Star.
London, England, 1816-07-25 00:00:00

CUS lUM-HOUSE, JULY 244

_
iIIITIRICU 001 WAltDll.—.-I,hrtaias Norm, Bryant, for
Jamaica; Marircum, l'atei buts for Annus%lam; Criterion, Avery,
tor New York; Mai ciu•s oi st.:4;lces, Brown. tor ()staid ; Au.
raga Frederica, Zaa.c., for Oen ore and fitoatick ;hue ar.4
Gamind, Sinailt s, for 14:ernen ; 011 Friored, tipaiscx, for I.ansa-
-144 ; 11,btore, tor-litediait and tie. take., • )3ww.
vick ; Res hewn, Sin. :is, Or Christiana, Chi isriansasul, Dram,
•• oci.berg, and A ; L.ri on, Rialards, for Antwerp; Susan,
Ayles, and Stints, att,, tur liau.burg4; and Manning, Read,
tor frits.e.

JULY 24.—Thr Prietu!,., F twards, for Ambterdarn ; A folphits,
liens, to Cape of G wl kis pc ; Repot, S.eeens, far Jamaica ;
I.phia, Schacht, for Ellts,,re and Lubeck; Twee Gebroeders,
;Ilekoch, for Antwerp; Lachanst,Aabtou, for LarizarOtte; and
fur paimeey;et a ugly,

The Falun friga!e, in which Admiral P 1001022
was to have taken his passige for Newfoundland, has
had all the seamen taken out and put on board the
ships under Lord Exmous tr. Adniiral Picectioast
therefore peoceeds to his Gavernment and command
e.t that place, it is said, in the HYDRA troop ship. It is
rather late in the season to sail to Ncwlouit.iland.

- - - - - -
About three o'clock, on the morning of Monday
sAinight, a light sloop, with a fellow paint stroke;
•wits observed two miles off Tow lsheiigh, near Stone-
haven, standing off on 11:e • starboard tack, under a 11
double reefed Lew mainsail and jib, and n Ale act of
setting the fort:bait, immediately to upset. Three then,'
one ui theta pai tly undressed, were seett'successively
to get on the btuad side of the vessel, as she lay with
the r igging and sails in the water, arid one of them
repeatedly waved his hat, as a signal of their extreme
distsess, to the sloop Delight, GEORGE MetiN, of Met..
deen, then within half a mile to wind ward ;abut, flour
the strong viuth easterly wind and heavy sea, it was
deemed impossible to render them any assistance,
arid the vessel soon after disappeared, consigning the
unfortunate sufferers to a watery grave. Part of the
+vii:ck has hirer been cast ashote on ,the coast, near
Etonehaven, and a boat mauled on the stern, .4 Queen
Oltailotte, of Burntisland."

Tuesday se'nnight a young man, of the name of
Stewart, assistant to a drover, from 1.,‘ ernes's-shire,
dropped down dead in Rickergate, Carlisle, and in-
stantly expited. kle had been slightly indisposed
prey' ar:ly.
.tiunday, as the daughter of Robert Hay, of Mor-
ton-squire, Berwick, a child of two years old, was
playing near the fire, it unfortunately iante agait:st
Ilia tea ke:tle, which was full of water, anJ was lite-
•lly scalded to death.
iA !MET§ THE ESSEX PEDESTRIAN'.—BARNET IS al-
vd.qs pursuing his undertaking of a mile and a half
every tuccesstve hour, near the .Duke's Head, East
!ism; and continues extremely regular in his travels.
This pedestrian tete daily increases in its interest,
::ad indeces numbers to resort to see Battxrr's per.
lcrmarces : be is closely watched, and au additional
r::::::her of perstins are appointed. over him during.the
'Tice facility with which he goes along iu his
IA: et tomrpriAleled attempt is great ; and -having
now accomplished the greater part ot-his task. his
triads offer freely the odds in his final!T completing
it. This morning he finished his 558th mile..
Animist: PXDli,TitlAtle —A man of the.naose of
Batrstit, hostler at the Barley Mow. in Norwieh,
undertook to walk 50 miles in 12 hours on Monday
list, in Prussia Gardens, near that city. The.day
poling 'cry fine, crowds wcie gathered to the spot
to witt.ess this new Pedestiiiin, and annoy bets were
node; when, to the astonishment of all present, he
.voupleted his task in 11 hours and 10 minutes, hav-
kg,w.ilked 50t miles (to prevent future dispute) iu
tlues sit.attcts of au hoar less time than 11 I LSON•

