Tittle
Tattle, Sat. for 200 ears. b. ft. one mile.
Mr. Follansbee bi. f. by Thesis. apt Mr. Antes Matilda, Mt.
24. each, for 100 p. b. ft. one mile.
Mr. Hopkinson's Harriet, S yrs, apt Mr. Hudson's Miracle, 4
Jo
yrs, 7st. 71b. each, for 100 gs. b. ft. mile and half.
CRICKET.—ALL ENGLAND AGAINST SUSSEX.

SattD DAY.
Bsionrov, JULY 254—The suspended Grand Match at Cricket
recommenced thi, morning, with All England UM runs in ad
—a good round number to be overtaken by Sussex, who had al-
ready lost three wickets. The play was begun by the breams, J.
and W. Broadbridge; but the former, on the second ball, which
'came too wide for him to reach, threw his bat accidentally from Ms
band, and unfortunately striking the ball up, was caught out by Mr.
Budd. In neither innings, therefore, did one of the best batters on
the Sussex side obtain a single run. To make matters still worse,
W. Broadbridge, by an unlucky slip, after a few runs, put himself
out by crippling his own wicket,—(Three to one in favour of All
England). !From this time Sussex played cautiously and effectively,
and continued to diminish the odds against them until the dinner
hour, three o'clock, at which period seven wickets had gene down,
and they were within thirty-four runs of tying their adversaries.
Even betting was now the order of the moment ; with the ground
quite as thronged with spectators as on the preceding days, and
every eye sparkling with the interest excited.
After dinner, Dale and Thwaites went out for but few runs, and
the odds instantly changed to three to one in favour of All England,
who ultimately were victors, after the most interesting match that
ever was played on this ground. The following are the detailed
particulars from !rat to kat, vie. . .
ALL 12111041111111 t MEW.
Mr. W. Stark . . 7 b. by Ltd/white
Mr. Pilch . . . 5 ran out

Mr. Saunders . . 0 a. by W. Slater
W. Ward, Vag. M.P. . s b. by 3. Broadbridge
E. H. Budd, Esq. . . it b. by Lillywhite
Mr. T. Marsden . . 0 e. by Dale
Mr. T. Bagley . . se.by J. Woodbridge
Mr. R. Mills . . 0 a. by Lilly/bite
G. Knight, Ea+ • . 0 b. by ditto
H. Kings/one. Kati. . ob.by J. Woodbridge
G. Osboldestoa, Esq. . 0 not out
eyes • • I

011:01111 macs&
$7
Mr. W. Stark . 7 b. bJ. Broadbriclie
Mr. Pilch . . S. by Brown
_ _ _ •

Mr. Saunders 44 e. by Dale
W. Ward, Bp. • is b. by Lillywisite
E. H. Budd, Bs* . . 14 e. by Dale
Mr. T. Marsden . . 9 s. by W. Mater
Mr. T. Beams . . t 6 e. by Dale
Mr. R. Mak . . 4 pot out
G. Knialst, . . . e. by Brown
H. Kingseotirell., . e. by Dale •
G. Osbaldestoo, e. by W. Broadbridp
Byes . 11

169

sulasz.—rt=e: =ante.
Mr. Morley . . 3e.byJL H. Budd, Kn.
Mr. Lillywbite . . 8 b. by lila*
Mr. Thwaites . • 7 e. by Saunders
Mr. J. Broadbridge . 0 b. by G. Knight, Ksi.
Mr. Brown . 6 24 e• by Pilch.
FL Cheilyn, liaq. . . 4 rua oat
Mr. W. Broadbrldge . l 8 a. by Saunders
Mr. Dale . . . 4 e. by ditto

Mr. Lanaway
Mr. Baker
Mr. W. Slater
Byes

. ob. liy E. Budd, Big.
. 4 S. by Saunders
. 0 not out
. S

77
22c020 winmos.
Mr. Morley I . oc.by 0. Oabsidestou, Eft+
Mr. Lltlywithe . . 0 not out
Mr. Tbwaites . . 10 hit wicket
Mr. J. Beeadbeidge . 0 e. by W. Ward,
Mr. Brown . . 17 b. by 0. Knight, Esq.
B.( Re+ . . 10 run out
Mr. W. Broadbrldge . 4 hit wicket
Mr. Dale . . . SO run oat
Mr. Lanaway . . it b. by 0. Knight, B,q.
Mr. Baker . . . 7 C. by W. Ward, Ea+
Mr. W. Slater . . 4b.by E H. Budd, Elq.
Byes • • 13

fid
AU England won the match by 44 run&
GRAND SAILING MATCH.

