Star.
London, England, 1821-12-08 00:00:00

BOX ING.

The apperoaching great battle between Hickman (alias Gas)
and :Vane, of Bristol, appointed for Tuesday neat, will, it is un-
derstood among the Fancy, take place in Chilton l'alk, near
Hungerford, &Ike.
James Summer, who had his jaw rrarkeri, and was otherwise
dreadfully beat in a milting tes"leh, in White-Cooduit-Fields, on
Wednesday, lies dangerously ill in the i►liddlesex Hospital.

LINES
ON HEARING A ROBIN SING IN CHURCII
DURING DIVINE SERVICE.

While grateful crowds their wady homage pay,
And heav'nly cbauutings hail the sacred day—
While the loud organ's note responsive swells,

And the wrapt soul in muds attention dwells—
Say, little Robin, Winttri sweetest bird !
Shall thy small twitter wallies notes unheard.?
Shall the pure offering of thy native song
Uubeetlecl pass the prouder strains among?
Ah, no! lone iongsuess„ humble though thy notes
Though small the tribute of thy warbling throat;
Yet, in Her eye, who marks the sparrow's fall,
Who, ever present, reigns the Loan or Ate ;
To Hut, the feelilest sting, the simplest prayer?
To find an audit, needs but be sincere.:
Nor 'midst the skilful tones of human art,
Will Its o'crlook the incense of the heart ;
But ever deign to lend a gracious ear,
Thy hymns and matte, sweet mot alist, to hear
_ -

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER 7.

---
HOWARD AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY.

