Star.
London, England, 1810-07-28 00:00:00

To 10 5 0 !ii

Bow Peal -10 3 2 2
Bow Peal lighter than York Peal - 1 2 16

Both Peals weigh together - Tons 20 8 2 20

A few evenings ago was rung at St. Nicholas's
Church, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, a charming peal
of Bob-Royal, on the fine-toned new peal of ten belle,
cast in 1808, by Mr. Thomas Mears, bell founder,
White Chapel, London, in the grand key of D, which
was boldly struck and. nobly brought round to the
general satisfaction of a numerous assemblage of
attentive hearers. Mr. James Lamb rung the eighth,
and conducted the peal ; Mr. J. Parnell rung the
tenor, which weigla SO cwt. net bell metal.

.01D1f /RAM' SESSIONS.

A. adjourned Court was held yesterday, befue
the Right Honourable Sir WILLIAM Scot; Baron
WOOD, &C.

John Brodie stood capitally indicted for a most de-
testable offence committed on the body of Thomas
Alexander Weir, a boy, on board the Susanna brig,
on the High Seas, and within the jurisdiction of the
Admiralty of England.
It appeared from the testimony adduced in sup-
port of this abominable charge, that the prisoner was
Captain of the brig Susannah, which sailed from
London, bound for Fayal, and while lying off that -
island in the month of May, he perpetrated the offence
with which he stood charged. It did not appear that
any notice of the case had been taken until about a
fortnight after the arrival of the brig at Liverpool,
when the boy communicated it to the ship-keeper,
through whose means the charge was formally m ida
before a Magistrate, and the prisoner was consequent-
ly apprehended.
It would be impossible to enter into the detail of
the process brought forward in tLis atrocious case,
without offending the delicacy of our Readers. It
will be sufficient to mention, therefore, that in conse.
guence of a disagreement in evidence between a black
sailor, who was cook on board the ship, and who
spoke English so badly as scarcely to be able to con.
vey his meaning in adequate language to the Court
and the prosecutor, added to the want of other corro-
borative proofs, the prisoner was acquitted, but de-
tained to an.wer to another charge, for an offence of
a similar sort, committed on another boy, and on
board the same ship, and during the same voyage.
As this charge, however, was not laid capitally,
the prisoner is suffered to be at large at bail, himself
in 41'200, and two sureties in £lOO each.

The prisoner is a remarkably well-looking elan,
about thirty years of age, of genteel appearance, and
was, within the last nineteen months, married to an
amiable woman in Scotland, of which place he is a
native.

