Star.
London, England, 1811-02-15 00:00:00

S

ought t 6 have been searched. And although his t - POLICE, tic.
Lordship was inclined to keep a tight hand upon the ,
plaintiff, who had most probably come dishonestly by 1 A short time since, as already stated in the
the money, which the defendant meant to restore to STAR, two of the old swans, and four of those of
the right owner (he being backed by the proprietors ' the last year, were stolen from the Setpsstine
of the Bank in the present action); yet it was neces- River, in Hyde Park. The bodies were found
sary that he should' prove his defence of the plaintiff's tied to trees, without the skins and feathers, which
being a married woman. A verdict was, therefore, have been traced to a Jew, in the neighbourhood of
given for the plaintiff, damages 0241.75. (selo.los. Oxford-street, through his sending, them to a fea-
h
being restored to the plaintiff upon her discharge from ther-dresser to be dressed. The skins and feathers
examination at Manchester.) have been identified by a man employed in the Park.
• Yesterday the Jew underwent a final examination, at
' ' COURT OF CHANCERY, FEERUARY.I.I. Bow-street Office, and Was ordered to find bail for
THE LATE MIL COLDSMIDII, having stolen property in his possession; and not being
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY stated that Mr. Benjamin
able to produce the man of whom he said he pur-
Guldsmid had, by will, appointed his brother Abra- chased them.
ham one of his executors, and desired that he would I A miscreant, named Robinson, alias French, was
-state the accounts between them, which statement ; yh
Iby t)esterday fully committed from Hatton-garden Office,
ryas to be conclusive, the testator declaring his c arge Sparks, with attemptina to commit
perfect confidence in his brother's integrity. Three an abominable offence at a public house, iu Lincoln's
years from the time of the testator's death was allowed , inn.fiews.
for making up this account. and withdrawing his pro-1
Saturday week, an alarming fire broke out in the
petty from the concern. This will was made in 180 s. !
j village of Ord, near Berwick, which in a abort time
In 1808, Mr. B. Goldsmid died—and last year Mr.
consumed three of the houses, with all the furniture
A Goldsmid also died, without having stated any .
that belonged to the unfortunate inhabitants ; provi-
account. At the time of his death the house was
dentially no lives were lost ; a child belonging to one
largely indebted to Government. The Governmenti of the families was just rescued in time to prevent its
agreed to come in Bari pain/ with the other creditors
I being. burial in the flames. The fire, it is said, was
--and, by deeds executed, appointed inspectors to su-
perintend the settlement of the concerns of the house. i occasioned by some idle boys taking advantage of a
rrein going out for water to run into a house for a
One of these inspectors had been appointed by the w(a.
. to make a bonfire ; when some of the sparks
government as arbitratpr, and another person haat, light
been named in die same capacity by the execution of
flying to the roof of the cottage, which was thatched,
. Mr. B. Goldsmid, to settle the account as between the instantly set the whole in a blaze. A subscription
'deceased brothers—and a power had been given to was immediately opened for the distressed sufferers.
these two arbitrators to appoint another, with liberty A dreadful fire broke out on Sunday morning at
colour warehouses near Limehlv -
to the -executors of Mr. B. Goldsmid to apply to sore
oil and
Stairs, by which four warehouses and twee oushole
dwell-
-IChancery for a reference to the Master, to examine'
in -houses were destroyed. The damage is estimated
!-whether this or what other mode of settling the ac-
at upwards of R 60,000.
count should be adopted.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT only observed, that one of the
children of the late Mr. A. Goldsmid was an infant.
He did not object to the reference—Which was, there-
fore, agreed to.
.

