Star.
London, England, 1818-11-17 00:00:00

'YTS A. VICITE%

Ist—Mr. Robert Dundas's b. ar.d w. d. Vernon beat General
Zanga.
lld—Mr. Baron Clerk Rattrais Sophia beat Sir George
Clerk's Dart.

---
The sport during this nsee::rg was uncommonly good, and
the fields most numerous. On the first day, above two hundred
horsemen were preset t. Books., tom Mahon, gAvu mutts
satisfacuon u tryer.

"7",, sk I ErViirtegt-- 'f. . _.• . •
COURT OF CHANCERY) NOVEMBER 16.
In consequence of the very severe indisposition of
the LORD Cifflisreectos, the business of this Court
was necessarily put off. --
NOVEMTIER t 7..•
This morning the Court was again crowded by the
,different parties, in the hops that the Lono CHAN-
kittaost would be able to attend, but we are sorry to '
state that his Lordship's indisPihitioft IS severe-that
a Message was sent- tii th COurt from Ind Lordship,
intimating that he *mild not again take his seat there
until further notice; *rid sve since under-Wand that his
Lordship has passed a very indifferent night.
• COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, NOV. 16.
sbrifoi AND WIT RAILWAY CANAL COMPANT:
Mr. TAUNTON moved for a Mandamus against the
above Company, to compel them to repair, and again
lay down, a certain tram-road which they had suffered
to become out of repair. By Act of Parliament they
were nrdered to lay down certain roads, from the
Forest of Dean to the river Wye. hi consequence
of their having laid down one of these roads in a
certain direction, several Gentlemen had laid eiit im-
mense sums of money in opening collieries near the
said road; when the Committee of the Company
(nearly the whole of which consisted of proprietors
of other collieries) suffered the road in que,tion to
' fall into disrepair, and refused to renew it, for the
purpose of preventing competition in the coal-mar-
ket. Some of them had given other reasons for their
refusal ; but one openly avowed • his intention to de-
press any rival in the trade. By the Act of Parlia- •
ment, they had no authority to take up any road af-
ter they had once constructed it.—The Court granted
a Rule to shew cause.
PALMERS t 7. PARE:CRS.
This was an action on the case, brought by the re-
versioners of some coal-pits ; and the defence set up
was, that the action should have been in assumpsit,
and not in case.
Mr. TAUNTON, in showing cause why the verdict
for the defendants should not be set aside, and a new
trial be granted, went at great length into the evi-
dence, to shew that the defendants had done no act
which could be called a tort ; but were Jiahle, if
at all, under an agreement or licence by which !1:e
coal-pits had originally bean let. He admitted that
this agreement had been deviated from in many par-
ticolars ; but it had been deviated from by both par-
ties, from the very commencement of the lease up
to the present time, and with the full knowledge cf
the plaintiffs. The parties, he contended, had all
along been treating on the terms of contract ; and
,the husband of one of 'the plaintiffs being, at the
same time, occupier of the mine as tenant with the
other defendants, the plaintiffs could not but he
bound by what was done by one of the reversioners,
fur so this individual was, in right of his wife. Up
to November, 1817, money had been regularly re-
ceived, under the name of mine-rent. It was true
that the defendants had worked wider a certain pad-
dock, without measuring the size of the mine on the
surface, as they were bound to do by the agreement ;
