Star.
London, England, 1826-11-10 00:00:00

CORK, NOVZII2IIII 7.

IiiiiLANDHOLT AND FATAL Oocrouttrida.—lt is with
sincere regret that we have the painful necessity of re-
lating the following calamity: The circumstance to
which we allude is, that on Sunday morning, as one of
our city Sheriffs, John Wallis, Esq. a Gentleman of as
humane a nature, and as kindly feelings as ever filled
his office, while patroling Barrack-street, attended by
the peace officers of the city, arrested a man of the name
of James Coghlan ; a struggle having ensued, provoked
Mr. Wallis to strike the man with a loaded pistol, and,
in the act of doing so, the contents of the pistol acci-
dentally went off into his head. The unfortunate victim
lived only twelve hours after the melancholy occurrence.
A Coroner's Inquest was held yesterday, and conducted
with becoming rigour, when the following verdict was
delivered: " That the deceased, James Coghlan, came
by his death in consequence of a' shot from a pistol in
the hand of John Wallis, Esq. one of the High Sheriff's
of the City of Cork, which accidentally went of, while
in the act of making a blow at the deceased, while he,
the said Sheriff, was in the execution of his duty; but
we tannot separate, without expressing our opinion, that
strikiing a blow, when a loaded pistol was in his hand,
Was indiscreet and imprudent."

Monday. Major General the Hon. G. A. C. therit•
yoN. chairman of the Victualling Board. and Fans. Baoacomaa,
k:aq. and Dr. Busman, Commissioners, arrived at Plymouth on on
eAcial visit.

LAW R-EPOR T.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Noveitun 9.
11l Tilt ALLEILID LIDO/MT OP LADY QIISLIT.
Mr. Tnnter said he had to submit to the Court a petition, which
be was glad to state would have the effect of putting an end to this
matter. The prayer of the petition was, that the commission
which bad been issued should be superseded, and to this all parties
were consenting.
The Loan Cumic.mLos appointed tO4IIIINTOW morning to bear
the petition.•

VISLIWT 11. MI WM Or sums:.
This snit has been brought on the behalf of the infant
children of the Hon. W. Y. Wellesley, against the Duke
of Beaufort, and Sir Charles Begot, and others, trustees
under the settlement made on the marriage of that
Gentlemen with his late wife, in order to obtpintbe pre-
tection of the Court for the various parties interested.
Mr. SHADWILL this day appeared in support of a
ptition presented in the names of the infant son of
Mr. Wellesley, and the heir entail of the estates which
are the subject of the suit, and of Mr. Aubrey, appointed
by the Court to be the receiver of the rents of those
estates. The petition prayed that Mr. Wright, the tenant
of certain estates in Wiltshire, should be directed to deli-
ver up Draycot Park and the other estates within a
week—that the rent proper to be paid by Mr. Wright
should be ascertained by means of a reference to the
Master, and that Mr. Wright should forthwith deliver
up the key of a strong room at Draycot, in which cer-
tain title deeds and papers had been deposited, on pain
of being committed to the Fleet Prison. The facts of
the case were recapitulated in the petition, which stated
the death of the late Mrs. Wellesley, in September, 1825,
leaving the petitioner, her eldest son, surviving, who'
became seised as tenant in tail under the will of his
grandfather, Sir James Tylney Long, of the estates
mentioned in the bill. That Mrs. Wellesley, by virtue
of a power under the same will, appointed a sum of
13,0001. as portions for her two other children, and se-
cured the same by a term of 1,500 years, granted to the'
Duke of Beaufort and Sir Charles Begot, as trustees for
that purpose. The bill filed in this cause prayed, on be-
half of all the infants, that an account might be taken
of all the estates, and a receiver appointed by the Court ;
and in pursuance thereof all matters were referred to the
Master. On the 12th of April last the Master made his
report, by which he approved of Mr. Aubrey as the re-
ceiver, and directed the several tenants to attorn and to
pay all arrears of rent, and all rent in future to grow
due to him, in that capacity. Mr. Aubrey, on the 10th
of July, served Mr. Wright, the tenant, with a copy of
the Master's report, which had been confirmed by the
Court, and required him to give up possession of three
several farms, containing upwards of three hundred
acres, one of which was alleged to be held at an inade-
quate rent. Mr. Wright refused to comply with this
reque.t, but offered to attorn tenant to the heir in tail
at the same rent. Mr. Wright was charged also, by the
petition, to have refused to give up the key of the strong
room, and to have ordered Ulm bucks in Draycot Park
to be shot.