Yesterday, the Silver Cup given by the friends of Mr. Swain*,
of the Red House, Batteries, was sailed for by pleasure yachts of
unlimited tonnage. About eleven vessels were entered, but, only
five started, viz.—Rob Roy, Lady Louisa, Fdrtitude, Don Gio-
venni, and Swift. The distance sailed was from the Red House, I
down, round a boat at Vauxhill Bridge ; up, round a boat at Bat-
tersea Bridge, again to Vie:hall and Battersea Bridges, and down
to the Real House. The vessel, started at half-past three o'clock
with a fine southwesterly breeze, the Lady Louisa taking the lead,
and, after some admirable sailing.the Match was decided as fellows :
Lady Louise • ..... 15 tons ..
Rob Roy , • 16 tons... .. ..... 2 •
The other vessels did not sail the distance, which was about eleven
miles, and was .performed in fine style In one hour and five minutes
by the winner, half of which was against tide.

During the hurricane of Tuesday week, when the
schooner Brothers, Captain hireling. was about twenty miles off
Aberdeen, an, entire rookery of crows, which had been blown off
the land, alighted upon the rigging, all of them apparently much
'Argued, and many aga mach exhausted, that they fell into the sea
and were drowt.elia

• LAW INVELLIGENCIL
• • COURT OF CHANCER 4, Jae est.
IN THE MATTER 07 HARSH AND Cp. DAN'
EX Pak?' ;mous AND AttOntas.
This •case, which had been ordered by the Lord
Cbaneellor to come on thif•morning, was mentioned
to the Court.
Mr. HEALD stated, that a pdtition.had been ptesented
to the Court on behalf of Mr. liltmt, for permission to
prove, under the joint commission against Marsh,
Fauntleroy, and Co. for a debt of mooqi. When that
petition came on to be heard, an issue was directed by
Lord Eldon, to try the question—whether at end be-
' fore the date and suing forth of the commissions, joint
as well as separate, which had been issued in these
matters against Henry Fauntleroy, the bankrupts wart
actually indebted to the petitioner in theitun which be
claimed to be allowed to prove? On the trial evidence
was adduced to shew. that Fauntleroy was appointed
joint trustee with Messrs. Dehagan and Stone, by the
will of Mr. Baistow, and that they, by means of such
will, became possessed of a sum of 17,6011. Navy 5
per Cent. Annuities, which was transferred into their
names in the Bank of England books. This sum
Fauntleroy got into his own hands by means of a frau-
dulent power of attorney, to which he signed his hero
name, and forged those of his co-trustees. This was
effected by two separate transfers of 7,0151. and 8,9004
cash, which were paid into the house of Martin & Stone,
then Marsh and Co.'s agents. In Mr. Fauntleroy's desk a
memorandum was found to the following effect:—
" 26th May, 1819.-15,0001. odd, Navy 5 s.-7.1051.
paid to Martin and Co. on the 26th, and on the nth
8,9001 to make up the account to raise 16,0001. of
Henry Fauntieroy, Dehagan, and Stone." This me-
morandum was produced on the trial, and was found
to be in the handwriting of Mr. Graham. The Jury
found a verdict for the present Petitioners for the full
amount of 16,0001. A case was reserved which was
afterwards specially argued, and-the verdict of the Jury
confirmed, The Counsel now moved for a new trial,
on the ground that Lord Tenterden, who tried the
cause, had misdirected the Jury, and that the verdict
was not sustained by the evidence. The Lord Chief
Joftiice directed the Jury to take the power of attorney
as a valid instrument, and to find acctirdingly. The
assignees relied on three distinct grounds of defence:—
first, that no debt could be founded on the felony; se-
condly, that the Petitioners bad sustained no injury,
because the power of attorney being a forgery, they
could call on the Rank to replace the stock ; and thirdly,
that the payment to Fauntleroy discharged the other
bankrupts.
Mr. MONTAGU was heard on the same side, and con-
tended, that as there was no proof that the money, the
subject of this inquiry, had been applied to the use of
the firm, they ought not to be fixed with it. In this
