Star.
London, England, 1826-05-08 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

Edward Bawer and Charles Dunn, Birmingham, 'mantles.
Charles Gooch, William Green, and Thomas Swan, Alilk-stroet,
watehousemen. Edward Buttenshaw, sen. and Edward Buttes-
shaw, jun. Holborn-bridge. grocers. Charles Terry and James
Walford, Crane-court, quill merchants. John Boughton, Carlow-
pher Woodhouse, and Thomas Hayward, Coventry, dealers. Wm.
Broome and Moms Slater. Manchester, hop merchants. Frederick
Trash and John George Skeys, St. Mary-hall-lane and St. Aldgate,
thford, booksellers, stationers and printers. James Cross and Ro-
bert Cross, Hullwall and Sharpies, Lancashire, coal merhbantr.
Joshua Grcaves and John Haigh, Chickenley-beath and West
Ardsley, Yorkshire, colliers. Stephen Clark, James Head and
William Clark, Lewisham, Kent, corn and coal merchants; and
coach proprietors. P. B. Blake and J. Mann, Mile-end, brewers.
Nickolas Nakinson and Peter Tyrer Blackrod, Lancashire, bobbin
makers. Autrey', Edward, and John Forster, Mount-street; Lana.
both, surgeons and apothecaries. John Treat and Allan Kaye
Liverpool, attotnim acrd solicitors. Charles Shand, Lister Ellis,
William Shand, and Francis Shand, Liverpeol, merchants and
factors. Matthew Gifford and Thomas Frampton, Beaminster,
Dorsetshire' sail•coth mansfucturers and tow spinners. Stephen
Thornton, William Astell, Claude George Thornton, Thomas
Tooke, and Stephen Edward Thornton, London, merchants, as far
as regards Stephen Thornton and Claude George Thornton. Richard
Banks, Harry Parkes, Thomas Otway, and Samuel Oakes, Cappon
Field and Goscote iron foundcries. Sedgky, Staffordshire. Henry
Rigmaiden and Thomas Benson Dickson, Ambleside. Westmore-
land, wine, spirit and porter merchants. Thomas Whittle and
Peter White., Liverpool, grocers and floor dealers. William
Hall and Edward Hall, High-street, Plymouth, pawnbrokers and
salesmen: Samuel Naish and R. bl•Denald, Manchester and Pen-
dleton, tanners and leather factors. Henry Carne and William
Thomas Atwells, Nine Elms, Battersea-fields, Surrey, barge-
builders. Francis Hay L'Estrange and John Davies, surgeons,

General Weekly Avenge of the Price of British Con, Wklek
governs Importation, made up to the 29th of April.
Wheat 80s. 9d. Oats 241. 4d. Beans 17s. Id.
I I
Barley Its. 4d. Rye 555. 4d. Peas 595. sd.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed
from the Returns made in the Week ending the 5d day of
May, 1828, is 30s. Sid. per cwt. exclusive of the duties of Calms
polder payable thereon on the Importation thereof.

SCOTS BANKRUPTS.
_ _ SIQU ZSTILATiONS.

May s.—James Johnston and Sons, tanners in Glaspw•—.Cre-
dltors meet in the Lyceum Rooms there,l2th and 211th May, at two.
John Mitchell, merchant and manufacturer la St.
Ninian's—Creditors meet in Gibb's Inn, &Ming, 11th and 31st
May, at one.
• D. and D. 1114 Gown, distillers at Glanmurray—Crs.
dkors meet in Gibb's Inn, Stirling, 12th May and 2d Jun*, at one.
IP Gregor and Co. calico-printers at Kelvti-
hough, near Glasirmr—Crtilitors meet in the Black Bull lan, Glace

row, filth May and lst June, at three.
Robert Alcsanderklackay, merchant in
tors meet in the Black BuU Inn there,l2th May and Sd June, at one.

*WAL

May S.—James Maclellan, tnanufacturer la Paisley, has applied
for a fecal of his sequestration, awarded 9th AprU last.

We have received Dutch Papers to the 7th, and
Hamburgh to the 40-4 instant. The latter contain let-
ters from SE. Petersburgh to the 23d of April, whioh
praise the impartial justice of the Emperor NICHOLAS,
in several cases in which some of his own servants were
discharged and punished for ill conduct towards others.
Considerable disturbances are said to have taken place
at Warsaw, but to have been immediately suppressed
by the firmness and energy of the Grand Duke Cow-
ATANTIYE.

BENNETT' V. RIDLIR.
This was an action of warranty of a horse, which was
sold by the defendant to the plaintiff on a Sunday, and
it was objected that the contract was void by the statute
29 Qtr.!. which prohibits persons from carrying on
their trades. or pursuing their a orldly callings, on cle
Sabbath. The case was argued on a.former day, and
the Court having taken time to consider the point.
Mr. Justice BATLEY n.iw delivered the opinion of the
Court to be, that the contract was void, and that the
statute applied to cases where the party carried on his
business, or pursued his worldly calling, either publicly
or privately. This decision was not inconsistent with
former cases, because here the plaintiff was aware that
the defendant was trading as a horse dealer. The rule,
therefore, for setting aside the veidict for the plaintiff
and granting a new rule must be absolute.
Ruk made absolute.
THE RING V. HATTHORNI ; THE RING V. GOLDER?
AND ANOTHER.
These were Rules calling upon the Mayor and She-
riffs of Bristol, respectively, to show cause why quo
warrant° informations shluld not be filed, c 'Ring upon
them to shew by what authority they held the r severpl
offices. The question was whether the right of electing
these Officers was in the Mayor, Burgesses, and Com-
monalty at large; or in the Mayor and Common Coun-
cil of the City, as a select body ?
After hearing the Arromtair-Gnmaat., Mr. Scascrrr, Mr.
TAIJIMN, Mr. Luniew, and Mr. Q. Cuss for the defendants;
and Mr. Serjeant Wrist, Mr. blaaawrratsa, Mr. Thant., and
Mr. Bustrus far the relator,
The COURT, adverting to the terms of the d'fferent
Charters bearing up-n the subject, and the usage which
had obtained in the City, were clearly of opinion that
the right of election was in the Mayor and Common
Council, as a select body, and not in the Mayor and
Commonalty at large.and therefore discharged ti .e rules.

BURGOYNB V. BRIE.
In this case a libel had been filed in the Ecclesiastical
Court against the Rev. Dr. Free, rector of Sutton, in
Bedfordshire, for profane sweating, incontinence, and a
variety of other offences. Tne defendant &el a de-
claration in prohibition, in this Court, to suspend the
proceedings below, on the ground that the suit had not
been instituted within six months after the commissivn
of the alleged offences, as required by 27 Geo. M.
cap. 44. To this there was a plea that this statute ap-
plied to suits against lay persons only. The defendant
demurred to the plea, and the demurrer was argued on
a former day.
The COURT now gave judgment, and said that
continence was not the only offence charged against the
defendant. He was charged with profane swearing,
neglecting divine service, using the porch of the palish
church as a stable, refusing to baptize children, taking
exorbitant fees for baptisms, and turning swine into the
church-yard—all which offences were cognizable by
the church, when committed by one of her own body.
The Statute that had been cited extended to the clergy
as well as the laity, where clergy and laity were upin
the same footing. But this was not a suit instituted for
the reformation of the manners er the good of the soul
of the offender, but for his removal and deprivation ;
and therefore there ought to be a consultation in the
Ecclesiastical Court as to the e parts of the libel re-
ferred for the defendant's deprivation.