Mr. HART, of Counsel for Mr. Wright, said he was
prepared, if the Court should think fit, to go into the
merits of this petition; but as there had been no notice
served either upon Mr. Wright or upon Mr. Wellesley,
for whom he was also counsel, he submitted that the
petitioners had no sight to bring the matter on exparle.
Mr. Sumswau. said, ducal) other notice was necessary thau what
had been given.
TheLonz CHANCELLOR did not know that a receiver,
who bad been obstructed in the discharge of his duty,
was obliged to give notice of his intention to apply
to the Court against the parties by whom he had been
so obstructed.

Mr. Harr said, that supposing the received had been
obstructed (which, however, he would by no means
admit), still Mr. Wellesley's interest in the case was
such as to entitle him to notice. The Duke of Beau-
fort, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Sir Charles Bagot, and Sir
Edward Stracey, were also introduced into this petition,
although they had no interest in this question.
Mr. tinauvrim. said, that when those Gentlemen objected, it
would be time enough to answer that observation.
Mr. HART wished it to be understood, that he ap-
peared there as the Counsel of Mr. Wellesley, who
claimed to be the natural and legal guardian of the
children, and who would exercise the duties of that
character until some other should be appointed by the
Court. It bad been erroneously stated that Mr. Welles-
ley was abroad; he was, a this moment, in England.
Mr. SHADWELL then read the affidavits in support of
the petition, and also an affidavit which had been filed
by Mr. Wright, who stated, that he held the estates, not
as tenant, but as land agent, for Mr. Wellesley, to
whom he had duly accounted for the proceeds ; that in
April last he went to reside on Sidney Farm, which had
been let to a Mr. Watts at 561. a year, and which, after
the death of that person, as no other tenant could be
found, be had taken at a rent of 961. and he had since
expended considerable sums on the estate. That he had
told Mr. Aubrey, when he demanded possession, that he
acted only as Mr. Wellesley's agent, that the deer in
Draycot Park were kept at Mr. Wellesley's expense,
and bad been killed by his order, and that the key of
the strong room had long been in that Gentleman's pos-
session. This affidavit, the Counsel contended, was no
answer to the petition, nor offered any excuse for dis-
obeying the order of the Court. The property of the
deer was clearly in the infant heir, and Mr. Wellesley
had no right to oider them to be killed.
Mr. Taarn.ovs, on the same side, denied that Mr.
Wellesley bad any right, legal or equitable, which could
justify him in giving to Mr. Wright the authority under
which be pretended to have acted. • It might be con-
sistent with the object of the suit, that Mr. Wellesley
should be made a party, but it was not necessary that
he should have notice of this application. Plausible as
Mr. Wright's affidavit was, a less satisfactory one to the
Court could not be imagined. The assertion that he
was land agent to Mr. Wellesley, who had no interest
in the property, was only put forward to stop the re-
ceiver's mouth ; and although Mr. Wright said he had
accounted for the profits of the estates, he would aot
venture to say that be had made any payment to Mr.
Wellesley since his wife's death. As to the deer, be
might as well have said they were killed by the orders
of one of the porters of Lincoln's Inn, who would have
just as good a right to give such orders as Mr. Wellesley.
He submitted that no answer had keen given to the case
set up by the petition, and that the Court Would insist
upon its orders being obeyed.
Mr. Haar did not deny that an order of the Court,
even if improperly obtained, ought to be obeyed, but
he contended that Mr. Wellesley was entitled to notice.
Mr. Wright's affidavit had been made gratuitously, and
solely for the information of the Court. He bad been
admitted tenant of the estates at a time when Mr. and
Mrs. Wellesley were it the joint possession of them.
The Loan CIANCRLLOi asked what lease Mr. Wright held of
the farm?

