Star.
London, England, 1827-12-11 00:00:00

Inuits. Aft.r some Itesicasini,,.Fitt a.cerii el to thil pet
posal. He played in tl,e M.% ing• December. He
p.rid, through my h.-i.t..s.ts.• in the t.easur v,
B.lturdav af er fices,vd, .1 3,e 1,41 11;m say hr
1114 d aced In fichlysiihiefialrthiiilig lei. fi• st enr a em er.t.
and that lie shoulrl.be-Ait I re.. v., horn the Theatre
scion as he could, as he had rerei,eJ only 18 l. that
se ',son, the Feat Arm he had et ei• 'received for a season
".ince he had been in the profession. lle asked me
whether his services were hkety to be wanted longer.
46 he was anzious to go away. On this question 1 re
(erred him to Mr. Kemble. He never claimed to be'
allowed to play the number of nights contracted in the
first engagement. He took
~his benefit on the 25th of
May. 1 paid bim the balance of his benefit the day
.fiet,...11. WAS about 3.51.
Cross•ezarnined by Mr. PoLt.occ —The amount of
a belleti's receipts depends much on the popularity of
the performer. T heard Mr. Sinclair lament that he
had not, been oftener employed. I never heard him

A. Olivier--I am deputy tre,suter. I have heard
Mr. Sinclair say on one occasion, that he was very

foolish in nit having come soon enough to fulfil his
engagements, as he had mule less that year than any
he bad been in the profession.
Mr. I;aOUGHAN, in reply, denied that he had in his
opening founded his ctse on Mr. Sinclair's popularity
as is performer. He had merely put the question be
teen the Intl ties, as one between man and man. He

Jid not waive, on the part of hilelient, the first con-
tract—the refusal of the defendants to let him go to
Mr. Arno d proved their wish to se.effr® their contract.
Yet when Mr, Sinclair wiabed to claim compensation
from.theny.isecording to that contract, then they held
themselves flee Wm it, though they at the same time
held him boiand to his part of it. Now this was con-
,chict which the Jury would that day condemn by giv•
lag their verdict for the plaintiff:
..4 seed Tartrentaza instructed the Jury that there
Could be 110 doubt the first engagement bad been en-
Aeredinto, and as little that the plaintiff had failed to
pesforrn it. The only ground, then, on which the Jury
could d tide for the plaintiff on the first engagement,,
was on proof that the deferdants consented to waive
Isis.nouperfornsance of it. As to the engagement bind-
Ang the dit'endants to employ the plaintiff a reasonable
Number of nights, though these was no direct proof of
such engagement in law, yet, if the circumstances stated
should.satisfy them of its existence, they might take it
f.ta fact, and find for the defendants.

Tb. Jury consifered aft w minutes, and then returned
it verdict fcu the defendants.
:11;* •erdict in the for met trial was for the plaintiff:

1. THE WINO V. COMM.• '
The defendant was put on his triat el an indictment
charging him with perjurT.
Mr. GURNEY, with whom were the COMMON SIR-

GIANT and Mr. BRODERIP, conducted the case on the
part of the. prosecution.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. ADOLPHUS de-
fended the prisoner.
Tile facts, though spread over much time, and com-
ities:me emery witnesses, were reducible substantially
,Inureires following brief statement :
A miner and gilder. named Smith, brought an ae-'
lion last year to recover from a Mr. Peach the amount
of a claim for regilding certain frames of pictures be-
longing to Mr. Peach. Mr. Peach resisted the claim, ots,
the grouud that he had never given any order or autho•
rity to the plaintiff to legit,' the frames in question. WI
Smith brought the tale to trial. On the trial, a person
named Coppard, apple:nice to Mr. Smith, deposed that
having gone to Mrs. Peach's house for some tea ttays,with
Nelson, a workman, he heard Mrs. Peach, in a conver-
sation which she had with him and Nelson in her draw-
ing-roons, giving directionalor the regilding of the p;e.
cure frames. Nelson stated the same thing-on the trial.
On this evidence the Jury on that action gave Smith a
yet dict of abour 7001. being nearly the amount of his
demand. Mr. Peach has iince that lodged indictments
against tbosiOtwo witnesses, Coppers! and Nelson..
charging that their assertion, that they held a converse-
lion with Mrr.-i'each on the suhjrct in the drawing
room, was a wilful and corrupt falsehood. The indict-
ment against Coppard was tried this day. Mrs. Peach,
Mr. Peach, Mrs. Chester, their hoosekeeper ; Eli-
zabeth Mackenzie, a housemaid ; and Barker, a butler,
,all swore point blank that the men, Coppard and
l'ilelson, never were in the drawing room of Mrs. Peach
,off the day in question, and that these men had no
limes; view or conversation whatever with Mrs. Peach
ton the soil ject. On the defendant's side, Nelson
(boli is •also indicted on the same charge) depo,ed,
' that Mrs. Peach held the conversation in question
o¢ him him and: Coppard in her drawing room; and
ahoy named 'Forret stated, that he saw Mrs. Peach
go op stairs to the drauing room, in company with
COpi aid and Nelson. Several decent persons spoke
bighly of .the defendant Coopaed's integrity and habi-
;mll onset ranee of truth.
t•i; Tim. ATTORNEY GENERALGENERALtook several legal objec-
,Simi to the vial of the case, which were overruled by
'by the Chief-Justice,
bars: Ouarrav on one side, and the ATTORNEY Ge
NEJkAL n the opposite, advocated the cases of their
1 • .. .
respective cue at
.s with their usual sonny.
ror4;llM/panaii having repeated the evidence, the
'Jar deOared,the defendant-Not Guilty. •
COURT 011,-TOISMON PLTtiAS, Gousuati, Dm. is.
Singer) atter idiettaarnas Term before Jr. Junkie Cassias and
, connweill Juries
THOMAS. RING Vs HOOTING AND ANOTHER. •
' This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff
arum the defeadinti,WhO are Sheriff,' officers. for a
Use attest and imp, isonment. It appeared that the
plaintiff tnson-Shrorr et named William "King, against
whom process had been issued. the executon of which
wan intiostecHabthe defendants, and they accordingly
proceeded to his house, in the Mile End road, and de-
livered a letter directed toWilliam King, informing him
that the beater had some intelligence of importance to
impart to him. This letter came into the hands of the
plajatiff, Thoasas King, and he opened and having read
thecontents, came out of the homer and was imme-
riiately. arrested by the defendants, on the supposition
,that-besvas.the right person. The plaintiff, however,
inforrnedthem that his mime was Thomas, and that the
person detcribed in the- writ was his brother. To this
ase ,defendants paid no attention, saying he was" the
person win) appeared to answer the letter, and coming
oist of the house convinced them that he was the
puson they wanted. Ti•e plaintiff then appealed to
41,1, acquaintance who was standing by, to say if his,
,p.ame was not Thomas ? and he replied that it was.—
All remonsttance, however, was vain, for the defend-
ants thought the plaintiff was only practising ,a trick,
upon them, and they accordingly insisted on' taking
him tota,kick-up house in Carey-street, which they did
with. eppsiquention to his feelings—not follOstingclose
at hiirbeefkor thrusting him into a hackney• Coach, as
Was,fzegisently 4one: on the contrary, they followed'
him at'a considerable distance, and allowed bins to

atop and speak to a friend without intttr¢ing themselvesl
upon hits. Having got him• to Computed, one if