Star.
London, England, 1826-03-24 00:00:00

ADDRESS TO THE THRUSH.

Welcome, welcome, speckkd strangers
Lovelfharbinger of spring ;
In my garden, free from danger,
Gladly do I bear thee dog.
Thy wonted haunt, the van:tided billy
Is from other tenants free;
Rest, sweet bird, for t'would be folly
Not tolodge again with me.
In my garden, free from sadness,
Then shalt pour the cheerful song.
Whilst thy mate, with mother's gkdneis,

Tends upon her callow young.
Bea In peace, no hand shall scare thee,
Thou no cruel boys may at dread,
And my babes, who toye to hear thee,
Rv'ry morn shall bring thee bread.
OE the bounty Heaven has granted
I a part on thee will spend;
Oft, sweet bird, like thee re wanted,
Bet, unlike thee, found no friend.

LAW REPORT.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAWR U.
CHELMSFORD BANE.

IN Till UATTAIR OP SIIISSIL9. SPARROW AND CO.
In the court* of the morning, whilst some Bankrupt
Petitions were argued, an application was made
by Mr. Dunn for an order of the Court to execute a
Commission of Bankruptcy, which had been issued
against Messrs. Sparrow and Co. in the country instead
of London. The Learned Counsel stated, that there
were two banking establishments carried on by Messrs.
Sparrow and Co. the one at Chelmsford, and the other'
at Braintree. The latter place was distant from London'
shore than forty miles, but the former came within the
prescribed limits permitted by law for having a county/
Bankruptcy Commission executed in London. The ob-
ject of the application was to avoid the expense of bring-
ing persons up to town to prove their respective debts,
the principal number of individuals having claims on
Messrs. Sparrow and Co. residing at Braintree, Cheline
ford, and the vicinities.
His Houma granted the order on the terms sought.
The Court, at rising, adjourned to the 4th if April.
1111111111
ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
YORK, Manes IS
DOWilt v. ALLINSON.
Mr. &ARVID! said, this was an action to recover
cox apenation in damages for a malicious libel,which the
defendant had published, reflecting on the conduct and
reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was an attor-
ney and tole noclerk of Beverley, and it happened be had
been professionally engaged by a Gentleman of the name
of Cox. to attend the magistrates of Hull, in certain
proceedings *hick bad been instituted against Cox
under the corn lawn. The plainta anxious that a pro-
per Itaelllent should appear in the newspapers, called
on the defendant, who was proprietor of the shahs Peeks!,
and procured from Mitt a copy of the reporter's notes
who bad attended the magistrates for the purpose of se-
outing a proper account of the proceedings. *thee
vainly, however, the plaintiff and 'Mr. Cox. not think-
hag the matter of safieieat importance to requite their
interference, had laid the manuscript aside. On' the
11th of October, 1825, the following paragraph sp•
purest in .tha, defendant's newspaper—" To Correa-
peudeists." If the Maa of Letters does not return the
manuscript shich he got (tank our reporter, we will
bower him with a corner in the Hull Pocket, although
it should cost us 6s.Sti." In the paper of the succeed-
ing week, the iittack was renewed by the following pa-
ragraph The peitifming attorney B• • • bas