liAiss saki it was a parole lease.
The LARD CMANCILLIAR said some of the facts now

' s ate bore upon the case in which he had been fur
niched with such a mass of papers. He hoped to be
able to discharge his duty respecting that petition
very shortly.
Mr. HART said that Mr. Wright was still willing to attorn tenant
at the ancient rent: •

Mr. flaikawau. replied.
The LORD •CUA NCILLOR said, that this being an
ap-
plication to the Court to commit a party for a breach
of the orders of the Court, it was first to be seen whether
/that breach had actually been made. There could be
no doubt that the parties against whom such orders were
made, had no right to judge whether they ought or
ought not to be obeyed. The order appeared to be that
the tenant in possession should attorn. Now Mr. Wright
swore that be was not the tenant, and as it appeared
that Mr. Wellesley was, upon him, and not upon Mr.
Wright, the order should have been served. With respect
to the bucks and the key, he thought nothing could be
made of them. He should take care, in disposing of
the other petition, that the estates should in future be
so managed as to secure their full and uncontrolled
enjoyment to the person entitled to them. He was
anxious to dispose of that petition as soon as possible;
and he must say, that in the whole course of his judicial
life he had never had to discharge a more painful duty
than this business imposed upon him. The jurisdiction
which he was called upon to exercise was a delicate but
a necessary one. He was still much embarrassed in
deciding where the truth of the case really lay. It was
clear that there had been a great degree of immorality,
brit not so much as had been represented to the public.
The point for the consideration of the Court was, how
far it was expedient for the interest as well as the welfare
of the children that the parental authority should be
controlled, and unless absolute necessity existed, that
was an authority which the Court would very reluctantly
assume. He should not fail to give his reasons at length
for the course which he should think fit to adopt, and
the parties should be in possession of them now in a very
few days. At the same time he would decide the present
petition, and whatever he might think of the order, he
would take care that in future the owner of the estates
should have the management as well as the enjoyment
of his property.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wawrienwern, Nov. 9.
SINCLAIR P. MOLE AND
Mr. SCARLETT applied to the Court, for a rule to
spew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new trial had. The action was tried before the Lord
Chief Justice last Term, in this place, and a verdict
found for 4201. It was brought by Mr; Sinclair, who
is an eminent professional singer at Covent-garden
Theatre, against the defendants, who are proprietors of
that establishment, to recover upon a contract, a large
sum of money, for not having employed him to sing
during fifty nights, at the theatre. The declaration
contained five counts, four of which set out that the
defendants were to employ the plaintiff during the sea-
son at 201. a night. The cause was tried by both parties
upon liberal admissions, and the production of letters.
Mr. Scarlett now made his application for a new trial,
on the ground that no part of the contract was proved,
and that the Lord Chief Justice, in his address to the
Jury, had been under some misapprehension respecting
the counts in the declaration. The contract between
the p irties was proved by a letter written by Mr. Chas.
Kemble to the plaintiff..
The letter was dated 9th of Jane, 1824.
"Mr Data Ma. Smarm—l received the letter from 'Mr.
Trotter, in which he tells me you are willies to fulfil an engagement
with Covent-Garden Theatre, on the following terms :—To com-
mence in October, say the first week—A new Opera will be ready
for you, and we have another ready ; but in order for you to come
out in it, it will be necessary for you to be here at least ten days
previous, to attend rehearsals, &c. You will have leave at Christ-
mas and Easter, to be absent one week—Engagement fifty nights—
Benefit first week in June if possible, and certainly not later than the
second. Engagement to be ended the 15th of the month. Two
new Operas you shall have if they are to be got. These are the
conditions contained in the letter of your fatber-inlaw. Pray let
me hear from you, and I will put something in readiness for you.
C. KEMBLE.b'

