Star.
London, England, 1827-07-05 00:00:00

NEWCASTLE. JULY 3.

Some of the journeymen shoemakers of this town
have struck for an advance of wages. One of the mas-
ters, whose men deserted him, has obtained a sufficient
quantity of goods to enable him to dispense with their
services. Mr. Gibson, of Dean-street, another trades-
man, has lost men to the number of about SO, who
have left their work until they can get some advance.
But this is not all—they will neither work themselves,
nor allow otheri to work. They have stationed one
or two of their party' in the front, and one or two in
the back part of Mr. Gibson's premises, to deter other
people from coming to get work to do.

In Mincing-lane much bustle prevailed yesterday
afternoon, and-sugar, coffee, Bcc. may be quoted a shade
higher, owing to the receipt of advices trom Holland
of a brisk demand having existed there for Colonial
produce, previously to the departure of the mail.
A countryman driving a teim, the whole of which
were of the lean kind, was asked by a portly Attorney, why the
fore-horse was so fat, and the rest so lean? The countryman re-
plied, "the fore-horse is a favor, and the others are his clients.'
A mushroom was gathered on Di inghouses Moor,
on Saturday last, which was measured by R. DALEY,
at the Fox Inn, Dringhouses, the circumference of
which was thirty-eight inches.
' Sunday night about eleven o'clock an alarming fire
broke out on some premises in High-street, Hull, which
belonged to the late N.Svices, Esq. and such was its fury
for some time, that most serious apprehensions were en-
tertained that the whole of the neighbourhood, toge-
ther with a number of ships in the hatiboar, would be
involved in one common conflagration. Immense num-
bers were instantly on the spot, and several engines
also, which got ta play upon the fire as soon as circum-
stances would admit. A detachment of the 71st
Foot from the Garrison also attended, and rendered
efficient service. For sometime it was doubted whether
the engines would have sufficient power to prevent
the fire extending to other premises. Several vessels
were hauled over to the opposite side of the har-
bour, to prevent the flakes of fire passing over and corn•
municating to them. It was not until the roof had fallen
in, between twelve and one o'clock, and the whole in-
ternal strature of the buildings was destroyed, that the
flames were in any degree subdued. The fire, we are
happy to say, was got under, after most laborious exer-
tion on the part of the military and others, about four
o'clock. How it originated has, as yet, not been ascer-
tained. The damage is very considerable.—Hull Packet.
Tuesday night about twelve o'clock, as Mr. JAMES
SMITH, of Newman-street, Oxford-street, was passing
St. Margaret's -workhouse, near Westminster Abbey,
he discovered something like a bundle lying at the
door. He immediately picked it up, and on opening
the buhdle, kund it to c •nt sin a fine female child,
apparently about three weeks old, an t last asleep,
left there,' no doubt, by its unnatural parents.—
The infant was instantly conveyed to St. Margaret's
watchhouse, and Greenhill, the watchhouse-keeper, im•
mediately applied 'at the ikot khotpei where the deserted
infant was taken in, and provided with every necessary.
The child was laid at t e door wrapped up in an old
green shawl, evidently much 'Aim.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCRRY, JULY 4.

MORRIS V,-IMVIS.
The Argitmenti in this ca e, which was an applicatiori
for a new ttial of an Awe slirketed by this Court to try the
legitimacy of the plaintiff, hatving stood over from last
Wednesday, were resumed this day, and occupied the
Court nearly the whole of tkC Morning.
Mr. HORNE and Mr. Sergeant ituassi.t were heard in
opposition to the application, and the latter Genthmati
' not having concluded by the time the Court rose, big
Lordship directed the matter to stn over until [his
day week, which will be the first Seal.

