Star.
London, England, 1821-11-02 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 1.

This morning the LORD CHANCELLOR held his first
Seal before Term. His Lordship came into -Court
at half-past ten, when an immense quantity of Re-
cords, &c. passed the Great Seal of the United King-
dom. These having been disposed of, his Lordship
proceeded to hear arguments on Bankrupt Petitions,
none of which were, however, of any public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 1.

KNOWLES V. HORSKIALL AND ANOTHER.

This case was tried at Lancaster, and a verdict
taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
Court upon the case. It was an action of trover to
recover 17 pieces of brandy.
The following was the case for the opinion of the
Court :—The plaintiff, who resides at Liverpool, was
a wine-merchant, and the defendants are assignees
to a person of the name of Dixon, a bankrupt, who
was also a wine-merchant belonging to the same
place. The brandy in question was imported from
France by Dixon previously to his bankruptcy, who,
in the customary and legal manner, entered them in
the Custom-House, and bonded them in his own
name and with his own residence. The bonding
warehouses in Liverpool were situated in several
parts of that town, and the custom of the trade is,
that when an importer has no warehouses of his own,
he lodges the goods in a warehouse hired for that
temporary purpose. Some part of this brandy was
lodged in warehouses hired by Dixon annually, and
part of it in a hired warehouse belonging to a person
of the name of Ledson. In February, 1819, the
plaintiff purchased '27 pieces of brandy from Dixon,
and on the Ist of March following he sold 10 pieces,
which were delivered : the remaining 17 pieces were
to continue in the warehouse so long as the plaintiff
should think proper. Regular invoices were made
out, and the plaintiff paid Dixon for the amount. It
was notorious that Dixon was the importer of the
brandy. The plaintiff, shortly after he became the
purchaser, re-sealed the brandy in the presence of an
Excise officer, and marked them with the letter K.
the initial of his name. Dixon subsequently became
•a bankrupt, and the defendants, as his assignees,
claimed the 17 pieces of brandy.
The question for the consideration of the Court was,
whether the goods were ordered and sold by Dixon,
so as to confer upon him the reputed ownership?
On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. TYNDALL COM.
tended on the authorities in the case es prate Flynn,
in 1 Atkyns, and Thackwaite v. Cocker, S Taunton,:
407, that here there was that sort of apparent owner-
ship in Dixon, which the law required. The bank-
rupt Dixtal ought to be considered simply as the
warL•house keeper to the plaintiff, from the time that
they were sold to the bankrupt.
The CHIEF JusricE.—The defendant was not a
warehouseman only. The goods were his originally.
Mr. Parma was preparing to address the Court
on the part of the defendant, but the Court inter-
rupted him,
The CHIEF JUSTICE observing, that they were per-
fectly satisfied that the whole ownership was in Dixon.
Judgment for the defendants.
CALVIN V. NFWBERNY.

This was action on the case. It was brought
for a breach of charter-party, by which the defendant
bound himself to convey a certain cargo of goods in
the ship Benson, from Calcutta to the port of London.
The alleged breach was, that the defendant's ves-
sel was not seaworthy, and therefore being una6le
to complete the voyage home, the goods were either,
sold at a loss at the Nlauritius, or delayed there so
long as to make it impossible for them to reach the
home market. In other counts defendant was charged
• with having unskilful servants, &c. The cause was
• tried before the CHIEF JUSTICE, at Guildhall, in the

Sittings after Hilary Term, and the plaintiff was then
nonsuited, with liberty to move the Court upon the
. •erdict. In the Easter Term following a motion was
• made to set aside the nonsuit, but at the recommenda-
tion of the Court, a special case was made out for
the consideration of the whale Conn.
Mr. PARKE was heard to-day against the nonsuit.
The plaintiff, he observed, was nonsuited at the trial
before he was permitted to go into evidence. The
whit of law involved in the question was, whether
the defendant, who was the real owner of the vessel,
will, by the agreement entered into between him and
Beetham, the Master (and of which the plaintiff had,
notice), relieve him of the liability which would
attach to him by this breach of the charter.party,
when the goods had been put on board under an or-
dinary bill of lading. The Learned Counsel con-
• tended, that the owner of the vessel alone ought to

. . .
be liable, and that .the Captain leas but .I‘;s servant.
If the liability rested with tht Captain, then would
the shippers of goods in future be compelled to look
not to substantial owners of the vessel, but to a mere
adventurous, and possibly insolvent, Captain. This
instrument between the owner and the Captain would
not protect the former from his liability. The Learned
Counsel cited several ca.es in support of this position,
and concluded a most able and ingenious argument
by expressing a strong conviction that. in this case, so
important to the commercial interests of the country,
the Court would allow a new trial.
On the other hand, Mr. CAMPBELL was heard in
support of the nonsuit. 4le contended that this was
in fact an action of contract ; the question was, with
whom had the contract been made ? The plaintiff in
this case had not contracted with the defendant.
The COURT, having heard Mr. Campbell, decided
that the case should go down again for trial.

