Star.
London, England, 1811-08-16 00:00:00



-

THE,NIGHTINGALE AND THE LARK.
A FABLE.
♦DDREScaD TO ToOKO POZTa.
While Pitlxosist.A potted her thrilling strain,
She tilled with rapture all the neighbouring plains;
• The leafy trees no breezes shook,
The general transport they paitook ;
The win,Ted choir forgot to steep
Their senses is oblivious sleep.
Auao aA, smitten with her lay,
Delayed to usher in the day;
For even the gods with ravished ear,
The melting notes of ritt Lox Er.A hear;
And she by sucti an honour fired,
To charm with still more moving melodies aspired.
She then gave o'er—the LARK drew nigh—
,' thou Aitteld more exquisitely sweet than I,
6' rids crad.e is thine; yet we complain,
" And this thy fund admirers tie`er deny,
" 1 hat all the year, a week or two alone we hear thy strain."

But PHILOMELA smiling said,
" Of this reproach I'm not afraid,
" May never more than this assai) my name ;
S' I sing not long—and why ? Because I sing for fame.
" The voice of nature I obey,
" At her command I poar the lay;
" At her command my ♦oice is still,
" For all should yield to nature's sovereign will."
Let Pummel.* be your rule,
Sing nut ye Poets all the live long year,
For they who sing in Truth and Nature's school,
Can only hope at times to please our ear.
Would ye the world with ph scare till,
Sing only when the Muse inspires !
Thus may ye hope to mount the hill
Where Fame's proud Temple allows her glittering spires!
And when the wearied Muse deities her aid,
By silence will ye hest consult your tame;
For he who seeks to make the Muse his trade, '
Howe'er Fortune crown his present aim—
Will at last to ridicule his name,
And 'sued of buret Wreaths, adorn his brows with shame! p.

.43,s7ZES.

SUFFOLK.
Yesterday se'nnight the lion. Mr. Justice HEATH
opened the commission for holding these Assizes ;
and on the next morning, the Learned Judge :team-
parried by the High Sheri:l', the Officers of the Court,
and the Aldermen and Gentlemen ache Corporation,
attended divine service at St. Mary's Church, where
a sermon was preached by the Rev. Dr. Pettiward;
(brother of Roger Pettiward, Esq. the High Sheritf)
from Titus S. V. 1. About it ono the same day,
Lord Chief Justice Massriet.n 'arrived front Cam.
bridge (where he had been detained in hearing
causes) ain!"the two Judges immediately prcceeded
the iespective Cotirts.
Lord Chief Justice MaNsriew having proceeded
to business at the Crown Bar,
John Rose and James Jesup were convicted of bur-
llarionsly entering die dweliing house of Mr. Stephen
00:1-row, of 11,. dtield, and received sentence of
death, but were afterwards reprieved. John Francis,
Charles Honey wood, and Fraocis Francis, for stealing
three half coornhs of barley and the same quantity of
malt, from.the premises ui Matthias Kerrison, Esq.
of Btingay, were each sentenced to seven years trans=
pot teios. John Hader,. convicted of stealing a rel
note, the property of Robert Moore, of Cockficld, was
Ordered to be imprisoned six months, and to be pub•
"day whipped. Mary Clarke, fir stealing a sitver•
s watch f rom her maste. 's lodgings at Lowestoft,the pro-
pert), of ,Mary Eagle,.was sentenced to three months
imprisonment. A true bill was found against John
Ingram, for scaling a trunk, containing various ar-
ticles of apparel, &c. from the back of the carriage
belonging to Sir It. Buxton, Bart. on the road.be-'
tween Stowmarket and Baylhant, but on account of a
certificate from the surgeon at Ipswich, that he was
too ill to be conveyed from Bury, his trial was deter-
, red until next Assizes. Mary Cutts was also reman-
ded till next Assizes, owing to the illness of :he pro-
secutor. Joseph Barth, Jilin Hamilton Roche, Mar-
tha Bennett, and *tinuel Stain, were severally ac-•
quitted. No prose:titor appeared against Sarah
Dye, and she was discharged by proclamation.
ALDRED V. wCOLNoucti.
This was an action brought ei recover 16 guineas,
the price of mare sold by the plaintiff, who is a
f..rmer at Lowestoft, to the defendant, an inn-keeper
• at the saute place ; but the plaintiff having, in coin-.
versation at the time of sale, warranted the Mare to
suit the deletnlant, and that she would go quiet in.
!runless, and it being proved she was not quiet, thii
'plaintiff was neasnited.
• -Serer:GLOW v. PARKEIG
• • . This was an action for an assault, committed by
the defendant upon the plaintiffj 'it wat proved that
afrtr delendent wa's Chairman-of a company at an inn
at Botettlale fair, into which roots the plaintiff went
who provrik.•l the defendant, by saying he would not
'sit in a.rocnn"where a swiedler vas Chairman. After
this the assault 'c on;plained a was. committed, an
the Jury (ccnsidering the provocation 'given) loon
4 verdictior the plaintiff with only 6d. danrages.
• StiCAMAN, JUN. t. CARTER AND ANOTMER.
• This was an action brought for the recovery of ti
horse and cart sold by the defendant, under an exe-
• eiition issued against the plaintiff's father a but it
• t,eine proved that the chrt was the plaintiff's, and
' see the properly of the person azainst whoin the ex-
tientinn jssued, the Jury found a verdict, dantagot
:icing the -ialue of thir cart... l
BAU.S patcsv, FAQ.
• This was an action brought by the assignees of a
bankrupt, to recover the value of goods sold under
an execution, subsequent to the.bankruptoy ; the de-
fentiatit being tiniu Sheriff, and acting under an in-
demnity, and the -bankruptcy being proved prior to
the execution, the Jury fiend a verdict fur the plain-
: tiff—Damages £l7B 13s.
1-.11: KING v. JOMX ELEY KEMP, GENT.
• This was an iudictneint for an assault committed
by the defendant, in horsewhipping Joseph Sharp,
employed as a bailiff to Lord Thurlow's estate; at
Wratting, in the occupation of the defendant's father; tht
whose authority to come upon the said premises an,
teas disputed by Mr. Kemp, jun. the c
defendant being found guilty, will hereafter not bt
it oti .c judivuent. twines
• . .

