Star.
London, England, 1828-01-23 00:00:00

IN RE WHITE, A WARD OF COURT:

Mr. SPENCE appeared on behalf of a Mr. Ashmore,
guardian of a young Lady of the name of White, a
Ward of Cuurt, who had lately married in Edinburgh,
to Lieuteuant Kerr, son of General Kerr, without the
authority of the Court. Mr. Ashmore stated, that the
match was in every respect suitable, and had been made
with the consent of all the relations on both sides, and
the marriage had only taken place before the consent of '
the Court of Chancery had been' obtained, because
the aunt of the young Lady, with whom she was re•
siding in Edinburgh, was about to remove from that
place, and the parties would thereby have been sepa •
Wed. Lieutenant Kerr was now willing to make any ,
disposition of his wife's property, amouLtiny to 17,0001.'
vibicb the Court should direct. The guardian, there-
fore, no prayed the riecessary 'order. for the re•solem-
stsition of the trUptials in this country, and fel. the
proper settlement of the money.
His HONOUR required that the cot respondence,should
be submitted to him before he made any order.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 22.

Sittings before Lord Torraansx and Common Juries.
FARRELL V SILVER.

This was an action in which a milkman was plaintiff
and Mr. Silver, the laceman, of Iledtted.street, Coven
Garden; was defendant: it was trought for V. 18s.
alleged to be a balance outstanJing since the year 1824
The facts, as given in evidence, v, ere stun tly these:
The defendant, Mr. Silver, was always in the habit of
advancing money weekly for the household expences,
an account of which was kept, and produced. His cook,
who had lived with—him from 1816, had up to 1821,
paid the milkman in ready money, at which time she
began to misapply her master's money, having lent the
sums she was intrusted with. She had told the plain-
tiff how she was circumstanced, and he never informed
her master, but continued to serve the milk up to May
last year, receiving sums on account from the cook,
11ary Fearne, who ptoved these facts, and produced the
account book which they had used. In the beginning
of last year the woman had been discharged, and not
until then had Mr. Silver been ever asked for the
money, the payment of which he had felt it his duty
to resist.

Thb Jury, after hearing Lord Tenterden's charge, did
not leave the box, but found a verdict at once for the
defendant. _

Lord TENTERDEN said, that until the case was decid-
ed he had abstained from making any observation upon
it, but he should then declare that Mr. Silver deserved
great credit for having resisted the demand, and defend-
ed the action which had been brought against him.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES,—RITCHIE V. MACLAINE AND
°TREE&
- This action was brought for the recovery of the ha-
bete of plaintiff's salary, as one of the clerks of the
£gis Insurance Company. It was brought against four
of the Directors, two of whom, Messrs. Verbeke and
Maclaine, had pleaded the general issue, while the other
two defendants had pleaded in abatement that there were
others jointly liable, who had not been sued.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, in stating the plaintiff's
case, observed that the action was brought to recover
the arrears of plaintiff's salary from the defendants,
who had acted as Directors of .one of those new Com-
panies which had been so celebrated. It had a very
long name, being called the lEgis Fire and Life
Association, and English and Cambrian Life and
Dilapidation Company. It was one of those got up
by Mr. Wilks. The first quarter's salary had been
paid to the plaintiff, at the rate of 1001. a year, and
he asked for the remainder of the 100/.

William Dunne, ;;Uined by Mr. BRODERICK —Was
acquainted with the /Egis Fire and Dilapidation, and
English and Cambrian Life Insurante Company.
Witness was their Secretary, and the office was first in
Bread Street, ani afterwards in Cheapside. Knew the
four defendants, who acted as Directors in November
1825,, and continued su up to June 1826. The *Com-
pany existed for some time after that. The plaintiff was
clerk to the Company at MI. per annum ; I.e was first
employed in December 1825. Witness left him there
in 1826, and understood that he remained foe some
time after. Witness held no shares, but paid 6lpt. for
his situation; that ivas to Mr. Wilke.
• Criss* examined by Mr.. PLATT —Knew LOrd Tot.
Dour, but he did not act as a Director ; there were two
Secretaries ; believed that Lord Turnout did take the
house in Cheapside, but knew nothing of hisown know-
kedge. Mr George Airey, Mr. A. W. Talbot, John

Dunston, and R. and John Langslow, ac.e.t As Direc-
tors. Mr. John Grey was present at t e Boald of
Directors, as was Mr. Robert Talbot. Mr. Peter Moore
and Mr. Milks, the younger, also acted 1,1 that capa.
city. Saw Lord Tumour once in the room at a meet-
ing of Directors. Mr. Ritchie was a clerk of the Com-
pany. . duty By the ATTORNEY GENERAL—Witness S as
Secretary was to put down the names of the Directors
present. Witness read a paper handed in, in which
his own name appeared. He was not down as a Direc•
tor, but put his name as being present. Had named
several as Directors, but cannot recollect which of them
attended in December, 1825, when the plaintiff was
engaged ; helieves, however, that Sir George Airey and
Mr. R. W. Talbot had acted then; and thinks that Mr.
Richard Langslow also attended prior to that time.
Cannot say precisely at what time, neither can he be
positive as to Mr. Grey, but does not believe he attended
before 1826. He saw Lord Turnout present only once,
and he did not then act as a Director.