but the agreement had been deviated from by both
parties: admeasurements or. the surface had never
been made in any one instance for twenty-seven years:
and the reason why the measurement was not made
on the paddock was, that the surface remaining un-
touched, there was nothing to be paid to the occu-
pier. He then endeavoured to shew that the plain-
tiffs knew that excavations were going on tinder the
paddock ; one of them having observed that the
houses on the surface had swagged.
Chief Justice Assort- seemed to think that the
evidence of the plaintiff having notice of these exca-
vations under the close was far from being clear, and
that they might be greatly prejudiced, if the surface
admeasurement were omitted, having no other means
of ascertaining the quantity of coals carried a-s•ay.
Mr. TAUNTON, aster stating that they might enter
the mine for this purpose, endeavoured to explain a
circumstance, that . upon one occasion the plaintiffs
were refused admission to a certain part of the mine ;
which was contrary to the agreement; but at' the
moment they were so excluded, they were.told that
excavations had taken place in the part they wished
to enter ; and it was only for . the purpose of giving
them this knowledge, that the clause of•entry was
inserted in the agreement : he relied on the circurir-
stance that the defendants had all along acted under
the agreement, and that tile plaintiffs had notice of
all their transactions: it would Le very hard, after
they had laid out large sums in engit,es and machi-
nery upon the strength of the aereement, that they
should at once be treated•as wrong-doers instead of
tenants, and all their money be thrown away.
Mr. PULLER, on the other side, contended that the.•
verdict was obtained, in consequence orthe direction
of the Learned Judge who presided; and.which he
insisted was much stronger than the facts warranted.
The Learned. Judge ha *told the Jury, that if the
plaintiffs were to recover in this action, all the money
the defendants had laid out on the premises for twenty
seven years would be thrown away. But, surely, if
the plaintiffs had recovered damages for injury doge •
to one paddock, it could not follow that an ejeetesent
would lie for the rest of the prettifies that passed un-
der the agreement. No rent had been paid 'for the
paddock under which the injury complained of had
been committed.
Chief Justice Aaao'ry said, there were coosidel--
able difficulties.in the case; and he thought it but
proper that it should go again before a Jury, to as-
certain certain points, upon which it did not stern
that very distinct evidence had been adduced.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ROVILTIER le.
The Court was occupied till after twelve o'clock in
hearing bail justified.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGH •
HARDRAM r. cistisTOP.
Mr. Serjeant Contra mentioned,• that in this case,
after reference to the Chief Justice, who had presided
at the trial, for it had been tried in Hertford at the
last Assizes, by a most respectable Special Jury, and
after full consideration of all the circumstances, they
felt no disposition to recede from the verdict of trx
Jury. He had not been aware that his Learned Bro-
ther, Serjeant Taddy, had obtaiaed a rule, till notice
was served. He was Su.-prized to find that the me
was founded, not upon an affidavit. but on the recor•l.
T.ie CLUNY JUSTICE said, that brother Taildylud
mentioned the case as shortly as it was possible.
Mr. "Serjeant TADDY, who had come into Court in