11111111111- sr— =e propositions Hewettld also do more' -if the plaintiff
Lein, INT,6LEICANCE. should proceed, and ultintately get a verdict, yet he
4 VI would not be able to enforceparment before the 10th
001.1&T OF KING'S. BENCH, Mx s 7. of November next ; whereas, he would undertake,
MEDINA V. STOCKDALE. that whatever sum might be awarded, should be paid
Mr. PARK said, that this was almost a novel case immediately.
to come before a Special Jury. It was perhaps one Mrs PARKE, on the part of the plaintiff, acceded to
of the first instances in vihich a Jury of that kind were this proposition, and a verdict was taken for the
summoned, merely to decide whether a promissory plaintiff for £154, subject to an award.
note was or not to be paid, under the circumstances CAVALLO V. MARTIUS.
which Mit game illtfore the, Court. This was merely This was an, action of trover to recover a quantity:
an action to recover from the defendant the value of of cotton. The question was whether the plaintiff
a promissory note for £524. 17s. 6d. payable at thir- or the defendant was the Agent of the shipper under
teen . 'it, to Mr. John Gillett; accepted by the the following circumstance.? Mr. Gomez, .a Portn-
defe guese, shipped the cotton in question, and affirmed a
Th plaintiffs were-respectable merchants, and the bill of lading to the plaintiff, but at the same time
afendant &bookseller in Pall-mall. Mr. Stockdale seat a power of attorney to the- defendant to act for
had written to the plaintiff, stating his readiness to him the same as- if. he had been- personally present,
pay the amount of the note, but also stating that he who under that power of attorney claimed the cotton.
had been' directed by Sir Richard Phillips not to pay It was proved that the plaintiff made the prime entry
it, unless by the verdict of a Jury ; and that he had at the Custom house, for which he paid £5.
been indemnified against the consequences by Sir Lord ELLENBOROUOII held that the plaintiff as
Richard Phillips. It would, however, be only tie- standing in the shoes of the shipper, and represented
cessary to prove the hand-writing of the defendant, him, had a right to stop the cotton in transitu ; but if
and the Jury would give Mr. Stockdale the advantage the plaintiff, not having notice of this power of attor-
ef paying the note with their approbation. ney, laid out any money about the cargo, he had a
The defendant's hand-writing was then proved by lien upon it, until the money was paid. Under this
Mr. ;en. who said, that as the note was drawn opinion, the Jury found a verdict for--the plaintiff,
in favour: of his son, who was a minor, he (Gillet, with liberty to the defendant to move to reduce it to
sea:) had indorsed it, to give it validity. seS, the amount of the money expended by the
Lord ELLS BOROUGH observed, that the minority plaintiff.
of the son did not invalidate the note, as he was
anerely acting for his father.
The letter from the defendant was then read, stat-
ing that the money was ready, but in consequence of
the direction of Sir Richard Phillips, who was an in-
dorser, and certain ciecumstences arising out of the
bankruptcy of Bloxam and Co. he, the defendant,
must decline immediate payment.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said the defendant was
ready to pay the money. The bill had been passed
only through respectable hands. It had been accepted
by the defendant in favour of Gillet, jun. Gillet in-
dorsed it to his father; he to Sir Richard Phillips, and
Sir Richard to the house of Bloxham and Co. By
the failure of that firm, Sir Richard had been put in
a most unpleasant dilemma. On the 9th of Sep-
tember, Sir Richard had received from Bloxham and
Co. a check for £2OOO, payable on the 12th ; for this
Sir Richard lodged bills to nearly the amount. On
the 11th of September, Messrs. Bloxhans failed. On
the 12th they gave the present bill to Medina and
Co. The point on which the defence was fixed, was,
that the house of Bloxham had no right to dispose of
a bill, which had now become not their property, but
that of their Assigpees. It was also obvious that the
defendant might be thus obliged to pay the same bill
twice. Thee plaintiffs could have no very strong
grounds of complaint, as they had other securities of
Messrs. Bloxham ;n their hands, which they gave up
to the Assigneel, .retaining only this bill, and thus
letting the whole burthen of Bloxham's debt to them
fall on Sir Ricleird Phillips.
Lord Eeeeerentouoit doubted if the defence could
answer the allegations on the record. lithe bill bad
been improperly or unwisely disposed of, an action of
Troyer should have been brought to get it back : this
seemed the only proper mode. But if the Attorney'
General chose to proceed, he must go on regularly to
prove the bankruptcy of Bloxham and Co.
The ATTORNEY-GENDRAL had *o witnesses to this
point, and the Jury, under the direction of his Lord-
kip, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of
the bill, with interest, £539.
c'useseten 4. MY.
Me. PARICZ stated, that this was an action against
the'defendant, an-Attorney, to recover some Nouse-
/0d furniture, the property of the plaintiff. The
iataintiff formerly resided at Padnells House, near
Ilford, in Esser ; but having a wish to reside on his
estate in Cheshire, he wished to dispose of his house
at Padttells' of which he had a long lease, and em-
ployed the defendant to enquire out a tenant. The
defendant accordingly introduced a Mr. Burrell to
the plaintiff, who, it was agreed, should have the
house. The plaintiff, however, left Essex before the
business was finally settled with Mr. Burrell ; and he
was finally informed by the defendant, that Mr. Bur-
rel had declined taking the house, but that he (the
defendant) would take it off his hands on the same
terms as those which Mr. Barren was to have had it.
This was agreed to, except that the plaintiff, in con-
sideration of the riendship which existed between
them, gave him his remaining interest in the lease ;1
and the defendant immediately took possession, even
before Mrs. and Miss Cumming had quitted it, bring.
lag with him a family of ?I persons ; and by the in-
convenience to which Mrs. and Miss Cumming were
put by this addition, they were obliged to quit, and
join V "maning much sooner than they intended.
Sor after this, Mr. Cumsning applied to the
for the payment of £454, the sum agreed
by Mr. Burrell. Instead, however, of
demand, the defendant replied, by pre-
temand on the plaintiff for business done in
tonal way, amounting to £621 13s. He had,
Mowed the plaintiff for sums received and
items, amounting to the greater part of that
not one farthing for the furniture, &c. ; nor
plaintiff yet been able to recover any thing
account, although the defendant had since
furniture. He had, indeed, pleaded a set i
.o prove to the Jury what sort of a set oti
,he would mead one of the items. When
defendant went so unexpectedly to Padnells with
he took only one servant ; and during the
remained there Mrs. Cumming's servants,
them, though she was paying them board
. the time. The defendant, indeed, on hear.
requested she would discontinue doing so, as
feel himself bound to provide for them, and
himself under obligations to her notwith.
as he had only one servant, and she was
igh to permit her servants to attend on him.
notwithstanding this fine flourish, observed Mr.
one of the items in his set off is a charge for
. the plaintiff's servants for 11 days, during
they were waiting on his family.
P-ALIER was proceeding to call witnesses, when
041/tROW who was Counsel for the defendant,
peoposed, that tizeiplaintiff should take a verdict for
his demand, subct to a reference, He had before
calved this to Mr. Parke, previous to his opening,
and he felt its duty due to his client, so state that
circumstance, that it might not be imagined the se-
Wethiegs said had operated nn an inducement for the

OSGOOD V. CRONINO.

