Star.
London, England, 1828-11-15 00:00:00

but the only question was, whether it would be a farthing
or a shilling ?
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff'—Da-
mages, 40s.

irertisements had appeared in his name, how could he
call upon the Court to punish tl e defendants? He
should have shown the public that he did not puhli.h
the advertisements, and that those who did publish
them derived no advantage from the act. It was noto-
rious that those publications had produced effect on the
funds. Having been published on the Stock Exchange,
they ought to have been explained by affidavit, when
the Court was asked to grant summary puni‘hrnent.—
If M. Roccafuerte had more correct information, why
did he not give it to the public, in order that every one
might have the advantage of it ? Instead of adopting
that open and fair line of conduct, he had suffered
information to ooze out by degrees, which gave
some perm s an opportunity of speculating in the
funds. WAS he not bound to put the public in pos-
session of real information ? Was he rot bound, as
a public Ministe,, when the hopes or the public
were excited, to state that those hopes were fall..cious?
Tne question then was, whether a person who acted as
111. Raccafuette did, was to avail himself of the sum-
mary proceeding by information, or take the remedy at
common law ? The applicant was a public man, who
could not be exempt more than others from public ob.
servation. His private character was that of a worthy
person, but his conduct as a public Minister was open
to animadversion. This Gentleman was the Minister
of a State in South America, which had received British
property. No less than 20,000,0001. of. English money
had been raised for these South American States—six
millions of it had been raised for this Mexican State
upon loan, and not one dividend had been paid. Three
dividends were due, and one growing due at the time
the affidavits were filed; and with those facts in exist-
ence, what must be the conclusion their Lordships
would come tot What could it be, but that these ad-1
verti•ements and reports were circulated to raise and
depress the funds? At the publication t f the first
advertisement the Mexican Bands were as high as 7'2.
The rumour then came, and they fell to 47, then to
44. A fall of 25 per cent. afforded a fine opportunity fur
toose who were disposed to speculate on bonds of this
de,cri Lion. The advertisements were calculated to
raise the bonds. Tr•ey came out with the name ti" GOD
slid liberty," which operated as a trap fox the credulous
Eiglish purchaser. The next thing was an insurance
Evened at Lloyd's of 500,0( 0 dollars, said to be shipped
fur this country to pay the dividends. Up t s the preset.t
moment those do:lars had not sailed. What was the
effect such reports must have on those who were watch-
ing for a return of the capital thi y had embarked on
the faith of a nation ? How came it that M. Roccaluerte
suffered those rumours to circulate? Vas it not his duty
to declare that he had nothing to do with those docu-
ments, and that no profits were derived by him from
the changes which took place? Mr. Thwaites' affidavit
stated that all reports from the Stock Exchange were
collected for his paper with fairness, and that he had no
interest in raising or deiressing the Stocks. Upon the
whole, there was no ground for supposing any malice
existed with the defendants, who had sent forward no
snore than the fair observations which might be expected
in a public juurnal. For these rea.ous the Learned
Counsel concluded the rule our,ht to be refused.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL rose to reply in .upport of
th.• rule, but Lord TENTENDEN intimated that the Court
would bear him on a futute dry.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, Nut. 14.
ARTHUR U. THOMAS AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a coach-
maker, residing at Benson, in Oxfurdshite, against the
defendants, stage coach l.roprieturs, to muter the sum
of 1001.17% for mileage.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY (with whom was Mr. KELLY)
stated this case, ft am which it appeared only one of the
defendants opposed this debt, the other proprietors hav•
ing become bankrupts. This action was for mileage,
for furnishing a stage each at so much per mile, from
Stroadwater to London.

COURT OF EXCHFQUER. Nov. 14.

EXTENTS IN AID ..THE KING D. MA UNDIE, AUSTIN, AND

TILSON.

Mr. SHEPHERD moved that a writ of extent in aid
might is ue against the defendants, bearing the same
leate as on a farmer writ issued against tern in 1816
The application was made on behalf of one of the sive•
ties of the defendants. From the statement of the
Learned Counsel it appeared,that in 1816 an extent issued
against 11. T. Austin. Henry NI donde and James Tilson.
for the suin of 22,0001. The Crown se zed 13,0001
under that writ, and at the end i.f two year. called on
the sureties of the, elendants, for the tem ining 9,0001.
An order was then ma,!e on the 17th of April, 1818.
that t're personal representatives of the sureties twul d
stand in the place of the Crown, and, by virtue of that
order, they were e tabled to collect 4 0001. from the de-
fendants. leaving 5,000/. still due and unpaid. It was
lately discovered that one cf defendants, Henry
_ _

