Star.
London, England, 1826-11-30 00:00:00

MAYOR'S CObriT.

Ull w. DARCY lON, rLallllirl (smssas. 4111101121WAOD AID psi,
sAsinissaai), eosin museum, ostatuasir. •
Yesterday this case came on before the Recorder.—
It was an attachment issued 'against the firm of Green.
wood and Coe, the Army Agents, fpr certain moneys
in their hands, alleged to belong to C aunt Linsiagen,
as part of the produce of the sale of his commission in
the Army.

The Leaden tiozette of October 10, 1826, was pro-
duced, fume vhich it appeared that Lieutenant Ewen
NlePherson, of the Ist Foot, had parcliesed into the
Ist Hussars, and that Captain W. Count Linsingen was
allowed to dispose of his half-pay.
Major Maling, Under Secretary.to the Office of the
Commander.in-Chief, produced au order from his Royal
„Highness the Duke of York, with the sigo manual, ad-
dressed to Messrs. Greenwood and Cop, authorising the
payment of money by them to the Count Linsingen,to
the amount of 14001. being part of the proceeds of the
sale of Count Liasingen's half-pay, and authorising the
payment of the reserve thereof, being 60W. to the LOrds
of the Treasury.
This order was dated the 10th of October, and sent
on that day to Messrs. Greenwood and Cox. On the
11th of October, Messrs. Pierce, army clothiers, made
application at Messrs. Greenwood and Cox's office for
payment of a very large sum of money due to them by'
Count Linsingen; and Sir Herbert Taylor, on the same
day, sent a verbal message to Messrs. Greenwood and
Cox, desiring that those agents would not pay over the
amount of the sale of the Commission of the Count.—
On the 12th of October, an attachment was issued, and
on the 13th a written notice was sent by the Com-
mander-in-Chief, directed to Greenwood and Cox, re.
yoking the order of the 10th for the sale of the Com-
mission.—lt was contended on the part of the plaintiff,
that the purchase money in the hands of the gar-
nishers was, to all intents and purposes, the property of
the defendant from the moment the order was issued to
Messrs. Greenwood and Cox, authorising the payment
of it to him ; and. that the subsequent notice of revo-
cation was not available, inasmuch as the attachment
had been issued previously, and could not be prejudiced
by any order of the kind, even if the power of revoking
existed.

Against the plaintiff's claim upon the garaishers, it
was contended, that until Count Linsingen bad actually
received the amount of the sale of his-commission, which
could not have been disposed of without the permission
of the Commander-in-Chief, he could not be said to be

-the owner of that amount which lay in•the hands oldie
Army Agents, subject to the future disposal of the
Commander-in-Chief, as if no order of any kind had
been issued.

The COURT were of opinion, that the money in the
bands of Greenwood-and Cox was.not the property of
Count Linsingen, as the actual payment of It to ;him
had not•taken place ; but was subject to Military Law,
and under the contrail of the Commander-in•Cbief, the

Commander-in•Chiei having exercised such controuling
power by revoking the first order. The plaintiff, then-
fore, was not entitled to a •erdict.

Juryman' observed, that it appeared to bhn that
Count Linsingen had possession of the money from the
date of the 10th of October.

The Itacostamt said, that the Commander-in-Chief„
•who 'alone had the, power of allowing Commissions to
,be sold, had formally revoked the order anthorisiag the
payment of the money.
Juryman-44 The meaty was eat stalk wadi ahuit was
Theat-
tadwd."
AWARDER —"lf it bad been paid before thel
attachment was issued, the attachment would certainly
not be available. Besides a verbal order revoking
that of the 10th of October, had been sent to Messrs.
Greenwood and Cox, which verbal order was followed
up by the written order. In my ;pillion the attachment
is of no avail."

Several of the Jury lespectfully espoused their dissent front the
opinion of his Lordship, and said they considered that thelarabbers
were liable.
The Ricoansa,--a If you take upon you to say that thich
Lhs-
sirgen's money, notwithstanding the revocation of- the order, I
cannotiselp it. I only say that it is MT opinion that the money it
not his, and cannot be attached as his."
Juryman—" It cannot be Wished or expected that we • would
give a verdict contrary to the evideace tharhas been adduced."
The Racounta—..Ceetainly not. .The evidence is to me jilts
satisfactory on the point; it is sprite evident that the money ho the
money of the Military Board, and that the defendant has nothing to
do with it.

it:snug-4%e moneybag's's his, bi.my opinion, aka do sale
' ebb commission.