. •

YORK..

Anne. Triii ht, the wife of Robert Wright, of Lock-
ington, near Beverley, was charged with the wilful i
murder of Elizabeth Wright, the daughter of her
husband by a former wife, a child about nine years'
,of age. The prisoner had been convicted at Be-
verley Sessions, on is charge of cruelty towards this
child, and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment.
'Budc the Judge.in Ms 'charge to the Grand Jury at
tbe.commencement of the Assizes, having intimated 1
that the kw - required further investigation, au in- 1
nitiry. was kistituteJ by the Grand Jury, the result of
Which was, the finding a true bill for murder against
the prisoner, and she was removed by a bench war-'
Irant, from Beverley Hoose of Correction to the Cas-
tleof York. The indictment cons lined several counts, 1
charging her with committing the murder in diffe-
I rent modes, by beating, continii;g, and starving her.
The evidence disclosed a series of the most abomi-
nable acts cf cruelty ; but the Surgeon could not
possibly state that the death of the child had been
oecasi med by this ill treatment. The Jury, after re-
'rtiring for a tpurter of an iiour, found the prisoner—
NotGuilty.—His 4.ordship-observed, that it was a
very proper verdict. The prisuper had Counsel as-
' signed her by the Court. • .
i KINUSTOI4. AUGUSt 14.

- -
REEK, titl TAM, v. DottMAT.
This was nti information under a statute of Queen
Elitabeth, Ist, for exercising the trade of a miller, not
having served sir. apprenticeship; and, secondly, for
setting to work one James Toplife, as a journeyman,
he not having served as an apiTentice.
In this case it appeared, that Mr. Dormay, who
had tidlowed the business of a barge-master dining
the whole of his life, had, about two years since, taken I
a mill at Wandsviortb. It turned out, however, from
the examination of his late foreman; that as he had
not been bred a stiller, and did not understand the
--Tkacss he Revd interfered wits his foreman it the
•

~.


