Star.
London, England, 1811-05-30 00:00:00

LEITH. MAY 25.

Arrived in the roads, this day, the Alton* gun.
brig, from Gottenburgh.—Sailed the Cir a RLES atmed
brig, to, the northward, to protect the fishery.
LIST OF AMERICAN VESSELS RELEASED BY BON.%PARTL'S

DECREE OF THE 4TII INSTANT:
•
Globe, Murphy j Atlas, Forbes ; Female, Creagh ;
and Milo, Johnson, from' Baltimore ; Ann, Harris
ed#,Udy ; Traveller, Prendergast ; and Grace Ann
Green. Green, from New York ; Susan Emmeline,
Hutchinson; Meteor, Hanley ; and Liberty, Sheer,
from Philadelphia ; Hare, Bestody ; and Lydia, Ka. 1
hom, from Boston ; Sally, --; arid Adventure,
Collyer, from Marblehead ; Alert, Nicholls, from
Newbury Port ; and Bird, Evans, from Salem.
FROM LLOYD'S I.IST.
The Fountain, --, of I.ynn, coal-loaded, was lost in the
Herd Sand, the ILuh inst.--Crew s:lye&
'I he 1-I,ldebrand, —, from Gibraltar to the limannah, was
all well off Jamaica, the 10th ult.
The Unim, Rennie, front Honduras, arrictd at Roam,' Bay,
22d inst. and sailed for Bristol Drat 'ay.

By the American ship Union, B vita master, which
arrived in Dover-roads, from Dunkirk, and landed se-
veral passengers, we learn that the troops on the coast
have all been lately marched off, and the duty ie .car-
ried. on by the inhabitants.
Eztract of a letter from Liverpool :—"" As a r-
acer proof of the confidence that many people have
of the trade being speedily opened between thiccotta-
try and 'the United States, a merchant here has 1-e-
-oeived orders froM his correspondent in America, who
is well acquainted with the intentions of the Govern-
ment, to dispatch his ship, not in ballast, but with a
cargo of salt and crates, in consequence of which she
will sail immediately with a full cargo."

By letters which were received yesterday from Tri-
niatsd, we are sorry to learn that serion.; misunder-
standings have arisen between General litstte, the
Governor, and Mr. Smart, who was appointed by his
MAJESTY as Chief Judge of the Island. The disputes
teem to have been occasioned by the wishes publicly
expressed of a great majority of the inhabitants, with
Governor litst.or at their head, for the introduction
of Ltitish taus. Mr. SMITH, on the other hand, insists
upon the cntinuance of the Spanish laws. We un-
derstand that Governor HisLor is on his way home.
in order to lay the whole circumstances lerfere his
i'laiestfs Ministers.

•
L4# isaLLmsNct.

4,1 ."..

L..
coluAT olt tortv 11ENtH,1411,.
OnAth.•4nn
Lord Ermumottiavon gave the judgment of the
Court in this case. lt was an action brouglit.by the
executor of the late Lord Gardner, to recover the
- Admiral's share of certain prize-inoriey, arising trots
the capture of three vessels, prises to bit Kijesty'a
. ship la Loire, in the following circumstances A
Admiral Drury was Commander of the Bee arn the
Cork station ; he gave instructions to Capt. Maitland.
Of Li Loire, to cruize in a certain latitude, end-if be
should see or hear of any French. force being at.sea,
that he should return to him (Admiral Drury), or
give information to the Admiral commapding the
Channel station, as should be most convenient. Cap-
tain Maitland received such advice as to the move-
ments of the enemy, as induced him to giveinforma-
tiois thereof to Admiral Gardner, who Commanded
the Channel Fleet ; and from him he received in-
structions to go to Ferrol, for the purpose of meeting
Admiral Calder, and of putting some men on board
the Ajax, and he was also entrusted with the private
signals of the homeward-hound Jamaica fleet, that if
j he fell in with them he might yield them every assis-
tance. La Loire proceeded, fell in with Admiral
Calder, and put the men on board the Ajax, after
which she captured the prizes in question, and for the
Admiral's share of which the present action was
brought, two q,iestions arose for the consideration of
the Court. First, if Lord Gardner intended that this
ship should continue under his command after she
had executed her otdcrs at Ferrol ? And Idly, "If
Admiral Gardner could withdraw the vessel from un-.
der the command of that Admiral to whose fleet she.
was attached? On both points the Court were against
the plaintiff.—Verdict entered for the defendant.