II

1

r

.. '

the mean time, stood now that he conceived it to be
the less necessary to detail all the circumstances, as
the proceedings and documents were published on
the other side. _

Mr. &rjeanr Con.ay.—Not by us.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY.--I mean only that they were
published, not by us, for we possessed not the do-
cuments.
Mr. Justice Panc.--I have it entered in my note-
book thus, Rule granted, with the special view of
a mutual compromise.
Cum Jusrica.--.The only question is the amount
of the damages, £4,000. The law says, if a man
cannot pay in his purse he must pay in his person.
If, however, a misrepresentation had been given of
the defendant's wealth, which misled the Jury, that
might he a good reason for a new trial. There was
;in affidavit by a certain person, he should say no
more at present of him, which declared his property
to be £2OO a-year in land. He had no doubt that it
was a gross case dh the part of the defendant.
M(. Set)eant TADDY agreed to take his rule on the
defendants affidavit.

• 000DCITILD V. COCURAN.
This case was tried before a Jury. The Chief Jus-
tice presided. The plaintiff is a glass-merchant in
London. The defendant is Master of the James and
Archibald, a regular trader from the Dumbarton
.Glass Company to London. The plaintiff had last
year received 30 crates of crown•glass, a considera-
ble part of which was in a damaged state. All the
glass on board belonging to others was quite safe.
'fly: action was brought to recover the damages,
which was afterwards agreed to be 1.10 from the
Ma :ter; on the ground that the damage was owing
to Lis negligence, in having iron pigs iiistead of sand
for ballast. Several witnesses were called on both
sides, but their evidence was beside the case. No
evidence was offered of the manner of stowage; pig-
wai proved to be as common as sand in that
trade; no evidence whatever of negligence oil the
part of the Master was offered.—Verdict for the de-
li:ad:int.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOVEMBER 6.
LEWES V. MuRGAti.
After the motions of the day had been gone through,
%lr. Rot:nelson (late tile plaintiff's Solicitor) rosy to
claim their Lordships' indulgence, in allowing him
to Make a few observations on the statement of this
cause in the Newspapers of Saturday last, whereby it
appeared that Sir Watkin.had attributed to the neg-
ligence of his Solicitors, (Messrs. ltoutledge and
]tardy) an attachment having issued against him for
not sooner putting in his answer to the defendant's
interrogatories.
Mr. Baron Gannow.s--This Court has nothing to
do with Newspaper reports; we cannot interfere.
Mr. Baron Gaittotm..--We can listen to no appli-
cation which does not come before us on aflidavit.
Mr. ROUTLEDGE.—I am ready to prove to your
Lordships that no negligence or blame is attributa-
ble to myself or partner, and therefore willingly SC-
crie to your Lordehip's proposition.
'Barons GRAHAM and G.ARROW.—The Court has
nothing to do with the statements in Newspapers ;
your only redress is by an action for calumny.
:Mr. ROUTLEDGE.—My Lords, I have no vindictive
feeling to gratify ; my sole object is to:correct any
irripuzations on our profeasional character, in the
winds of your Lordships and the public.
DEROGATIVE COLIIT, NO7EMBER it.
DAVIES v. I'ArtDOZZ. •
This was a question on thz adinis;ion of an alleea-
;ion in the above-suit. It appeared that Mary Da-
vie;, the deceased testatrix, had executed a will, bear-
Lig date the 10th of August, 1317, in which she ap-
pu!nted het cousin, Margaret Davies, spinster, her
ado executrix. It appeared from the deposition of a
:liss Morgan, who was in the habit cf visiting the
.ceased, that calliug upon' her some time in the
oionth of September in. the same year, at her resi-
d?nce in Long Ashton, near Bath, she found her in
Ler bedchamber, in a very disturbed state of mind,
at a table covered with papers which she was busily
engaged in destroying. She requested the deponent
to destroy the remainder. Miss Morgan, however,
in carryiug them irto another room, for the purpose
of burning them, reflected on the dangerous conse-
quences that might follow the execution of the de-
ceased's orders, and preserved such of them as were
n..t already torn up. Among the papers were the
ctutilated.fragments of the Will in question, which
were produced to the Court, totally illegible, and a
fr2morandum, of the nature of a testamentary paper,
.s.ich is entire. For this memorandum it was further
alleged, the deceased, on coming to a more com-
posed state of mind, made the most anxious inquiries,
repenting of the order she had given for the destrifc-
Can of writings, among which, she feared, was "
memorandum, signed and dated by her, describing
tl;,:t alluded to ; and testifying touch satisfaction at
learning it was s'afe. By it she left her wearing ap-
p trel, &c. to the wife of Pardon, who is her nephew
A hi next of kin; several articles of property as testi-
tr.onikls of regard and affection for certain friends;
only twoingaciss, one of £lO, and one of £‘2
Na bequest was made, specifically, of the residue of
l.er property.
-Ile memorandum was opposed, as an imperative
piper' by Dr. LuseINGTON, on behalf of Pardon, the
next of kin, who prayed that the allegation might be
rejected ; and, consequently, that the will and testa-
mentary scrips might be pronounced against. The
Learned Counsel proceeded to argue, that the paper
in question was not a perfect one, or one by virtue
of which the Court would decree probate of the
g. .ds and estate of the deceased. He contended:
rhat the deceased never meant it to operate as a sub-
stantial and independent paper, bequeathing her pre-
petty ; but that it was nothing more than an adjunct
scrip, relating to some former or other testamentary
d'spositiolu, which did not then appear; that this
i ict appeared strongly,• by contrasting it with three
ot,her papers before the Court; all of which (being
i-eleptions only of wills) began, " I, Mary Davies,
of such a place, do make this my last will and
t ‘nansent. First, I desire that all my just debts and
laseial'expenses," &e. Now this proved, that so far
from meaning by that memorandum to make a will,
the deceased, when about to do a formal act, did it
Formal manner; beginning first with her de-
and so en regularly ; and that she was
competent to this,. further evidence existed in the
1a ,er No.i.; in which she revoked a legacy of £lOO
kft to Mary Davies, and. another legacy is the paper