SACMON V. DOVIN/L
In this case, which was argued at considerab`e length before
Lord ELoow, the parties hawing refused to take the judgment of
that Learned Lord, Mr. Sucnru obtained permission to hive k pot
In the paper to be reheard on an early day.
!MINCE E. LATIMER.
Mr. AGAR moved, that the sum of 1,8141. paid into
Court, to the credit of this cause, might be ordered to
be transferred to the plaintiff, and that the costs of ter-
, fain motions made in the course of last summer; might;
upon taxation, be paid over to the plaintiff's solicitor.
The plaintiff was an old Lady, now arrived at the ad-
vanced age of ninety-one, and had been kept out of
her property for a long period. The defendant ap-
pealed from the decree of the late Vice•Chancdllot, who
decided against him ; and upon the matter being
brought before Lnrd Eldon, his Lordship ordered
the money to be paid into Court to await the result of
the appeal.
His Lordship eventually affirmed the decree of the
ice• Chancellor, and, under these circumstances. Mr.
AGAR submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to have
the money paid out of Court.
Mr. TRESLOVE, in opposing that part ortlie Motion
relating to the payment of the costs of certain motions
made in the course of last Summer, contended, that the
plaintiff could not be entitled to those costi,"having
failed in the applications which she had thought proper
to bring before the Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the money to be
paid out of Court, but refused to grant the plaintiff the
costs as prayed, observing, that she ought to be very
well satisfied with the money without costs.
Mr. SHADWELL requested that an appeal of Askt*
v. Martin, which had been heard by the late Lord Chan-
cellor, might be put in the paper to be re-heard, in
consequence of one of the parties having refused to ton-
sent to take the judgment of' Lord Eldon, though that
Noble Lord was quite ready to dispose of the cast.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he believed Lord Eldon
would shortly furnish him with the judgments in those
causes which the parties had consented to his disposing
of, and he would then bring them into Court, and read
them; but as the persons concerned in this miner did
not choose to consent to take the judgment of Lord
Eldon, he was under the necessity of granting the ap-
plication.
Mr. KNIGHT made a similar request in the case of
Sewell v. Jones, to which his Lordship also assented.
The Court does not sit again until this day week.
VICR.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jail 4.

sisatentru v. wit:rim.
Mr. SUGIDEN moved, on behalf of the plaintiff, to tea
strain the defendant from putting up to sale dertain
estates in Ireland, the property of plaintiff, over which
defendant exercised a certain degree of controul, as
trustee, under a deed, executed by plaintiff to defendant.
The case disclosed by the Learned Counsel was as fol-
lows :—Some time back, plfrintiff and defendant stet
togezher within the walls of -the King's Bench Pr isnn, in.
troduced by a mutual friend, for the purpose of devising
the means of extricating plaintiff from his difficulties.
For this purpose, a deed was executed by plaintiff, con-
veying his estates to defendant in trust, to liquidate his
(plaintiff's) debts,with full power to receive the rents, and
even sell, if necessary. At the same time, it was stip-
' lated that the defendant should obtain the liberty of the
Rules for plaintiff, and that he should furnish plaintiff
with five pounds a week while he was in prison, and a
daily allowance of wine. It was alleged in the bill that
defendant had failed in both these particulars, and that
he was now about to sell the estates, much to the pre.
judice of plaintiff's inter s. It was also stated, that
defendant was a man in embarrassed circumstances,
and had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors'
Act, of which facts the plaintiff was not aware when
he conveyed to him such large powers over his property.
The prayer of the bill was, that defendant should be
restrained from putting up the property for sale ; that
he should be superseded as trustee, and a receiver ap-
pointed In his place.