dn• Alf L LICANdt,

'COURT OF RING'S BhOH; JULY 24.
EXOCEDALZ AND WIIITE d. 111 LIED SMITHS. AND

itAITHMAN.

Thig was an action on a Bill of Szehange for
4236 ss. of which the plaintiffs were indorsers, and
the defendants acceptors. It was drawn by Jobn
Jeremy, and dated the 15th of htarch, 1815, at sit
mouths.

Mr. Searmarr. for the plaintiffs, merely stated
what appeared upon the face of the bill, and then
called a Mr. Thomas Holbrook. who proved the
hand-writing of the drawer; it was accepted by John
Miles, for himself and partners, the other defendant,.
The ATTONNEY-GENERAL; on the other side, said,
the defence he had to make was contained in three
syllables—nsury, which he should be able to prove
in the most satistactorY =toner. The bill in ques-
tion was accepted " John Miles and Co." which
firm consisted of John Miles, two person) of the name
of Smith, and the son of a gentleman, no doubt well
known to the Jury, who had long carried on the bu-
siness of a linen-draper, and had taken a very active
part in the affairs of the city of 1...W0n. In order
ta establish one of his sons iii the same trade in which
he had acquired a considerable property, he had
formed the partnership of which the present defen-
dants were composed; John Miles undertaking the.
management, but producing no capital, while Mr.
Waldman, sm. agreed to become answerable for
bis in% at that time (January, 1813) under age.—
At Christmas, 18,14, it appealed, according to the+
balance made cset by Miles, that each of the partners
would divide a profit of 41090, but it soon turned
out that this representation was most fallacious; that
Miles had been guilty of great irregularities, in order
to conceal which he had resoned to this expedient—
'he went to the drawer of the bill before the Court,
1
1 Mr. Jeremy, a retail linen-draper in Holborn. where
1
the shop of the defendants was also situate, in order
to raise money upon the discount of bills which Miles
accepted in the name of the firm; but Mr. Jeremy
would not consent to this accommodation for nothing,
but compelled Miles to take the amount in goods, at
a great disadvantage, which Miles was afterwards
obl,ged to sell at a still greater disadvantage in order
to turn them into. money, of which he WAS in want t
fur instance, in the transaction in question Mr. Je-
remy had bought '270 piece: of calico from Langton
and Co. of Broad-street, at 28s. per piece, which he
forced upon Miles at 355. per piece, and which
Miles was under the "necessity of selling at 2.55. per
I piece just after he had purchased there. These deal-
ings were of course kept secret ftom the rest of the
defendants, and, they were carried on to an extent of
.not less than 10.000 before the discovery was made,
while Miles happened to be out of town. 4.1,A-emy,
however, wit only derived this usuriJus interest in the
way above stated, but it WAS !agreed between 14im
And 11.1:les that the bills given by .the latter should be
renewed every two months in the same way, Miles
buy n,; of Jeremy by new bills the goods which he
was to sell to take up the old ; so that, in some c.ises
I for every WlOO given by Jeremy in teal value, he
Ireceived ftom Miles 4130. Thus not only fraud
appeared is the original concoction of the bill, which
woui4 not, the Learned Counsel admitted, defeat
the claim of the plaintiffs, ' but its very foundatiun
was in usury; and *then he sliould SU have proved,
he should be entitled to the verdict._