not thought proper to return our manuscript; we will,
therefore, relate an honest anecdote of this attorney for
the benefit of his clients,if he. has any." This annunciation
had alarmed a Gentleman of the name of Brown, as be
resided in Hull, and who was afraid his friends might
suppose he was .neant bythe initial "B." he therefore
called on the defendant, and in consequence of his re-
monstrance the defendant had in the next week's parr
inserted another, notice to this effect t—" For the credit
of the profession, of state that the Mr. B. alluded to in
our former numbers, does not belong or reside in Hull."
It was for these libels the plaintiff sought to recover a
reparation in damages from the defendant.
Mr. Uto n, an attorney, stated, that in consequencei
of the. two paragraphs in the Hull Packet, alluding to
B • ! t, he had waited on the defendant, and remon•
strated with him, the neat week the third paragraph
appeared. Witness had understood, from what had
passed between him and the defendant on that occasion,.
'that it wits a Mr. Bower, of Beverley, the present plain-
tiff. who had ken alluded to, and in .consequence, on
a subaquent occasion, be bad behaved with great cool-
ness to Mr. 13,wer.
Cross-examined by Mr. Baounuals—Vhen I called on the de-
ftnifiMt, he mid that Bower had unhandsomely got possesbion of the
aumuserlpt of his reporter. I did not know that Mr. Bower had
Whoa botereehe magistrates for fifty minutes on the corn law in-
torsizatiugs, and had not bawd from the piat.itia that be had weed
with the shun-hand writer to give hint a nudge when !di speech
',aim be taken-dolia—(A laugh).
Mr. Bramwell, deputy town clerk for Hull, proved the plaintiff
attended before rho gaaaistrates as the attoruey 1;K• Mr. Cox, in en
.
information ender the core laws.
)Jr. ffsounissas.—Did not )sir. Bower make a speech I... Yea.
• Mr. Cox proved accompanying' Mr. Bower to the
office of the defendant, and had there seen Mr. Allinson,
and Mr. Hamilten, the editor of the paper. Front what
paised on that occasion,he had no doubt that the plain.
tiff was the person alluded to is the libel.
Mr. Biouonatat, for the defendant, observed, thathe
did -not possess the extraordinary power of countenance
enjoyed br his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett); be would
not pretend to treat this cause with stela gravity. No
injury whatever had been sustained by the' plaintiff. as
as attorney, for throughout the whole transaction he bad
nest appeared as an attorney, he had been only solici-
tcys about the publication of that speech which had cost
him so much labour, and which had impressed the
worthy deputy clerk of the town of Hull with so un-
favourable on opinion of its length. Mr. Scarlett had
I been anxious to rescue his client from the suspicion that
.litspad gone about to secure, the appearance of his
i apeech in print, and no doubt it would have been well
for the plaintiff if that had appeared to be the case ; for,
the speech which bad tired the clerk, had certainly wea-
ried the magistrates; big there was no reason to believe
that B, with three asterisks, could mean Bower; it
might mean bore, or boar, or bear; and he submitted
that the plaintiff had not been injured, and was only
entitled to 6s. Bd. mentioned in the supposed libel.—
' Virdict to: the plaintiff—damages one farthing.