Mr. PEPYS and Mr. Glances Tone appeared for the
defendant. They contended that grounds must be
shewn to induce the Court to supersede Mr. Wilton in
his office under the trust. The prayer of the bill was,
not that the powers of the deed should be annulled, in
which case it might not be in the power of the defendant
to offer any opp isition; but the prayer of the bill was,.
that the provisions of the deed shciuld be carried into
effect. Reasons must therefore be shewn for the re-
moval of Mr. Wilton, and the appointment of some
other person in his place. The reason why Mr. Wilton ,
could not obtain the Rules of the King's Bench Prison
was, that the plaintiff had once abused the privilege.
The Vice CHANCELLOR said, that taking this deed at
its highest value, it was a voluntary act, which it was
in the power of the grantor to rescind at any time he
might think fit. The trust was created for the benefit
of the grantor, and for his benefit only. There was no
third party, having a beneficial interest in the trust, t•
object to the grantor saying at any time to the trustee,
that he could dispense with his further services. All
that could be required froaniim in so doing was, that
he should guarantee to indemnify the trustee for any
sums he had paid in the execution of the deed, or for
which he might be liable.. This was his view of the
deed, and the powers which it conferred; but he was
prevented from resting his juJgmeut upon so simple a
principle, by the course of drience which the defendant-
' (Mr. Wilton) had been advised to pursue. He had
been desired by the Counsel for Mr. Wilton to observe,•
that the form of the plaintiff's bill did not entitle him
Ito relief upon that view of the deed ; for that the bill
did not pray to annul the deed, but, on the contrary, to
carry its provisions into operation, and to remove the
defendant from his office under it. His attention being
thus forcibly called to the other grounds upon which
ore plaintiff was entitled to his decree, he felt him•
self compelled to say, that no such trust as th tt ob-
tained by the defendant from the plaintiff, regard being
had to their relative situations, could be allowed to
stand in that Court for a single moment. In the whole
course of his professional experience, and he had
been pretty long acquainted with these matters, he
'had never known an instance of an attorney ad-
vising his client to grant such powers to himself as the
defendant possessed under this dad. Here was tint


only a power to act generally for the Interests ef the
plaintiff with the proceeds of the estate, bat a power
actually to sell the estate, without being reiponsible that
the purchase money be duly paid. He hid no hesitation
in saying, that that Court could not, for a moment, sanc-
tion such powers and prn•i,ions in any deed. He should
therefore grant the player for an injunction against the
defendant, and the rppointment of a receiver; and all
that he could grant the defendant was, that he be per-
mitted to gn before the Master, and prove such sums
as he had paid, or was liable to pay, in order that he
might be indemnised in them.

HMIS seat.
in this case tie Vice Chance Tim refused, last week, to grant an
injunction to restrain the defendant from negotiating a bill for
11,000, obtained in settlement of a gambling bet, upon ea-parts
statements.
Mr. Peers stated to-day, that notice had been served opon the
defendant's house in Yorkshire, and upon bis Solicitor is Fornival's
whe had refused to take it is. Ile Doped, as no one appeared
to oppose the motion, it world now be granted.
His liomoom said, that as no one appeared, the order for
_an in-
junction might be taken.
[This was a Seal day, and the last day of Term, and the Court
sat till near seven e'clock].

COURT OF KING'S StNoH, JULY 4.
CONSPIRACIfe—.-THI LING O. RAMADSN AND CLARKS,
This was an indictment against the defendants,
charging them with having entered into a conspiracy to
sue out a fraudulent commission ofbankruptcy with aview
to defraud the just credirors of the defendant Ramsden.
The cause was tried at the London Sittings after last
Term, before Lord Tenterden, and the defendants were
found guilty. When the defendants were brought up
to receive judgment in the early part of the present
Term, it was urged on their behalf, that they were en. ,
titled to a new trial, upon the ground that an assign.
anent of a non-enrolled commission of bankruptcy given
in -evidence on the trial was inadmissible etidenee.
Counsel having been heard against and in support of
the application, the Court took time to consider.
Lord TaNTERDEN this day pronounced the opinion of ,
the Court. The Court were of opinion that in this case
a new trial ought not to be granted, The ground of
the application was, that an assignment of a Commission
of Bankruptcy received in evidence was inadmissible.
The charge against the defendants was a conspiracy to
sue out a fraudulent commission of bankruptcy, and,
to establish that charge, it was aot necessary to give
either the original commission of bankruptcy, or the
assignment, in evidence. The Court had given the
application the fullest consideration, and they were of
opinion that the evidence objected to was wholly im-
material, and that it would be a disgrace to the Law, it
persons convicted upon clear evidence of the once
charged, should be entitled to a new trial, upon the sole
ground that evidence wholly immaterial to the question
before the Court had been received at the trial. If the
defendants were present, the Court were ready to pro-
nounce judgment.
The defendants having appeared upon the floor of
the Court in custody,
Mr. Pobbocx, on behalf of the defendant kainsden,
and Mr. COMMON SERGEANT, un behalf of the defendant
Clarke, trusted their Lordships would postpone their
judgmenr, as the defehdants intended to offer in midge.
tion of punishment, affidavits which were not then ready.
The defendant, Mr. Clarke, addressed the Court,
and said, that for this offence he had already suffered
seven months imprisonment in Giltspur.street Compter,
under a warrant granted by Mr. Justice Baley—that
he was wholly innocent of offence of which he stood
convicted, and that if an n)iportun;ty were afforded, he
could convince their Lord,hips of hi. innocence.
Lord TENTIERDEN—Oh, dear; the Jury say that you
are guilty, and they are the proper tribunal tb decide
upon that fact.
After some further discussion, the defendants were
ordered to be committed to the custody of the Marshal
of the King's Bench until the 10th day of next Term,
then to be brought up to receive the judgment of
the Court.