LORD SORDES V. FLETCHER.
The CHIEFJUSTIOE remarked that this cause stood
first in the paper for to-morrow. But before that
case was argued, he wished to know if the plea
tendered on the part of the defendant had received
his sanction ? The action was upon a sintorgiacal con-
tract, and if the Court gave judgment upon that plea
it would be attended with the most serious conse-
quences to the defendant. He was anxious to know
if the defendant intended to urge that plea ?
Mr. Justice BAYLRY.—If the Court gave judgment
upon that plea, the amount of his living for the two
last years should be refunded.
Mr. LITTLEDALE, under these circumstances,
begged that the Court would put off the considera-
tion of the case for some time t and the Court accord-
ingly acceded to the Learned Counsel's request, and
it now stands over for Tuesday week.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER I.
HARRisos V. BEECH.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a la-
bourer, to recover damages for an assault, under the
following circumstances:
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, who appeared for the
plaintiff, produced witnesses, who proved that on the
10th of March last the plaintiff was employed by a
Mr. Jackson, in a colliery, in Staffordshire ; that the
defendant, who was owner of part of the colliery•,'
having come into the pit, charged the plaintiff with
working in a part of the pit to which his employer
had no right, and told him if he did not leave off,
that he (the defendant) would shift him off. The
plaintiff said his employer desired him to work in
that place, and that he would do so ; upon which
the defendant threw the plaintiff on the ground ; a
scuffle ensued, in the•course of which the plaintiff re-1
ceived from the defendant a severe blow of an iron bar,
which prevented him from working for some time.
Mr. Serjeant PELL admitted that his client had
first assaulted the plaintiff by taking him by the collar
and throwing him, and consequently a verdict mutt
be found for the plaintiff; but he trusted that thei
Jury would see the assault was not of that serious'
nature to call for heavy damages. The fact was, that'
the plaintiff's employer and the defendant in follow-
ing a vein of coal under the surface of the earth,
had met each other, and that the bed of coal upon
which the plaintiff had been working on the 10th of
March, had been undergone (excavated) by the de-
fendant the previous evening. The Learned Serjeant
then called three witnesses, one of them the partner
of the defendant, who swore to the facts stated by
the Learned Serjeant ; also, that Beech committed
the first assault by taking Harrison by the collar, but
that they did not see him strike Harrison with the
bar. Two of the defendant's witnesses deposed that
Harrison was at work in the pit on the 12th March.
The CHIEF JusrtcE summed up, and the Jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lO.

PREROGATIVE COURT OF YORK, OCTOBER 26.

MAW V. WATERWORTH.

This was a case of considerable moment. The facts
are briefly these :—The late Mr. Robert Maw, of
Doncaster, solicitor, on the 30th December, 1820,
gave verbal instructions to his friend Mr.Waterworth,
of that place, solicitor, to draw his will; and after
leaving an old servant £5O, and also leaving Mr.
Waterworth his law books and office papers, he di-
rected his property to be equally divided amongst
his brothers and sisters, and appointed his brother,
the plaintiff, and Mr. Mozec, of Doncaster, surgeon,
his executors ; these instructions were repeated on the
3d of January, 1821, being the day Mr. Maw died,
and Mr. Waterworth withdrew to write the will ; but
on retui ning into Mt. Maw's chamber, with the will
and pen and ii,k in ;is hand, he found Mr. Maw in
the agonies of death, and the formal execution was
thereby prevented. The plaintiff applied for admi-
nistration, and contended that the deceased had
died intestate.

The COURT was clearly of opinion, that as the will
was reduced into writing in the life-time of the de-
ceased, and conformable to instructions received from
him whilst of disposing mind and memory, it was
perfectly valid, and the Court ordered Mr. Water-
worth's costs to be paid out of the effects.

