Star.
London, England, 1820-11-16 00:00:00

11.A.WTHORS V. MILLS.

,The. plaintiff in this cause had been the Mayor of
Bristol, and the defendant is not unknown to the
Public. The defendant having summoned the plain-
tiff to London as witness in a cause, had tendered
£lB as a remuneration for his travelling expenses,,
which was refused, and the plaintiff recovered £2l.
A .new ti ial having taken place at Bristol, the ver-
dict was confirmed. The defendant now in person
moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirec-
tion on the part of the Jude, and of partiality on
the part of the Jury, six of whom he would have
challenged, had he not been overruled, as Members
of the. Corporation of Bristol. The Court granted
tiv Rule, on the understanding that the other party
should have leave to enter a State process.

THE KING V. T. DAVIDSON.
The defendant, wl:ose trial for a blasphemous and
seditious publication at Gnildhall, was formerly re-
potted in the STAR, appeared this day in Court, and
moved, by Mr. COOPER, his Counsel, for a new trial.
The Learned Counsel began by reading the affidavit
of the defendant, stating, that at the time of the trial
lie had been intimidated by the Judge, who had im-
posed three successive fines upon him, to the amount,
in the aggregate, of £lOO. That the deponent at
'the time had been told by the Judge, that whatever
should be the result of the trial, the fines would be
exacted ; and, fearing for the fate of his family, he
had been unable to do justice to his cause, for fear of
incurring the displeasure of the Jude; else he could
have cited one hundred authorities in favour of the
opinions he had advanced; and, as the Jury had shewn
no impatience whatever at the line of defence he was
pursuing, he might have been acquitted. The Coun-
sel was proceeding to read the affidavit, when
Mr. Justice BEST obverted, that it was impossible
eo know if the affidavit was true, as the defendant
was a Deist, and did not believe in the book on which
be had been sworn.
Mr. COOPER said, that the defendant, though a
Deist, might have a proper sense of the obligation of
an oath.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that the defendant
:night have a just regard to an oath adapted to his
peculiar belief and opinions ; but could not be sworn
oil a book, the contents of which he disbelieved.
The Counsel then proceeded to argue, that the
fines imposed en the defendant, were not justifiable;
as a Judge could only fine for contempt, and that of
such a nature as.tended to obstruct the due adminis-
tration of justice.
Mr. Justice BEST here remarked, that the facts had
not been correctly stated in the affidavit.
The Counsel resumed, observing, that for the pas-
sage for which the first fine bad been inflicted, though
the language might sot have been altogether deco-
oes, it only went to state that the Deist was not a
Christian ; and that certainly was no sufficient ground
for the imposition of a fine. Neither eras the passage
*au-dated to the Bar an adequate cause. The third

.
faie tigter or.
dens as 8c des..
Justice Besr.—fte words were, The Nobility
;lee Blacklegs, and thi Bishops Infidels:"
" But the same remarks said the Counsel) bad teen
often niade ' • and much of the immorality of the
times had been ascribed to the,bad example of the
higher orders. The Learned Counsel thin contended
that the Judge had no power to fine at Nisi Prim: ;
nor could he -find any example of such a.course hav-
ing ever been adopted. There were great negative
proofs to the contrary. At the trial of .D. I. Eaton,,
before the late Lord Ellenborough, the Judge was
obliged repeatedly to check the defendant ; but when
the latter told him he could not do justice to his
cause if he was interrupted in that manner, the Judge
allowed him to go on, 'and had neither fined nor
committed him. -The second negative proof that no
such power existed, was-at the trial of Carlile, when
no fine had been imposed by the present ClsiefJustice
of the Court of King's Bench ; and the other instance
was in the case of the King v. Wedderburn. No
more tremendous power could centre in a Judge,
than the right of fining ; as a defendant, having a
wife and family, must necessarily be intimidated by
the consequences that must result to them from the
exercise of such a power on the part of the Judge.
The defendant had stated he had been so intimidated,
and had been afraid to state anything that might
offend the Court, lest his family should be turned
into the streets to starve. The proper mode to check
what might be improper on the part of defendants,
was, not to fine, but to commit. In prison, a man
might see that he had done wrong ; and when brought
up again, would most probably conduct himself in a
proper manner, and might eventually be acquitted.
He would suppose, what was fortunately now but a
supposition, that there should be a corrupt Court and
a corrupt Government, and that to gratify the latter
the former might impose a fine of 01000 upon a per-
son on his trial : in that case the defendant must be
unable to make a bold defence,, as he had only a
choice between his own ruin and that of his family.
Should such a power be found to exist, from thence-
forward there would be no intrepid or manly defence.
He (the Counsel) felt much respect for the judge
who had imposed the fine, and he was sore the best
way he could take to merit l:is (the Judge's) good
opinion, was to state his own with manliness and
freedom. He should therefore observe, that the
Learned Judge himself appeared to have doubts as
'to the correctness of his procedure, from the circum-
stance that he afterwards remitted the fines. By such
a mode of proceeding the defendant had not. been
punished, nor had any example been held out" to
others. He concluded by moving for a Rule to shew
cause why a new trial should not be granted.