'I

heard in part yesterday, and the further hearing resumed
this morning. The facts appeared to have been as follow:
That the defendants bad been possessed of a certain
patent for distilling brandy from potatoes, and that, in
the year 1825, they determined upon disposing of it, if
possible, to It Joint Stock Company. They employed
plaintiff to Aegociatek on their behalf, for that purpose,
giving him a bond for icooci. for the advantage of
Iris services, influence, and connections in promoting
that object. The project, however, was unsuccessful ;
but plaintiff alleged, that his past of the contract was
duly performed, and.tbat he was, therefore, entitled to
the amount-sekured to him, under the bond.
On the patrol the defendants, it was contended, that
the bond was in its own nature illegal, the patent being
restricted in its use to five persons. The plaintiff de-,
murred to the plea, and, on,this, the question came to;
be argued.
The Loan CHIZF JUSTICIL said, that, in a case
such importance, the Court not only wished to do whes
was right, but that the grounds of their deeision-shoild
be distinctly understood.—Judgment would, therefore,,
not be given until next Term.
COURT 00 EXCHRQ,IIIIIt, JUL'- 4.
LIABILITY 01 111)1111AND5.--4241IRY) B. DAIRY.
In this case an action had been brought by the plain-
-1 , ,
to recover fiord the defendant a certain sum, tbe
bwrount of his charge for board And lodging furnished
in the defendant's wife, who was the daughter of the
ntiff. At the trial, the defendant contended, that
.ing given his wife notice to return to his house,,from
filch she had fled in consequence of alleged cruelty of
(the husband), the plaintiff could not recover. The
y, however, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
On a former day (before the resimmeet of Mr. Bares
lOrahans) an application was made to the Court for a
I new trial, when the Court were equalle.dividlelift opt-
Ilion, bet pronounced no judgment.
Mr. ALBIANDSR DOW rose, and prnyearthejedpsent,
of the Court. , ,‘
The,Loiw Cater BARON regretted that the eiibject-
had not been allowed to drop; but as the Cake Was
pressed—.
Mr. Baron GAIROW proceeded to deliver his opinion,
and after stating the nature of the action, said, that on
the trial there had been evidence given (or suggested)
that attempts had been made by the defendant to in-
dace his wife to return to his house. The principle of
the law in cases of the present nature was, that if a hat-
band conducts himself towards his wife with such a dos
gree of violence and cruelty as to render it no longer
safe for her to remain under his roof, that she is not to
be turned into the streets to starve (the husband being
able to pay for her maintenance)—or be consigned to
the parish .workhouse (as the present defendant bad
proposed); but, that when he sends her forth—through
his cruelty and misconduct—she bears with her the i
tight to seek for, and obtain, on his credit, that species'
of maintenance and raiment befitting the rank and ,
Circumstances of her said husband. By the terms
bf the marriage ceremony, he contracts to cherish and
protect his wife; and if.by his own misconduct the wifei
be compelled to seek that ref oge and protection elseoi
where of which be so cruelly deprives her, any persao
who may charitably supply to her that relief of which
she may stand in need is entitled% sue the husband for
the amount, and must recover. That being the law, the
only question is, at what point that principle is to be
limited? It might happen that in such a case, before a
Court of Common Law, that such Court, taking into
consideration the length of time that had elapsed since
the separation of the parties, and the altered demeanour
of the husband, that the danger which autherized him
in the first instance to withdraw from the house had
passed over, and that thereftire she oeght to return to his
houses In such a vase a Court of Common Lew mien
pronounce such Is judgment en one day, whilean Eccle-
siastical Court, before whom a suit of divorce might have
been in progress, having before it all the circumstances
more in detail, might, on the very next day, prpnounce for
SAIMUSAV IP. 11111 DOZ. a separation, upon an opinion that a state of things had.
This was an action for the receverr of 13s. the hire of a chaise,
not arrived which would render it safe for the wife to
which the plaintiff took for himself and family, in consequence of
the defendant, who was the driver of a stage-coach from Ciapton re' urn to her husband's house. Such had been his (Mr.
to London, having neglected to call for him. Upon the trial, it Baron Garrow's) own opinion, and such had been the
appearing that the plaintiff went to Clapton in the defendant's coach consjclei iation which had induced him to differ in opinion
ono Sunday morning, and agreed to go back in the afternoon with ~..
morn his Lordship. That opinion still remained un-
the defendant, who promised, but neglected to caß toe aim, a ter-
diet was found for the plaintiff. A Rule Nisi for a new trial was changed, notwithstanding the frequent consideration
obtained, and on sheeting cause the defendant's Counsel argued that which the subject had since undergone—(for let it not
the contract, being for carrying upon a Sunday, was void by the be supposed that the only place in which he and his
Act of 50 Car. 11. c. 7. "for the better observation of the Lord's
Learned Brethren applied themselves to the several
Day." and that consequently no action could be maintained upon it.
• Lord TEWSCADS24 now delivered the judgment of the Court, and matters brought before them, was in that Couit ;
said that in the subsequent statutes, terms of doubtful import had on the contrary, they fiequently, and at great length,