-- -----
Mr. Sinclair sent an answer, dated Merrion-square,
Dublin :

" I received yours of the 9tb of June ; I consider myself to be
engaged next season. IwiU be in town to perform M the new Opera."
A letter was written in reply by Mr. Fawcett, stating,
that the arrival of Mr. Sinclair's letter had given great
satisfaction, and his terms were acced Al to. He was to
play fifty nights, and they were desirous he should come
to town to attend rehearsals, as there was some difficult
music to study. There was no further correspondence
until the Ist of September, when Mr. Fawcett wrote a
letter in these terms:

" Will you be so good as to let us know on what day we may
expect you in towns the sooner the better, u we ire going to get
.up Der Frelschutz, which will take some time to study."
On the 24th September Mr. Sinclair wrote word that
he should be in town by the 15th of October. The
Opera of Der Freischutz was announced for the 14th of
Obtober, and as Mr. Sinclair would not arrive before
the 15th, they were obliged to have another person to
perform the principal character. Mr. Sinclair came to
lawn on the 16th, when a conversation took place be-
Ivreen Mr. Kemble, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Sinclair. On
tbat occafien the plaintiff expressed his regret that -he
bad not arrived in time. They told the plaintiff they
were willing to employ him if he chose to be re-engaged
at 201. a night, and to those terms he acceded.
Mr. Justice Baruty—Was there any answer to the plaintiff's
letter of the 24th of September ?
Mr. Seasurre—No, my Lord.
The Learned CouNsar, then stated that the Lord
Chief Justice was of opinion at the trial, that the con-
tract originally made, had been ended, and that the
question did net apply to that contract. The new Opera
of Der Frei:elude had a run of fifty nights. The season
continued two hundred nights, and it appeared another
Opera had been 4ot up with a :login; character for
Mr. Sinclair, but it did not succeed. lhey, however,
employed him in other singing parts nine nighti in the
season. Upon the proof be had stated, the Learned
Counsel contended the Jury had come to a wrong con-
clusion, and that there ought to be a new trial.
The ouat granted a rule to shew cause.
?HZ =Ng V.

•ICBDALL.

Before all the Judges of the Courr sit every morning
in e, full Court," as it is called, it is usual for one of the
palate Judges to preside for the purpose of hearing and
disposing of such common motions as require not the
consideration of the whole Court. On Wednesday Mr.
Justice BAYLEY sat for this purpose, when Mr. BnoDa•
RICK moved his Lordship for a certiorari, to remove an
indictment against the above defendant (charging him
with an indecent assault upon a boy) into this Court for
trial. The Learned Counsel stated, as we understood
him, that an indictment had been preferred against the
defendant at the Westminster Sessions, charging him
with this offence, and while he was in custody on the
charge he was liberated on his own recognizance, by
the order of the Lord Chief Justice. Another iodic:-.
meat had been preferred against him for the same
offence, at the Middlesex Sessions, and the present mo-,