RI-PARTE. GRtMSTRAD.
Mr. HART stated, that this. was the Petition of
JosephValentineGrirastead, and prmed that an early
day might be fixed for the hearing of his Petition,
and that the order for the choice of Assignees might
be stayed until the hearing had taken place. He
should not now do more than merely open the peti-
tion, as the Commissioners always gave a fortnight's
notice, and as the day for hearing petitions was the
20th, the Commissioners would be able to inquire
as to the prepbnderating debt. That of his client was
02,821, and which had been admitted under the
former commission, though it had been rejected
under the new one.
The Vice.-Cnanceccon, noticing the prayer ofthe
petition,' said, the course he was disposed to take was
not to interfere on the present occasion, but to give
an opportuuiti to the party of proving the debt be-
fore the choice for Assignees took place.
Mr. Then the order made by your
Honour for a new choice of Assignees will imme-
diately issue?"
The Vics-CuriscEr.con..-44 Yes, my order will
of course immediately issue. The importance of the
case was not so much to the fact as to the principle
of the practice under the Bankrupt Laws. Let the
petition be put at the head of Me paper for the 20th."
The order for the new choice of Assignees. as di-
rected by his Honour on Wednesday, was then made
absolute, and of course issues accordingly.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, I)BeSSIBER 4.
wooLLee, zzaeArraix or woost.ze, sh,CIAXIS, ZW.&T
AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of trover. The claim was,
stated at £4OO.
Mr. BROUGH A!A introduced the
oraintiff, Mn.
Woolley, as the relict and executrix Walter Wool-
ley, of Clerkeewell. Walter Woolley was by trade
a brazier ; Clark, the first defendant, plied the call-
ing of a hair-dresser; the second and third defendants
in the record were an auctioneer and his clerk; and
the toot complained of arose out of circumstances
something extraordinary. Walter Woolley (in his
lifetime) loved and employed the defendant Clark :
he made a will, and named the barber his executor.
Clark's ambition was awakened; be felt, by anticipa-
tion, all the charms of office; and went so far (in the
fervour of his fancy) as to take upon him, presently,
state and dignity, and to meddle (even in Woolley's
lifetime) with the conduct of his affairs. But
ley did not like to be thus morally buried alive.—
That the friaeur should " so hunger for his empty
chair" di.plar.,ed him. Consulting his friends, he
found that a brasier (even after making a -will) was
not irrecoverably dead in law; and he resolved to
take steps for asserting his own existence. Now
Clark had Woolley's will in his keeping. Woolley
sent word that he wished to have the will back. Clark
told Woolley that lie owed him £4, and determined
to keep the will as security for his debt. Woolley
declared that he revoked the will. Clark did not
value the revocation a hair! - Woolley di.missed the
barber from his executorship. The barber defied
him, and refused to be cashiered. The will was a
will, and he (the barber) had it : he (the barber) was
executor, and executor he would remain. Placed in
this very singular situation—a living testator having
his will disputed by an executor—the plaintiff took
the obvious remedy : as he could not get back the
first will, he made a second. Of the second will so
made, Mrs.Woolley was executrix ; notice of its exe-
cution was given to Mr. Clark; and the testator
(having now nothing further to arrange) in due
course died. Upon that event the first defendant
spake. In vain were Mr. Woolley's dispositions pro-;
mulgated—in vain was his last will read over to Mr.
Clark. The contumacious barber, true as steel to
his original declaration, treated the second will as
mere waste paper, and proceeded to act as executor
upon the first. Prabat was applied for; and Mr.
Clark succeeded in obtaining it. The property of
the deceased was seized, and Mr. Clark put tt into
the hands of the second defendant, Kelly. Mrs.
NlTeolley gave notice to stay operations; but no at-
tention was paid to her remonstrance. She requested
at least that the goods might not be sold; but the in-
flexible barber sold them, even at a loss. At length,
by the vigour of Clark's proceedings, Mrs. Woolley
(Nir. Brougham said) was driven to proceed in her
turn. She caused the ill-gotten probat to be revoked ;
she obtained another to be granted to herself; under
that second and rightful authority she now brought
her action ; and sought reparation for her wrongs
from a jury of her country.
Mr.NoLAN appeared on the part of the defendants.
Kelly, he said, was an auctioneer ; the third de-
fendant was Kelly's agent merely ; and both, having
acted under a regular probat in the hands of Clark,
were (as he submitted) justified in what they had
done. With respect to Clark himself (Mr. Nolan
said), he should at once prove bone administravit
and, having applied all proceeds to the payment of
just and regular debts. that defendant could not stand
in a worse situation than executor de son tort.
The Lotto CNIEIJUSTLCIL differed Irons Mr. Nolan
as to the law of the case.
t.lr. NOLAN then addressed the Jury, and gave