• •

• -

. -
PULLER V. COVE ANTS OTHERS. I rat eat of the mill, except in his approbation of
An action to recover damages for breach of as the persons for whom corn was to.be ground, and
agreement with the defendants, to have the rabbits - that, in fact, the mill was entirely conducted by the
off their land in their occupation at Melford ; but it . foreman, who was an experienced miller. It also turn-
appearing that the defendants had not done any act ed out that the name of the lad who had been employ-
in breach of the agreement, but that the acts cons- ed was James Thomas Topliff, and not James only ;
.plained of were dune by other persons without their in addition to which he had gone to the mill upon
authority, the plaintiff was nonsuited. . , liking, and had since been regularly hound apprentice
DO& ox THE DEMISE or THE CORPORATION Or IPS- to the present foreman of the mill, who was also a re-
sown V.. 1. CODISOLD, ESQ. 1 gularly bred miller.
This was an ejectment tried by a Special Jury, to 1, Lord ELLENDDROUGH was of opinion, that the
determine who was entitled to a piece of ground charge of setting James Topliff at work must fail, as.
lying near the defendant's premises, and being ooze, that was not the name of the lad ; and that with re.
or ground between high water and ;ow water mark, . gard to the other charge, it had not appeared in evi.
in the river Orwell, and which had been purchasedhY dence that the defendant had used the manual occulia.
the Commissioners under the Act for improving th It lion of a miller (those being the words of the seitute),
river. This action being in effect to determine who . and that he was not within the letter of the Act.—
war entitled to the FB7O paid for such land, which • His Lordship alluded to the laws of the valuable mills,l
money remained in Chancery. I at Wakefield, Leeds, and Settle, and various others-
Mr. Serjeant FRERk stated, that the right of own- ! in the Duchy of Lancaster, the property of several
ership in rivers where the tide flows, being arms of persons of the first families in the kingdom, but who.
the sea, was prima facie in the King, but might be in would be subject to informations, or would be ree,ir.l
subjects by vent or prescription ; that by a Charter ed to serve regular apprenticeships as millers, it this II
of the 10th of Henry VIII. the river Orwell was de- defendant could be considered as within the meaning I
dared to be in the liberty and town of Ipswich ; that j of the Act.—The Jury, which• was special, found a
the Corporation had always received for anchorage verdict for the t!'efendant. ,
and ballestage on the ground in question, and that .WILLIAMS AND OTHERS V. EASTLAND.
these were almost the only acts of ownership which I This, was a case of a Writ of Right,- an ancient I
could be expected in such a property ; that their j form of action to recover the possession of lanes when ,
having the franchise was strong presumption that the tenant has had possession for above '2O years, and
they hal the soil also. consequently an action of ejectinene will not lie. The
After a great body of evidence, written and oral, Jury, who are called the Grand Assize, are composed ,
was gone into for establishing the right of soil and of four Knights, who elect twelve others, and the
acts of ownership by the Corporation, Mr. Serjeant whole sixteen try the cause. The question joined in
SWAN stated the defendant's case, who, he said, the pleadings is, whether the person demanding the
claimed the ground in question as part of the Manor lands has a :renter right to have them than the per-
of Wiz Bishop, and which had been granted to him soil in Fissession to bold them ? In this case the ac-
by the Lord of Obit Manor; he contended that the tion eves brougL: to recover some land in this county,
Charter of the Corporation merely declared that it 1 and the demandant, a plaintiff, stated, that John East i
was within their liberty, but did not give them the land, his ancestor, was seized of the land in question,'
soil ; and, after observing very fully upon the plain- in his demesne as of fee, and that they ought to de.
tiff's evidence, he called a great number of witnesses, scend to him.
who proied the exercise of acts of ownership by Mr. Mr, Serjeant BesT stated, that he should put a
Cobbold, such as receiving rent for timber laid on the . short en to the case by putting in an old deed, a hich
ground in question, and his title under the Lord of would prove that John Eastland was not seized in
the Manor of Wiz Bishop, Esc. ' fee, but was only a tenant in tail, and that therefore
Mr.. Justice HEATH ably summed up the evidence, the present writ was wrong ; but he should have,
declaring it to be his opinion, that the Charter of Isrought another ancient writ, celled a formedm in the'
iliecander. He accordingly put in an old deed, dated
Henry granted clearly the right of soil to the Corpo-
in 1713, by which it appeared that John Eastland was
ration, and that the evidence of ownership seemed to
only tenent in tail. The verdict therefore passed
apply to both parties, and could not be taken much
into account, as it was recent, and only during the ageinst the defaidant.
time that both parties were claiming the property.— Lord ELLENDOILOUGH finished on the Civil Side
The Jtiry found a verdict for the plaintiff. early in the slay.
The Criminal Calendar also, very much to the cree
CAMBRIDGE; dit of the county, does not contain so many offences
• Ay our Assizes, which commenced on Wednesday of great malignity as are usually fouel in the Calen-
se'imight, there was not a prisoner for trial, 'aut the der of this county.