Nlaunde, was entitled to the reversion of an estate which
had not been seized under the writ; and, in order to
enable the sureties to come at that estate, as well as
other property, they now prayed that an extent might
issue, bearing the same Seale as the writ of 1816.
Mr. Baron lIDLLOCK—You are asking for a very for-
midable power. If we grant the writ as yru desire it,
it will overhaul and upset every thing wan property
since 1816. This would be a dteadful hardship. The
Crown cettainly has the pooh r, but I thiiik, for one,
that we ought wit to exercise it unless upon very strong
grounds. Besides, you have no affidavit stating that
the parties are insolvent, and there is no other way of
getting at them. I believe that you have a tight to a
writ of assistance, or some other writ, which would place
you in the shoes of the Crown, but the extent would
follow all the property of which the defendants were
possessed, or to which they were entitled at and since
1816, no matter into whose hands that property may
have since passed : might not this produce great misery
among patties who had no connection whatever with
the original transaction?
Mr. SHEPHERD—If the present application were made
on behalf of the Crown, I apprehend that the Conti
uld instantly grant it.
Mr. Itaron HULLOCK—Certainly not, unless upon a
sery different statement of facts. The danger of wan- ing
he wr t i., that it will tip up every thing that has taken
place since 1816. We must have an affidavit as to the
property now in the hands of the principals, and in the
meantime inquiry can be made as to some way of getting
relief without having recourse to a fresh extent.
Mr. SHEPHERD—The advantage of an eatent is, that
it supersedes all other claims.
The LORD CIIIR7 BARON—And a •ery formidable
advantage that is.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nor. 14.

IN THE GOODS 07 T. RAVENSCHOET, DECEASED.

Dr. LubtraxuroN moved to have the will of the tes-
tator propounded in its otiginal state. without the al.
teratior s in the margin. The will was made on the 18 h
of April, 1825, whereby the testator bequeathed to the
sons of his daughter, Mrs. /lead, 4,3001. each, and to
her daughters nearly the same sum. His Solicitor, Mr.
Moore, and two other Gentlemen, were appointed exe-
c utor s. In Janu4ry, this year, Mr. Moore died. Shottly
after which event, Vie testator called on that Gentle-
man's partner (Mr. Blake), and requested to have the
will, which had been deposited with Mr. Moore, given
up to him, which was accordingly done; he at the
same time informed Mr. Blake that he should call
again is a few days, ai he u ished to have some
alterations made in his will ; he, however, .never did
call again for such purpose, but in the month of
August last died, labouring under considerable abrrra-
tion of mind. After his decease, ilwas discovered that
he had written on the margin of his will the following
words—so One of my grandsons being dead, I intend to
bequeath 1,00011 each to my two other grandsons, with
the residue of my property to my grand-daughters."—
The Learned Counsel said it never could be the inten-
tion of the testator to dispose of his property in this
way, after the will he had made, and which was not
cancelled ; and if the Court allowed it to be propounded
with this alteration, instead of the grandsons receiving
4,3001. each, they would only be entitled to 1,0001.
whereas the grand-daughters' pottions would be in-
creased to more than 13 0001. each. The probable
meaning of the testator was to give to the surviving
sons 1,0001 each, out of the pot tion of the one sho had
died, and the residue to which he would have been en.

Witnesses were called to prove the partnership be-
tween Thomas and Dale, of the Old Bell, Holborn.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS, for the defendant Thomas, said
this was not a case of partnership. Thomas had paid
Dale, and the plaintiff took a bill of exchange from
D I-, who became a bankrupt, and the plaintiff received
a dividend under the commission.

The proceedings under the commission we,e put in
and read ;it appealed the plaintiff received . dividend.
The CHIRP Jusrtca, in summing up, said if the Jury
thought the debt discharged by the bill of exchange,
then they would find for the defendant ; other% ise, their
verdict Must be for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS said be hoped his Lord,hip
would give him leave to move to set aside the verdict,
if against the defendant. The bill he thought must be
held good, unless the plaintiff could prove that be had
given notice of the presentment and dishonour.
The CHM Jutrice said certainly that point must be
rev rved for the Court to consider at another time.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 1001. 17s.
LLIWZLLJN IP. ISQUILANT.

titled to the daughters. Under these circumstances he
tru.ted the Couit would allow the will to be proved in
its original state.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL did not think the Court could
comply with thin upon motion; it was a most serious
and important question, and there did not appear to
him to be sufficient facts st sled to satisfactorily convince
him that the words as written did not convey what the
testator intended. I-le must be informed more parti-
cularly of the circumstances of the case.