ties% was to move that indieteatat into this Court for
trial, substantially on the ground that the defendant
could not have a fair trial at the Sessions.
Mr. Justice &may—What are the facts stated, on which the
cationsri is moved fort
Mr. BROBIRICK said that Lieutenant• Colonel Arch-
dall swore a conspiracy was formed against him, and
he alleged, among other circumstances, to shew that was
the case, that very soon after the charge was made
against him, he received numerous anonymous letters,
intimating to him that if an advertisement were inserted
in the Morning Herald, stating that " 3001. should be
ready for A. B" at a certain place which the anonymous
letter pointed out, the charge should be stopped. The
defendant very properly refused to comply with thees
solicitations; an as he swore he was by birth, habits,
and conneximea Gentleman, he wished his trial should
take place in this Court, because aggravated and dis-
torted staten(ents had gone forth in the newspapers, and
had been circulated in hand-bills; calculated to excite
a prejudice in that class of society likely to act as petty
jurors at the settings.
Mr." Justice BAYLEY upon these grounds granted the certiorari.
LOTD V. MIDFIELD.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a new trial in this case.
It was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Banker in
London, against Messrs. Freshfield and Kay, Solicitors,
to recover 7,0001. advanced to Mr. Charles Kay, as a
loan, which had been applied for by a Gentleman
named Lee. The defence was, that the money was not
paid to Charles Kay as a partnership transaction, but
to that Gentleman personally, and on account of a trans-
action in which the firm had no concern. On the part of
the plaintiff, witnesses were called to prove that part of
the money had been applied to the partnership business,
and especially to a stock transaction for a Miss Fitz-
gerald, which the defendants had conducted as solicitors.
The Jury, under all the circumstances, found a verdict
for the defendants. It was now contended that there
was proof that the defendants had been parties in re-
ceiving the money ; but the Court held that there was
no ground to disturb the verdict.—Rule refused.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.

SAVAGE V. LICH, BART.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.
accepted by the defendant. The cause had come on for
trial before the Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall during
the sittings before the present term. It appeared that
in 1823, the defendant (then Mr. Rich) had occasion
for 2,5001. and applied to a Mr. Joshua Rowe for the
purpose of obtaining that sum. Mr. Rowe promised to
let the defendant have the money he wanted, provided
he would accept bills to the amount of 15,0001.
which Rowe promised to provide for when they became
due. The defendant had accepted eight of these bills
for 10001. each, which were drawn at 36 months, and
made payable at Messrs. Williams and Co. bankers in the
City. It was for one of these bills that the present action
was brought ; it had passed from the hands of Rowe
into the possession of a person named Bowson, and
from him into the possession of Messrs. Mayor and
Hazard, from them to Messrs. Hobson and Marshall,
again from them to Messrs. Boggis and Savage; a dis-
solution of partnership taking place between these last-
named parties, the bill was filially passed into the hands
of Savage, the plaintiff, in the present action.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN now moved to obtain a rule
to shew cause why the •erd;ct which was found for the
plaintiff should not be set aside and a new trial granted,
on the ground that the evidence which had been pro-
duced at the trial had gone to shew that no value had
been given by the parties for the bill in question, and
that the verdict had been returned contrary to the
opin'on of the Lord Chief Justice.
The Loan Curar Justice said the vtrdict had certainly been re-
turned contrary to his directions, and be was surprised at it.
The rest of the Court were of opinion that this was a sufficient
cause to grant a ruk for a new trial.—Kule granted,
Nommen 2.—Sraccut Jos:.

soughs a rearoms.
Verdict for the plaintiff. _The defendant was associated with the
St. Patrick Insurance Office, one of the Irish underwriting Com -
panics; established during t►e mania for Joint Stock Companies; the
claim was for an average on the ship Indian Trader, on a voyage
from Quebec to London.

COURT OF CONDELEGATES, Nov. 9.
No business of the least importance was transacted in the Court
thi► day.

NAVAL IN fELLIGENCE.

—ono—
Rumour's. Nov. B.—Wind N. to N.N.E.—Sailed the Flushing.
Kos, , for Lisbon.

PLisamsms, Nov. B.—Wind N.N.W.—Arrived the Brunton,
Haaver, from St. Juba's, Newfoundland.
Poansiousw, Nov. 9.—Wind N. to N.8.--Passed by. she
Orbit, Fuu, from Baltimore • Ind the Betsey and Sophia, Gals.
noway, from London for Dominica.