been used; the Court bad therefore hand it necessary to recur to discussed elsewhere the merits of those cases)—notwith-
the statutes of 5d Charles I. c. 1. and Stith Charles 11. e. 7. and as standing that the case then before the Court had under-
they did not think that those statutes 11-icteded hacks
fled
or stage-coach drivers, the defendant might have fulfilled his con- gone such consideration, his own opinion remained us-
er
tract without violating them. The judgment of the Court must, altered, that if a husband drive his wife from his house
taeretore, be for the plaintiff. by his •cruelty, he so sends her forth to draw upon his
tee CUM MIASMAS ILICHAILD DOWNING RICIILIUSS.- credit on the bank of liuman;ty, feeling, and commise-
Mr. BROW:MAU said, that the defendant, who was brought up, ration—and that any person honouring such draft, and
was wilting to give security, that nothing further should be pub-
liaised in the Age newspaper against those persons for whom the in so doing, litinouting himself and human nature, such
Anerney-Generai appeared, provided the judgment wasmilowed to a creditor has an undoubted right to call upon- the
stand over without the defendant's being committed. husband for indemnity—for (continued his Lnrdship)we
The Ammar-Gamma t. said he was not satisfied with this offer, have known cases its which wives separated from their
Whereupon the Court ordered the defendant to stand committed . ~rcumstances to tlicsA of the
ad to be brought up for judgment upon the tenth day of neat tetm. husbands, under similar ci
fill ZINO Y. surrom MID 01111113. present case, have be.n induced, by promises of amend-
'Mr. Bannasuat moved fur a writ of cussemei, to remove into client on the part of their husbands, to return to their
this Court an indictment, found at the Middlesex Sessions, against houses, and yet, returning only to incur new perils ; and
doe five defendants, one of whom was an Bast India Director. This therefore the attempted defence of the husband, in the
was the second prosecution under Mr. Perceval's Act,49 Geo. 111.
present instance, that he had given to his wife notice to
and as the defendants believed that many points of law would arise,
they wished to have the c use tried in this Court before a Special return to his protection, was not such a circumstance as
Jury.—Writ granted. ought to induce a Court of Law to refuse to the plaintiff
tea ZINO p. DA ROCHA: the benefit of that principle of our common law to which
Whilst Mr. Justice Barter was this morning hearing common
lat first referred. For these reasons, lam of opinion
motions, the COMMON SZROZAZ4I made an application that the de-
fendant, who was confined in the King's Bench Prison under the that the wife, having been driven from her husband's
sentence of this Court, for a libel upon the character of the Marquis (defendant's) house by his cruelty, the plaintiff is entitled
ale Paimelia, be admitted to the liberty of the stales of the said prison. to recover ; and that, therefore, the verdict must stand,
Mr. Justice B said, he had never known an instance in
and the rule be refused.
which a similar application had been granted by the Court, and he
should wish it to be mentioned again in a full Court. Mr. Baron 1-lucLoce had very few words CO add to
In the latter part of the day, the CoMALON SIOLOCANT aglin men- the statement and opinion of his Learned Brother. The
tinned the nutter to the Court, and said, that he had the affidavit legal principle was undoubted, and his own hesitation
of a stanNeal man, stating that the defendant was ifs a very bad
to pronounce his opinion of the correctness of the ver-
state of health, and that bons the crowded state of the prison, the
diet had been founded upon the doubts expressed by
only accommodation that Could be afforded to the Gentleman was
a malt rooms which he occupied in common with three other pri- the Lord Chief Baron. It must be conceded that a
sworn, to the manifest injury of his health. wife had a right to withdraw lions the house of her hos.
Mr. Justice Bavter.-1 have mentioned the application to my band by reason of his cruelty, and that she must cond.
Learned Bruthets, and they agree with me, that we have ncrautho-
nue to be supported at his cost. The question to be
rity to do what you ask. We can, if you like, remove him either
tu Newsate or Cold Bath-fields prison, but we can do nothing else. decided was, Could the husband put an end to that 06.
Probably. you would prefer the Kings Beach prison to either of ginally justifiable separation, by his simple request for
Ca other two? her to return? In the present case, most certainly, the
'fete Common Sinusaaes.-.-We certainly do prefer the King:
Reads. husband could not discharge himself from his liability
(This being the last day of Term, the Comsat until near half- to pay for his wife's board and lodging by such a notice
put six o'clock.) only as that which he had caused to be served upon
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jinx 4. her. It was quits clear that such treatment as the
LOU TRIMS!' Y. 'MOWS AND OVUM& wife had in this case experienced from her husband,
This was an action fcr debt brought upon a bond.— would be a sufficient answer in an Ecclesiastical Court
Several pleas had been filed, and the question raised to a Bill filed for restitution of conjugal rights, and,
was the legality of the bond. On the part of the plain- consequently, that he.must be held responsible for the
tiff, it was argued by Mr. Sergeant Memorials en ; and charge of his wife's maintenance during such separation.
for the defendant, by Mr. Sergeant BOSANGUIT. It was Mr. Baron VAUGHAN said he felt some delicacy io,

