Star.
London, England, 1803-07-05 00:00:00

LIMY W. LAWN.

The Plaintiff is a portrait painter, and the Dden.
dant a linen-draper in.Cooduit.flieet.
Mr. Cazeow stated, that Mr. Lewis having lately
married, wilhed to fee upon canvas a reprefeatation
of thole charms which had won his heart. He there.
fore wrote to Mr. Kirkby, a promifine young attilt.
who was then in the country. Mr. K. haftened to
town and let to work. In the firfl fitting he had fuc-
ceedcd in &etching the outlines of an admirable like.
nets of Mrs. Lewis, when the plan was elated. It,
was refolved that the happy pair &sold be drawn
fide by fide, gazing in rapture upon each other, tha•
a monument of the hooey moon might be handed
down to their pofterity. Aceording'y after much
laboar the piece upon this plan was !tainted in the
firft Rile of excellence. Mr. L. had kept the matter
quite thug, as his intention was to forprire the family.
His mother-in-law was now brought to the painter's
room, and among the other portraits hung again ft
the walls, flue immediately recogaired, with aftnnitit.
ment, her fon and daughter. Notwithftanding.
great many frotits began to be found. In the tint
Fl ice, it was objeCted that Mr. Lewis's eyes were not
turned oat 11?011 the fpeetators. Bat when the artiß
had received orders to infitie into the ci.loteliance
the greateil pnfrible tenderneli and affeettern, what
could he do bat make the eyes languifh upon the '
female form, fiippored to excite there emotions/ Mr.
Lewis was however made to look towards the feet..
tators. Mrs. L. next objeded to the fhirt collar,
which was made to come up upon the cheek, accn,d.
ing to the (Albion of the day. When this defe& I
was remedied, the obrerved, that her hulband's ear ;
was remarkably handrome, and lamented that it was
concealed by the curls of a brains wig. All the beau.
ties of Mr. L.'s ear were immediately difclofed to view.
After all this the old Lady declared, that her fon in.
law looked like a jockey. She might not be millaken,
but molt certainly the plaintiff was not in fault. if
Mr. L. chofe to be drawn in the enflame of Bond.
Rreet, all that the painter had to do was to imitate
faithfully, and to make the boots and leather nuts
preffibles in the newel! ration. Mr. K. would have
drawn the portrait with any other kind of imaged:
fibles, or without inexpreflibles altogether.
There was mach more trouble dill about Mrs.
Lewis. Mr. K. altered and altered, till atlengtb he
was defired tee begin &tient 'you her. Thisbe thought
too much. He (+feted to do the face again. That
not being confidered Suflieient, he &tinted the piece
in the belt manner he could and fent it home. Mr.
Lewis returned it to him, and he WAS obliged to entire
into a Court of Jultice to recover fosne cutopenhuion
for his time and pains.
Mr. Gaalow ordered the painting to be brought
into Coots. and it was placed in a coorpieterms fp- t
by the left hand of the Judge. Much merriment was
oceafioned by the fight of the couple coning and bil-
ling together. It ferved to remind many Olathe me.
movable piece painted for the Primrofe family. The
Learned Counfel afterwards extended to a confident.
ble length his remarks to thew the reafonablenefs of
his client's demand.

Mils Sarah Kit kby, the plaintiff's finer, proved, thit
the piece was painted by her brother, and that Mr.
sod Mrs. L. fat to bits. His fill of prices was in I.is
work-nom, intimating that for a fief portrait was
to felons ; it was the charge fur thofe two figures
aofire for the frame.