No. 8, both of them in a distinct and proper name.
(None of these papers were signed. or executed.) But
her cairn estimation or judgment of the memorandum
was clear from what occurred in her own hand-
writing at the bottons•of it, via.—" To the friends
specified in this Memorandum'." The Learned
Counsel then endeav to establish as certain,
that the paper could c°44be viewed as adjunct to
`some preceding one, or as.ehe Memorial of a future
will, on the following grotinds—that it only enume-
rated small article of no intrinsie-value, which dt-
ceased disposed of to her most particular friends;—
that, except the £l2 already mentioned, it contained
to pecuniary bequests ; that the residue was not dis-
posed of ; and that though Margaret Davies was
spoken of, relatively, as executrix, there was no ex-
press appointment of an executing in that memoran-
dum; frant whence he dented another strong infe-
rence, that it referred to some paper not before the
Court. The Learned Counsel, in conclusion, advert-
ed to the residue c observing, that it the paper were
iwonounced for, the whole of it mast go to Margaret
Davies. As to the state of her (the deceased's) mind
at the time of executing that paper, he was not aware
that the opposite Counsel could prove any thing for
their case from discussing that point. If she were of
sane mind, it bad been strewn she wished those pa-
pers, among which, clearly, was the former will,
should be destroyed ; and if the Court considered
that he had proved that the paper attempted to be
set up was really an adjunct one, it must of course
be devoted to the same fate, as being of a similar
tenour ; if she were of ur.sound mind, the Court
would be equally unable to pronounce for the vali-
dity of the will so destroyed. Ile should therefore-
pray the Court that the ;negation be rejected.
Dr. ADAMS, in reply, obse..ved, that the arguments
of his Learned Friend wo.ild seem to relate, not so
much to the admission of the present allegation, as
to the decreeing probate after that allegation had
been admitte.. Tne paper in question was duly
written, signed, and sealed ; and there rra:st be some-
thing of a very extraordinary r.ature in wills relating
to personal property, and its disposal, where these
requisites were not sufficient. The iniperf.e,:tion of
this memorandum had beer, stated to consist is this
—that it did not convey what the deceased intended
to convey. But it did not result, he maintained, from
a view of that paper, that it was her intention to do
any thing niare than appeared on the face of it. If it
were the testatrix's intention to make it an operative
paper, the circumstance of its being termed a memo-
randum could not invalidate its effect. That such
was her intention, was pretty evident, from her pre-
serving it to the day of her death, in October, with-
out having attempted to substitute any paper for the
will of Atiust, 1817, whose destruction she outlived
several da) s. Under these circumstances, he trusted
that the Court would not reject the allegation.
1)r. Doosox, on the same behalf, observed, that
if, as had been urged, the paper in
-question was only
a memorial for a will, it mould be difficult to ac-
count for the extreme anxiety of the deceased for its
preservation ; and that it had often happened, in the
absence of other teStatr:entaryalnaiments, that the
Court had pronounced ler the validity of such me-
moranda as the present.
The JUDGE here declared that. I:e would not this
day Elecide in this matter; and did not,,learn, from
the papers before him, what was meant by the ex-
pressions disturbed state" and " composed-stale of,
mind." The decree he should give would be mate-
rially affected by a knowledge of the sanity or un-
soundness of the mind of the deceased testatrix ; but
the law did not recog::ise the vague and indefinite
description just rueatioilt!d. lie, therefore, ordered
the .sth article of the allegaT'r”i to be correclad, and
assigned the cause for furtiler hearing on the next
Arches' day.

COURT OF KING'S nr.NcIT, I:LELAND, N0v.12.

