Star.
London, England, 1816-06-15 00:00:00

temp t .1140,11.totget
Ascot 'twit tons, ritimt it 14.
Stresposkes a sob seek h• he two le eld ohs. tit #
Alba us sp.Tlro yr old Coons: The "rinser of s 'weep.
'Makes to miry 31b extra.
Mr. Makes I. by Way •
Mt. J. Pereies b. c. Dick Andrews:Meet= • •
Mr. Conan's f. by Batas a
IL R. H. the Doke of York% Lby Eleetion . 4
7 1.'4 and S to I apt the c. by Dick Aedrewo..2 to I NOW
the wsaAsr-3 end 4 is 1 apt the Duke of York's L-4 to 1 ago
the f. by lam.
The Wohingbam &aka of Sp sat*, and 51, to the Clerk of the
Course (Handicap), for all aps. *no kW three quarten of the
New Mlle.
Doke of Ratiand's Osnaan, 5 yes eld, mint) • 1
Mr. ilake's Cricketer, S yrs old, act - -
H. R. R. the Duke of York's Cashew, 4 yw 014 Ike 2
10 waited i the Judge placed bat 3.—Tbe betting varied from
evea tot to 4 age fkrapeall-.4 to 1 apt Osman-.. 5 to 1 against
C4icteter—e and 7 to J apt Coy.,
A. Plate of 450, for all ages. Hee% the Old mnit• The whom'
to be sold for 230 p if demanded, Jr.c.
Dana* Gower's Miran, 3 yrs old - •
Mr. Brown's Marksman, aged •
Mr. Starling's Toy, S yrs old - •
Dale of Rutland's bi. c. by Sorcerer, 3 yrs old
Mr. Ireland's Tantalus, 3 yrs old
7t04 oo Rivulet—arm the heat 2to 1 and sto 2.