case the mosey had been received and disposed of by
Mr. Fauntleroy to his own pyivate purposes, and it was
equally hard and unjust that the creditors of his partners
should be called' on to pay this amount. They might
have a right to prove under Fauntleroy's commission,
but their right could not be extended further.
Mr. Sergeant Boseicturr, with whom was Mr. PHIL.
LIMORE; declined to argue a case, the law and the facts
of which appeared to bun so clear.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was decidedly of opinion
that no new trial ought to be allowed. The facts o
the case appeared to be, that certain trustees were enti-
tled to stock in the Bank of England. By means of a
forged power of attorney, this stock was sold out and
paid into the hands of Martin and Co. who were the
agents of Marsh and Co. In law as well as in equity,
this was a payment into the hands of Marsh and Co.
This money was drawn out by Mr. Fauntleroy; and
then the question arose in what character did he draw
it out? If he did so as a member of the firm of Marsh
and, Co. then unquestionably they were liable ; if as a
trustee, he did it wrongfully, but then be paid it into
the hands of their agents. The money must, therefore,
be considered as remaining in the hands of Marsh and
Co. at the time of the banlcruptcy, and therefore the
trustees bad a right to claim it of them. If these facts
were correctly stated, and as it appeared to him he had
stated them correctly, thee was no pretence for a new
trial, and he therefore refused the motion.
It is said that the Directors of the Bank of England
agreed to replace so much of the stock as the trustees
should eventually lose, but not until they had pursued
the claim which the Bank birectors were advised the
trustees bad on the estate of Marsh and CO.
GIBBON V. TOWNLET.
The Souctroa-GENERAL moved for a new trial of
the issue in this case, the question in which was, at to
the plaintiffs title as heir-at-law, ex parte materna, of
one Matthew Gibbon.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what was the value of
the property ?
Mr. HEALD believed it was abolt 1301. a year,
The LORD CHANCELLOR regretted that a matter of
such small value should have been so much litigated.
It had already been tried four times, and he wondered
that any of the property was left, after the expenses
which must have been incurred about it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, two verdicts had been
given in favour of his clients.
Mr. HEALD said that he was incompetent to argue
this case, not having been present at the trial of the
issue. He was to have had the assistance of Mr. Pol.
loik ; and if Gentlemen of the Common-law Bar could
not'attend, he must give up such cases as required their!
assistance.
It was then agreed that the Solicitor-General and the
Counsel with him should be heard, and the farther
hearing of the case was postponed.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jaw ea.
RESPONSIBILITY OF SHIP•OWNERS.—..TEED V. wour AND
OTHERS.
This was an application for an injunction to stay pro.,
ceedings under an action at jaw which had been
brought against the plaintiff, a shipowner, by certain
persons, the defendants, who had sustained losses from
shipping their goods on board of one of the plaintiff's
vessels.
From the statement of Mr. BICRERSTETH, it appeared
that the defendants hid shipped a quantity of goods
from a port in' Portugal, on board of a vessel belonging
to the plaintiff, called the Pomona. The vessel was
driven by stress of weather into Gibraltar, where it was
ascertained that considerable damage had been done to
the cargo ; and the defendants, therefoe, brought an
action against the plaintiff, to recover the full amount
of the loss which they had sustained. Under these cir-
cumstances, the plaintiff now came before the Court
for•an injunction to stay the action, andfor permission
to pay a :urn of money into Court. This application
was iounded upon an Act which jup.i been passed in the
53J year of the reign of his late Mgksti, for the ezpress