CRIMINAL

Mr. VANDELEUR applied on the affidavit of Mr.
Ellis, Assistant:Barrister for the County of Mayo, for
a conditional order for a eriminalinformation against
Mr. Nevin for words intended to provoke him to
fight a duel. The affidavit stated that Mr. Nevin, at
a time when he was unknown to the deponent, had
accosted him en the highway in a violent manner,
accusing him of having taken a mean and base ad-
vantage of his sitdation, to injure and insult him
(Mr. Nevin): and went on to incite him to fight a
dud. The affidavit concluded with stating, that the
application was made wholly on public grounds._
R ule granted.
Mr. R. I'a.NNEFATIIER moved for a similar order
against Cornelius Mahon, on the affidavit of John
O'Connell Deponent was lately a member of the
Killarney Hunting Club—on withdrawing from the
club he borroned a pair of hounds from a Mr. Barry.
Mr. Mahon then wrote to deponent to say that the
hounds were his, and that alter this intimation, he
would consider that he acted in an indelicate and un-
handsome manner towards him if he continued to use
the hounds. Deponent called on Mr. Mahon for an
explanation of this offensive note, when he declared
that it was his intention thereby to give the deponent
personaLoffence.—Rule granted.
Mr. E. PENNEFATHER moved for a similar order
against a Lieutenant Watson, on the affidavit of Lcrd
Caher. The affidavit stated that during the late con-
tested Election for the County of Tipperary, while
Lord Caher was breakfasting at an inn in Clonmell,
Lieutenant Watson entered, and in a violent manner
required his Lordship to dismiss a Mr. Egan, one of
his Lordship's agents for the election, who he said
had grossly insulted him (Mr. Watson,) at Nenagh.
His Lordship referred him to his Committee, who
answered that the principals could not be answerable,
for the conduct of their agents during the election ;
whereupon Mr. Watson repaired to his Lordship and
ordered him to dismiss Egan within two hours; which
not being complied with, he procured an exceeding
offensive piper to be printed and placarded, and dis.
persed thi ough the whole county, calling Lord Caller
a coward—Rule granted.
Mr. PENNEFJCZUSA also moved for a similar order
against Mr. David Barry, on the affidavit of Mr.
Fetnam. The parties reside at Tallagh ; Mr. Barry
propagated a report that Mr. Fetnam had been en-
gaged in an affray, but denied the fact when interro-
gated by this gentleman. At a dinner party, Mr.
Feta= declared the report to be untrue, and that he
who made it had spoken falsely. This Mr. /terry
resented, by saying he would ram those words down
his throat. A mutual friend afterwards called on Mr.
Fetnam from Zdr. Barb to say that Mr. Barry would

aknowledge he had originated the report, and that it
was only in jest, if Kr. Fetnam would say he was
sorry for the words he had used. To this Mr. Fet-
nam agreed ; but on repairing to the appointed place,
Mr. Barry, instead of eatenn& into the stipulated
explanation, applied a horsewhip in a very rude way
to Mr. Fetnam's shoulders, and called him a coward.
—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IRELAND, Nov. 1L

BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

HARRIET CAILA, WIDOW, v. RICIIARD BIq:AMARA, ESQ.
Mr. DOOHERTY moved to chew cause why the de-
fendant, who had been arrested at the suit of the
plaintiff, under a writ for £5,000, should not be held
to special bail. The plaintiff's affidavit stated, that
she lived at 32, Upper George-street, Bryanston-
square, in the parish of Maryla-bonne, county of
Middlesex ; that in the year 1815, the defendant
entered into an agreement under his hand, to marry
deponent, and never live or cohabit with any other
woman, or on breach of such promise, to pay to de-
ponent the sum of £5,000 ; that defendant had since
married another woman, and consequently could not
now fulfil his agreement with deponent, and was
therefore indebted to her k the sum of £5,000. This
case, it appears by the information, has lain over
since October, 1815.

Mr. O'Comczt.t. contended, that as this affidavit
did not aver any mutuality ef promise or other con-
sideration, it was ao more than a promise, and not an
agreement; for a mere promise on one side, without
any consideration orfthe other, is but a nuclum paclum,
and no agreement, and therefore insufficient grounds
for the party to be held to hail ; -and farther, Mr.
O'Connell observed, that the plaintiff in her affidavit
only stated, that the defendant agreed to ma:ry her
at a future time, hot does not mention the
_precise
period. " Now," said Mr. O'Connell, "this same
Harriet Caila had been married herself, and is now
a widow, and at liberty to many Mr. M.Namara ;
how, therefore, can she say but that at some future
period he may become a widower, and be at liberty
to marry her? and if there was no time specified at
which this £5,000 was to fall due, how could they say
it was due now ?"

