Star.
London, England, 1816-07-27 00:00:00

'ELUTION,

• •
Tllis morning, at eight o'clock, Or three 1611ot:ring
t ei sons were executed before the Deb:ors' 4 ,or of
Nett' ate, diz.—.ll'illianr Grtgortrand ,Iderbh re, for
forgery,' and Georgi Alsvezch, for uttering a timed •
Note. 'they. were . mach iinkessed with their
•
sitivittlh, and died with great resittiiition end w ou-
&riot coutposute.
..
Gregory; whose crime was, having sold the .sitm of
£23 Navy 3 per Ceut. Annuities Without proper en- I
thaiity. maintained his innocence to
,the last ; but
declaring that he forgave the Person. on whose evi- I
deuce he was condetnned. We. have ti•is morpingl
seen an affidavit by Elirtlattli Coward. /the wirnets
alluded to, stating that s!ie was to have be...n monied
t' Gregory; that it his so!icitation she had handed
him the stock receipt fur £25, intendio• , as she
could not then attend to sell same, that he should
raise some money on it; one which occasion lie pro-
mised to meet her on the following Sanday, w!:ieh;
railing to do,( is she now believes through mistake as
to the appointment) she experienced great chs tppoint-
ment ; and being applied to by 1 person connected with
t:.e Bank of Eogland to know it she bad consented to
the !.ranster, she, w,t.le mire' ing jealousy and si,eking
i rtvenge, and ignorant to the extent of punishment
attached to such an offence, readily became a wit-
ness, and deposed on the trial (as was really the truth)
that she had not given authot icy, for the said trinster,
thoU..ol: from su'asetitient citcornstances shebelieves
Mat Gregory must have understood that she
The arfidavit conclodes thus : Deponent further
saith, that since she has heard that the siid W. Gre.
g..ry is ordered tor e4ettition, etc baii telt the most
saele. tem r,e At bring the sole witii,•ss whose testi-
. minty had, in the ...itinth or anger, .losirned to an
tAn uninious end, a youth of re,pectaidu connexions,
and rat principles (independent of this unfortunate
transacti:n) the most pine and honour thle
that had he kept the b.lina: mention-[ engAgraient,
!:e would have avoided his aw.ul situatiou."— Sworn
the Public.Utkiee, Great Marlhorough-street.
Maycock, wildis: crime was uttering a forged
Bank Note, m tinta;sted to the last his own innocence
—denying that lie knew the Note to he a tor:yry.
Boycv denied any iitt,:ntion ut fraud in the iransac
tion I r whlich he sudete.l.

Ali t..e sitE•rers sevmed to detive great consnla-
tiori t: tom the :rtidls ut tha Chri',Aunt kel.gion ; and
.rte of ulem exi:ressed great conceit; tor a your;
man, lot metly condemned tu. die, but since reprieved,
4.litt I. feated'bvas nut impr,s,ed with the
tospo: tau.: of t:.est: truths. reqoesting that those who
attended him would tell him these were his last
wm.ls before tting thi; wo, Id.
cO.camscatsceex‘ited uncommon fr eliags among
t:iz s:wct.cotb: the tope with svbici Gtegory's hands
e.ure tied gave way just as Cie drop tell, and he rated
own, for a nintncot of two to his head. There was
coaversal scleam among the spectators of ;lie bight,
zspfc.ally the woolen.
somenhtt remarkable, that yesterday was
Maycock's wedding-clay ; that Boyce was tried on
1:3 marttage-uay ; anJ that this was the birth-d.ey of
Girgury, 'oho wits cx.ictly twenty-lour when he died.

L AW INTEL!: 10A WE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCti, JULY 3a.
NASII AND OTHERS Sh KAY&

This wasan action to recover the su m ref £37! 3s. 2d.
the amount of gliss gods sold and delivered by the
plAialiffi to the dtleinlint. The defendant pleaded
iii abasement, that the promises alleged in the declA-
r .tion wcre jointly made by him and a person named
is:hit Beam:lnt.

IL appeared that the plaintiffs *ere glass mer.
chants, and the defendant the Captain of the Mar-
Lf•tioness of Ety Indiainan. The plaintiffs were.. its
the habit of supplying goods to the defendant at
ferent for his own private investments to China.
In the selection of the goods purchased, he generally
employed Mr. Beaumont. the Purser of the India.
man in 'question, who, (tons his skill and judgment
the choice of goods for the Oriental market, was best
to make the proper purchases. On the pie.
.sent occas.ii, it appeared "that Mr. Beaumont or-
dried the goods in question etpressly un at'count of
the defendant. Upon the del:vary of them at the
East-India Wharf, Mr. Beaumont gave the plaintiffs
his proniissory note, payable tweride months after
date, signed as agent on account of the dal,idant.
This now,- before it became due, was retired by an
acceptance of a broker, n.tmed Howdah who was
made the depository of a quantity of indigo', in which
' the defendant and Beamnont, the Purser, were jointly
interested. This acceptance having been afterwards
dishonoured, in consequence of the insolvency of
Howtlen, the plaintiffs resorted to their original re-
medy against the defendant, against whom. the pre-
sent action was brought. Soon after the commence.
ment of the action, the defendant called upon the
plaintiffs, and expressed his regret. that they should
have proceeded to'such extremities against him ; but
although he was advised by his Solicitors that the ac
non could not be sustained against him singly, yet he
was satisfied that he alone was responsible, and would
take means of putting the accoucc into, al train of
settlement.

The question was, whether, under these circtitn-
stances, the defendant was alone liable, or whether
there was not, in tact, a joint interest in thew goods
between the defendant and Beaumont ?
Lord kuvisortovou was of opinion that the evi.
deuce fen short of sbewing that there was any oth.r
person interested in the gnosis than the defendant ;
tor it the wituesws were believed, wit appeared that
Beaumont had acted solely as agent fur the defen.
JAW in this transaction.

The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found a
verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, £372 3s. 21

STRICKLE V. CARTER.

This was an action against the defendant, as a
stage coach owner, fur negligently driving the Hert-
ford stage, whereby the plaintiff; who was an outside
passenger, was thrown off and fracterad his knee. It'
appeared from the evidence, that the defendant was
the driver and owner of the Hertford coach, called
" The Coach of Ease and Safety," And that in the
coarse of last winter, the plaintiff took a place on the
outside ler the purpose of being carried trom Hen-
ford to LondOn. The vehicle arrived in safety until
it reached Cornhill, when unfortunately two of the
wheels were suddenly jolted intq one of the kennels,.
when the coach was overthrown, and the plaintiff