Star.
London, England, 1827-12-17 00:00:00

((8

Vice
the '

not,.
under
piracy
nor

115.0T0i
*l6O
boss sot foe
assl

merce of neptrals,frorti vexations of every description,
to which it has been too often subjected in the Archi-
pelago, has commanded me to direct you
.to cause toi

be seised, by the ships of your squadron, and sent to
Toulon, every armed vessel which they shall meet withi
at sea under the Greek flag, or which may have keen
armed and equipped in a Greek port, with the sole ex
ception of ships of war, properly so called, which away'
belong to the existing Government of the country, or,
which may act according to its instructions.
It is, of course, understood that you shall commence
by causing the intention of his Majesty to be notified to
that Governwent, granting only a period of 15. days to
the Greek armed vessels at sea to return to their respec-
tive pens; Sand that dining these 15 days you shall
arrest, and send to .Toulon, only.tbom sylneb-may have
continued Unit\ :operations, althgaShAbel -hactchradr,
known tbt foregoing decision; of such av-Abay have
examined and plundered vessels under the French, e.g.

.. length, . ay, _
solution was advertised in the Gazette. In ;he June
following, Badnall became bankrupt. Ellis, whose
7,1001. was secured by the joint and several bonds cd
Badnall and the others, claimed to be allowed to prove
his debt under the commission. The Commissioners
thought he was not entitled, as his name had been
used in the firm, and he was therefore to a certain
extent liable to the creditors. In consequence of
'this refusal, Ellis presented a petition to the Great
al, insisting op his right to prove for the bond debt.'
nod also that on indemnifying the creditors on ec,
count of the• join; debts, he might prove whatever other
aaim he had under • the separate
.coefiinission against
Sadnall, His Lordship thought he was clearly not
eatitledio prove for the bond. There was no principle
ore clearly settled than that, under a joint commission
a person who stood in the situation of a partner could
not prove in competition with the other creditors. Ally
-shVituthoritiei confirmed this position. The cases of
Cilitonind Minchin,"!and "Parker and Ramsbuttom,"
which were.decided at common law, had been cited in
support of tepetflion. Hil„Lordship was of opinion
they-bad, no application whatever to the present case.—
. ,ey decided nothing as to a partner's right of proving
'a acaupetition.With•loint creditors. He was therefore
-of.opiction that the.commissimsers bad done right in
altiptsing -to Let. Mr,,,Ellistrorto-for the amount of his
IMO:, Tl. I,4lcoildiff3l4l was, hether, o2..Eilis's in-
dernpifyiog iladaalls estate against the dekti to which
lielEllis) was joilitTf liable, he should beillowed to
prove for the-whole amount. ThO ease" ex pare
04ilvy"appeartorito be in point. In that case the Lord
Chancellor had decided that the petitioned could not
prove ; anclin K esparts Moore," after Tay deliberate
considerationotod eury; full argument,- that it was not
enriugb to Indemnify :but that the debts must be actgally
pail. Hts Lordship felt himself convinced by this aeci-
ion, and accordingly dismissed the.petition. Ellis was
not now entitled to prove, but if he could obtain a
dischatgit from the creditors, his"lttuation would be
altered, and-then he might be allowed to do so.
The Counsel for the assignees applied for costs, but
his Lordship said he did not think it was a case calling
for costs.

♦ICE`CIIANCRLLO*S COURT, Dec. is.
SANDY&

liit Hoßoormwstcppjed with this c MK, which came
on for further.airecuons. until three o'clock, when all
the unopposed bankrupt petitions before the Court were
disposed of, his klonour having appointed all such
matters to stand for this day.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dgc.ls.

• .• MllOOlll V. SaI:MOND&
This-eras an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.
drawn by* person named Augustus De Lisle, accepted
by the defendant and discounted by the plaintiff. •Ibe
defence let up was, that the bill was tainted with usury.
The cause was tried before, and a verdict given for the
plaintiff, the charge of usury having mainly rested on
the testimony of the drawer, of wham .several witnesses
gave a very bad character. The new trial wattobtained
on to ground that witnesses would be called to contra-
dict Their testimony, and that they would be called
upon to state their reasons for imputing a .bad charac-
ter to De Lisle.