It was urged by Mr. DOGH£RTY, in reply to these
objections, that with respect to want of consideration,
the Courts generally inferred a mutuality of promise
in cases of promised marriage; that where there was
no time specifically mentie::ed for the fulfilment of
an :agreement, a reasonable time Ras usually pre-
sumed ; and as the execution of his promise, by the I
defendant, could not now be ejected ssithin such ,1
reasonable time, he being married to anpther woman,
he (Mr. I)ogherty) hoped the Court would allow

On Mr. O'CoNsrxes complaining of the hardship
of keeping Mr. M. Namara in prison,
" Inde.:l," said Lord NORHURY, " the unfortunate'
gentleman seems to he suffixing under a double cap-
tivity—he is a captive in the chains of wedlock, and
a captive within the bars of the Sheriff's prison."
Tha Court intimated a wi ill, that as the defendant
was a gentleman of fortune, his own recognizance
might be received ; but if not, the else being one of
great moment, and requiring much consideration, they
would hear further argument upon it on Saturday next.;

Maxstam Hoti'sv.—Yesterday a person, named
I3lie:, whose appearance evidently proved that he
had once known better days, and who described him-
sell to be a surgeon of a Greenland ship, was brought
up by a constable. ' He was found on Sunday even-
ing, in a state of great disttess, in the door-way of
No. 22, Poultry. When, taken to the watch-house,
he declared that he had not been wider any roof for
the three last days, and that he had spent the greater
part thereof in the fields between the Shepherd and
Shepherdess and the Britannia public house, at
Islington. He was, at the time he was taken into
custody, in great want of nourishment, and the con-
stable very humanely provided him with some bread,
cheese, and porter. He further stated, that he had
been out of employ for the last two months, that he
had neither friends nor relations in town, nor could
he gain any employment whatsoever,_although he
was very desirous to do so. His family, originally
resided at Chalbury, in Oxfordshire, but his mother
now lived at Abingdon, in Berkshire. In March, he
could get a situation in his old ship, but till then he
did not know in what manner he should obtain a
subsistence. He locked indeed the very picture of
d;stress.--Mr. Alderman SMITH observed, that this
was indeed a lamentable case ; but, notwithstanding,
he did not know that it was in his power to order the
prisoner any other relief than that which most people
of his rank of life would think equivalent to no re-
lief at all. He must commit him to Bridewell
seven days, and then order him to be passed on to his
own parish in Oxfordshire. It is only justice to the
Alderman to add, that he subscribed something to
the immediate relief of the prisoner, and repaid the
constable the money which he had'expended in be-
half of Mr. Blkk, at the same time complimenting
him on his humanity, which, he was sorry to ob-
serve, did not in general distinguish men acting in
his capacity.

Bow-STREET.—Yesterday along investigation took
place before Sir N. CONANT, respecting the breaking
open the Queen's Palace.—Colonel Stephenson came
to town from Windsor Palace to be present at it.
Mrs. Beckendorff, her Majesty's principal dresser,
also came to town from Kew Palace, the Queen hay •
Mg dispensed with her attendance, to ascertain the
[ property that had been stolen by the robbers, the
room which had been broken open, and the property
ir. it, being under the controul of Mrs. Beckendolff.
Mrs. Beckendorff gave a full statement of her disco-
very of the Palace having been broken open. Mrs.
Beckendorff stated, that she well knew the contents
of the drawers which had been forced open, as well
as all the property which was in the room, and which
was safe when she last left the Queen's Palace to at.
tend her Majesty at Kew Palace. She had yesterday
morning, since her arrival in town, carefully exami-
ned what was left in the drawers, as well as other
parts of the room, and she found very few articles
missing ; what were so wore of very little value, and
they were her own property, not the Queen's.—The
ladder by which the robbers entered the room be-
longed to the Palace.--No trace whatever can at
preser.t be made of the villains.
Lamarrn-STREET.--Yesterclay G, Arukisom was
charged on suspicion of uttering a forged note to J.
Wake'', a chz.winciPger, iR Fon

8ed....

Wakely asked Anderson 1,
the house Of a person who
did not lodge. He also sr
Mr. Honeyman, a master-cl
worked. Honeyman, whe
had ever paid the prisoni
therefore, were against the
however, appeared in the
and stated, that he had psi
he had received with sever
He had at first denied ha
note, because it was unpl
note traced to him. nor
and Anderson discharged,
rnising to pay his expenses.
UNION HAtt.---Yesterc
with uttering forged one
inst. the prisoner passed a
lord of the King's Head, in
he repeated that offence ;
tempted to pass a third not
discovered that those whit}
were forgeries, detained hit
fire-place, and thrust a pap
instantly consumed.—Mr.
131ackfriars-road, stated,
applied at his shop to purc
while Mr. Gregory was gc
the shop, leaving the note
hilly committed.

