Star.
London, England, 1820-01-20 00:00:00

the charge, for he (the Vice-Chancellor) bad no he-
sitation in saying, that he was personally liable. His
Honour then amended his former decree, as follows:
" That it be referred to the Master, to inquire and
suite wife is the convitution of the Hospital of St.
John the Baptist ; who are the Masti.rrs or Trustees
therecf ; in whoM the appointment of Master of the
Hospital and Schoolmaster, severally resides; and in
whom the lands of the Hospital are legally vested, or
capable of being vested ; and let the Master, in consi-
dering a scheme for the future management of the Cha-
rity, approve of the proper qualifications for the offices
of Master of the Hospital, and Schoolmaster, respec-
tively ; that the office of Master of the Hospital, and
also that of schoolmaster, be declared incompatible
with the character of corporator ; that Sir John
Arundel be removed from the office a Master, and
that the farther consideration of his removal he re-
served till the Master shall have made his report on
the matter ; that the Master inquire what reasonable
charges itnd expenses are due to Sir John Arundel,
tor conducting the suit against Mr. Apreece ; and
that the sum found to be due, form an item in the
account between the defendants, the Corporation, and
the relaters; that the Master be at liberty to make
a separate report' as to the question of common,
respecting the new pasture; and that he inquire whe•
they the new pasture land has been duly 'set out by
the defendants, the Corporation ; and, if it has not,
let him inquire, and state what ought to be the land
set out to the Charity in that behalf.
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, JANUARY 19.
PARTON V. WILLIAMS.
This was an action of trespass, for taking the goods
of the plaintiff. The goods were taken by the de-
' fendant, an Overseer, under a warrant of a Justice of
Peace, to take the goods of the plaintiff's son, who
lived in the same house with the plaintiff, and the
defendant took them, mistaking them for the plain iff's
son's. The action was brought more than six months
after the taking of the goods. The question dis-
cussed was, whether the defendant was within the
Bth section of the Act of 1.!.1, Geo. 111. cap. 44, which
requires six months notice to be given to justices
and! constables, and other officers, before an action
is brought against elem.
Mr. JERVIS, Mr. W. E. Tittnrrom, and Mr. Put.-
LEN, contended that the officer was only entitled to
this notice in cases where he had acted in strict con-
formity to the warrant.
.I‘ll. CANIPBELL argued contra.
The Court decided, that the constable, or other
officer, is entitled to such notice in cases where he
acts as an officer, fairly in what he believes to be the
execution of his authority, although from mistake
he exceeds it. The sixth section of the above Act
has, in cases where the officer acts in strict confor-
mity to the warrant, given him an absolute protec-
tion and indemnity ; it would be therefore nugatory
to extend the limitation of action to cases of that
sort. Consequently this action was commenced
too late.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.
Yesterday, James Hicks and Richard Hicks, father
and son, were capitally indicted for stealing three
heifers; the property of Charles Thomas Mahon.
The prosecutor is a farmer, living at Laleham,
about twenty miles from London. He stated, that
on Saturday, December 4, at noon, the heifers were
safe in his field, and he missed them on the Tuesday
followeng. The three stolen had been feeding toge-
ther, and were worth about £lO each. The prisoner
James was a pauper, living in the Workhouse at
Laleham, and his son Richard lived at Staines.
There was also a son William, who was supposed to
be concerned in this transaction, but who was not
yet apprehended, who lived at Laleham in the ca-
pacity of a labourer.
William Morley, 'a salesman, proved that on the
6th of December three heifers were brought to him,
at Smithfield-market, by a man of the name of Cle-
ment, but who gave the fictitious name of Taylor.
It was market day, and the heifers were sold for
£26 Bs. When asked for payment, after they were
sold, he said he should not pay until he (Clement)
brought some document to stew by whom he was
authorised to sell the beasts. At twelve o'clock the
next day, Clement, accompanied by another man,
whom witness did not know, came to his counting-
house, and produced a paper. with these words, writ-
ten in a very ignorant hand :
" Si::—This is to inform you, that Thomas Taylor, of Cran-
ford-bridge, knows this, property to be his own.
" Dec. 6, 1519. " JOSEPH NEwmiN, Cranford-bridge."
James Milner, clerk to Mr. Morley, paid the £26
Ss. under the direction of his master. At first he re-
fused, until he received his master's orders, and then
gave to Clement a £2O note, a £5 note, a £1 note
and Bs. in silver.
Richard Clement is a labourer, and lives at Brent-
ford : on the morning of the .sth of December, about
half-past four o'clock, the prisoner Richard called
witness out of bed, and told hiM if he would take
three things to town, he should be satisfied for his
trouble. Prisoner had not the heifers in his posses-
sion at the time ; witness's house is nine miles distant
from Laleham ; witness said to prisoner, " Go on,
and I will overtake you." Witness, in about half an
hour after, followed prisoner, overtook, and saw him
'driving before him three heifers; witness assisted the
Prisoner .in driving the cattle until they came to
Fleet-market, when prisoner proposed that witness
should take two of the heifers to the market, and
that he (prisoner) should take the other, but the beasts,
could riot be separated. Witness then, at the request',
of the prisoner Richard, who. staid behind, took the
cattle to Mr. Morley, whom he desired to dispose of
them ; in two hours afterwards witness returned, and
told the prisoner Richard what was offered for the
cattle ; about two o'clock the beasts were sold, but
Mr. Morley relived payment until witness should
produce a voucher. Witness then said his name was'
Thomas Taylor, of Cranford ; prisoner did not tell
witness how he came by the cattle; prisoner is bro-
ther-in-law to witness ; on tin. next day, Tuesday,
witness and prisoner met his brother William, who
asked witness where he was going to? witnest re-
plied, that he was going to gather mushrooms; Wil-
liam said that he had got a letter, and that every
ening was right, and asked witness to go with Rich-
ard and him to town ; no conversation took place
about the heif.rs on the road. Witness presented the
letter to Mr. Morley, who ordered his clerk to pay
him 1.:26 Bs. William was present when the money
was paid ; the payment was made in a £2O note, a
note,,a £1 note, and Bs. in silver. Witness then