Star.
London, England, 1826-05-23 00:00:00

Wednesday .
Wednesday .
Dlooday .

. Tay 31 Friday .
• June 7 Thursday
. . June 12 Tuesday

. . June 2
. . June 8

. . June 13

A Kra TRIM
Thursday . . June 15 I Friday . . . June 16
Sit at half-past 12 o'clock on the 31st of May, and 2d, 7th, and
Bth of June, and at half past 8 o'clock on the other days.
S Wags appointed in Middlesex and Loadon, before
the Itht Hon. Sir WILLIAM DRAPER BEST, Knt. Lord
Ctsief Justice of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas,
ix Westmirster, in and after Trinity Term, 1826:

IN TEEM.

. May 29.;
▪ Jutte 1
. June 8

Saturday .
Wednesday .
Wednesday .

London.

Middlesex.
. May 27 Monday .
• May 31 Thursday .
. June 7 Thursday .
Ar7llll Tani.
Thursday . . June 15 I Friday • • June 16
N.B. The Court will sit at 12 o'clock precisely on the 27th and
51st of May ,• at 10 o'clock precisely on the 29th of May and Ist
of June • at half.past 9 o'clock on the 7th and Bth of June ; and at
10 o'clock precisely at the sittings and adjournments after terns.
ARCHES COURT, MAT 22.
This Court met, with the usual formalities observed on the first
day of the Term. No causes were called, and the Court broke up
in a few minutes. .
PREROGATIVE COURT, MAY 22.
This Court sat fora few hours; but no business possessing any
degree of public interest occurred.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT Et.
BUSINESS Orr THE COURT.
An application was made this morning, by Mr.
Andrews, to restore to his Lordship's paper, a cause,
which had been struck out during the present Sittings
under the following circumstances :—On the day that
the cause was set down for trial, the defendant's Attor-
ney offered the Plaintiff's attorney a cognovit, and the
plaintiff's attorney having accepted the offer, the parties
left the Court, but before the execution of the cognovit
the cause was called on, and no attorney appearing for
the plaintiff, it was struck out, and the defendant then
refused to give the cognovit. The Learned Counsel
now submitted that the cause ought to be restored, as
the absence of the plaintiff's attorney was owing to the
defendant's offer.
The Loan Cum 'us:ice—When a cause is set down in my
paper, it is the duty of the plaintiff's attorney to attend, or to have
some person in attendance. If attorneys don't think fit to attend I
will sulks the cases out, and I will not listen to applications of this
sort. If attorneys would attend, the public dine would not be wasted
by applications of this kind. I will not restore the cause.
Mr. CostYN made a similar application, upon an affidavit, stating
that the plaintiff's attorney was out of Court, in search of a witness,
when the cause was struck out.
The Loan Cam Jusrics refused to restore the cause, and again
repeated, that it was the duty of attorneys to attend, or to have
some person in attendance.
CRoSsiIELD D. MASON AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
ney's clerk, to recover from the defendants the sum of
21. les. paid by him to the defendants, for ten tickets
for an excursion to the Note, on board the Hero steam-
vessel, together with other expenses incurred by the
plaintiff, in consequence of the defendants not having
performed their contract.
Mr. Scaai.wrx conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr.
GIIIMeIf appeared for the defendants.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel, sup.
ported by evidence, it appeared, that a few days before
the 19th of July last, the defendants published a pls.
card, stating that, nn the latter day, " A Coronation
Gala and Grand Naval Masquerade" would be given
on board " that grand Floating Palace, the Hero steam-
vessel," which was to leave the Tower Stairs at eight
o'clock in the morning, for the Nore, and to return that
evening, before dusk, to her moorings at the Tower
Stairs ; 41 tickets Ss. 6d. each." "Breakfast, dinner,
supper, &c. to be had on board on reasonable terms."
The passengers were to have permission to go on shore
at Sheerness for one hour and a half, and to view
" his Majesty's stupendous ships of war," laying off
Sheerness. " Dancing of every description," and " a
pandeart band," &c. to be on board. The plaintiff
and his party were punctual in their attendance at the
Tower Stairs, and having, with about 2.50 other per-
sons, got on board, the " floating palace" (which had
returned that -morning from Calais, her boiler having
burst on the passage), they were informed that she
could not proceed on the excursion, until some trifling
repairs should be c, mpleted. The tepairs having been
completed, the company thought them was•no impedi-
ment to their excursion,, but, to their great disappoint-
ment, were informed that the stock of coals was ex-
hausted. About ten o'clock a barge, laden with coals,
tame alongside, and the company having enjoyed the
pleasure oT witnessing the coals shovelled on board
" the floating palace, and the dust arising from the
operation, proceeded on her voyage ; but, in conse-
quence of the boiler not having been sufficiently le-
paired, she could not proceed farther than Greenwich,
r lie:e she remained some time, and on the return of
the tidr, carte to B ack wall by three o'clock in the
morning, when the passengers (among whom were the
plaintiff's wife and children) were obliged to go ashore.
The plaintiff, and some of his party, anxious to get
home, left the steam-boat off Greenwich, where they
arrived about twelve o'clock, and were obliged to take
a glass coach to London.
11r. Gummy, on the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice, sub-
mitted to a verdict for the plaintiff, damages el. 175. 64. and
obaerved;that he should advise his clients, if they should think fit
to plan another excursion, to stipulate. that no attorney's clerk
should be adidteed on board. (A laugh.)
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY St.
THE RING v. NATHAN.
Mr. HORACII Tvitss,la stating the case, said this
was an information against the defendant, to recover
from him the amount of a bond which he had entered
into with the Lords of the Admiralty, in the penalty of
5001, for the faithful discharge of his trust as navy
agent, and which trust he should be able to shew to the
j•it.y had been in two instances basely violated. The
ttelenddiA lived at Plymouth, and in the year 1823 re-
ceived a considerable sum of the Cayenne prize-money,
to distribute among such as had established their claims,
Among others James Daniel and Lionel Gouk were en-
titled titled to the sum of 551. each, which stints the defendant
had received• from the Admiralty, but never paid to the
'Claimants; the defence, he understood, would be, that
goods to that amount had been sold by him to the
claimants. If the defendant could establish that to the
satisfaction of the jury, it would be a sufficient answer;
but if the jury were satisfied that any part of the prize
money remained unpaid, they ought to give a verrdict
for the Crown. Daniel was now dead, se that the evi-
dence on the part of the Admiralty would not be so
strong as if be were alive.