Mr. GUaNZY for the plaintiff, stated, that his first
object was to prove the bill. His client,
•Mr. Megoe
was a Gentleman of fortune, who, its *ll war.. 1,1123,
mhen she interest from the funds was U.V' Ipio.tol4
4.*
.out, and employed his money in discountin . s..
'December, 1823, he had disconnted tllll4lMB'i Ibther
bill for Mr. De Lisle, who was introduced tdglitfwb.y.i
person named Coates, with whomhe bad some.Vosalas-
.pondence. The bill was not paid, and .evert though the
.plaintif should succeed in getting a verdict, he,had but
little chance of getting his money, —The defence irs.
tended to be set op was, that an ususions discount had
been charged. But if they did venture" to set it up
again, he was amply prepared to meet it. In the mean
time, he bad Only to prove the acceptance of the defend-
ant ist the usual manner.

The bill having been put in and proved,
The ATTOIINIT Gomm, for the defendant, stated,
although it was true that now-a-days the crime of usury
was considered a crime with a very bad grace, still it
was the law that a bill tainted by usury could not be
available; and, therefore, if he should be able to prove
that this transaction was tainted with usury, the de.
fondant would be entitled to their verdict. He was in-
structed he could prove that the bill bad been discounted
at fifteen per cent. and for that purpose he-should. call
his witness.
Mr. Augustus de Lisle was then called and examined
—He stated that he had applied to.Mr.,Megoe to as-,
certain if he would discount two bills for him, one
twelve months, and the other at eighteen months, for
1,0001. each, upon the acceptance of 'We deTehdant
(Simmonds) ; was introduced to Mr. Megoe, by a. Mr.
'Coates, a mercer, in St. Martin's-lane. Mr. Meg.oe
hesitated first, but at length agreed to discount the bills,
and then witness procured the defendant's acceptance,
which was entirely for witness's accommodation ; the
defendant got none of the money ; the plaintiff met him
at Coates's house, and was ready to discount the .bills,
on being allowed a discount of fifteen per cent. which
amounted, for both bills, to 5751. Witness. was very
unwilling to allow so, large a sum, and thought that

advantage - Imprienni
illegal, but before he could get through with ir, Na-
poleon returned again; when the Bourbons came she
second time he renewed his process, and got out :lie
afterwards, in company with a brother officer, set up
a house of agency fur officers in the army, and gained
considerably by the business; but a man CAMS to hies
with a statement that he seas an agent for one nUelke
greatest houses in London, end that they would:pay
handsomely if he accepted bills anti did other hush:est
(or them; and for the character of the house the man
referred him to Lafitte, the.banker;who informed him
that the house was one of the highest character.
ness, upon this, did do business for them and eceettiid
bills for them; but soon after, to his great iurpri-e, lint
found that the man had imposed on him; and cbec.ba
had been cheated by a gang of swindlers ; witness hies*
self was taken up on suspicion of being partners with
them In the fraud; •did not think the Tribunal of elif•
rectional Police was the proper COure to examine the
matter, and, therefore, be made
.no defence there, and
be was •sentenced to -two years' imprisonment ; from
this he appealed to a higher tribunal, and was acquitted,
with 6,00 W. damages against his accusers; he 61110
came to England, where the parties resided, in hovels-to
get his damages ; he advanced money to some Eng.
lishmen, when they were prisoners at Verdun, and called
upon one of them who was in London; and, from one
thing to another, he was unfortunately led into a co.
section with Kinnear, and those who had ruined hie
fortune now attempted to ruin his character.
Several bankers clerks were then called to show
that the witness had really and ionnfada done businep
with them.
Mr. Duncombe, an accountant, stated thak Mr.Come*,
Ltd St. Martin's lane, was the conidesssidl friend-of Mr.
INegoe, anorcaried on business for him; he did not con-
sider Coates as the plaintiff's m3ent,.nor was he aware
that he received any thing for his services.
Mr. Gunater..to iner.;.this.defence, called
-sse
William Coates, who'stated that he was ainereer to
St. Martin's-lane; was acquainted with Megoe,
chant, in Lower •Brookiisttem,, in the. Cits ; he made
application to Mr. Megoeto.diacount two bills of 1,0004
each--one at twelve, and another ataighteen months;
Mr. Me#oe sold out stock to paythe =once, siod.canle
to the witness's'llouse ; Mr. Megoe refused to. discount
the bill at eighteen months; hpt afterwards, a second
bill at twelve mOhilte was iliatunted ; De Lisle made
witness a Wean of 1001. for procaring hins'the"
count ; 410 part of that-money went to Mr. Megoe.wo
did he know •any thing about it, as witness beliestad;
Mr. Megoe received nothingiutt the regular discount;
De Lisle promised to pay witness handsomely, but wit.
ness never made any stipulation as to 5751. Of any other
sum whatever; the 1001. wis-given to witness hMutelf,
and he never communicated_ the citcunistaige.to•Mr.
'Megoe.
Geo. Shepherd, merchant, A.merica.sqoare--Knew
Mr. De Lisle, and did nntlhipk he was to be believed
on his oath; and was ready to state the reasons why
he said so. •
William Sims—Was a eoachmaker in Long-acts.
Knew Mr. De Lisle by the name of Count De- Lisle,and
did not think he was to be believed on his oath.