•
delivering bit •Opiaion upon the ease, he DM having beer
present at the arguments for and against the Rule; but,
from what' he had heard of it elsewhere, he felt coin
pelled to concur in theppinions of his Learned Brethren
who had preceded him, that the Rule for a new iris
ought to be discharged.
the Lonn Cuter BARON said, the doubts he had
already expressed were not at all affected by the general
rule that had been laid down. His difference of opinion
had arisen out of a doubt that the conduct of the de-
fendant did not amount to a cite of continued ci uelty,
but was the result of an occasional quarrel, originating,
perhaps, in jealousy of a young man, with whom he
imagined his wife was too intimate. It appeared to him
to be an alarming doctrine to lay down, that the cir
cumstances of the present case would warrant a sentence
of divorce a mensa et thoro, and, consequently, of a
verdict such as that which had been given for the plain-
tiff. As, however, the opinions of his Learned Brethren
were at variance with his own, the rule must be refused.
—Rule discharged with costs,
THE RING V. ONRCCO.
The particulars of this case were given in the STAR
some weeks since. A rule Alai had been obtained for
a new trial, on the ground that a female witness exa-
mined at the trial was the mistress, and not a servant
of the other witness Measochi, and that certain letters
read at the trial, purporting to be written by the de-
fendant, were forgeries.
The Souctroa-Gasanat. now appeared to chew
cause, contending that the defendant had been at the
elbow of his Counsel while the litters were read,. and
no objection having been made to them, they must be
held to have been in his handwriting.
On the other side it was argued, that the defend:at,
being an Italian, and translations only having been
read, he could not be supposed to have been aware of
their import. But it appeared that he had executed
bills of exchange in the English language, and from
other circumstances, that he understood that language.
The COURT were clearly of opinion, that the letters
were not forgeries, and therefore refused to disturb the
verdict.—Rule discharged.