_
Henry Miles, brother to John Miles, and clerk anal'
shopman to the house of titles and Cu. was !
called to prove the writral nature of the.trails ictions I
between Miles and Jeremy, and the origin of the bill
in question. It WAS given, together with another for
the same amount at seven months' date for 270 pieces
of calico, value ezch a). but which Jeremy had sold
to the brother of the witness for 355. The invoice
or bill of parcels, which was sent in some time after•
wards, stated those pieces ut calico at the price men.
tioned to be the consideration for the bill in question.
Jeremy and John Miles had frequent dealings in this
way, whicli both endeavoured to conceal from the
rest of the defendants. The witness several times re-
monstrated with Jzrerny upon the dearness of the
goods, who replied, " do you think that I can lend
your brother money for nothing e" On his cross-
examination I.c admitted that he had not been present
, at the time the bill in question was given, nor when
the agreement was made, but he knew the terms of
it from his brother and from Jeremy. Tile bills
which passed between John Miles and Jeremy were
never sent to the shop of the defendants, lest they
should be seen by the other partners. The calicoes
given for the bill in question were white, and the wit-
ness afterwards sent a number of them to the pi inters.
Mr. John Jeremy, of 305. Holborn, the drawer 41t
the bill, was called, and underwent a long examina-
tion by bit ATTORNEY GENERAL, who endeavoured,
with much patience, to extract from him the real
nature of the transaction. Ile swore that he had done
business with Thomas Smith, one of the defendants,
before h:s partnership with the rest of the defendants
afterwards he had been introduced to John Miles, as
the manager of the concern, and with him he had
dealt : had sold him, in the way of business, mus.
lins, calicoes, and Irish linens, and once four watches
and a seal, part of a quantity taken by the witness
for a bad debt. Tor the latter he was paid by Miles's
check upon himself personally; and for the former
by hills open his house, accepted "John Miles and
•Co." Miles had been in the habit of borrowing
money of him, and of bringing bills to be discounted,
for a Waite eithergave the witness 1.0. U.'s or checks.
He had previously told Smith that Miles was con-
stantly coming to borrow money of him and the
other neighbours, and once he had called upon Smith
on the subject of a dishonoured bill. The witness
had never asked Miles to buy a shilling's worth of
goads, but he came to hit shop as a wholesale hOuse'l
in the ordinary way of business. On the 6th of
Much, nine days previous to the date of the bill in
question, the witness purchased of Langton and Co.
500 pieces of calico, at 28s. in two parcels, one of
270 pieces, and the other of 230 pieces ; but he was
sure that Miles had not taken any of these as a con.
sideration for the bill. because whit he looked out
were of different qualities, though all were charged
is the invoice at a general price of 355. He could
not assign airy reason why Miles took exactly the 270
pieces : lie it,anted them as he pleased from more
OAR 1A:O. pieces in the warehouse ut the witness.
AL that time no bills signed " John Miles and Co."
were °yellow!, nor was this transaction to enable
Miles to take up any cutatinding bills. He denied

that lie 64 iief *64 to itinif Wei Eiti tote
sahjeet pf the dearness of the calicoes:
Examined on the part of the plaintiffs, he said
that the rest of, she paitners of John Miles must have
been acquainted with his dealings with the Witness,
as bills of parcel, were regularly sent in with the
Igunds when they were sent home i but they slme.
times remained at the warehunse of the witness mil 3
J. Miles and Co. wished them tb go to their printer's.
I He was certain that Milts did not look out any of
the pieces that cane from Langton's at 28s. ; and
the witness had by him at the same time 200 pieces
' bought of a Mr. Voyd at 325. mid 70 pieces bought'
of Langton at 38s. a piece. The Lransactina in ques.
don had nothing to Jo with the discount of any bat,
, nor at any time had Miles been charged a farthing
more than other customers. He repeated that he
could give no reason why Miles chose to have exactly
1270 pieces._
_

Several pieces of the calico in question, printed and
plain, were produced, and identified by Henry Miles
to be tt part of thube purchased of Jeremy by this
; and Mr. Evans, from L.lngton's house, swore
tliat they were not worth more thau 28s. _