following causes were tried before Lord Chiet Jus- The Lord
Caller BARON, who tried the prisoners,
lice. Ma ssetwai who presided at the Niti Prism Court. made great progress, and most of the cases were vary
& man V. PIGOTT.
• short.
This action was brought by Mr. Archer, as Tree- Mary Brill, against whom a bill foi murder W”
•
surer to the Commissioners n; Burnt Fen First Dis- i thrown out, was- arraigned on the Coroner's Inquisi.
trict, against Mr. Pigott, of Ely, to recover die amount : tion, foe the murder of her new-born bastard child.—
of F-10, said to be due .to the Commissioners in ix.
i The Inquisition, however, contained a fatal emir,
count for taxes which had been received. It appear.l upon which she was acquitted, for it stated, that thel
ed by the case on the part of the
,plaintiff, that Mr.l being pregnant of a new-born child, &€. The Learned I
i Pigott bad been Treasurer to the Commissioners for Judge observed, that this was an allegation which ne-
!twenty years, and that about three years since he ver could be made out in proof.
streceeesied aso to the office of Clerk and Receiver. William Harris and George Lulan were indicted for
;It was at the commencement of the hitter office that a highway robbery, in forcibly taking from Henry 1
I ihe present deficiency appeared in the books, occa- Maggs a silver watch, his property.
ioned by some arrears of taxes previous to defen- Maggs, the prosecutor, stated, that, on the 29th of
dant's entering upon the office, and which he had May, he was returning from Westminster to Long-
placed to account of the former Receiver. As the lane, in Smithfield, where he lived. He stopped at
respectability of all the parties concerned will not ad- a public-house in Kent-street; to drink ; he there saw
mit the least imputation upon. their characters, . the I the two prisoners and another person in their corn-
only question was, whether the sum might not have pany ; they had some conversation, when tile priso-
been received by defendant, and omitted to have been -suer Harris made a snatch at his watch ; he desired
platted to account ? Verdict !or the defendant. him not to do so again, and shortly afterwards left
nitowets:o v. WILSON, the house. This was past twelve o'clock at night.
This vels an action foe seduction, and was brought He had not proceeded far when they all three lot-
to recover damages for loss of service sustained by lowed him, and one tripped up his heels ; he cried
the plaintiff, in consequence of his daughter's illness. out fur mercy. After they had rifled him they went
On the part of the defendant no witnesses were call- away ; he was sure of the persons of the two priso-
ed, but..the Counsel made an able speech on the con- ners. The officer, whom the prosecutor had alarmed,
duct 'of the plaintiff. The Jury gave a verdict for suspecting he knew who had committed the fact,
the plaintiff, damages £l5. went to the lodgings of the prisoner Harris, and found
. PaAIiLLN V. stew. him in bed with his cloaths on. They were both
This was an issue out of the Exchequer to try
found Guilty.
ia:liether 40
acres of land, part of Hale Fen, were in Bufton White, who was committed on suspicion of
the rectory of Whitcham or titheable parts thereof,
.
robbing the Glasgow Bank, was found Guilty of re-
-and consequently whether they were liable to pay turning from transportation before the expiration of
tithes to the l.ssee of the rectory or nut ? The Jury 111 his sentence. He was convicted at the Session for
retired for a lew minutes, and brought in a verdict Chester, and was fOund at large in St-George's-fields.
tot the plaintid. The Lord CHILI' BM:0N inaillltaZeJ. that-as the
' prisoner had made some important enclosures with
respect to the robbery of the Glasgow Bank, by which
a great deal of property had been recovered, he should
recommend him as a fit object of mercy to leis
Maje.sty.
Mary Milverton was indicted for killing and slay.
ing Williem Bright, in the Borough of Southwark,
the Ist of June last.
The prisoner Milvcrton, it appeared, cohabited
with Bright, and on Seturcley, the Ist. of Juee, she
took from him 5 shillingsworth of halfpence, in order
to redeem a shirt which was in pawn. He insibted ,
on having the halfpence back again, when a quo ;-el
ensued, in which he beat her severely. She gave h m
lack the halfpence, which tumbled on the floor, He
insisted there was not the whole of then., and he beat
her a second time. Upon which occasion a woman in
the next ram heard him exclaim out, and fall upon
the bed. When she entered the room, she found that
the prisoner had run a knife into his belly, of which
'wound he shortly Le al. She admitted to the witne .>
that she had done it, because he had beat her.
The riveter was found guilty of manslaughter,
and sentenced to four months imprisonment, and to
be fined one shilling.
James Mamley, a soldier in the Waggon Train, was
convicted cf manslaughter, in killing Will: m Sum-
ner, at Croydon, on the 22d of June last. The de-
ceased, it appeared, was also a soldier in the Waggon
Train. A party of them had been drinking together
on the day in question, and were most of.them drunk.
A quarrel arose between the prisoner and the de
ceased, at skittles, which ended in a boxing match
They fought four rounds, when the prisoner said he
would give in, and not fight any more. The deceased,
however, still continued to beat him—the prisoner ran
away, but being pursued by the deceased, he snatchei
up a broom, with, which he gave the deceased a blea
that unfortunately fractured his skull, and caused hi--
death. , The Juryfouud, him guilty of Mamlaughter.