114k1161170i1e Mg. v 1/14,
Mr. Homa' stated that this was an action broeght
by Mr. Thomas Hall Vaughton, a Gentleman of pro-
perty residing at Winderley, in this county, against the
Rev. Thomas Cotton Fell, a Clergyman and Magistrate
of Sheen', residing near the plaintiff; to recover a com-
pensation in damages for a libel contained in a letter, of
which the following is a copy :
" Ste—l think proper to inform you, that you are this day con-
victed in the penalty of eve pounds for sporting, without being
qualited, and after the scandalous false oath or oaths with which,
oa a former occasion, you attempted to prove a lualification, you
must expect the regular move of law from me. There is another
information against yon, and I have granted another summons.—
As you was not here to-day, Mr. Payne will wait upon you in a
summary way to-morrow, and there will be a separate order for
costs afterwards.—Your bumble servant,
" March 11, 11124. " T. C. FELL."
Mr. CLARK& stated the case. In 1824, a dispute
happened between the Rev. Mr. Roberts and the plain-
tiff (form:rly friends), and Mr. Roberts lodged an in-
formation against Mr. Vaughton, for sporting on his
manor—pa privilege which had previously been granted
to Mr. Vaughton, who had, in his turn, permitted Mr.
Roberts to sport upon his own. The inform ttion was
ostensibly lodged by Oxford, a labourer, in the service
of Mr. Roberts, 14th of January, 1824. Mr. Arnold,
Mr. Vaughton's solicitor, attended him to Mr. Fell's
house, where he accidentally saw Mr. Roberts. Mr.
Fell, who kept no clerk, refused to let Mr. Arnold be
present as Mr. Vaughton's attorney, and ordered him to
quit the room, observing, " 1 never permit an attorney
to be present here." This shewed that the defendant
was grossly ignorant of his duty, for the attorney had a
right to be present. Then the witnesses were ordered
out, and the first thing Mr. Fell did was to propose to
swear Mr. Vaughton, and he insisted on examining him
on oath. By the advice of Mr. Arnold, who was just
admitted as witness, Mr. Vaughton refused to swear.
Mr. Fell then adjourned the case, and notice was given
that the information was abandoned. He afterwards
jutted a summons, directed to " Thomas Vaughton,
of the parish of Winderley." Now. he (Mr. Clarke)
was a Magistrate, and some of the Jury might
be Magistrates, and they would probably agree
that it was not their, habit to insult people in this
manner. They called them " Mr." or " Esq." and he
should like that a general rule should be laid down that
no man should act as a magistrate who did not know
how to act as a gentleman. On the 17th of February,
the defendant served a notice on Mr. Vaughton and his
solicitor, to appear before him and produce the title
deeds of the plaintiff's estate. This notice was mitten
by the defendapt; for be appeared to do all the business,
of clerk himself, and, he supposed, took the fees for so
doing. It was the first time he (Mr. Clarke) had heard.
that a Justice could call for title-deeds ; and it was a
proof of ignorance on the part of the Magistrate to issue
this summons. Neither Mr. Vaughton nor Mr. Arnold
attended. This information was also,abandoned, and
on the 23d of February another summons was issued,
which, by the advice of Mr. Smith, a respectable soli-
citor, the parties neglected; Mr. Smith engaging to
pacify Mr. Roberts. A conviction, however, took place,
and Mr. Smith was so mortified that he paid the penalty
out of his own pocket. The conviction was afterwards'
quashed iq the Court of King's Bench. Mr. Fell thought
&to notify the conviction to the plaintiff in the letter
which constituted the libel, ,which was addressed to
"'Thomas Vaughton, of Witherley." Mr. Arnold con-i
centring the expression respecting false oath or oaths,
inietfitifer to him, applied to Mr. Fell by letter, in-
italikiss whether the observations allti;led to him, or
so any thing he did or said on the occasion referred to.
Mr. Fell returned the following reply
• " Esse..lly absence in London, Last week, prevented my giving
an earlier alineer to your letter, and now I can only say that as the
truth is a libel, and I don't like telling lies, I remain your bumble
.savant “ T. C. FELL."
_ _ _