William Henderson. innkeeper and auctioneer—..
Knew De Lisle since 1821. and did not think he was to
be believed on his oath.

Richard Francis, wilding in Camden. Town—Knew
Mr. be Lisle under the name of Count, D; Lisler.a44
,thought hint a„pritspktaatiftlae,h‘clieved on his oath,
and bad very substantial reasons for that opinion.
Th.! Arronam GRNERAI: Then called Thomas Ro-
land, a Gentleman living on his money, whq said that
be knew Coates, and that he was not a man to be be.
lieved on his oath; and also an Attorney's clerk, who
contradicted the evidence of , Coates in a cer•
tain particular.
The ATTORNEY GENIRAL said the case rested on the
degree of credit to be attached to either of the witnesses'
De Lisle and Coates. Now it was clear to him that De
Lisle was more worthy of credit thin Coates. Thejury
must have observed that he was a mis‘k of ability and
education, and that was a strong point jn his favour,
more especially as he had so well efplained the sus-
picious circumstances that had caf a shade on
his character.

Mr. Gomm, in addressing the Jury'for the plaintiff.
insisted that the greater degtte of credibility ought to
be attached to Coates ; and that from din testimony of
ieveial highly respectable witnesses, it was evident that
the witness De Lisle was-unworthy of credit.
Lotd Tzarianza, on summing uisthe evidence, said
t.was his duty totell the Jury, in point of law. that if
tlppxw.eye of opinion that the plaintiLhad safretetk,thii
Arapssiction to pass through the hands of Coates, ni or-
ilßr that he might obtain more than '.5 per cent. they
were bnund to find a verdict for the defendant, on the
graund.of utury. His Lordship remarked, that a great
deal of contradictory testimony had. been given an the
course of the trial ; and he thought the safest course
the Jury could follow was to attend to that part of the
evidence as to which both the parties weie agreed, and
draw such inferences frogs it as, on a fair consideration
of all the circumstances, it seemed to warrant.
The• Jury withdow froos.Court, aind, we* PAIC9ApPt
tiler =nit than kalf au hour. Thai f?pqd ar verslicx tot
the jelktif£'
•

