Star.
London, England, 1818-07-10 00:00:00

ON THE DEATH OF HENRY KIRK WHITE.

BY LORD BYRON.

•
•pry! while life was in Its
*Unhappy ?Watts. was spring,
And thy 'young Muse just wavl her joyous wing,
The Spoiler came, and all thy promise Mr
Has sought the grave, to weep for ever there!
Oh! what a noble heart was here undone,
Mem Science 'self destroyed her fiv'itte son!
Yes, she too much indulg'd thy font pursuits;
She sow'd the seeds, but Death has reap'd the fruits!
'Twat thine own genius gave the fatal blow,
And hslp'd to plant the wound that laid.thee low!
•, So the struck Magle, stretch'," upon the plain,
.bro more through rolling clouds to soar again,
Vieved his own feathers in the fatal dart,
And Itteg'd the shaft that qiiiver'd in his heart!
Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel—
. lie n*rs'd the 'Won that impell'd the steel,
• while the same plumage that had warml his nest
Drank the last life-drop froth his bleeding breast!

• Killed by excessive study.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OP KING'S BENCH, JULY s.
BIM V. BRANDER.

An action on a policy of insurance on the sloop
Atalanta, on a voyage at and from Trieste to Teka
(the ancient Ithaca), and back to Trieste. The loss
was averred to Nave been by perils of the sea.
Mr. TOPPING, ou the part of thellaintiff; could
not anticipate die defence; but causes were exposed
to as many dangers as ships, and it was not impos-
sible that he might be cast away. The vessel had
sailed from Trieste on the latter end of October, and
proceeded on her voyage to Teka, where she took in
a cargo On her return she was overtaken by a
dreadful tempest, which drove her on shore, and
only two of the crew were saved by lashing them-
selves to the wreck; the, rest were washed off the
deck. He then 'called a witness of the name of
Marshall, who was on board at the time of the loss,
and established that.part of the plaintiff's case.—
Cross-examined, he said, that after the crew (except. I
ing himself and a boy) were drowned, the weather
moderated, and the British Consul from Venice, after
heaving the cargo overboard, procured the Atalanta
to be got off, and carried her into Venice. It was,
however, admitted that notice of abandonment had
been given to the underwriter.
On the part of the Defendant, Mr. SCA RLETT said,
that notwithstanding the skill of the Learned Counsel
on the other side, his case would certainly meet with
a worse fate than his ship; it was already aground,
and would soon be knocked to pieces instead of being
conveyed safely into port. The defence was unan-
swerable, for at the time the policy Was effected the
plaintiff withheld from the insurers most important
information—viz. tin._ at that date, the sth of Fe-
braary, the Atalanta had been long out of time.—
The voyage insured occupied usually less than six
weeks, and the owner was in possession of a letter
front his Captain, by ahicl it appeared that she was
to sail on the `lBth of October; yet, the policy was
rot thought of until the end of January, in the fol-
lowing' year. The course of the post from Trieste to
London was three weeks, so that had the• Atalanta
been safe; the plaintiff must have heard of it long
before the date of the insurance.

Severtl witnesses were then called to establish this
case. and the letter of the Captain of the Atalanta,
dated 26th October, was put.in and read. Conse-
quently the Jury, without a mortwAt's hesitation,
found a vesdict for the Defendant.
GEORGE AND WILLIAM RANDALL V. GAUNTLET
CLARKE AND THOMAS GRAY.

.An action for money lnnt (with various other
counts for money paid) ander the following tir-
cum ,tances

Gauntlet Clarke, one of the defendants, previous'
to ISI2, carried on business with a Mr. Whitehead,
as Blackwell-hall factors: that partnership was dis-
solved at the end of that year, and Clarke continued
to trade in his sole name, and apparently upon his
own account, until the summer of 1814, when he
stopped payment. In. the mean time, however, viz.
on the 10th of September, 1813, he entered into
secret articles of partnership with a Mr. Thomas
Gray (the other defendant), a Gentleman residing at
Cheltenham. It was stipulated that the name of
Gauntlet Clarke only should appear in the firm;—
that each party was td bring in a capital nt £lO,OOO,
and that Gray at the end of a year, if he saw re :son,
should be.allowed to retire, under certain conditions;'
otherwise the partnership was to continue for fourteen
years, insien one of the partners gave six months'
notice is • , and made the other a compensation
of pow Bt{oir the dissolution of the partnership
between Clarke and Whitehead, Clarke had been a
considerable dealer in accommodation bills, and he
;outlasted the practice after that dissolution, and
after the lignature of the new articles between him-
self and Gray. He was in the habit ofraising.mnney
in this way among the Merchants and Tradesmen
with whom he did- business, and among others with
Maunds lind Stocker, drapers to the extent of £2OOO
per month. From the plaintiffs he procured assist-
ance also by two bills, both dated the sth of March,
1614 ; the one for £5OO, and the other for £478. ss.
6d. This transaction, it will be seen by a comparison
of dates, was subsequent to his partnership with
Gray, who before the of Clarke had got an
assigrunent of all the partnership property, and who
had of course taken upon himself the payment of all
the partnership debts. The whole question in this
case was, whether the bills in question were to be
tOnsidered a partnership debt, or whether Clarke
had obtained the acceptances of the plaintiff merely
tor his own private use and accommodation?
Mr. Scaatirrr conducted the case on the part of
the Plaintiffs, stating the general principle of law,
that a sleeping partner like Gray must be liable for
all the engagements of his coadjutor in trade, pro.
Tidea those engagements were made for the pun.
poses-of the business in which they were mutually
concerned. The plaintiffs. had lent their acceptances
to the d t Clarke, who conducted the affairs
of hi and Gray, and had paid them when due.
Clarke had failed, but Gray was still a man of large
piSpetty, and was bound to repay to the plaintiffs
the money they were out of pocket, for the accom-
snoiation of the firm to which he belonged.
Mr. Knight attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Stocker, ,