Some documents were put in to show the defendant bad received
prise-money at the Admiralty for the persons above-mentioned.
Henry Nathan (for the defence) deposed, that he was
brother to the defendant, who keeps marine stores: he
assived in his brother's shop ;recollected giving Lionel
Gouk, in 1810, a gold brooch and some other trinkets,
and in 1813 he also gave him a watch, chain and key.
Witness did not know the value of them.

John ltalnh lived at Plymouth in 1811, as navy agent.
Knew Daniel, he was corporal in the marines. He re-
quested of him (witness) to call on defendant for his ac-
count, which he did accordingly. Witness brought
the account to D tniel, it amounted to about 601. Da-
niel did not object to it, but said he believed it was
all right.
Lionel Gouk deposed that he applied in 1810 to de-
fendant to lend him some money ; defendant refused
him, but said he might have goods. tie at that time te-
cei ved a gold brooch. In 1812, he applied again and
received from him a silver watch; in 1815 he received
a gold chain and key, which in all amounted, with
what the defendant had subsequently given him, to 26/. ,
George Russell had a conversant* with the last witness in 1819.
Gouk told him that he had then 401. which he had received from
the defendant, and could have 1004 if be chose took for it.
Mr. Pot.Locs addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said there was sufficient evidence to spew that the
defendant had given the claimants even !Lot e than their
due: his client in coming to that court was influenced
by pure and conscientious motives. Even if a verdict
were given for him, he would lose more by the trial
than the claimants required of him, as he could not re-
cover costs against the King; so that his principal ob-
ject in making a defence was, to clear his character from
the imputation cast on it. The only evidence against
him was Gouk, who had an interest in the result, being
a claimant. Had he not sued through the intervention
of the King, his testimony would not be admitted, and
as it was in contradiction to that of disinterested and
corroborated witnesses, he hoped the jury would not be
influenced by it.
__ _

Mr. Twin hiving replied,
The LORD Cuter BARON, in addressing the jury,
said,thdt if they believed the witnesses for the defendant,
he was entitled to their verdict; for, if be gave an ade-
quate compensation in goods, it was sufficient. They
should leave out of their considemion the consequence
arising from their verdict, as regarded the costs, and
decide solely from the facts adduced in evidence. The
Learned Judge reproboted the conduct of ti e defendant
in making advances to sailors without any document
or proof; it looked very suspicious, particularly at a
'time when it was uncertain whether they were entitled
to prize•money or not; there were strong reasons to
suspect that the goods advanced were overcharged. It
the jury were satisfied that the defendant withheld even
one shilling, the Crown was entitled to a verdict.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict fur the Crown.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.