JACKSON AND ATKIN D BURNHAM AND OTHERS.
This was a came respecting the validity of the will
and codicil of Mr. Thomas Thorp, late of Drypool,
near Hull. The will was propounded by the plain-
tiffs (the executors) with several obliterations and era-
sures appearing on the face of it. The evidence fully
proved that the obliterations were made by the tes-
tator himself, and that he had determined they should
stand as part of his will, and not as instructions or
memoranda for a new will; in consequence of which
the COMMISSARY pronounced for the validity of the
will, with the obliterations and erasures as they ap-
peared on the face of it. The defendano applied to
the Court to have their costs allowed out of the ef-
fects on the following grounds—lt appeared from
the cross-examination of the professional man who

prepared the will, and who was employed by the
executors to read it, after the testator's death, to his
relations assembled at his funeral, that he then read
it as it stood before the obliterations weie made, and
without noticing them to the parties in any manner;
and he also did not mention that the testator had,
subsequently to the execution of the will, made a
codicil, which was then in his possession.
The Cosi NI ISS Ala thought that these circumstances
were sufficient to raise suspicion on the part of the
defendants, and to justify them in requiring proof of
the facts urged in support of the obliterations, and
therefore decreed that their costs should be paid out
, of the testator's effects.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS. •

Yesterday Thomas Wood was indicted for stealing a I
piano-forte, the property of Chapple aad Latour,
piano-forte-makers, Bond-street.
Mr. Foster, an auctioneer, proved that he sold the
piano-forte in question to Mr. Bygrave, a musical-
instrument-maker, for thirty guineas, twenty of which
he paid to the prisoner.
The circumstances of the case were these :—The
prisoner called at the prosecutor's shop and ordered
a piano-forte to he sent to his house, 22, Liward-
street, Portman-square, directed to T. Woed, Esq.
The piano-forte was accordingly sent, and it was
agreed that the prisoner was to pay forty-five guineas
if he purchased the piano, and thirty-five shillings a
month if he only hired it ; the transaction took place
ih August, MO, and the prosecutor heard nothing
more of the prisoner until he saw his name in the
Papers a week or two ago, when he was examined
before the Magistrate, charged with a variety of
similar offences.

Mr. 13eeSy, the owner of the house in Edward-
street, deposed, that he hired the wife of the prisoner
to let his house; and that he gave her five shillings a
week for taking care of it : witness knew that her
husband was confined in the King's Bench Prison for
debt ; on one occasion the prisoner told witness that
he thought he had let the house to the Archbishop of
Tuam ; prisoner had offered to sell the piano-forte in
question to witness, saying, that he had purchased it
when he kept house, and that he had recently re-
deemed it for EH; ; but witness 'closed to purchase it.
Mr. ALLEY, on the behalf of the prisoner, argued,
that the offence did not amount to stealing, and that
to make it so, a specific contract ought to have been
entered into, stating a given period at which the in,
strument was to be returned or paid for.
The IttconnEn over-ruled the objection. It was,
however, for the Jury to determine what was the pi
soner's intention.

The prisoner declared, that when he took the piano
it was his intention to pay for it. lie had received
large sums of money in right of his wife, and that lie
was now willing to enter into any arrangement which
the prosecutors might &site.
John Bull deposed, that he had paid two-thirds of
£175 to the wife during the prisoner's confinement
in the King's Bench.—The Learned Judge summed
up the case with great perspicuity ; and the Jury,
after a very short consultation, returned a verdict
of—Guilty.
The COMMON SERJRANT observed, that those who
speculated in law, ought to be sure that they were
right before they attempted acts of this kind. '[lie
prisoner must be sent out of the country.
'Thomas Ingram and Arnold Hunt were indicted for
stealing a trunk containing divers articles of wearing
apparel, value £lO, and two £lO Bank notes, the
property of Robert Baker, in the dwelling-house of
the Dowager Lady Templeton.
By the evidence of a number of witnesses it ap-
peared, that the prosecutor was under butler to Lady
Templeton, and on the 9th of July last, in the mottl-
ing, he saw the trunk in question, with its contents,
safe in his room. Two or three hours afterwards he
went again to the room, and discovered that the trunk
was gone. An inquiry was set on foot, but no in-
formation could be obtained as to who had taken it.
The payment of the notes was stopped, and informa-
tion of the robbery was given at the Police Office.—
Some time afterwards the notes were traced, one to
the possession of Ingram, who kept a public-house in
Bedfordbury, and the other to Hunt, who acted as'
occasional waiter to Ingram. Hunt paid one of the
notes to Mr. Crossly, a cheesemonger, at Holborn-
bridge, in less than a week after the robbery, and In-
gratn gave the other to his housekeeper to procure
change, about the same time. The housekeeper, when '
called, swore that the saw her master take from a cus-
tomer the £lO note, and this she changed at Mr.
Spice's, a grocer.
Cooper and Handley, two police officers, were sent
to Ingram to inquire of him respecting the £lO note,
and he said he could not tell from whom he obtained
it until he saw it. After many postponements, the
prisoner did see it, and he then said he got it from
one of a party of persons who were drinking at his
house for liquor, and not being able to change it him-
self, he sent to Mr. Spice for it. The person who gave
him the note said his name was Thompson, and lived
at 22, King-street, Westminster. Upon inquiry it was
found that no such person lived there.
The prisoner, Ingram, in his defence, told the same
story as he had given to the officers, when he was
taken into.custody.
Hunt said, he was employed by the same men who
gave Ingram the £lO note to get a cheese for them,
and to pay for it he received from them another ten-
pound note.