1 I
• 1 2
5 3
3 dr
4 dr

4 _,
its
lie
beakprocitibt the MO:Otton 'of 11"
idth her to Undoes and
tote cart of Dr. Pemberton, a Gentleman eminent for
his skill. ~ While the plaintiff was 'hue exerting him-
self placed her under
self feCOVery of his wife, this Deal Apothecary
Ind ' ' business, and was haunting the lodgings
of :. yin London. Her health being reamed,
Lady Owen returned to Deal, and then, for the firat
st
time, Sir Edward was informed by his servant, th
a criminal connection had undoubtedly taken place,
and was of long standing, between his wits and the
defendant. The moment this communication was
mbuadsittsScirlosEedlystardbut deeetheiniLiansl;l to investigate the
, hearing that an in-
quiry was about to take place—knowing the quarter
from whence the information came—and being as-
sured it was impossible she cold now escape as she
hatbbefore done—eloped from her husband's house
with the defindant. Sir Edward sent an old servant
after her, who had long lived in her family, or the
purpose of discovering where she was, and also for
the purpose of directing her steps to a place where
she might be saved from the misery which her con:
nection with the defendant was likely to produce.—
This servant found her. Anxious to get her away
from the seduced, he said to him—" Sir, you had
better leave this Lady, for Sir Edward Owen will
soon be here." 66 1 don't care," said he, 66 for 6ir
Edward—l have pistols about me, and, it he comes,
It will shoot him." The parties, from that period to
the present, had riot separated. The defendant coa-
-1 tinned to live with this unfortunate woman, as hos-
bands did with their wives. After animadverting
with much severity on the conduct of the defendant,
who bad taken the opportunity, when, as a medical
maa, he was employed in attendance on this Lady,
to debauch her mind, and seduce her affections from
her husband, be proceeded to call his witnesses.
Admiral Sir George Campbell, Admiral Lord.
Keith, Rear-Admiral, Scott, Admiral Sir W. Young,
aid Admiral Sir Richard Lee, spoke, in the most
decided terms, of the affectionate attachment which
seemed to subsist between Sir Edward and Lady
Owen.
A series of witnesses proved the mode adopted by
the defendant and Lady Owen, in carrying on their
correspondence through the medium of a female
servant.
The elopement was proved by a post-boy ; and
the fact of their having slept together at the Inn at
Sandwich, was deposed to by a female servant.
Here the plaintiff's case was closed.
Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury on the
part of the defendant, in an eloquent speech, in which
be commented, with great force and ingenuity, upon
the disparity of years between the parties (the Lady
being between SO and 40 years of age, the defendant
only 22) ; and thence inferred, that the seduction
must have been, in point of fact, committed by the
elder. He then impresses: upon the Jury, that no
breach of medical confidence had been committed,
as the father of the youth was, in reality, the profes-
;lonal attendant. and not his son, who was the unfor-
tunate victim of this attachment, being now a beggar,
1
the partnership with hi: father dissolved, and his own
prospects in life ruined and undone.
The Danny Sanaas then summed up the evi-
dence to the Jury. who retired for twenty minutes,
and brought in a verdict of Fifteen Hundred Pounds
damages for the plaintiff. . • * • ...
cbtar OF MOWS EVICH, WM In
SHAW V. HRAND.
This was an action brought by the -plaintiff, a
coal dealer at Birmingham. to recover from the de-
' teaching, one of the City Marshal's men, £ll5 in
cash, and several articles which were at present in de-
fendant's possession, having been taken from the per-
son of Jack Harty Evans, alias &vans, who was ap.
prehendedea a charge of hone stealing, and tried at
the late Warwick Assizes. The plaintiff now claimed
the property in question under a deed of assignment
executed by Evans after. he became a prisoner, and
about a fortnight previous to his trial. The assign-
meat, in its terms,
.purported to be an assignment of I
property to the pantiff, in satisfaction of a debt of
se7o, for horses sold to him, and in trust for the be-
ige& of other persons mentioned in the deed.
The deed having been proved,
Mr. GURNEY, on the part of the defendant, con-
tended, that the assignment could not be considered,
as a al instrument, and in support of this opinion
Sk• ia aid the case of 66 Jones and Asherton,"
inner's Reports, page 507, which was a question
on the validity of an assignment made by a convict,
after conviction, is favour of his child ; in which case
it was held, that after apprehenlion no person charged
with felony could make an assignment of his effects.
This decision was come to on the principle, that if the
law were otherwise, the stolen property aright be
conveyed by the felon to a third person. He had
also another objection in the present case. namely,
that here was not sufficient proof that the debt claimed
by the plaintiff was a fair haw
.fide debt.
Lord ELLansontmon held, that a person charged
with feleay might make an assignment of property
prior to convittion ; but there must be a clear proof
that it was for a fair boss ids consideration ; and a
ellort and a Jury would always look for a full and
clear proof of that circumstance. In the present case,
bit Lordship declared the proof to be deficient, and,
,therefore, directed the plaintiff to be nonsuited ;
savingithe point, however, for future consideration.
JUNE 14.

*U V. Till CORPORATION OP CHIPPING WYCOM).
The ATTORNICT Gratannt. moved for a rule to shew
came why a Mandamus should not be directed to the
Mayor and Corporation of the Borough of Chipping
Wycomb, in Buckinghamshire, commanding them
to relocate a person (not named) to the office of '
Master of the Grammar School of that town, who
bad been dismissed, as was alleged, without any
nudleient cause, from his said office. The affidavits
in support of the motion- stated, that the applicant
bad been appointed to the office of Schoolmaster of
t)nt Grammar School, and had held the situation for
& considerable time with credit to himself, 'and whil-
ing any imputation upon his moral character; that
usefulitnprovements in the school,
expense for that object.
establishment, he had had
Corporation to take in a certain
benefit, and in order to
he had enlarged his
, considerable sum of
Rhea he commenced this
44 tam hji niece into