Star.
London, England, 1829-01-14 00:00:00

CORN-EXCHANGE, AIAItK•LANE, JAN. 11.,

• Wr had very little dithig ibis morning, net fur want of buyers, a•
a desire on their part to purchase ; but the holders of Gr to appear
determined not to glee way in prices; the aupplses continue with-
out intermission, the granaries aft full, anti many sends in the
River remain unloaded. Prices ate nominally as on Jloriday.

1111PORTATIuNs lIISCg liiiknalr
Wheat, English (tp.) OZO Foreign
Mat UV Oat., Engii,n
Foreign 519,500 Irish
Barks, Kush& . 4,651.1 • Fo kin
Irish • .--- I Fluor (gads)

6,650
1,2t0
ti30:.0
7 5.0

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
COURT OP Xmas BENCH, Gen.onass, JAW. IS.
ILLIMAL DIBTRIDI3.—DUTTON V. MINIM.
This action was broughtt by the plaintiff, the pro-
rieror Of a lodging-house at Tunbridge Wells, against
the late Sheriff if Kent, for illegally seising and selling
furniture. The plaintiff complained that being owner
of certain goods in a dwelling-house, called Bath
Hasse. at Tonbridge Wells, the Silesia!' entered and
took those goods, without suit or process against the
said plaintiff.
Tile cause was conducted by Mr. GURNZT and Sir J.
&ABEAM Mr. CAMPBBLL and Mr. F. Pottocx were
Counsel for the defendants.
The plaintiff, who formerly carried on business as a
.stationer in Queen-street, was related to a person named
Bramwell, the owner cf several houses at Tunbridge
Wells. let out as furnished lodgings. Bramwell, in
consequence of difficulties, was demi us °f selling part
of that property, and a contract was entered into, by
which the plaintiff agreed to take a lease of one of the
houses, called little Beth House, ani to pay for the
furniture 1911. The money, according to the testimony
of a witness, was paid to Bramwell, and the lease exe-
cuted. The Sheriff some time after came in, and took
the furniture at the suit of Brigg, one of Biamwell's cress
ditors. The question was, whether the gouda taken by
the Sheriff belonged, boat:fide, to the plaintiff?
. M. CAMPBELL, on the part of. the defendants, en-
deavoured to prove the sale was a colourable trans-
acti,,n, to defeat the creditors of Bramwell, who had
become a bankrupt. There was also an endeavour to
set up the claim of the assignees and that of a judgment
creditor against the plaintiff's claim to the goods; but
the'Learned Counsel failed in these points.
Lord Termer:me left the Jury to decide upon the
question. whether the goods had been fairly purchased ?
and the Jury found a Verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 1911.
THB KING V. IiAMOILL FRANCIS BIEIEB.
Alta CAMPBBLL stated, that this was an indictment
for pe jut y against Samuel F. Somes, a ship-chandler,
resid.ng a• Ratcliffe. It appeared by the statement 4-f
the Learned Counsel, that Mr. King. the prosecutor,
had carried on the business of a ;ail-maker in Lime-
house. The defendant, who had considerable connec-
tion in the shipping interest, proposed to King to enter
into partnership with him and his brother Joseph comes.
who was then abroad. After some conference on the
subject, they both went to Mr. Shave, attorney to Mr.
Scares, for the purpose of giving instructions relative
to 'freeing up the deeds. Mr. Somes gave these in-
structions, by which a deed was to be prepared,
securing one-third share of the profits to Mr. King.
Mr. Somes, however, altered the tesmr of the draft,
and introduced a clause that Mr. King's name should
. not appear iu the business, although that should
nest` alter his claim to one-third share of the profits.—
King ultimately agreed to this arrangement, and a new
deed was ordered to be drawn up by Somes. Mr. Slave
, prepared and sent it to Sumer, who made no objection
to it. The deed, however, was never executed, Souses
alltgihg as an excuse they had better deter it till Joseph
Some, same t,, England. A dispute arose relative to
berme partnership accountr, and a bill was filed in Chan-
cery by Mr. King against delendas t, to which, defen-
dant put in answer, denying that any in tructiuns had
es er been given by him for preparing the second draft
for a deed if pat tuership. This was the fact upon
which he was indicted, as Mr. King and others would
prove that ate had given directions, and had received the
dealt without o' jetting to it. The Le,rned Counsel
then called
Mr. King, who, in hi. cross examination, admitted
having said that his only motive for this indictment
was to !sting ab-ut an adjustment of the transactions
between hint and defendant.
After the case for the prosecution had closed,
Sir J SCA RLISTT, for the stefendat t, submitted to the
Court that there was no case to go to the Jury.
The LORD CH lee Justice interposed, and said he was
of opir.ion that the safest course would be for the Jury
to acquit the defendant. He could not look very fa-
'Durably upon an indictment brought for the purpose
of compelling a party to come t r a settlement of dif-
fer. nets. Vet thct—Not Guilty.