This was an action to recover damages for an illegal
trespass on the premises of the plaintiff.

Dr. LualitNirros sari, that being informed of the
opinion of the Court, the case should be again brought
forward in another sha; e.
The COURT afterwArds disposed of a great number
of motions, principally matters of course.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY stated the case to the Jury.—
The plaintiff rented a house at Fulham from the de-
fendant, who had neglected to do cei lain repairs, which
were, as the plaintiff contended, absolutely necessary,
end which the defends t bad agveed to do. The pl.,it -
tiff in consequence of this non-pet for mance of costs Act,
quitted the house on the 13th of December, sendini . the
key to the defendant, at the same time a demand lot MANSION.HOUSE.
the sum of 134 for other repairs which he had done to
Two young men, named Ball and Curtis, were brought before
the house at his own expense. On the 19th Decem"et with having robbed a Gentleman of A
the
on" litArrtitlaeyh"'SedD
the defendant followed the plaintiff's goods to his new The rutsonuers arhefswell known to
residence, and distrained them, upon which, in th tic ingenious extractoo
rrseo4YrOpe
absence of the plaintiff, a Lady in the neighbourhood ingenuity failed, and under particular eireumstarft ees.°e4lisi*n their
Two °Meer, who were upon duty in the City on Lord Mayor's
became responsible for the debt upon the withdraw 41 osoi saw the whom
T they had often seen before, (Cl-
the distress, at the same time stating that she did lowing procession was passing
alo^ They Gentleman near
without prejudice. The rent distrained for was ores
in
npoan
hstsstanhiitu satn.dahslulrkrihadudker.
111. and it appeared that it was not due at the time, nor chief, het they were apprehended off
the watchhuuse, where they were searched. The *Metres 6ndiugto
would it be until the 25th of December, six days salt:(- persons
. of a suspicious kind, left them in the
usteltronhig"-gr "oil
athendirw
wards. Independent of this, even if the rent had beenlt, however, occurred
due, the distress would have been still illegal, for the to the pacer, that twoent
fienilrwessrsoofacti others.
and
dd clever: as the prisoners,
ought to be searched more minutely,"
statute, or as it was called by one of the witness- s, theinserhey returned to the
watehhouse for the purpose of maid ng a e investigation. Just
statue € f George the Second, only authorises that the, as they entered the strongroom,
they
saw Hall descending from
.t goo. may be followed when they have been clandes- the rafters. At srst they sepposedi that an escape was in eon-
ttnely removed, which was not the case in the present temptation, and the prisoners avowed the suisposi i
however, thsof lit necessary - t cin.
It
was,
instance.
paters, g cessary to take a loot at the rafters, ant!
on mounting up, put Ids band upon a handkerchief.
Mr. Sergeant SPASIXIS, for the defendant, admitted, in one
which t
prisoners
weretwraypkpednewupnuathginold watch,
l chain, and seals. The
that a verdict must pass against him, as most ceitaiiilyproperty,
f but
one of the officers Immediately identified theil htintdhkeerels'e his client had not adhered crosely to the statue of Georgelawthhai
which the prisoner Hall wore round his neck upon being.
the Second—(A laugh). The fact was, he had mistaken
watchEvidenee. to this effect was given, and a Gentleman claimed
the law, Igo very great crime, though the law does pre- ted
utproperty.l He stated that, on Lord Mayor's Day,
some most charitably that every one must be acquainted as he iViS as
his
gais some thieves hustled him,
pith it. Yet notwithstanding this presumption, the and in a moment he lostg
his watch. ei
The love of the profession was singularly displayed in this ease.
Learned Judge would tell the Gentlemen of the Jury, The gold watch and appendages were well worth ten or twelve
by the bye, that they must take the law from him. And
:airs., and the thieves
.could have disposed of so valuable a booty
why ? because they knew nothing at all about it—(A
evert tieing
fneighbourhoodwithout delay,snd yet they preterred risking
laugh). They were in that happy state of
eignorance,law,. morery
than
or
shilling.t t which, in F teld.lane, would have produced no
whiffs, notwithstanding the presumption of th
The Loan Maroc asked the prl ones whether they wished td
adored by ten millions of his Majesty's subject is
say any thing upon the subject. They declared that they knew
(Great laughing). The plaintiff mu.% hare a vcidia, nothing about the watch, and that, la alms/An probability, a crate