Henry Carrel proved, thst on the Ist tf April,
1815, he rock 100 pieces of calico from Jeremy% to
be dyed, on account of John Miles and Co.
Mr. Williams deposed, th it on the 14th of April
he received from Jolla Miles and Co. 145 pieces of
calico, which be bold nu the 4 h or May following for
2.55. per piece. „ *le bebeeed that' they. were of the
same quality 411 rose produced and identified.
MA SCA !mere observed upon this evidence at con-
tidexable It•ngth, pressing upon the Jury that his
clients were bonajfds holders for a valuable considers.
tion Unconnected with any. ofs these transactions.
Lord ELLENWMOUGH, in charging '11.2 Jerry, re-
marked, that the mere circumstance of the high
prier charged by Jeremy for the goods, would not of
itself be sufficient to lead to an inference of usury :
the question was, whether the evidence did not afford
something more to chew that this sale was in truth
only a colour for a loan for which Jeremy had ob-
tained, by circuitous means, more than legal interest ?
His Lordship then detailed the testimony given, ob-
serviiig particularly upon the two circuinstancei—the
first iu favour of the defence of usury, that Miles
had so extraordinarily fixed upon 270 pieces of calico,
when Langton had sent in the same .ti.intity a day
or two befoul; and the second in favour of the plain-
' tiffs, that if Miles's object were to raise money upon
the goods, he had not done So immediately upon any
pact of them, lint had SLIIt 100 pieces to the dyes 'l4
and 145 to Mr. Williams, which were not sold until
the 4:11 of MA), more thous month after the date ut
the hill. .

Jury, after wshurt consultation, found a ver-
dict fur We plAintiff—llamages, with interest, ,Q'.3B
61

CIAIES V. THE SAME.

Tliis was an acteuti upcm ~.her bill given for
the sore, ttalis.sctioli, tt) tlli sevc a
funiahst dale.

The Al T,RNEf GENERAL, ill OT.L.T to save the
titax of the C suit, propuseJ, that a, the Jut y ',AJAR
been ta Court, ku,i put thew 11.1.1 sat upuo the
hunter tridl, th.tt they bhotel,lpto,xett coosi:Jer
t:tetr•verdtvt, or that the ti( les vt the Chid Jutiticc
detakil«4l4o theta, it e•—..4::.r.Ary..

•
SCAIILIETT expresit,l absettt tv this propos:a.

One,of the Jury observed, that ihb the tamer Case
the decision had been rn.iiniy g:tvezned bf the consi-
deration that the plaintiffs were bosafith holders ut the
Lill, Although it WAS fhb ught that there had been col-
lusion between John Miles and Jeremy.
• Lord LLLENB01401;611 observed, that if the Jury
believed that the bill had been tounded on usuty,
even a bona fide holder could nut maintain an action
ulion it : to prove collusion, or even fraud, would
nut be sufficient to defeat his claim.

Another of the Jury added, that they had been of
opinion that the bill WAS not lounded un au usurious
transaction.

•As some of the Jury wished to be satisfied upon
the point at villa' time the bill came into the hands
of the plaintiff in this case, who, it was admitted,
was a bolus fFde liolder, a witacss was called who
proved that it was received from Jeremy for a xalua-
ble consideration on the 12th of July subsequent to
the (Lite.
A verdict was then given fur the plaintiff—Da-
mages, witainttrest. 4213 19).
Da Via v. NOA KC.