Neither of the prisoners called any witnesses to
their character.

The RECORDER summed up, and the Jury instantly
acquitted both the prisoners.
The RECORDER said, he had not the smallest doubt
that the evidence of the woman was perjury from
beginning to end ; and he thought that both the pi i-
soners were guilty.
John Howe was indicted for stealing a quantity of
plates and inscriptions from coffins in the vault of
St. James's Church.

Mr. ALLEY stated the case on behalf of the prose-
cution, which was carried on a: the expense of the
Parish of St. James.
One of the watchmen of the Parish said that about
half-past eight, on the night laid in the indictment,
he saw the prisoner come out of the Church-yard
with a bundle under his arm : and then he went up
George-court. He saw him again, about twenty
minutes after ten, coming out of the Church-yard
with a bundle. Witness asked what he had got there?
The prisoner teplied it was nothing to him, and de-
sired w itness to go about his business. The witness
collated him, and took him to the watch-house.

The person who acted as constable of the night
produced the brindle which he took from the pri-
soner, and of which the prisoner at the time refused
to give any account. At length he acknowledged
that he had sold a similar bundle to a dealer in
marine stores for three•halfpence a pound.
All the other facts of the case being clearly proved,
the prisoner was found Guilty.
William Hicks was capitally convicted of breaking
into the dwelling-house of James Mills, with intent
to steal.

POLICE.

BOW- STREET.--Yestet ;lay, TtioN,TAS HALL% ER,
the newly appointed Magistrau, took his seat tout
his rotation, for the first time since his appnint,,,,
l le was accompanied by Wm. BECKETT, Esq.
Michael Roche, who watcharged with rob!ingilie
shop of Mr. Thomas Lane, an t‘ilman, of Chandos.
street, Covent•garden, and with attempting to
Mrs. Lane, wac committed for trial.

MA R LBO ft 0 UGH-ST n EET.—A questingeef
as to eit
ricyht of hackney coachmen earning ly
• •ggage,
yesterday hea rd, on the complaint of Mr. Dechern
of Frith-street, Soho, against Blaze% a lack
coachman. Mrs. 1). and her seivant had lakeri
coach from the Gloucester Coffee-house, havin„
trunks and other luggage ; and Mr. D
• Maid
eighteen-pence in Frith-street, when
defendant dh
mantled another sixpence, and refused to depart
he got it of the servant, whilst Mr. D. was rie faro,*
poker. The defence was, that a coachmanisentitka
to be paid for luggage, and that be had stated w,
fore it was put into the coach, agreeable to a book ei
Mr. Gitiaife s, under the sanction of the Commis,
sianets. The words ran thus:—" It is a custom le
give a trifle for having luggage; but a coadaki
must refuse to take it, bete; e it is put into the coack
or make his agreement. This does not :triply
small trunks." Mr. D.'s son proved Lb:ache coack,
man had required to be paid for the luggage; aat
the case was dismissed with the coachman paring
three shillings costs.
TOWN-H ALL, SOUTIIWA EMPT AT MT"
DER.— - Payne was brought to this Office, yb
terday, charged with cutting and stabbing, and a,
tempting to murder, his wife. The prisoner ap
peened about forty years of age; he is a personnel
known in the Borough, having for a considenbi
time attended the Blackheath coaches. Rebeca
Payne, a young woman, about IG years of age, ttg
daughter of the pri,oner, deposed—" My father at.
tends the Blackheath stages in the Borough.
came home about one o'clock this day, to dinner.
was Standing in the room, near my little sister, an 4
my father took up a rope, and beat me with it;
said it was because I had not taken my sister to schod
Ile then went to my mother, who was standing at
neighbour's door, and knocked her down with 144
fist; she had given him no provocation whatever.—
When she got up he struck her again with a tope,
and also with his fist ; and when she fell on the
ground he kicked her in the ribs, and in the loins;—
he then seized her by the hair of the head, arida?.
ged her several times up and down the kennel. lie
took a knife from his pocket, and cut and stabbed*
with it, and TM attempting to thrust it into her side,
when a bystander, amidst the cries and screams of all
present, seized the knife, but his hand was cut shock.
ingly. My father then ran into the house. beet
to see for an officer, and for medical assistance fa
my mother, who was bleeding dreadfully."—Kincy,
the officer, here produced the knife ; it was a ciast
knife, about six inches in length, and was identi6d
by the above witness. The evidence was confirrod
by several witnesses, and a message Laving been
ceived from St. Thomas's Hospital, where the relic
had been carried, stating it was impossible, at pre-
sent, to say whether there was any chance of her re-
covery, the prisoner was committed for exadinatice
on a future day.