MAY 28...-.-V7ANDSWORTII V. LAURIE.

This was a Qui 'ram action -founded on the sth of.
Elizabeth, chap, 4: sect. Sl. Against the defendant, a
sadler, in Westminster, for employing ih the way of
his business a person who had not serval% ipa re-
golar apprenticeship of seven years. The penalty is
40s. per month. =
Two witnesses who had known Samuel Mansell
(the person employed) in the country and in Lou-
don, and also Samuel Mansell himself, were adduced
to prove that he had served an apprenticeship to the
Sadlery business in Oswestri for five years, commen-
cing in February 1865, and that since November
18:0 he, hitd been in the employment of the defen-
dant, Mr. Laurie.

Lord Et.LENeottoyon informed the Jury, that here
there could be no doubt that the person employed
had not been an apprentice, or served as an appren-
tice, for seven years previous to his employment bythe
defendant ; it being in evidence that S. Mansell had
never followed the sadlery business till February
1805 ; he must therefore have continued at it till
181 g, before, hecould have satisfied the Act. The
only other questiog which remained was the periOd
diming which the penalty had been incurred.—There
were Acta, which a Court must give effect to; but
still when repugnant to the natural feelings of man-
kind, they must do so with reluctance.
Mr. PARK, for the plaintiff, said he wished only to
take one penalty.
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages 40s.
HUMP V. HOLIDAY.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the
plaintiff, a shoe-maker, in Oxford-street, against the
defendant, his landlord, under the following circum-
stances. The plaintiff held his house of the defen-
dant, at the yearly rent of £136. 10s. the rent paya.
ble quarterly. On the 27th of June list, the defen-
dant called at the plaintiff's house, and said he was
come to distrain for a quarter's rent due the Lady
Day preceding. To this plaintiff answered, he had
paid his rent up to that time ; there was none due
but to Midsunimtr; and if that was what he wanted,
he was ready to pay it; and immediately made a ten—
der of 404. 2s. 6d. being the amount of a quarter's
rent due to him. The defendant, however, refused
to take it, and delivered him- a notice and went away,
leaving a man in possession. About four hours af-
terwards he returned, and said he had made a this- I
take in the notice; he now fogad. out that there was!
no rent dui till idsummeraclai, and that he intendedl
to seize for ; giving the plaintiff. another notice so
amended. The plaintiff said there was nn necessity
for his distraining for that. and again tendered him
the money; but the defendant -refused to receive i
unless the plaintiff would pay the expences of the:
1 levy. This the plaintiff refused to do; and no*
brought his wit* for an improper distreis. The
Jury found for the:plaintiff, who consented to take a
kverdict for £5. 13s. 6d. being the expences of -the
Replevy Dosed. . ,

MAY 29.—magc•
THE KtNO v. WHITE, ritorsurrpit OP THE ODE*
PENDANT WHIO4

This was an indictment against the defendant as
the proprietor and publisher of-a weekly newspaper
called the Independent Whig.
Mr. WARREN, on behalf-of the defendant, applied
to put off the trial of this cause until the Sittings-after
the nett Term, upon the grounds of indisposition on
the part of the defendant. Mr. Warren stated, that 1
he had a very full and satisfactory affidavit in support
of his application. The defendant had been cone:led I
now near three years in the jail of Dorchester, under
the sentence of that Court, for a libel -published in
the paper before alluded to, and the *expiration of ,'
that sentence will take place on tha Igd of .fuly next.
The affidavit stated, that in consequence of his long
imprisonment and other causes, the defendant was
considerably indisposed from a tumor in his neck and
a bilious affection of the liver, so as to render him in.
capable olgiving the necessary attention and instruc-
tions preparatory to 11' s defence. That as it wa slii sinten-
tion to make his defence in person, it was, from these
circumstances, impossible for him to be now prepared
1 to take his trial, and as the Sittings after the next
1 Term did not commence until the ith Ally, he should
I be their prepared with his defence.
1 The ATTORNEY GEN ER A 1., for tie prosecution, said,
lie did- not wish to deal harshly by this defendant,
and should not object to the trial being postponed
until the Sittings alter the next Term.
The Learned Judge acquiesced, and the trial ar-