The Plaintiff decl:tred in A special action on the
case, to recover ct;rmiges against the Defendant for
a ILIIiCIOU9 prosecution:
it appeared that the Plaintiff had been Steward to
the Defendant, nho was stated to be a Gentleman of
considerably pt °petty, re►i.ling.chicfly at St►aresbruok.
, The Plaintiff continued in the Defendant's' service
for six or seven months, duritig 'tibia tone, besides
having earned his wages, he hatl incutaul a large ex-
Ipense in the management of De:tendant's establish•
merit. The whole of his demand ler wages and dis-
bursements on account of the Defendant, was
_up-
wards of Al5O, fur which he waspnder the necessity
of arresting his employer. The,Defendaat highly
resented this procebding as an insults and in order to
revenge himrself, he applied, 'on the 23ct of January,
at Wurship•street Police Office, and there laid an in-
formation against the Plaintiff for breaking open his
escrutoire, and feloniou►ly stealing a valuable diamond
ring, pins, a silver knife, silver box, anal various other
valuable articles. A warrant bei►ig granted by the
Magistrates, it was executed on the following day.
the Defendant .accompanying the Officer to•Sa.wes.
brook, where the Plaintiff usually resided, to take
care that the duty was properly performed. The
Plaintiff was accordingly apprehended, and brought
in custody to Worship-street Office, where the De-
fendant was sworn, and called upon to sustain his
charge. His owu evidence, however, turned oat to
he totally ineffectual for that purpose, and having
milled no other testimony, Sir W. PARSONS, the then
acting Magistrate, dismissed the complaint, and dis.
charged the prisoner.
fair. TOPPING, as Comet for the plaintiff, stated•,
that the object of his client was not to obtain viudtc-
five damages, although the defendant Mild very
well afford to make i large compensation for the in-
jury he had combined, but to vindicatetis charac-
ter, whkh had materially suffered in the county of
Esau, where he resided, in consequence of the publi-
cation of the proeeediagi of the Police Office in the
newspapers: No jnstiheation was put upon the re-
cord, but the &lance intended to be set up was that

oral ctetencisiit *al inkin4 arki tiMoir''
ew,
he had bgen put into gonfinedient is a lunatie; 'FM;
however, mien if ttuti was 110 defence in lave and the
plaintiff would be entitled tti a just compensation in
damages.
John Arnistirong Ottani thd-eaectitio* or ihg tiat:
rant, and the confinernent of the plaintiff in cunSe;
quenee t!terent for about two hours.
The ATTOllNxv,GeNtsm., as Cotintel rot thci de.
fendatit,' took an objection to the forMality of the
pleadings, for, on comparing the tecord with the in:
toimatinne.it apreired that the tormer averred that
the plajotiff had been charged with felony, and that
the latter sally alleged that he was charged on sespi:
(ion of fel-by ; but
Lord IF.t.tess ittotten over-rill:al the objection; say;
inz that there was no sabsta..itial Gi it tence, inasmuch
13 CIO man b,it the ert•w:zness the fact cut!!4: poti.
tively charge anialirr' with felvny.
Sir WILLIA3 the Magistrate, heitiK exa-
mined, slated, that tire. accus:ition made by the De-
fenclaut againit the Plaintiff, on the :Nth of .1 inn ltye
wasanost vxtriordinary. Tile I hilenclant .:11-wed tw o
months to paiF. over his head, h..lore he psi:fated iti
and aifir.i: Led Ow 11.• was induced -n rirke the charge,
because ti:e Plaintiff hal arre-Aed I,im for
%vita the Plallid said he had spent in zhe entcr-
tainment of lathes of easy virtt:e, brought down by
the D.Sendant to Snaresbrooke. Oa his ciiiss.exa-
,
mination, wiiness said the Detendant conducted hiln4
reit in a very strange manner at the Office, and told
a aiost inconsistent story, but he could not state that
he was ::b.oltrely a:A C???.1r4: 7.•4en:Lf.
The ATTOHNI? .
iil an ingeninns speech
to the Jury, cwitended that thn derendatit was of un-
sound mind, and argued Upon the improbability of
ibis making :m it a charge ag4inst the plaintiff it he
wan realty rai.e.
_ _

Lord ht.T.ENtrottomi 11:1d, that evcn stippasing
the defendaut to b: in!:are, yet he was liable tor the
injury he 114 d done, to thz
The Jury asked, whether the defendint still held
the place under Gusset-Lunen,. which he was stated td
have posseswd ?
The Arroustm CNNEnat, answered, that his client
at prts:ut hunshially held the vifi:e of land-waiter at
the Customs House, but had not lately executed the
duties of it, and that he was by no means in al condi•
,tion to pay Leavy d eni 170 s.
The Jury, under Lord Etaanationovcri's directions,
found a verdict for the pl4intiti—D.tmageli A7O.

orsoLvsyr DEBTORS' comer.