Drag., Nov. 9. —Wind N.N. W.—Remains, the Robinson,—,
from Malaga. Passed by front London, the Montrose, Romaian,
for Trinidad ; Briton, and Breadalbane, %anon for Ja-
maica; and the Governor Haikett, Casa, for Sierra Leone.
Gaavnlxo, Nov. 9.—Arrived from St. Petersburgh, the Dry-
dens, TAYLOR.; Hindostan, LAMB; George and Ann, Cams;
Sappho, Warta ; Mary, 811711111121• and the Wesleys, Tamar.
Also, the Nancy, Boone, from Archangel; William, M‘Kensiz,
from Wismar; Thompson, Azar. from Rostock; Fortuna, TAW
rya, from Allan ; Lord Abercromby, &reit, and Phenix, Oman,
from Copenhagen; and the King of the Netherlands, &Amu,
from Rotterdam.—Sailed the Briton, Forman, for Jamaica • Fez,
Wang, for Malta; Glory, From and London, Gam, for Rotter-
dam ; Fame, HAvemt.o, and Stapler, auxins, for Hambnrgh ;
and Bruce, Sng, far Sc. Lucia.
Lrezaroot, Nov. a.—Arrived the Dorothy, Drama, from
St. John's. Newfoundland. Sailed the Jane, fivivmrson, for Tam-
pleo • and Lyeurgus, Caawaraao, for Charleston. The Cynthia,for Barcelona, which was on shore on Hoyle Bank, has been got off,
and brought into the River leaky, and with loss of fodder.

Lord RODNItY, accompanied by his mother, the Dow.
eget Lady RODX11; have arrived at Kiley, on a visit to their rela-
tives, Mr. and the Hon. Mrs. llama%

Dispatches arrived at Calais 'on Tharsday evening,
from loved °Lamm; addressed to Mr. Secretary CANIMIO9 which
were given by his Majesty's Consul, at Calais, in charge to Mr.
Wirt" his Secretary, who proceeded in an open boat, at eleven
o'clockat night,with them, during a heavy gale, and delivered them
to the Agent of Packets at Dover, having landed at that place at
lye o'clock the next morning, from a pilot boat, through a tre•
mendous surf, which nearly swamped the boat. Mr. WTI& M.
turned the next evening to Calais, via Boulogne, in which poet the
vessel was obliged to take shelter, the wind being too violent to al.
low of her attempting to enter QM. harbour.

CORN EXCHANGE, MARK-LANE, Nov. 10.
The Meiling trade is lively this morning, and line samples of
Wheat obtained rather better prices than on Monday; but there is
no amendment in the prices of the middling qualities. Floe malting
Ruin is also free sale at Monday's quotation.; but the grinding
qualities madame to hang heavy on the stands. Oats are is. per
quarter dearer, and rather free sale at that improvement. In other
articles there la no akeration.

SMITHFIELD MARKET. Nov. 10.
The top price of the beat Beef is quoted at 4s. 10d, per stone;
and the inferior is ss. Gd. to 4s. 2d. per atone. In Mutton, ins
young Downs are quoted at 41. 4d. per steno; and coarser Sheep
Ss. SI to 4s. per stone. Vealit tolerably steady at Gs. pet stone for
the best young Calves; and 4s. to 4s. Gd. per stone for the coarser.
In the Pork trade the variation is of little moment, dairy-fed Pork.
era are quoted at Si. to Si. 4d. per stem; and larger cues at 4s. to
4s. Gd. per do.—Beasts, 930; Sheep, IMO ; Calves, 190 ; Pip, 122.
Beef, per stone, 41. to 4s. 10d. Mutton, ss. id. to 4s. 4d. Veal,
44. to Si. Pork. 41. to Gs. 4d.—Hay, per bad, Al 10s. to AS's..
Conlon 101, qsa ; &raw, 41 10s. to Ll las.