MANstox-House.—Yesterday, Painter and Cote,
who were brought up on Monday by Hawkins, the
Marshalman, underwent another examination on 56
veral other charges of having obtained goods Mo.
niously. Mr. HARMER attended as solicitoroobe
half of the prisoners. A solicitor attended ton
duct the prosecution. The Office was crowielW
tradesmen who had charges to prefer, but thelnu
MAYOR said he would not enter fat thee into thew
that day, and he should, therefore, rem:sad the pr
soners until Saturday next, that it might be retie
more completely, for the town was now surreal
with depredators, and the utmost strength of 'hell,
ought to be exercised for the protection of the Lost
shopkeeper.

Wednesday evening, between eight and as
o'clock, the premises of Mr. Hunt, a watchmaker,it
Welbeck-street, Cavendish-square, were broken is
and robbed of three gold watches, two silver, cap
and jewelled, and a horizontal one, during the to
porary absence of Mr. Hunt. The thieves, it 3
geared, gained entrance by a false key, into the frc4
parlour, and took from a drawer the above article
with which they escaped. A number of watches
in the parlour, which the robbers had not sufficia
time to carry off.
Yesterday, an alarm of fire was given at a 6:LW
shop on Holborn-hill ; but, by the timely exert
of the emen, was soon got under. ,

MARRIED.
Sept. 14, •at Salteoats, Oeptain Robert Fullerton, to Nh
Keay, daughter of Peter Kelly, Esq.
At Edinburgh, on the 250. h ult. William Johnston, E*
Mrs. lteidie, widow of Dr. lteidie, physician, Ilrechio.

DT ED.
Oct. IR, at Newcastle, by the rupture of a blood-reset la
bells, daughter of }lr. E. 641oway, of tilt Customs, ard ~
&pt. 2u, at Naples, the Lady of James Dupre, F.sq• of
ton Park.

August 20, at Constantinople, Joseph Douglas Strutt, Tit
aged 27, only sun of Joseph Strutt, Esq. of Derby.
in the pursuit of intellectual improvement and gratificatire,o
amiable young man, fourteen months ago, left his Oathe tie
try, with the purpose of vishiilg the scenes and cnunmes?
eluding Egypt) inert celebrated in classical history. Hey}
ready traversed France, Switzerland, and Italy, sabseqteg
proceeding to Sicily, Malta, and such of the Greek isLe?,
political circumstances, or the prevalence of the pl.,•guei
render inaccessible, and had been successful in oluainitg*
valuable relics of classical antiluity, when, on a voyage trg
Smyrna to Constantinople, he wus Eel z ;:t1 with a maligurat er!..
incidental to the climate. He landed at the latter place
of daiq•erous indisposition. Th.:re, notwithstanding tlicert
and unceasing attentions of the physician to the &lush.
bassy, and other eminent medical men, his malady tenTo..]
fatally, and on the day subsequent to his death, he wa ulrg'
at Pent.

MA MS tins DALTrAltil. WC/-
Dalin 1 0I
Waterfori 1 0
Duerr:icy arolJeriey 1 0 I
tiollacd 0 1
Fiai3ers • 1 0
0 0

Aite-0
0 I

.
Irm ce o w
I laintitirgh 0 I
(3otttnbilr!4ll 0 I
I.,:clvarki Islands 0 0
Jainaic4 0 .
_____---•

HI GH. ------ _
‘ V ATE at at LONDON RR I n G fi TO- 7,101 i I! )1
Mc neng ' - 53 nifnut::4 .:Ve 7
$
—.---

: lipt.ip,,Wi.lir to., f ld'a Mb, 11/4.11$