" suppose you are aware that I had two affidavits of
Mr. Smith's that the *Was value of Arley Wood communibits
Me* or (as Mr. Smith's first affidavit expresses it) without
properly or unreamoably cutting down the timber,' is SOL per year."
Was this the sort of language to be employed by a Ma-
gistrate? He called on the Jury to mark with their
censure the conduct of the defendant. Power misap-
plied was a most fearful engine: and he trusted that
the Jury would think this case one of that nstore.

Klkiglite was heard on the case; and bit VAlliinAll spoke for
the defendant
The Learned Jonas left it to the Jury to say, whe-
ther the letter was sent by the defendant with the intent
that it should be read by other persons than the plain-
tiff. If they found in the affirmative, they were then
to consider whether the matter was libellous. His,
Lordship was of opinion, that the words 66 after the
scandalous false oath or oaths with which you attempted
to prove a qualification,".amounted to a libel, as it
Imputed subornation of perjury. As to its being a pri-
vileged communication, had Mr. Fell said this at the
time of hearing, the case might have been diff.trent
the present mode of communication was unnecessary,
and not, in his opinion, a privileged one. At the same
'time, the plaintiff had, as tar as the evidence went,
made it public to his own prejudice.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages .es.
At these Assizes, an action was brought, CRAVEN V.
Rusnwoatir. The circumstances of the task were these:
—Mr. Rushworth thought proper to bring more than,
one gui Min action against the plaintiff for sporting
without a qualification. One of these actions ought to
have been tries at tise last Spring Assizes, but Mr. Rush-
worth countermanded the notice of trial. The plaintiff
had on that occasion been entitled to the costs of
the day, for aot proceeding to trial; and, in,
order to obtain them, was under the necessity of making
an affidavit, stating the sums which had beer paid to
the witnesses. In die affidavit a sum of between eight
and nine pounds was stated to have been paid to a per.
ion named Mitford; and because Masud had not
actually received it at the moment when the plaintiff's
affidavit was • made (although it had been paid to a
person appointed by him to receive it), Mr. Rtisbworth
preferred an indictment against the plaintiff for perjury.
Fearing, however,. that Mittord might not be bo useful
a witness as he wanted, Rushworth was at the trouble.
of putting on paper the questions which were likely to
be asked, and the answers which were to be returned to
them, and bad actually sent
.a list of thom gees.
tions to the Grand Jury. The Foreman of the Jury
had sent back the list with indignation, and the bill of
indictment had been thrown out. Mr. Ilushworth then
proceeded to Beeerlei Quarter Sessions, and preferred
the same indictment, adding his own name on the
back of the bill as a witness. The bill was again thros►n
out; and two days after the same bill was presented at
the Quarter Sessions at Hull, and was a third time re-
jected. Still the prosecution had not ended, for Mr.
Rushworth had given his witnesses notice to proceed to
r Pontefract Sessions and had declared that he a ould
present the bill at every Sessions, until he found a Jury
who would entertain it.
After evidence bad been called to substantiate these facts,an o-

j mien wnl taken to the itltieelltillt, MI whir* se a ihiterlal earl.
awe *Listing between the and the Record. The Learned
Judge admitted the shiest*, asd thealaintit was nonanlted.

DEATH OF LIEUTENANT CLOSE.

PURTFIRR PARTICULARS.

Mr. Close, son of John Close, Esq. of Manchester,
and an Officer in the 861 h Regiment of Foot, was sta-
Ititmed with his Regiment at Clonmell, in Ireland, where,
it seems, he had feinted an acquaintance with a young
Lady named Grubb, of very respectable family, about
eigneen years of age, and a member of the Society of
Friends. On the 26th of February last he left his quar-
ters, about eight o'clock in the evening, avowedly for
ithe purpose of walking with the young Lady, and they
were subsequently seen together near the side of the
river Stiir. From that time thef both disappeared ; and
as no tidings could be heard of them, a very general
idea prevailed that they had been murdered, as neither
of them appeared to have made any ',separation for an
elopement. Such was the degree of excitement which
this idea caused in the Regiment, that it was deemed im-
perative, as an act of prudence, and from a due regard
to the public peace, to remove it from the town. On
the e trliest intimation which Lieutenant Close's family
received of his disappearance (which was not until about
ten days after it had taken place), his brother, Mr. Tho-
mas Close, set off for Clonmell, and the most active ex-
ertions were used to ascertain his fate. It was not, how-
ever, until Wednesday lait, that the suspense and anxiety
'which had been felt on the subject were dispelled, by
the discovery of the body of Lieutenant Close in the
river, about a mile below, Clonmell. On examination
the body exhibited no marks of violence, and his watch,
and all the money he was supposed to have in his pos-
session, were found in his possession. An inquest was
held on the body on the following day, when, 'after a
long examination, the Jury returned a verdict of Found
Drowned.—The discovery of Lieutenant Closes body,
of course, led to redoubled exertions in search of the un-
fortunate young Lady, whose fate appeared to be con-
nected with h.s, and on Friday last, her body was also,
discovered in the river, about three miles below Cloa-
mell. It was also entirely free from marks of violence,
and she had evidently come to her death by drowning.
The manner in which this unfortunate pair got into the
river is still enveloped in considerable mystery. The
probability, however, appears to be, that the young Lady
had akcidentally fallen into the river, and that Lieute-
nant Close (as his hat was found on the bank) had thrown
hinvelf in, with the intention of saving' her life. Ile was
known to be an excellent swimmer, but was probably
prevented from availing himself of his skill by the young
Lady clinging to him in the water.