Mr. Sharpe, now drawing the portraits of fame of
the Royal Family, (aid he thought the charge very fair.
A Gentleman, who knows tie parties, declared the
likeneffes to be ood.
Sir W. Beecbey, whole popil'ase Plaintiff had been,
faid, that the piece was the bell he had feed of Mr.
K.'s drawing ; be thought Mr. L. like, bet Mrs. L.
not like. Her features might be pretty era& taken
(+ugly ; but the general 'sprawl+ of the countenance
had fearcely way refemblance. If be had employed
any one to do Mr. Lewis in this manner, he thould
have thought fifteen guineas little enough to give
him ; forwhole piece he himfeif would have
charged 1150 guineas.
The defence fet up was, that there had been a fpe-
cial agreement between the parties, via, that if the
paste was not like, and did out pink Mr. L. sad
his friends, he (bould not be obliged to take it.
Atter an ingenious fpeech from Mr. Gibbs, a Clerk '
of Mr, L's (wore to a converfation of this nature.
Mrs. Percy, the mother-in-law, Mr. Percy her fon,
and others, being examined, declared Mrs. L. to be
quite unlike. One of the pry, who lives neat door
to the Defendant, corroborated their taimony.
Lord Essen soaouo a, in his excelleut addrefs to
the Jury, °blared, that it was material in the fit*
plate a afcertaio what the nature of the contra& be-
tween the parties was, and then to confider whether
it bad been performed I From the ofual contra& ea.
tercel into between a man who withed to have his
portrait draws, and the pointer, he had a right to VI
peel a fair elation of the ingenuity and (kill of the
'nil at the price which be uhd to amv, aid
the wren employing bias took his dome the
prodoillims would be a likenefs. His Lordlhip was of
pains, if that was the contra& in the is.
Rance, that it had been performed, for that
is evidence that the plaintiff had done his bell is ma-
piecin this piEture to the willies of his enspl.yerg bet
W
thejury &lucid be of *pinker that be badeseeted

'.l

-

JUNE 25.

TNI KING O• TNI CORFORATION OT NOTTINGHAM.

jato a fpecial contra& cuith the clffr.r.dant,
was f, unufual—and he mull aJd improvideut, if he
undertook that this painting fhouhl pleafe Mr. Le‘s is
and his ft lends, it was clear he had not performed it.
It was mantle!' he had not &eared Mr. Lewis, by his
defending this aflion, nor his ft ;ends, fume of whom
had given evidence, and particularly Mts. Percy, the
Lady's mother, who fail it liad• nut the Nandi re-
femblance to her daughter. According as the Jury
believed it was a contra& of the one fort or the other,
they would find a verdift for the Plaintiff or the De-
fendant.—Verditt for Plaintiff for so guineas, includ-
ing the frame.

Mr. CARLOW, on a former day, having obtained a
Rule to thew caufe why act iminal information thould
not be filed againft a great number of perfons, in
eluding the Mayor, the Returning Officer, and fome
of the A'dermen of Nottingham—
Mr. ERSKINE, Mr. Serjtant Lzes, Mr. BALOUT,
and Mr. SCARLIT, (hewed cattle against the Rule;
and Mr. Gaceow. Mr. Glass, and Mr. CLAIM,
fnpported it. The outlinZ of the cafe was this :
In confequence of the riots and tumults which pre.
railed at Nottingham at the lea general eleaton,
fame petitions were preferred to Parliament, charg.
lug the Mayor, the Returning Officer, and fome
of Magißrateh with fupinenefs in the difcharge
of their duty. and ht not preferring that order
which it was their duty to do, in confequence of
which the freedom of ele&ion was grofsly violated.
The perfons accufed were anxious to defend them-
felves before the Committee of the'Houfe of Com.
mons, who were appointed to try the merits of that
eleaion ; by that moans an expence of about geol.
was ineurred. The Corporation, fatisfied of the in
nocence of their Officers, that the charges preferred
againa them were unfounded, and that they had dill
charged their duty to the beR of their ability, after
taking the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Lens as to-the le-
gality of the meafure, voted an indemnity to tunic
Gentlemen. There were fifteen to three
_ul opinion,
that their expences ought to be paid out of the Cor-
don Funds, and an order was accordingly given
for that purpofe. A Mr. Houghton, who was one of
the three in the minority who were againfi the grant-
ing of this money, applied to the Court of King's
Bench for an information again!' the is Gentlemen
continuing the majority, who had voted that furn for
a criminal utifappkcation of the Funds of the Corpo-
ration.