Mr. Justice BEST said, he was the last man who
should wish to prevent the defendant having the be-
nefit of a Rule; and had it not been for the con-
cluding part of the speech •of the Learned Counsel,
he should have taken no part in the discussion, but
have left the whole to his Learned Brothers. He had
no doubt whatever as to the Judge having the power
of fining; and should continue to think so till he
should be infornied by the House of Lords that he
was in error. He had chosen rather to take that
course than to commit the defendant, which he (the
defendant) wished to provoke him to do. Should the
defendant have been committed, the consequence
would not have been as the Learned Counsel sup-
posed, a suspension of the proceedings, but the de-
fendant must have been either acquitted or convicted,
neither of which could have been satisfactory in the
absence of the defendant, and when the cause would
have been unheard. He had chosen rather to fine
than to comniit the defendant, as by that course he
would be enabled to complete his defence. If a
Judge were capable of abusing that power, he would
be unworthy to sit an hear longer on that Bench
which he had contaminated and disgraced. ' When
he had been told by the defendant that his (the
Judge %) province only was to preserve order in the
Court, he had overlooked the insult to himself, though
he could not in the saw manner pass over the attack
on the Bar, and felt himself bound to protect the
law, in the seat of Justice. The defendant had made
a gross attack on the Christian Religion;and for that
the second fine had been imposed ; and then came
the attack on the Nobility and the Bishops, for which
he had been fined the third time. At the same time,
he had told the defendant to state freely whatever he
conceived to be material to his case; provided he
did not attack the truths of Religion, or libel persons
who were not before the Court, and could not be
heard in their defence. If he had acted in error. by
all means let the defendant have the benefit of it ;
though, as to the power of fining, he could enter-
tain no doubt. In consequence of the imposition of
the fine, the defendant had apologised for his con-
duct, and had at the same time stated, that the exac-
tion of it would be equivalent to a sentence o perpe-
tual imprisonment. As he had no wish thac.such a
consequence should follow, and as the defence.had
been subsequently conducted in a decorous .and pro-
per manner, the fines had been remitted.
The Bench remained some time in consultation ;
after which the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that a
Judge might fine at Nisi Prius, in the case of imprci-
per conduct; but as it had been stated, on the part
of the defendant, that he had been intimidated by
the fines, and prevented from defending himself in
the manner he otherwise would, the Court would
grant the Rule, to come on for argument in the pre-
scot Term. •
Mr. Justice BATE= bad no doubt as to the'power
of fining at Nisi ,Prius in a case of contempt, as a
Court at Nisi Prins was a Court of Record ; but as
the defendant might have been intimidated, he con-
curred in the opinion that a Rule should be granted
to shew cause, and trusted the defendant would so
conduct himself; as not to call forth the animadver-
sions of the Court. As to the propriety of imposing
the fines on the occasion alluded to, it did not belong
the Court to decide.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD (who came into Court to-
wards the close of the argument) stated his opinion
to be, that a Court of Record had the power to fine;
and that the Court at Nisi Prius was a Court of Re-
cord. He also concurred in the opinion for grant-
ing the Rule.
Mr. Justice BEET was happy that the Rule had
been granted. He must, at the same time, beg leave
to state, that be had, on the trial, told the defendant
to make use of envy means in his power to establish