P.41:1SII APP

LT OTLITY OF MILITA
ItACkS TO TAKE 1' Al

TOWN lIALL, PLY3I-C

A question of great in.,
heard. Major-General Si
and Dr. Kein (Surgeon), a
residing within the Barrae
the Plymouth Division, ii
summoned by the Parish C
Parish Apprentices should
The Major-General and L
by the Magistrates,
Mr. EASTI.Ace I.cgan b:
a case of great LatioilA it
deep and serious con3idera
the present questiva wou
which would affect not tlk
many others, laulding sini
jesty's service. It as a r
never been attempted in a
till now. Mr. Eastlake pr
it was never in the coutem
and was contrary to the pt
of the military establishmel
a parish apprentice upon
by submitting to the Magis
land and Dr. Kein were no
apprentices placed upon th
The audience then reti:
deliberated for upwards
Court being again opened,
their opinion—that Genera
wete not liable to take app
This case excited mud
was crowded. It is under
cision will be api-..ealed ag
Sessions for the County.

CORN EXCHANGE,
CCaatat

Wheat, Kent and

Essex 72s lits
Suffolk 7os 80s
Noes& . . . 704 78s
Rye ...... ....... 564
Barley (New) sos 72s
Malt
White Peas ..... 6as

-, Boilcrs ... 76s 2636
Grey P 52. 70. 726

NENVGATE AND f.TC 40E14
(SY the '
4d to 44 8.6

Mutton 4s ad to 5s ,Sti
PR ICES or RAY AND ST
ST. JASITS.S.
Hay... 71 7s Od to SI Os Od
Straw 21 Si Od to 31 31 Od
Min:rat Os Od to S 1 Os 041

NEW RACib.

Kent 6l Os to 71 Ts
SUSiel 51 12s to 61 12s
E.:ex. Ol Os to 01 Os
Foreign 3l St to 41 4s
• COAL MAR'
Ships at Market. Shlps
131 Newcastle 4
3 Sande'land 0

B113:1
Saturday sennight, the wife of
No. se, Btidgegate-street, 6lasgt

Thursday w'nnight at taglesEs
weaver, of three female childavu.

151 E

On Thurptiay last, at an advanc
at Colonel Knight's, Tythogston
bath Puget, sister of the late Jolt
On the leth ult. at LiAion, Li
roll, of the 16th Regiment of 1
was occasioned by a fall from his
Tile Civil and Niilitary Authoric

•
Saturday sennight, at I.ockerbi
there, and late of the Royal Nav
Friday, at his house In lied Lit
ful illness, George Sandetnan, M
Saturday se'nnight at Both, ag
of Captain Righy, Royal Navy.
Oa the 16th ult. at Paisley, NV
Mr. Ferrier, at tie age of 23.

PRICE OF STOCI
Bank stock
Reduced 76i-1:77
31 per Ct.B6
4 per Ct. 95,t;
Navy 1071 108}

111.11 LS TI
•lt. DUE.
Dublin 1 0 '
Waterford ' 6 0
Guernsey and Jersey 0 1
Holland 0 0
Flanders 0 0

HIGH WATLR at LONDON
Mooing
Aftegnoon

rniklN Pruited.wd pubti
Flue, Ire;

, ,
I ! A
!
0
I
1)
. 1
• sv
1 :i
1, tc
1 fc
Si
...,
i it
ti
. P''
it;
N'
4 CI
1 t(
CI
.2,
it
, 11
n,
? ' -
in
I
d•
c:
I.
1)
't
',, ' •ci
0 , 1
rt
0
1 YI
•f
it
IL
1
z•
1.
i.
i P
.ot.
Li.
1 !
00
1
L 1
' L
t 4 a'
.
ei
Il
f • i ii,
0
I . ; :,
r.
1 c
+ .
. . I v,
I'
1 :.
.I
• P
r:
tl
, r
n
i
0 •
13
1
li
..,
I 1,
f
I fI,
r
t 0t
1
c
.1
, t
. t
1
. :
.
. 0
. :
i
/ .•
. - .
II 1
' • I
.1 - I
• ' 1
I . 1
. .
. ~ 'k) ' 1
1
1
i ),
r.
0
, 1 :A