es idence that the third-defendant.(Kelly, sen.) bad
taken no part in the transaction.
The Jury eventually found against Clark and
Kelly, jun. with £4OO damages ; subject to the opi-
nion of the Court upon the law, and to reference out
of Court as to the real amount of damage.
JUNE 7..--CLIAYSIAN V. HULL.
This was an action to recover from the defendant
compensation for the injury he had siiptained by the
careless driving of the defendant. The following
were the facts of the case, as proved on the part of
the plaintiffr—On the Ist of April last the son of the
plaintiff was returning from Kingston, about eight
o'clock in the evening, driving a light cart, in which
were himself, his mother, her sister, and her infant
child.` When near Wandsworth, and driving on his
own side of the road, at the rate of about five miles,
lan hour, he heard a carriage approaching him at a'
quick rate. He called out to the driver to keep on
his tight side, but instead of doing so, it appeared as
if he crossed over to meet the plaintiff's cart, and
almost immediately the shaft of the defendant's car.
riage (a chaise) struck the plaintiff's horse on the
neck, knocked him down, and the cart was over-
turned and bioken, and the hone seriously injured.
!The plaintiff, who is a dealer in beer, residing in
Pearl-street, Spitalfields, was obliged to hire another
,horse, whilst his own was under the farrier's hands in
consequence of the injury he had sustained. The
amount of hire was El. 4s. the farrier's bill was LI.
10s. and the repairs of the cart, the shafts of which
were broken, amounted to O. 9s. 6d. which sums the
plaintiff sought to recover by the present action.
The defendant, on his part, called witnesses to
prove that the accident occurred in consequence of
the plaintiff's cart being on the wrong side of the
road; that the defendant's horse, which was a very
valuable one, received a severe wound from the shaft
of the plaintiff's cart, which had entirely ruined him,
and that, in fact, the defendant was the person who
ought to have brought the present action, and not
the plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-1
wages, £5. 14s.—Costs, 40s.
IL LNG P. TOWNSEND.
Mr. GURNEY stated, that the plaintiff in this case
was a most respectable mercer, residing in Pall-mall.
The defendant had been in his employ as a porter,
and the present action was brought against him for
a malicious, slanderous, and false libel, propagated
by him for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff in his
trade. Amongst the plaintiff's customers was Mrs.
Barber, a celebrated dress-maker, in Pall-mall, with
whom defendant had lived previous to his coming
into the service of the plaintiff. In May, 1820, an
information was laid with the Customs against Mrs.
Barber for having contraband goods in her possession.
Her house was searched, and the officers during their
search, accidentally dropt a paper, which, on being
SileliVa to Mrs. Barber, she immediately knew to be
Townsend's writing. This led to a discovery, that it
was he who had lodged the information. Mrs. Barber
communicated the circumstance to Mr. King, who
dismissed the defendant from his service, and re-
fused to give him a character. Upon which he went
before the Lord Mayor, and swore an affidavit, in
which he stated that he lodged the information with
the knowledge and consent of Mr. King. This affi-
davit he took to Mrs. Barber, on whom it had such
an effect, that she withdrew the greater part of her
custom, which hid previously amounted to upwards
of £l4OO a-year, from him, and other individuals of,
the trade had done tile. same. For this false and ma-
licious libel the present action was brought.
Witness was called to prove these fact's, and that
defendant had declared that he lodged the informa-
tion of his own accord.
Mr. Cairn( then shortly addressed the Jury on
the evidence.
The Cuter Justice summed up, and the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £2O.
THE EING v. RUSPINI AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against Mr. Ruspini, and
two other persons, named Davy and Powell, for
A conspiracy to defraud Mr. Temple, a Pawn-
broker, in Manton-street. The indictment charged
them with conspiring to pledge certain property be-
longing to Ruspini, with the prosecutor, they, at the
time of doing so, well knowing a Commission
Bankruptcy had issued against that individual,
and being well aware that the assignees under that
commission, would reclaim the property, without
being liable to repay any part of the money, L.lO,
which bad been advanced upon it.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury, sad
called witnesses to prove, but from their evidence it
appeared that at the time the property in question
was pledged, although the commission had issued,
the defendants had good reasons to believe it would
never be worked, and that these articles were pledged
to prevent the necessity of working it, though ulti-
mately that hope failed.
The Cum Justice directed the Jury to find the
defendants Not Guilty.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DICCRMORR 7.
BEER AND OTHERS V. WARD, CLERK.
This cause occupied the whole of the day.
Mr. SCARLRTT opened the case of the defendaut
in a very long and elaborate speech, which lasted
nearly two hours ; after which much evidence was
into, the chief object of which was to establish
re act of a marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Cotton
subsequent to the birth of their two eldest children,
and, in support of this, a certificate of the martins
was produced, purporting to have been signed by
Mr. Sweetapple, a Clergyman; also the bond usually
entered into upon the occasion of persons married
by license was produced, and several persons called
to prove the hand-writing of Mr. William Cottok
and of a Mr. Reynolds, who was formerly a steward
to the Duke of Kingston, and who had entered into,
a bond jointly with Mr. Cotton.
Several exceptions were taken by the plaintiff's
Counsel as to the proof of the hand-writing of these'
parties; and much learned discussion took place.—.
It being nearly seven o'clock, it was agreed that the
further consideration of the case should be adjourned.