Rowley—Knew the plaintiff, and that he had
served as clerk to the Mgis Company for more than six
months. *He quitted 29th September, 1826, and plaintiff
then left because the company was broken up. The
witness was porter and messenger.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Had heard plaintiff
say he was appointed by Mr. Peter Moore. Plaintiff
attended regularly from day to day, and witness had
heard of his receiving the first quarter's salary.
Mr. PLATT then said, that he appeared for the de-
fendant Stonehouse alone, who pleaded that if he was
liable to the plaintiff, that his liability was a joint one,
and that the rest of the Directors should be sued as well
as himself. Of the nature of this defence the plaintiff
had no reason to complain, as, according to his own'
statement, he had iecsived his appointment from one of
those parties who were not sued, namely, Mr. Peter
Moore. The issue the Jury had to try was, whether the
parties named in the defendant's plea were co-directors
with him, and if so he should have a verdict. There was
no doubt of it with respect to every one but Lord Tur-
nour, neither did he think that any reasonable doubt
could be entertained upon that subject. His Lordship i
had been at the office, and with the Directors at their
Meeting, and what else could bring him to that office or
that end of the town? The Learned Gentleman concluded
by saying, that all those named in his plea were proved
to have acted as Directors during the period of the
plaintiff's services, and that therefore he should have
sued them, as well as those whom he had selected.
Lord TENTERDEN said, Lord Tumour is no Director
upon this evidence.
Mr. PLATT then proceeded to call witnesses to prove
that fact. The first was—

Wiliam Cony—He was acquainted with the .ffigis
Company. Lord Tumour had come there ; and witness
saw him go into the room at one of the Meetings of the
Directors. Witness was a clerk of Mr. Wilks's. He did
not know whether Lord Tumour paid any money.
By the ATTORNEY GENERAL—The Officers Of the
Company a ere required to ;,:e shareholders. Mr. Ryde
was an officer and a shareholder. Witness was fre-
quently in the room when the Directors met;
By Mr. PLAY?— Was not a shareholder; neither was
he a clerk of the company.
Thomas Herbert examined—Knew the Company, and
saw Lord Tumour there on one occasion. Supposed
that he attended as a Ditector ; but had not gone into
the room while they met. It was on a day when there'
was a Meeting of the Directors ; but he had not been
in the room.

Cross-examined--Witness neither "knew what was
Jone in the room, nor who was there.

1)1e ATTORNEY GENERAL replied.
Lord TENTEIIDEN ex;blaineJ to the Jury, that if an
the parties named in the defendant Stonehouse's plea,
were not proved to the Directors, they should give a
verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury found for the pliintiff—Damage. 501.

The black natives continue to be very offensive to-
wards th; settlers at Van Dreman's Lind. Their ag-
gressions recently have been mote than ordinarily nu-
merous; and the last of the atrocities of the people has
been accompanied with the murder of three men at
Guarnby's Bluff.—Australian.
The house of Mr. Oilier, M iida.hill West, Padding.
ton, was forcibly entered- on Monday night, and robbed
of plate, linen, and other articles.
Athletic spot ts rave this decideJ advantage over
sedentary ones—that while the one i,tarigorates the other
enervates both mind and body. A; a proof of this,
there is no better preservative against gaming than
hunting. The fatigue and excitement attending a good
day's sport with a pack of fox hounds oblige a man to
retire to rest betimes, and render him indifferent to
cards or dice. It has been observed, too, that most
Batliates are gamblers.
An accident took place at Logietait, in Petthshirr,
on Saturday morning last, by the explosion of gun-
powder. Charles Rt.bertson, grocer there, had beet'
attempting to kindle a fire by means of gunpowder, and
in throwing a portion of it among the embers, the
flames comraunic4ed with the vessel in which a con-
siderable quantity of that inflammable substance was
contained. The shock which followed was dreadful,
and speedily called all the inhabitants of the village to
the spot. Although there were six individuals in the
room when the accident took place, fortunately no lives
were lost.

About the year'l794., a reciprocal attachment was
formed between a young lad and lass—as we good
people of Scotland express ourselves—in the immediate
neighbourhood of Elgin. This attachment grew with
their growth and strengthened with their strength, until
it was mutually agreed on it should be matured in the
matrimonial state. The banns were accordingly duly
proclaimed, and every requisite preparation was made
for the customary celebration of the nuptials, when all
of a sudden the relations of one of the parties inter-
fered, and prevented the solemnization of the marriage.
it would no doubt have been quite practicable for the
lovers to have been•legally united together in opposition
to the wishes of the relations in question ; but under
existing circumstances it was deemed most advisable
to postpone the celebration of the marriage ceremony
entil a more auspicious period should arrive. Month
after month and year after year pissed away in anxious
waiting for the period in question. After the lapse of
about ten years it at length arrived; but just at that
very moment another formidable obstacle occurred to
prevent the unjon of the lovers. Twenty years more
(will the reader believe it ?) expired before the various
barriers to the consummation of their felicity could be
surmounted. A short while since they were duly mar-
ried in the " gude town of Elgin." Thus a period of
upwards:of thirty years expired from the proclamation
of their banns till the celebration of their nuptials,during
which time they maintained an intimate and uninter-
rupted correspondence. Perhaps, under all the circum-
-1 stances of the case, such an instance of constant and
I devoted attachment is not to be found in the annals 01
the country—shall we say the world P—Elgirs Courier