;D LETTER OF CROMWELL.

At a late sale of autographs, an original letter of the
Protector OLIVER was sold for five guineas and a half.
This letter is addressed to his daughter (not the Lad?
CLAYPOLI), and is characteristic both of the writer and
the spirit of the times. It will thew that the hypor:ri,y
of the crafty usurper, by frequently practising on tht
credulity of others, came at length to impose or him.
self, by a process quite natural. It is as follows:

" October 25,1646, Loudon.
" Dula Dasoncea—l write not to thy husband, pertly ronoyd
trouble, for one line of mine begitts many of his, which I dosbi
makes him aitt up too late; partly because I am myself, ineurpeeed
att this tyme, having. some other consideration& Your friends act
Ely are welt ; yuur sister Claypole is (I trust in mercy) erere,Aird
with some perpleted thoughts. Shes aces her own vanitye and at:
nal mind, be wanteing itt. She seeks ate? (a. I hoped 40) dui
which will Lula& ; and thus to bee a seeks is to bee of the beetled
neat pardon and such an one shall every faythfull humble k.eke,
bee to the end. Hands seeker, hippie finder. What ever us,a4
that the Loan is gracious without some sense of &elle vault's and
badneue? whoa ever tasted that gratiounesse of his and maid gos
lease in desire, and then pressinge after feu enioyetnent? Dime
daughter, prase op. Let not husband, let not any t hinge Lisle thy
affections after Cultist. I hope het will be an occasion to Mum
them. That which is best worthy of love in thy husband is that
of the image of Court bee hearts. Look, on that and love it
beat, and all the mate for that I pray for thee aid his do me fur
m.; my service and done affection to the general! and generates.
/ wan the to miry kind to the: ; it adds to all other obligations t
my loss to sli. I am thy deare father.
• OLIVER CROAIWIILL"
me liollowiss olsoasrands are Axed to this letter_" Mind this
letter I bad from my mother lAmmington, who bad It from old
Mrs. Woes, who had lived with Oliver Cromwell's daughter.*
41 mod second, this account was given by one of Mrs. Warner's
hoer of ....y,frosu whom I had the original in September, 1751.