.

purpose 'of limiting the liability of ship-owhers. lit
that Act it wit provided, that in cases of this kind;
*bete -the damage accrued not from the ant of ibd
owner, but from the misconduct or negligence of his
sesialitt the comer -was to be permitted, in the event of
any action at law being commenced against him by
those who had ventures on board, tit sellehe vessel with
the damaged terse; and after having made a fair esti-
mate of the proportion due to each claimant, to file a
bill in a Court of Equity, and obtain leave to pay the
proportion due to the claimants into Court. The
plaintiff, his client, had strictly complied with these
provisions: he had sold the vessel and cargo, and nose
upcm paying the produce into Court, prayed that the
action at law might be stayed.
lb. Vice-Cuaocasboa having intimated his entire
(durance of the existence of inch an Acr, and the
Learned Counsel having at his request read at length
she clause on which the application was founded. his
Honour observed, the terms of the Act were so clear,
that the injunction must go, as a matter of course, with
permission to pay the money into Court. He must say;
however, that he was certainly not before aware of the
existence of any such Act as that which formed the
ground of this application. It was somewhat tetra:
ordinary, that the most clamorous of all those whb
railed against Courts of Equity were what. are called
mercantile men; and yet these very persons contrived;
through the meims of Perlianient, every year to mend
the power of the interference of such Cants with the
management of their affairs. With respect to this Act;
he could only say, that it gave an entirely new jails-
diction to the Court—Motioh granted.
B
M
herke
r . HORN;
into
tsaidhe
pleadingsthatAliit 6
inzi
nthtihs Leczatvcsel:i,oafter t looking
law
pendingds ord
closely
een these parties, he foundei that they embraced
the hole of the transactions between the lunatic and
Mr. • vi; and as it was competent to the plaintiff to
plead a fall legal defence, he did not feel himself war-
ranted in pressing for the interference Of that Court, in
order to restrain the proceedings upon equitable
grounds. At the same time, however, in withdrawing
his mcitibn for an injunction in the present stage of the
case, he reserved to himself the right of coining to that
Court hereafter, if it should appear that then, was any
thing omitted at the trial which Would pert& thereat
question from coming before a Juty.
The Vices-Cnallom.ton said, that upon reflection, he
had become strengthened in the opinion which be en-
tertained yesterday, vie. that safficient grbudds fbr his
interference had not been made out. If, however,any mw-
carriage occurred at the trial, from a defect in the tat.
cord, he should be willing to hear the partici; agaih.
With respect to the costs ih this application, he saw no
reason for violating the common rule or the Court, or .
why they should not be made costs in the cause. When-
ever the Court discharged an application of this nattiest
with costs, it was for the purpose of Marking that in
the opinion of the Court the application was a vexatioda
one. There was no feature in the present ease that
could warrant the supposition of vexation. He was
sure that' Mr. Levi could very well afford to pay the
costs out of the profits, of do inconsiderable nature,
which he must have made in hit dealings with the tomtit.
BASSET AND OTHENS v. OAMPION.
This toe, which has been so frequently before the
public that it will be unnecessary to detail the fasts
again, obw came before the Vice Cllsotatt.ok under
the following circumstabces t .
The late Vice Chancellor has directed an issue to be
tried in the Court of Common Pleas, and a Motion was
now made before the present Vice Chancellor fbr a
new. trial. ' •
Mr. Sergeant •TADDY, Mr. MANI, Mr. PARN. and
Mr. Evarra, for the defendants, were heard in support
of the motion, which they founded upon the imperfee.
tion of the late trial, and the misdirection of the Learned
Chief Justice of the CoMmon Pleas. .
Mr. SHADWILL and Mr.Seasca opposed the motion;
contending that the verdict of the Jury at the late trial
bad deter-mined the question sought by the issue, and
that the ends of justice would not be fotwatded by 'a
new appeal to a Court of Law.
The.Vma CHANCELLOR said, it clearly appeared to
hint that the trial in the Court of Common Pleas was a
very imperfect one; but he acquitted both that Court
and his predecessor from any blame on the subject.. It
was a matter of regret that the terms of the issue were
not more circumstantial t If they had been, the verdict
would have been much more sat :factory. He should
therefore send the issue again to trial; and he hoped
that the terms of it would be so framed as to enablethe
Jury in sr Court of Law to give a complete answer to it.
Mr. Sergeant TANDY suggested, that an action of
trover Would perhaps be the best Mode of proceeding.
It was finally agreed that the Counsel should take the
Matter into consideratios among themselves, and fix
upon the best mode of framing the issues hen they
had agreed upon the terms of the issue, the case was to
be Mentioned to the Court again.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JuLt 26.
DANDRIDGE V. CORDKN.

The plaintiff, who is a perfumer and hairdresser in
Wood-street, Cheapside, sought by this action to recover
from the defendant the slim of 171. 10s. the amount of
a bill of exchange, drawn by a stock-broker, named
Tucker, on the 13th of October„ MS, payable at six
weeks after date, accepted by the defendant, and en•
dorsed by the drawer to the plaintiff.
The drawer proved that the acceptance was In the
handwri ing of the plaintiff; that the endorsemeat was
in his (Tucker's) handwriting; and that the plaintiff
had given him the full value of the bill.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURSZY—In the Course of
last autumn the plaintiff and the defendant were nen-
cerned in" time-bargains" upon the Stock Exchange;
but the bill was not given to the plaintiff in payment of
any diffetecce upon "time-bargains." The defendant
accepted the bill for valuable consideration; but the
nature of that consideration he (witness) declined an-
sweting, because he was apprehensive that his answer
might subject him to a qui tarn action. He believed
that his clerk was present when the plaintiff gave him
(witness) the money for the.bill, but he was not positive
as to that fact. When the bill was dishonoured by the
defendant, the plaintiff did not apply to witness for
payment. •
Frederick Clarke, the clerk of Tucker, swore that he
was present when the plaintiff gave to his employer
the sum of 171. ICh. for the bill, and took nothing for
discounts—that bis employer knew he was present whew
the transaction took place, and that he asked him (wit-
ness) to come into Court to state what he knew of the
transaction.

Mr. Gtiamat addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and contended, that the refusal of Tucker to state the
nature of the consideration given to the d f ndant for
the bill, and his admission that, at the time the bill was

.1'

11,

i