Mr: Emma Rated this affidavit with great clear-
nth and perfpieuity to the Court. It alledged fads,
the exigence of which every body mull lament, and
that nothing could be more contrary to the freedom of
eledion • but it Rated no taalajskr, no corruption, no
criminafintention, which were indifpenfibly necelTary
to found a criminal information. The Court had
granted, and had tuft granted the Rule,not being lure
whether they ought to grant it or not ; and if the
Profecutor had fisted one fad which was completely
within his knowledge, the Court would nut have
granted the Role: that fad was, that a moll learne.
mid refpedable Serjeant (Lens) bad given it as his
opinion, that it was legal for the Corporation fo to
defray thefe expencea. He was extremely glad this
application had been made, becau(e it gave thefe per
as opportunity of vindicating their characters,
which they would not otherwife have had. The learned
Counfel dated at great length the affidavits in anfwer
to this application,tn which the defendants complete-
ly exculpated themfelves. There perfons bad ailed
under the founde& legal advice; they conceived it
abfolutely neeelfary that the Corporate Officers who
were fo charged fisould vindicate themfelves before
the Committee, becaufe if they had not, it might have
been made the foundation of a report to the Houk,
and the Houfs might have aded upon it ; and every
body knew what the Houfe had Gone on the fubjed.
They were afraid of their corporate rights being af.
faded, and they were convinced the charges brought
againft their Officers were unfounded. Allibefe cir-
comftances operated upon their minds to induce them
to adopt this =afore ; they bad aded nosier the ,1
ablell legal advice, and there was nothing in this cafe
that could lay any balls for a criminal information. If
the Court fisonld be of opinion that this was a mifap-
plication of the corporation funds, it was no ground
for an information, and that Court would not redrefs
it; the proper forum for redrefs was the Court of
Chancery. It was hoped the Court would be of opi.
nion, that ft) far from this money being mifapplied,
it could not have been employed in a more pro.
per manner; that it was effentially neceffary for main-
taming die honour and dignity of the corporation.
and therefore it was taken fur granted the Court would
confider, that the conduct of thefe Gentlemen in the
voting of this money had been difcrect and proper.
In fupport of the rule it was obfcrvcd, that this ap.
plication to the Court was not made on the ground
of a mirappliaation of the funds of the corporation,
nor any thing like it ; butt it was made on the
ground of an improper and infamous acceftun of
the defendants to fupport theta perfons, who had
been their tools and hirelings during the dal ion. and
who imdencouraged riot and tumult, had endangered
the lives of the candidates, and of many other of his
ILtjelly's fubjeds, and for violating the freedom of
elation. The fum of 9701. was paid out of the
corporation porte for the defence of thefe perfons,
who had encouraged and were at the bottom of all
thefe enormities. Pointed hand-bills were circulated,
dating that Mr. Coke and his party had invaded the
chartered rights of the corporation, and that he had
violated his oath by giving bis fupport in Parliament
to the Bill fhr introducing into the town of Notting-
ham a foreign Magifli acy. No man could doubt this
was a fcandalous and infamous libel upon the charac-
ter of that moll reflicetAhle gentleman. The imputa-
tion againll the Defendants was, that they had con-
-IPired with oliers who had giofsly mil-concluded
themfelves at that eke ion, that they had diverted the
funds of the Corporation for the defence of thole who
had been cngaited in illegal purpofes. They had
confpirtd with chafe whohad beewiltyof fupporting
and defending thefe illegal purpThis was a con-
-IPinsey to maintain the grata ads of violence that
had ever occurred at any eledion. It bad been (aid
there mull he a criminal intention, a guilty mind.—
It sat fubmitted, that fufficiently appeared in the
publication of their refolutions. In the next place,
this applicaticis was not founded on a nrifiipplitation
of the corporate land., but on an endeavour by a
n.:l"applicat inn of thefe lungs, to defend men in azis of
t!:e -atat ri.lenc.c that had ern boom committed

it any eleaion. And there was evidence 'Wore CIA
Court, there ails did proceed lzoni a guilty mind.
Lord ELLtneoitotiort here afked, whether it ap•
peared as a tail on the affidavits, that Mr. Coke was
a Burgers of Nottingham?
Mr. Estrum' antwered, that het did not appear.