'his defence, codtpatible with a regard to Religion
. .
and the characters of others. •
THE 10110,V. JANE CA EMIL
Mr. HILL, in this case, moved for a Rule m ar-
rest of judgment, on The ground that thotigh there
were three counts in the indictment, there were only
two on the endorsement, and contended that such a
variance was not a defect in form but in substance.
The COURT granted the Rule, leaving it to the
Counsel either to take it for the purpose of quashing
the iadictinent,
_or in atrest of judgment.
EDWARD V. O'BRIEN.
Mr. SCARLETT, in this case, moved for a Rule to
skew' cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against Mr. O'Brien, for endeavouring to
provoke the plaintiff to fight' a duel. The parties had
a quarrel, arising out of some commercial transac-
tions, when the defendant meeting the plaintiff, held'
up a stick before his face, and afterwards posted him
in a public room.—Rule granted.
DOE, ON DEMISE OF HART V. CALDER. •
This was an action of ejectment tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the last Assizes, and turned
upon the construction to be put upon that clause of
the Statute of. Frauds which requires three witnesses
to instruments liar the transfer of real property.
It appeared that the testator, under whom the
plaintiff claimed the tenement in question, made his
will, and not being aware of the necessity of having
three witnesses, it, was, in the first instance, sub-
scribed by two only ; one of whom being appointed
executor, it was suggested that he was an improper
witness, on which he drew his pen through his sig-
nature, leaving his name; however, still legible ;.and
the landlord of the house was called in, and sub-
scribed the will in his stead.

- _
The Jury found for the legatees who claimed un-
der the will, and against theheir at law.
Mr. WALFons now moved for _a Rule to chew
cense why a verdict should not be entered for the
plaintitE He contended that it was not a question
if degree on which the Court were called upon to
judge how many strokes of the pen obliterated the
name of the subscribing witness, but ;that thet will
never was a perfect instrument, subscribed by three
credible witnesses, as required by the Statute.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if it had not bet-
ter be made into -a case, as the point was a new one?
Mr. WALFORD said, the parties were extremely
poor, and livirg in Ireland.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER
TR'JSCOTT V. CIiitISTIE.

This was an action on a policy of insurance,
brouglAt under the following circumstances :—ln the
month of October, 1818, a correspondence took place
between the plaintiff,, who was the owner of a vessel
lying in the harbour of Madras, called the Cornwall,
and the authorized officers of the East India Com-
pany, by which he agreed to let his ship to freight,
and undertook to convey- to London any goods they
might put on beard of her, together with such a
number of invalids as the ship might be found ca.
pable of conveying, on a survey being taken. The
ship was afterwards surveyed by the proper officer,
who reported that she bad convenience for fifty in-
valids. Shortly after this survey, the plaintiff wrote
to the Secretary of the Board of Trade, informing
him, that, with the addition of another deck, the
ship could, in his estimation, safely convey the in-
creased number of 200, instead of 50 invalids. The
officer who had made the survey, on being applied
to for his opinion, stated his concurrence with the
plaintiff in this respect ; on which ahe Secretary ad-
dressed the owner, informing him, that "the Gover-
nor, in Council, bad approved of his undertaking the
projected alteration in the arrangements of the Corn.
wall ;" and gave him " an assurance from the Go-
vernment, that invalids to the extent of 200, would be
embarked eventually, if, on the usual military survey,
the ship should be found capable of receiving them."',
The servants of the East India Company began to
load goods on board the ship a few days after the
correspondence, and continued to do so until the 23d
of October. On the 24th of that month a violent'
gale arose, which completely disabled her from per-
' forming her homeward voyage, and at this period
about 140 tons of the Company's goods were on
board. The owner had, besides, 'shipped water for
100 passengers, exclusive of the ship's company ; and,
for the purpose of erecting an additional deck, a
quantity of timber had been brought on board, and
the work was commenced. The defendant subscribed
the policy for 4:200; and on the trial of the cause,
the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff to the
amount of £4B, for the freight insured on goods, re-
specting which there now appeared to be no question,
and £56 for the insurance on the passage-money, if the
Court should be of opinion that defendant was liable.