This was an issue directed by the Lord Chancellor,
to try whether the Plaintiff was entitled to. freight on
a cargo of sugar and rice, from the port of Charles.
town, in the United States. of America, to the port
of London, under the following circumstances ?
The Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of
America ; the first the Captain of the ship Neptune,
and the latter a merchant in New York. The De-
fendant chattered the ship to proceed to Charles.
town, and take in a cargo of sugar and rice, and
from thence to proceed either to Tonningen, Am-
sterdam, or Rotterdam. She was taken at sea by
one of his Majesty's cruizers, and sent into Ply-
mouth, but was afterwards released. When the
ship left the United States; neither of the parties were
aware of the Orders in Council of this country, or the
subsequent Decree of France. The Plaintiff, on being
made acquainted with the nature of them, applied to
the agents of the Defendant in Lotion, for their ad-
vice. It was just after the bombardment of Copen-
hagen, which made all the ports in the Baltic supi.
cious of admitting vessels from England into their
harbours. The agents recommended him to wait,
and try .o get a licence front this Government to go
to Rotterdam. After having delayed some time with-
out being able to get a licence, he was ordered by the
agents to proceed to Rotterdam. He took advice, and
was firmly persuaded if he did, his ship would be
confiscated —a circular letter from the American
Consul in Hamburgh confirmed that opinion. He
was then advised to take advantage of the Order of
Council, which directs that all neutrals should touch
at a British port, enter her cargo, and pay duty be-
fore she proceeded to the harbours of the enemy; he
accordingly entered his cargo, and wrote to his owners
in America to blow how to proceed. For the safert
of the cargo he deposited the sugar in the stores of
the West India Docks, and the rice in that of the
London Docks. The moment the cargo was landed,
the agents for the defendant served the plaintiff with
notice to proceed to Tonningen, and on the day fol-
lowing served him with a bill in Chancery to get pos.
session of the cargo, which was ordered to them by
the Lord Chancellor, he directing the present issue,
for a Jury to determine whether the plaintiff was or
was not entitled to freight ?
Lord Etramionouoir observed, it was very clear
that the plaintiff was not entitled to freight, as the
terms of the charter-deed had not been fulfilled by
him ; it might be severe, but when two great nations
were at war, these who wish to accumulate wealth by
their calamities must run a risk, and should not com-
plain that they had suffered a little by the nature of
the warfare. Verdict for the defendant.
The other causes appointed for the day were with-
drawn or undefended.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 27.
110D1360N V. JOWLIRTON.

The defendant in this ease had undertaken, as the
Lieutenant of the Cheerly sloop of war, to oonvey
fourteen casks of dollars from Luenos Ayres to Eng-
land. The dollars were received by the consignees,
with the exception of two casks, the property of the
plaintiff. These were missing, and could not be found
in the ship ; the plaintiff therefore brought his action
to recover the value of the dollars, which amounted
to about £lOOO.

It was contended in defence to the action, that the
defendant had unfortunately lost the property in the
course of the ♦oyage. It w.ts also stated that the
plaintiff could not recover, because the conveyance of
the dollars had been contrary to the Act of Queen
Anne, which prohibits all trade of this description in
South America, without a licence from the South Sea
Company.
The Learned Judge considered the defence a bar
of the action, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, with
liberty to move the Court in favour of the plaintiff.

A few days ago fehn Cheese, Collector at Whetsone
Gate, was convicted in the penalty of 40s. and costs,
for taking toll twice in one day, from Henry Clement,
.f Hatton-wall.

Thursday, a fire broke out in Church-street, Beth-
nal Green, by which the interior of a house was de-
stroyed.

The son of Mr. Weil, of Rupert-street, who had
been lately sent on an errand to his uncle's at Knight's I
bridge, found a gun in the cellar, and not knowing it
to be loaded, pulled the trigger, when the contents
lodged in the side of a servant girl, whose recovery
is thought to be doubtful.
About eleven o'clock in the evening of the 7th in.
stant, a young man named John Parke, was robbed
by three villains at Angus Ford, between News isle
and Blyth. The robbers were masked and armed
with pistols, and each fired a shot before they came
up to him, fortunately without hitting him. By a
stratagem he concealed his money, and the robbers
obtained nothing but a few halfpence and a little bread
aad cheese.

ing with him
convenience I
put by this a
join Mr. Cun
Some time
defendant foi
to be paid t
settling this
seating a der
a professiona
however, alli
other items,
suM, but not
had the plai
on that aeco
sold all the I
off ; and to
this was, he
the defendat
his family, 1
• time he ren
waited on tl
wages at thi
ing it, requ
• he should fe
consider MI
• standing, a
good enoug
Yet, notwit
Parke, one
board for tl
which they
Mr. P-An
Mr. flu
r"d"
is demand
owed
and he felt
cireumstan