Lord Et tiasoaouu a raid. the mere noifapplica-
tion of corporate funds certainly was not the rubjese
of i criminal information, but the application of that
money for a criminal purport, and to carry that cri-
minal purpore into effeCt, was no doubt the founda-
tion of an indilment. The queftion here was, whe-
ther there was evidence before the Court to lead them
to conclude this *as a misapplication of the corporate
funds, to effee a criminal purpofe in the indemnity
voted to the pear= whore condo& was quellioned,
the Mayors the Returning Officer, and the two Al-
dermen, who appeared to be criminated in rerpca of
a neglee of duty to rupprers the 'riots ? Now had the
Corporation, qua Corporation, any interest in the
fate of that complaint? It appeared they might have
an intereft. They might be affeeed by a fine for
there very riots. In the cafe of the City of London,
in confequence of the delinquency of Come of its
officers, the Corporation was 'deli fined in its cor-
porate and aggregate capacity, fo that the Corpo-
ration, on account of the milcondue of there officers,
might have been liable, to a greater and (till more fi-
nals extent. There officers might have been called
upon to anfwer for their condo& before the Houk,
on the Report of the Committee. It might there-
fore be necelfary for them to watch the proceedings
of the Committee from day to day, which was an
open Court, in order to fallsion their defence as it
might be neeeffary. It appeared to his Lordfhip, on
the whole. that the Corporation were interefted in
attending to the proceedings of the Committee, and
that they had a right to vote an indemnity up to that
extent. They had a right to take care, as far as they
could, that no proceedings of a criminal nature thould
be inftituted againft the Corporation: and in fate
they were fo far affeeed, that what paired was the
foundation of a motion afterwards in the Houfe of
Commons, which led to the introduCtion of a Bill, by
which part of the franchifes of that Corporation were
molt jolt' y and neceffa ri ly impaired. When they might,
and in the relish had been affe&ed by this complaint,
he could not fay that on account of this application
of the public purfe, the Court would fully exercife
their duty in granting this information; at the fame
time, there were various circumflances attending this
tranfattion which the Court muft highly reprobate. If
it had been limed in an afficiavit, that Mr. Coke was
a Burgers, when he found a paper under the Corpo-
ration Seal, flaring that he had violated his oath by
difcharging his duty in Parliament, be Mould have
thought that might have been made the foundation
of an information. It certainly was a grofs libel on
the charader of that very r erpeCtable gentleman. It
was not, however, Co limed. His Lordfhip, for there
reafons, thought the Rule ought to be difcharged,
but without coils.

Mr. Juflice Gaoaa faid, this was not an application
for an information for this mifapplication of the cor.
porate funds. On that, his Lord(hip obferved, he did
not choofe to fay any thing, becaufe it might come
very properly before another Court, that would do
every thing that was proper to be done on the fubjea.
The application tor a criminal information was, for
thefe men in reality doin that which they conceived
themfelves intcreflcd in doing as Corporators,, if they
were really doing that which they thought fit for the
prefervation of the Corporation, it did feem to him to
be too mach to fay, that was criminal; at the fame
time, there were a great many circumilanees about
this cafe to fatisfy him the Rule (hould be difcharged
without colts.

Mr. Jo(lice Lawasecs obferved, that the ground
of the complaint was. that the Corporation had Rood
by, and had feerr all there riots going forward, very
much to the difgrace of all thole who were coneerned
in them—very much to the danger of the King's
fubjefts, and in violation of the freedom of elation,
and encouraged thofe perfons who were guilty of this
difgraceful condua. If it had appeared clear that
the Corporation could not have been at all affeaed
by any thing before the Committee, there could not
have been any ground for their defraying this eapence.
But though the Corporation were no parties to what
paired at the Committee, what paired there might
have been made the ground of a report to the Hoare
to aired them in their franchifes and which, in point
of fad, turned out to be the cafe. For, in confequence
of the report of the Committee, their right of repre-
fentation was fufpended till the fecurity of a new Elec-
tion could be procured by a Bill which had received
the ran/lion of the Legillatnre, and by which the au-
thority of the Corporation had been in tome meafure
diminificd. Becaufe fume perfons, whore duty it MU
to preferve the peace at the time of the Elation, had
not adequate authority for that purport, or did not
thole to exercire it—lt did not (tern to his Lordihip
they could bring this vote as a vote for the purpofe
of encouraging theft people in future milbehaviour.
The queftion then would be with refpeA to the Rule
being dircharged with or without coils. The perfon
making the application had not Rated all the fads. If
be had Rated that the Defendants had ;teed after
taking legal advice, that circumilance (truck his
Lurdthip as a vegan why the Court would not have
granted the Role • aid therefote, as it was granted
to confequence of-ike fuppreflion of that fall, which
was within the Profecutor's knowledge at the time, it
feemed the Rule ought to be difcharged with colts.
But as his Lordtbip and Mr. inflict Ceost were of
opinion it (bould be difcarged without colts, he did
not infift upon it.
Mr. Jultice le BLANC otiferved, that whether this
might be ultimately conlideted as a mifapplication of
the corporate funds, was not for the Court to deter-
mine. Whenever it was brought before the proper
forum, it would receive the proper determination.
The queßion for the Court to decide was, whether
a conipiracy had been eructed into to divert the cor-
porate funds for the purpofe imputed to them on the
part of thofe making this application ? If the cows-
ration thought the expenditure of this money was ne.
cetrary for their prefervation, the Court could not
poinbly fay it was a diverlion of the corporate fonds,
with that motive which had been imputed to ahem.
With regard to the quefliun, whether it ought to be
difcharged with or without colts, if there was nothing
brit the printed paper reftegaing on Mr. Calce that
alone would have induced his Lordihip to think the
rule °net to be diftharged without cofts..-Rule dif-
charged without culls.

anDnt.rsEt sl.:sstoNs.