KIBRUAN AND OT/5R3 se JAMES ISIOORE YOUNG.

lat this case the plaintiffs were the executors of the
creditors of the defendant, a Captain on half pay in
the gilt Foot, who had been remanded on the ground
of an impettect schedule.
Mr. rowan:, on the part of the executors, exa,
mined the instiv,nt, ski.l he was willing to give
up evriy fling to the credit;4s. Ills wife was then_itt
the enjoyment of au aneiiiity of if:1000, which was
settled upn her for her sole use. For the last four•
teen years he had had no C:trtiagn of his own, but
!...i jobbNl a carriage :ince t.;ltistmas. lie had made
an eschange from the 3.i Garrison Bat:alian to the
gtit Fo:it, but had not received, nor did he exile& to
receive any considriatilit for it. at the time of his
going to prison his wile had no jewels in her posses-
- On the 19th of .1,117, aq.3, the furniture of: tt
house belonging to the ii.lolemt hlif been sold for
WOO and upwards, but ail the Money hdd been tab
pended previtius to his reimprisontnent.• •
Mx. HIATU, tut the deft r.datit, rnaintained that no
case of collusion had been ma.te out. The fact was,
that this gentleman had tinfortunateir beecine surety
for two aii.euities io the amount of 01000, ivhich sum

formed the greatest part of this debt, and there was
very httle nude than ,C5O of tteht incurred on the
pat of the defendant Ithoself.—Dischargel

Slit LDWIN LANDS v. BIMINI.

The defendant Wilfi 1111$ dAy called up, having been
previously remanded in consequence ot a detect id
his schedule.

Mr. Pou.ocK opposed this discharge on the ground
of concealment ; on the examination of tot: insol+
vent, it arpeatcti thAt he had paid over to his lather.
in-law it bill due to himself, to the amount of hetweett
Je3o and X 4.0 for some cows, t►hich bill he had en•

dorbed snbsequent to Li; artest.
13eing cross-examined by Mr HEAT'', it was proved
that the ptcsent damning creditor, Sir Edwin bands.
was the lindiord to the detrisd.tut, An,: had dhtrained
for tent both in 'Bl4 and 1:415. In the Later year
all the stock on tis taint w ts sold, and XI7 was ►till
leti due to the 14ndlotd. twit being thus en•
titely stripped. be lied been assisted by his triendsa
and pat ticulatly by his tathrr•iu-taw, with &me CON
And implements to cultivate the land. In July last,
Sir Edwin Sands scut a bill to his tenant to the

4RlOuut to Le accepted by him, not only ins
eluding the &V yet': emsi.iing due, but also calcu-
lating for rent due up to the Michaelmas following.
In consequence of being threatened, he did. accept
the bill ; but before it beedme due, and without know.
ing whether it would or would not be paid, Sit Ed.
win Sends distrained for the rent again, and the de.
'lend:sues hopes were totally disappointed. He was
then arrested and imprisoned. Fsrming business was,
during the whole of this period, su bad, that he had
lost nearly str2ooo. Under these circumstances the
defendant was discharged.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JULY 24.
RabwN W. COLLINS.

This was a cause respecting the last will of lArt.
Ann Smith, late of Walcot-place, Lambeth, who died
May, 1815, at the age of EIS. It appeared, that on
the 17th of July. 1407, the deceased executed a will,
by which she bequeathed the bulk of her property to
her only sister, who died in 1810. That on the 20th
of September, 1810, the deceased executed a codicil,
by which she bequeathed the property which she had
previously given to ber sister to the children of bet
law sister; omfatter executing this codicil, she went
to reside with ber niece, Mit. Ruth Woodw.ird, at
Walcut-place, where she executed another instrument,
which .bore date the 14t1i of October,.lBl4, by which
she gave her money in the stocks, furniture, iftc. to
Mrs. Ruth Woodvhird. This was the instrument
Ito* ptopounded. Oa the part of the opposers of
thip latter instrument it was contended, that at the
time the deceased executed the same. she Witt totally
incapable of forming any testamentary act. S r Jouw
,Nuntol., however, WWI clearly of opinion, that the evi.
dente produced fully established we deceased's caps.
city. and accordingly pronounced fur the validity of
the latter Warms*