DOE, ON THE IHINIEE OE BOTSI7. CARTER.
In this case, which was one of ejectment, the defend-
ant had possessed himself of certain premises, without
any legal claim whatever. When called upon to state
his title, the defendant said, the premises were as good
as his estate, inasmuch as they were in Chancery, and
refused to give up possession of them.
Mr. R. MILLER having, on a former day, obtained a
Rule to shew cause why the verdict for the plaintiff
should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
Mr. Jatavia now appeared in support of the verdict,
and contended, that the grounds upon whidt his friend
(Mr. Miller) founded his application weft untenable.
The first ground was, that the Receiver had recognised
the tenantry of the defendant, by demanding rent of
him. But it appeared here, that the landlord only de-
manded the rent of the premises, and not the rent due
by the former tenant, who had run away. The second
ground was, that the premises in question had not
been fully described, because they were only stated
to be in " the Parish of St. Luke, in the County
of Middlesex;" whereas, there were two Parishes of
St. Luke, in that County, namely, those of 44' St.
Luke, Chelsea," and " St. Luke. 91d-street f` and,
therefore, a more specific description was necessary.—
The Learned Counsel proceeded to cite a number of cases
to shew that the more particular description of the
parishes was uncalled for. On the whole, so evident was
the want of title of the defendant to the premises in.
question, that the Lord Chief Baron, before whom the
trial was had, in his charge to the .11try, said, that how.l
ever modestly and ingetliously the-case had been con-
ducted by the defendant's Counsel, it was one of the
most impudent, on the part of the defendant, that had
ever come before a Court. On these grounds, he sub-
mitted, that the Rule must be discharged. -•
Mr. MILLER, in support of the rule, contended, that
although where there was only one parish of the same
name in a county, a particular specification was wane;
cessary ; still, that where there were two or more pa-
rishes of the same name in a county, the popular addi-
tions to their names or titles were absolutely requisite,
and cited a number of cases in support of that position.
The Learned Gentleman also cited cases, from which he
contended that a demand for rent was a clear recogni-
tion of a subsisting tenantcy, and entitled the party to a
notice to quit, a proceeding which had not been adopted
in the present case.
The COURT held, that the variance contended fur by
defendant's Counsel did not exist, and that the premises
had been sufficiently described. With reference to the
other point, the person demanding the rent might have
imagined the defendant was the representative of the
real tenant Ashton, who had ab.conded. On the whole
of the evidence it did not appear, that anything had
been said or done, by which the tenantcy of the defend-
ant had been recognised, and that, consequently', the
motion must be refused.—Rule discharged.

PREROGATIVZ COURT, Joss 4.
11,AZZA_V! 3AW.

This was a suit to try the validity of a vdn propounded byeto
brother of the testator, J. Baker, and opposed by the wide% ends
ground that the testator's brother had procured the will SOW pro
pounded by fraudulent means, and that it was invalid. The widow
would only take a legacy of ten guineas under the will, the bulk of
the testator's property being left to his brother.
The Coes?, in pronouncing its iadpsent, observed, that a person
propounding a will was always bound to adduce satisfactory proofs
of its validity. In this cue the Court was not *added of the vali-
dity of the instrument propounded, and therefore decided against
the will, declaring the deceased to have died intestate, and decreeing
administration to his widow. The Court, however, ordered that
the costs of the suit should be paid out of the property of the
deceased.

TMINOLD V. 141111.11'.

In this ease, it appeared that J. Pinion died at Highgate. In
October. 1825, leaving personal property to the amount of xl6 ,SOO ,
and real property to the amount of al,OOO. The deceased left a
sister and several nephews and nieces, and his will was now opposed
on the ground that, at the period of its execution, the testator was
of unsound mini.—The case stands for judgment.

At the Court of Exci,e, on Saturday last, a wine
and spirit-nsercbant, residing in Mary-la-tonne, was fined 250 for
sending fills. gallons of spirits out of his house ithout a permit.
The funeral of poor RICHARDSON, who was drowned
in the Thames Tunnel, took place on Tuesday, at Ro-
therhithe. His fellow workmen, to the number of 80.
followed him to the grave; and his relatives were pro-
vided with cloaks, &c. at the expense of Mr. BaumaL
The crowd on this occasion was Immense.

Last week, a number of individuals passed through
York, by waggons, on their route from Stockton•on-
Tees to Hull, where they expected to embark for Van
Dientan's Land. There were between 30 and 40 in one
waggon, and about 10 or 12 in another, with a very
considerable share of luggage, &c. &c. Some of them
were new married couples, and they seemed all ex-
tiemely cheerful, and appeared happy in she prospect
before them.

I i
1 i
°
)it •
i
i
i .
I 1
) i
Vi
1
4i
1
iol
•
t
i
''
)
I'
I li if
1 '
g i
. 1 1..1.
!
„ ,
I it
i I:
' 1
i
• i .
t. •
.1`
iirt
: Ili
.1 11
4t..
4.„.1

,I;)IiI
1 i
• t
I'
i
.0
!!,i;
s.i
,
) 1
, ,
i 1
'

,
, .;
Nwize
, •