Mr. Miauuouza, for the plaintiff, stlggestql, that as
the Jury seemed disposed to find against the. opinion of
the Court, it would be the better way to return, a spe•
cial verdict.
.loarssee—The money waa given up to the defendant when the
purchase was completed, upon the Commander-la-Chief% permh-
don -• and the third party, who is recegnised by:this Court, having it
in pssession, is, it appears to us, *abject to the authority of the Court.
The Renames still maintained that the money was not legally
attached; but said, that if the Jury were determined to find other-
wise, he could not help it.
The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
Air. Miaznooss said, that an injunction would be owed for. •
There is, we andentand, no appeal from this Court.
HATIIWAT o. ILLIBADEII.

Mr. LAW stated, that this was an action brought for
the value of goods sold and delivered, for money lent
and advanced, and expended, &c. &c.
Mr. BOLLA tin said, that plaintiff and defendant were.
respectable Gentlemen of the Corporation of London.
The plaintiff kept a stationer's and news-vender's shop,
close to the Royal. Exchange, and Mr. Bleaden was
Secretary or Clerk to the Royal Alliance Mining Com-,
parry (a /aug/s), one of those unhappy Associations, with.
the birth, parentage, education, and decease of many of
which the public were but too well acquainted (laughter).
It was necessary, inthe opinions of those who superin-'
tended Companies,, in orderto insure prosperityi.to give,
as much notoriety.as• possible by advertisements in they'
Newspapers of their objects and adaantages, and Mr.
'Meade') applied to Mr. Hathway, who .is in the habit
of inserting advertisements, to do justice in that manner
to the Company alluded to. • Mr. Hathwayi• in com-
plience with his directions, put advertisements in several
of the Papers, relative to that Company, and to a second,
Company ; the debt to which, 331. 10s. Sd.. was admit-
ted, and to a certain monumental trophy in honour of
his late Majesty King George the Third. The Jury
knew the expenses of advertising; Mr. Hatkway had
expended between 161. and 171. upon which his com-
mission amounted to no more than ten shillings. ,
Mr. Bleaden, of the London Tavern, was called: He
deposed that he believed that a.paper, stating the nitres
ol the newspapers in which the several advertisements
were to be inserted, was not in the writing niche, de-
fendant, who was a relation of his. The signature ter-
, tainly was not his, nor was it spelt as the tamily spelt
their name. Another paper was banded to witoessf.who
deposed thit he certainly did not believe it to twin the
writing of the defendant. lie was convinced that the,.

!defendant world at once admit what be had wr;tten,ifi

he were present.. • -.—
Blair stated that he lived with Mr. Hothway.
He had applied to defendant for payment of 331.101.6 d.
for advertising the Alliance Company ; was desired to
call from time to time, and was promised payment in
March last.Tbere was also a monumental trophy account.

Crosa-eataissioed: Did not apply nn hebsif ache Alliaoce Granite
Company b4-Witness ; No; the advertisements were put into my
Mods, anti 111 r. 0104 M promised to pay for them.
Ur. Thomas lit:bards, of the Public Ledger Dice. stated, that
Mr. Hat hway sent to Ithn advertisements respecting the Motto.
trtesttai Trophy, and paid hies for than.
Goldman frost other Newspapers reedited to the same amt.
The following letter, superscribed to Mr. Ilathway, was tbro
read in evidence

" Lothbury, March 51, 180.
it Sta—l was very sorry to receive a letter from you, couched In
such angry words. If the demand you make on me bad been on
my own account, yon should certainly not have been troubled by
second application ; but it unfortunately happens, that the rrsourcej
from whiCh you would have been paid have been partly withheld,
owing to the impassion of payment by the Banker of the Company,
and which Ultesffise, unfortunately for me, happened to be my own
Banker. As I Calmat, however, fix a precise day for payment, it
being dependent eta those circumstances, I will, to save you further
trouble, give you my acceptance for the amount, at two months, if
it should meet your approbation.
" I am, Sir, )our obedient servant,
" JOHN BLEADEN."

Mr. Nittanoust, for the defendant, stated, that his
-client, who was an old friend of his, did not dispute the
331. 10%. 6d. although he had nothing to do with the
debt, and bad already lost enough by the Company.—
Aifor the other demand, evidence bad not been brought
to .spew that there was foundation for that, and certain
it was, that there were assets enough in the proper
quarter to pay it.
The Ruvuma having summed up, the Jury found for the plaintiff,
only to the amount of the admitted debt.