•
:. . ...
.. - .
_ .. .. , ". .:,,,, , . . . or,r,,•:* .. ..- •-.;;;.. . . .- . - •, .
, • .
• tr: - '• ti•-•-- - .• , .„x- • _ - -..k, • • . , • - • . ! • 7-4,k. A._ . ....1A .It • ', . :...
. • •
. .. . .
• - . • ... 1,, .44.0. i ,k-N. --- , -..•
-•- - . • ,„...
• . . .. _
. ..-: .. • ,„, _ .....w• •••••• . •-•?,. : •
....
• • - -• /, •, t • - tr.... 7 • .
....., - , h.• . ‘.i.. iO4 i t • , ,i,...vai
i
~.,..,..•
. v .1
it 4 .0; t'. • -', • -.„ , '
• ..•-, T" I, • , .
' CNN
•,,..,A,.
• , .4 .
...". .
. 7
• -
1 '1.41911.41.110111104114.101...00.1110 )
.
MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 17,
.1827. . .. awr
, 4 [Plops .
_
,•-. .
S"
. _
MUNCH PAPBES.. . ...,. . LAW, INTELLIGENCE. 4001. was-suffihient, upon which the plaissellsehlthet .
___-..........--_
-- COURT OF CHANCERY, Dectossaa i 5: - if he would confute the eighteen inembeeilt an laroivi •
-Paoli rail JOIHINAL DES DRDATS.
4t THE NATTER OP aADNALL, A BANKRUPT. mr`nth's then be would have only t• at" all• Oa" 4.
PARIS, Dec. rt. ' ' - The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case, Witness agreed to do so, and in the mean donegneitais
p.,
His Excellency, the Minister of Marine and the . winch was heard before the last long vacation.- It aof the hills discounted in the early part of Wombat •
lonies, has 'addressed the following dispatches to the peered from the petition and the evidence, that K 1823, and the other in the latter part. allowiegsedie• J. ....•
Vice Admiral commmding the forces of his Majesty in !lades'', Mr. Ellis, and three other persons, were in count of liGliaupon each. - • gis ~.i
the Levant.
phetnership together' as bankers, at leek, in Stafford- The a/nee:ethers stated, that when nine years of -
p Nov. 28, 1827. shIU in she year 1825. In the course of that year they he had been semoved from Paris wish his mother, who
owned that after it should be at an end. Ellis should had neatly been ,Engrdered there by the revolutionary
Std—Yon have fregtseatly reptecented so me, that
ranee from the partnership, but it was at the same time mob : that be had, for a long time after, lived-in roe
' notwithstanding the very great activity of the vessels stipulated that no alteration should take place in
tirement. and had been educated by an
under year order, it was very difficult to put a stop to style of the firm until 1827. A further head of the tutor; that he had returned to Paris, after the Govern.; --
piracy in the Levant, because that those who exercise a t was, that out of the sum of 10,0001. which twist was somewhat settled under Napoleon ; th at,like
authority in Greece, possessed neither enough of energy, P
, -
hither/ilea, to the partnership. 7,1001. *Mild he con- many other young men of large prorrtyy, be had Jost
timid is the concern upon certalo terms. - Mr. Ellis a great deal of mum there; in 1813, the present
means to prevent the illicit enterrises of
. - 4
nor ssfildint , p
._ conseqeentis withdrew, and the business went on ,in Ambassitdor, Prince.Polignac, who was a strong adhre")o- -• ' . .
rent of the lkiurbons, was in the Castle ot Afinonstrisa
the corsairs under the Greek flag. the tonal p.a,e.netjl the end of 18* when three of, the , -
The destruction of the, Turki..ll fleet at Navarin re- s, who were also engaged in a separate Wiriness sad witness, having corresponded with him. assd-nee - ''--..
--.:-. -......m0s
moves now every pretext for the ezisteate of the .ma.. 'ialtiirdgaersontegehneenesadi • - , ars;erlav-beve.ineatuse ssuipettele by.l4Spelmees
-, •••tr -
.... ••••••
jor4 tithe Gree*llUDESlSEati,etpecialireithoscitb" • "fraa_ _ -Ambled. sad shay afterwards .--iiii that he am then confined its Ile prison of - --s., --.i
Immlonpe. The.oftlf parson left ft io the original Gonna% a Forte; arty,- returoef the Elosilterrs, its 1814, be
would have 'heed ". :'''."-•<,,, 3 c
have not fee their may object the de epee of tho;islands, Dbereted immediately, had not his
von Badman, but.Ellis's name was retained, and Bari-
crediimi lodged retainers againsrliit ; but he itmrse-
and of the Mame, eteloat•theAgesulmans. nail changed the, firm to that of .. Badnall and Ellis."
diately commenced* process to set these retainers aside, ••.,
The King, in this state,of .affairs, wishing to contri- The latter, who was not satisfied with Oil state of affairs, , •
insisted on Raving the partnership between him and on the ground that his creditors had no right to take •' ' ' .bnte:with his Mies (o Wiese for the future the com- -...
meree of neutrals,froM vexations of ever? deseriotion. dissolved, and at length, in May, 1827, the dii. tleadtage of his previous imprisonment, which "asks