Mr. Serjeant BLOSSETT, for the plaintiff, having
stated the-case, contended that the defendant was
clearly liable. The two questions for the considera-
tion of the Court were, whether this correspondence
was a sufficient contract under the circumstances of
the case, and whether there had not been so far a per-
formance on the part of the plantiff as to entitle him
to recover. Freight had been lost by one of the pe-
rils insured against ; it had been lost by the perils of
the sea, and on that ground, therefore, he had a right
to expect the judgment of the Court. Persons pro-
perly authorised by the East India Company corres-
ponded with and instructed the plaintiff, who, incon-
sequence of these instructions, had made alterations
in his ship, and was thereby precluded from letting
it to freight to any ether persons. This case differed
from that of Forbes v. Aspinall, 15 East, 323; for
there the freight was not lost by the perils of the sea.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY, for the defendant, submitted
that in this case t3iere was no contract, for that which
was relied on as such was merely a correspondence
.between the plaintiff and some of the officers of the
East India Company, and not a valid and proper
charter-party on which it could be said the plaintiff
possessed any definite rights. The correspondence
itself expressed nothing done, but everything to be
performed; all was Infiguro, and it could not be
contended that on this the plaintiff could declare asl
on a good consideration. Though there was a conT,
tract for the conveyance of goods, there was none for',
the passage of the invalids; as to the latter, indeed:'
the correspondence was nothing but a mass of con-
tingency, the words, "if, on the usual military
sur-
vey, the ship shall lie found capable of receiving
, them," fully proved that on them the plaintiff could
! have maintained no action against the East India Cont-
i pony if they had refund to employ his ship for the

f

conveyance iof the lnvalids. The plaintiff had 20;
performed anything by which his right 'to freig t
had commenced; he had not built the .additioa
`deck, nor were there any passenger's on board whei
the loss occurred. As nothing had been perform..,
and as all might be said to be in a state of mere ii,-
ception, the Learned Serjeant contended that the
fendant could not be considered liable to the loss.
Mr. Serjeant lkosserr, in reply, strongly resisted
the principle for which the defendant had errnte .
According to that, no freighter could recover ni.:.
the voyage had actually commenced, as his Lea:;-
Brother on the other side designated everything
tip. i
occurred before actual 'sailing " mere ince,a•, •
The case of Thompson v. Taylor, 6 Term Repo
478, was in point, for the ship was not ready to ft_;
form her voyage when the loss hr.ppened.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAs.—This case embrait:
tlree points; first, Nvhether there was a legal and -4::
ficient contract? secondly, whether there was ant.
thing to be done undei this contract, if it did exiit?
and, thirdly, whether any act was pc: formed by tl e
plaintiff in compliance with it? As to the first poi;;,
I think there can be no doubt whatever; but if tht.e
could be any case which my brother Richardson tk:;
mentioned would set it at rest, that case was argued
under the following circumstances: —Some letters
had passed between the owner of a vessel and anot;:er
person, when it was agreed that the hip sh..uld be
loaded by the latter with goods consigned to Loudon.
The loading, as in this case, commenced ; but betere
it could be finished, the ship having been previously
insured, was lost. The assured were held emiilea to
recover for the goods unshipped, as the risk v. as con-
sidered to have commenced by the loading of part of
the cargo. The owner has perforMed as ;laugh as he
was abre, by commencing what the perils of the :;et
alone prevented him from completing. The incep-
tion oldie risk followed immediately on the inceprica
of the performance by the owner, of that which was
part of the contract entered into by him with the au-
tholfzed °dicers of the-East India Company. The
case of Thompson v.-Taylor is like the present, and
the judgment of the Court there went on the ground
that something had been done, which, if matured,
would have entii led the owner to hts freight.
The rest of the Court concurring, judgment was
given for the plaintiff.
•