Veflzr,Liy the Middlefes SOlions coantnetind at
Hicks's Hall, Were WILLIAE Malllweltioth Etq.
and the Bench of Juitices.

THE KANO O. THOMAS.
game, Mural was indiaed for a mildemeanostr.in
execiu ing a certain deed annuity, with intent to de-
, fraud Jerboa Collier.
It appeared that the Proreeutor, for a confideralde
time back, had been in the habits of intimacy with
the Defendant, who is an attorney, refitting in the
neighbourhood of Hanover-rquare. Dining the
practice in which the latter had been engaged, he
had frequently pnrchared annuities from pertons de.
firous of procuring money ; and aborit March IA
the Profecutor made application to the Defendant,
tinting his readinefi to make any purchafe of annui-
ties which the other might have w offer. The De-
fendant, at that time, happened to be acquainted
with a gentleman named Rooke. who was ready to
grant an annuity of 251. tor ;pl. to that perfon
the Profecutor was introduced; lie accepted the terms
on which the annuity was grauted, and the money
was paid into the hands of the Defendant. who aided
as Rooke's agent. Some time after this tranfaaion,
the detention of Britith fubjees took place in France,
by order of the Firlt Contul, and Rooke was flopped
at Boulogne ; the conkquence was. that the firtt
payment of the annuity was withheld, and the Pro-
fecutor [attained a Ids. The latter, however, int•
mediately, went to the Defendaat, and obfcrved they
had met with an unfortunate affair rerpeeing the.an
nuky. The Defendant would not agree that he Avas
implicated in the lots, ache had aaed only as an agent
in the bufinefs. The Profecutor contended that the
deed of the annuity had been executed
.jointly be-
tween them; it turned out, however, to have been a
feparate one executed by the Defendant, the Profe-
cutor was the role purchafer. On finding fuch to be
the nate of the cafe, the Profecutor complained that
a fraud had been praEtifed upon him, and indided
the Defendant for the offence at the quarter feffions.
The books relative to the tranfaeions which had palled
betwen the parties in the way of bufinefs, were pro-
duced, but nothing could be traced to prove a fraud.
The Chairman, after a long invelligatioa, obrerved,
there had appeared no evidehce to prove the charge
againft the traverfer ; he therefore directed the Jury
to acquit him. They accordingly found the De-
fendant—Not Guilty.

LONDON MifAKETS.
SMITHFIELD, Ply 5.
To Sok the offal--ter Bowe of Sib.
Beef 4s od to 58 4d I Veal 4a od to 58 Oa
Mutton ss od to 68 114 Port 38 1141 10 4$ 44
Lamb p. od. to 61. od.
MIZAD 511 CsfILZ TDIS DAT.
Beans about acco...Shorp and 1....mbs 10,000.
NEWOATE sad LEADENHALL, July 5.
Per Boos of Sib. by the careafe.
Beef 35 6d to 4s idel Veal 3$ od to 48 44
Mateo 45 4d to 45 Sd Pork 3s id so 4s ad
Lamb 0. .to 6s. Bd.
PRICE of HAY sad STRAW In SMITHFIELD.
Meadow Hay, pa Load, 5L 15s. to 71. 71.
Clover, - 61. OS. to 71. 78.
Straw, per Load ea. to al. ss.
PRICE OF HOPS IN THE BOROUGH.
Bags (new) 61 16s to 71 76 I Pockets (new) 61 to to SI os
SEA-COAL METER'S OFFICE, July 1, 1803.
Moll4al, 19 Cargoes fold from 4sa. pd. to 411. 64. per chat.
Wedoefday, 23 Ditto from 3118. 4d. to 48,. 6d.
Friday, 19 Ditto from 4os. 3d. to 471.6 d.

DIATHS.
On Saturday, at ►ls Ware in Manehefterfluare, die Lady of
James Lawn*, Efq. of a daughter.
Wednefday moraine, at INltehendon, Bucks, the Lady "IMO:
Dl!drat; of a fon.
Sunday k'nnig►t, at the Reaory-boufe, Flnehley, the Lady of
the it,. Stall* Wortley, of a daughter.
Triday loft, in Olouufer•Staey, the Right lies. Lady Cad a.
art, of a fos.