DIVIDENDS.
Richard Hawkshead, of Manchester, cotton-manufacturer,
March 6, at two, at the George Inn, Manchester.—Daniel Pa-
gett, of Leicester, grocer, March 13, at eleven, at the Blue Bell-
Inn, Leicester.---David Maitland, of New Bridge-street, London,
merchant, March 15, at test, at Guildhall.---Wm. Woolcombe,
sen. and Wm. Woolcombe, jun. late of Rotherhithe, Surrey, ship-
builders, May 9, at eleven, at Guildhall —Charles Gilbert, of St.
George's Fields, Surrey, back-miter, March 9, at ten, at Guild-
halL—Richard Henry Sheldon. of Neville's-court, Fetter-lane,
London, jeweller, March 9, at twelve, at Guildhall.—John Bune
and Wm. Hone, of the Strand, booksellers, March 5, at one, at
Guildhall.--John Breffit, of Alfreton, Derbyshire, mercer, March
6, at eleven, at the Aug.l Inn, AlEretnn.--John Non, of Romfurd,
Eases, grocer and cheesemonger; March 9, at twelve, at Guildhall. ,
John Moore, of New Surrey-street, Blackfriars•road, Surrey, •
Ironmonger, March 9, at eleven, at Guildhall, London.—John, '
Bateman, of Kingston-upon-Hull, merchant, March e, at elevenh
at the White Hart Tavern, Siver-street, Kingston-upon-Hull—
Thomas Holme, of Liverpool, house-builder, March 1, at eleven,
at the Globe Tavern, Liverpool.--James MacDonald, late of the
Royal Mariner, Woolwich, Kent, victualler, April 2, at eleven,
at Guildhall.---Samuel Lichigary and Matthew Dunsford, of Ba •
singhall-street, London, merchants, March IS, at eleven, at
Guildhall.--Charles Marshall, of Vinegar-yard, Bermondsey-
street, Southwark, worsted-manufacturer, dealer and chapman,
March 9, ,at ten, at Guildhall.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY 13.
EMIR v. CLARKE.
This was an action brought to recover damages for
false imprisonment. The c ircumstances were as follow:
The plaintiff was the occupier of a room in the
house, No. 5, Rupert.street, which tenement had been
leased by a person of the name of Byrne. William
Clarke, however, had purchased Byrnes interest in
the house, and had subsequently given the plaintiff
notice to quit. This requisition he had nOt thought
rper to comply with ; and, on the Slit of March
ast, the defendant, during the plain,tiff's absence, re-
moved one of the windows from his apartment. On
plaintiff's return, he demanded of the defendant his
season for this action, and some altercation took place
between the parties ; defendant informing plaintiff
,that he would remove the other window, unless he
quitted the premises, as he bad received legal notice
so to do. The plaintiff went up stairs, and, shortly
after, defendant having occasion to go into his yard,
a pistol was fired from the window of a back room,
which he believing to have been discharged by the
plaintiff, he immediately sent for the watchman, who
apprehended him. He was taken, on the following
morning, to Hatton Garden Office ; but, as no proof
was adduced that the pistol had been loaded With ball
when fired, and plaintiff alledging that it was" merely
I flash in the pan, he was discharged by the Sitting
Magistrate. For this arrest and detention the plain-
tiff now souett to recover damages.
'The defence set up was, that the defendant was
fully justified in apprehending the plaintiff, as the
pistol was absolutely loaded with ball when fired, al-
though it could not be proved at the time of plaintiff's
examination before• the Magistrate. In support of
this statement several witnesses were called.
Mrs. Byrne stated, that at the time the pistol was
fired she was in the back parlour of the house, No. 5,
Rupert-street ; she distinctly saw the flash of the
powder, and hard the consequents,rport.
Mathews, an officer of Hatton Garden, stated, that
,in consequence of the defendant having expressed
great fear for his personal safety, he accompanied him
home ; for his own satisfaction he examined the wail
in the yard opposite the window, from whence the
pistol had been fired, and he plainly perceived a mark
made by a bullet • on examining the bottom of the
wall he found a bullet, which was completely batter-
ed by the collision.
Gough, the watchman who had apprehended the
plaintiff, deposed, that when he went up stairs for that
purpose, he found the plaintiff in company with two
ladies and a gentleman ; he bad a large horse pistol
in his hand, which he snapped at the witness—but #
was not loaded. He (witness) had been in the-army
29 years, and, from his knowledge of fire arms, he
had no hesitation in stating, that the pistol which he
took from, plaintiff, and which appeared to have
been recently fired, had been loaded with ball. When
powder only was fired, the barrel remained quite foul,
but when a ball was discharged, it left the mark of
its course.

-

The ball which had been found by Mathews was
handed to the,witness, who said it was a proper size
for the pistol he had taken from the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice HEATH inquired of the Counsel for
plaintiff (Mr. Serjeant Shepherd) whether, after the
circumstances, which had been detailed in evidence,
he thought it advisable to proceed with the action ?
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, after a short consultation
with the plaintiff's attorney, stated, that circumstances
having been elicited, of which his client was com-
pletely ignorant, he did not wish to press the business
farther. The plaintiff was accordingly non-suited.