Yesterday evening, soon after five o'clock, a Cm-
denian Was daringly attacked in Wych-street, iii:
gang of three or four, ar,d robbed of his sentch.
attack was made by One of the villains thwarting. t!!::
Gentleman in hi; passing,on, as if by accident, vAlun
a sec, `A came up, aria suatedaerlat his watch :
he resisted, a third came up and knocked him down,
and they got off With v.ratch.
Tuesday evening, between fi,:e and six o'clock, Mr.
WutTe, surgeon, of Red-Lion-street, was knocked
down by a gang of ruffians in Liquorpond-street,
and robbed of a gold chain and seals. Mr. Wnryt
saved his watch, by an arduous- struggle .with the
villain's, from one at whom he wrenched a bludgeon,
which is left at Illtton-garden Office.
A desperate gang of robbers have for some time
past infested Nottingham and.its neighbour hod, and
committed numerous depredations. On Friday even-
ing Mr. SAXTON, traveller to a respectable house ill
London, was robbed and dreadfully beaten by four
.or five ruffians, on the highway, nearly opposite the
white house on Lenton Sands. There were three
other footpad robberies committed the same evening.
Saturday se'nnight, at Kirkbride, in the.parish
' Straiton, about half a score of doies were observed
hovering in the air, seemingly affected by something
on the ground, and the attention of the observer
being directed to the spot, a weasel was found in the
act of cutting the throat of one of the :loves. The
weasel was caught in the act, but the neck of the
dove being nearly separated, it died, and the weasel
received the punishment of a murderer. On the
day preceding, a partridge, supposed to be pursued by
a bird of prey, took refuge in a shop in the most fre-
quented street in Ayr. And within these few days, a
hawk and a sparrow were caught, in one of the bed-
rooms of a house in the suburbs. From the unusual
quantity of soot brought down the chimney, it ap-
peared the birds had made their entrance to the room
in that way—the one in pursuit of the other. By the
timely arrival of the Gentleman of the house, his
poor sparrow was saved from destruction, . and the
eairenous pursuer imprisoned.
DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—The Tragedy of King
Lear was last nikbt performed at this Theatre, when
the characters of the unfortunate Mqnarch. of the
generous Edgar, and the amiahe and dutiful Cor-
della, were assigned to Mr. Boon', Mr. COOPER, and
Mrs. W. WEST. The merits of the first and last of
these performers, in their different characters, have
already undergone the ordeal of public criticism.—
In the representation of last night they rather added
to than diminished their former reputation. Mr.
COOPER was new to the town in Edgar, and although
what we had previously seen of this Gentleman s
performance induced us to believe he would be re-
spectable, even in this arduous character, it is but
justice to say; that he exceeded our expectation.—
The House was respectably: attended.. In the After-
piece was presented a rich musical treat in the ope-
ratic Burletta of Midas, Madame VisstatrOming
out as Apollo. Mr. T. Coos; as../upiterl'Hastsy,
as Pan; Murams,. as Midas = .with many etceteras,
made up a formidable corps of vocalists. .

BIRTH.
Friday, in London, of a son, the Lady of Charles Wray, Esq.
Recorder of littlL

MARRIED.
Oct. 21, at Naples, Frederick Dashwood Swann, Esg. Capurio
(half-pay) of the Grenadier Guarth, to Charlotte Catheriso
Brydges, third daughter of Sir Egerton Brydges, Bart.

DIED.
Saturday, in Portland-place, the Dowager Countess of Lincoln.
Nov. 7, at Park House, near blackout, the widow of the
late Major-General Calder, Bart.

Price.

36s 0(1 to 44s 6cl
36s 6J to 45s (d
oos od Ss Fa
cos od to 274 oil