Star.
London, England, 1827-07-09 00:00:00

HEBDOMADARY.

Tuts DATVIIIIIII 9 digits cut
minutes put g in the morning.
To-moaaow--Sen rises 10 min. before 4.—Tbe Moon rises It
min. before 9 in the evening, and south. at 1.
Watnigusar—Georgium Sidus south 33 min. put 14 at night;
declination 41-44 smitb.—Day decreased 1$ min.—Length of
night 7 hours 46 min.—The Americans invaded Canada 11114;
Buonaporte was at this time beginning to overrun Russia, with all
the nations of the Continent in his train, because Alexander would
not shut out English goods. This was the commencement of his
career of ruin.

south 5$

Touituar —Conjunction of the Sun and Mars at It in the after-
noun.—The Grand Junction Canal opened, i 800.
FAIDAT-....Venues fife/ 8 min. past 2 in the morning; Jupiter 8
min. before 11 at night.—The Duke of Clarence married to the
Princess of Sue Meinengen,lBlll.
Sutionav—Sun sets 5 min. put B.—The Bastille destroyed
1789, the anniversary of which event was afterwards celebrated with
great liveliness in France.

Ancounts from India, received by the Wellington,
state that RUNJZIT SINGH, the Sikh Chief, is cuirm-
quence of the ill state of his health, had been obliged to
iease his army, which he had assembled against the
Albans, anti return to Lahore. An European Doctor,
had been dispatched from Ludhiana by the British
vernment, to attend upon him. Sir CHARLES Km
CALI% it is also stated. had left Jeypore, where he
had been to se.tle the affairs of the young Rajah.—
, Every thing had been amicably arranged—Lord Ass-
HEIM had left B .urtpote on the 27th January, and
proceeded tuwaids Muttra. His Lordship had been
received at Bhnripore with the greatest honour by the
%limiters of the infant It jaL. •

LA W IN I'ELLILiB..Cg.
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, Just' 7.
COTTON P. SOMERS.
'hi* was an action brought by the plaintiff, who it tt
tailor, living at Somers' Town, to recover from the de-
fendant, who is a butcher, living also at S mere Town;
compensation in damages for loss sustained by the plain-
t ff in consequence c f the negligence of tie defendant,
whereby the plaintiff's child was gored by a heifer, the
property of the defendant.
From the evidence for the plaintiff, it appealed thit,
in the month of April, 1826, the deendant's servants
were driving wise beasts, among which wa. the heifer
in question, into Abe defendant's yard. The beasts hay
ing arrived quietly at the gate of the defendant's pre-
mises, the heifer, one df whose horns was broken, and
the other had a wooden tip on it, took fright and ran
down the road, where she was met by a boy, who wait-
ed his hat at her, and she then turned down a passage,
where the plaintiff's child, about three years of age; was
playing, and struck her horn into the child's forehead,
and fractured the skull. The child 'was removed to
Somers Town Dispensary, where* core was Ultimately
effected, but the injury done to the child was so great
that, in the opinion of the medical attendant, sit& would,
during life, require considerable care and attention.—
The dispensary apothecary, who attended the child, be-
came a bankrupt, and the plaintiff gave the assignees,
his (plaintiffs) bills, to the amount of SOI. for the pro..
fessional attendance, &c. of the bankrupt, but, by the
rules of the dispensary, it was provided that the apothe-
cary of that establishment should not have ant private
practice.
The ATTORNEY GiNIRAL, for the defendant, sub•
mitted that this action could not be maintained,inasmuth
as there was no evidence of any negligence on the part
of the defendant or of his servants, but, on the contrary,
it was quite clear, from the evidence for the plaintiff, that
the injury done to the poor child was purely accidental.
Mr. Sitouousss, on the other side, contended that the
fact of one horn having been broken,and the other having
a wooden tip on it, clearly sheaved that the heifer was a
furious beast, and required more than ordinary care to
prevent her from doing mischief, and that the defend-
ant, in answer to this action, ought to have shewn that
he had employed more than ordinary diligenci to pre.
vent her from doing mischief.
Lord TENTERDSN said, he was of opinion that, look•
ing at the evidence, uo blame could attach to the de•
fendant or his servant; that the injury *is accidental,
and, therefore, the plaintiff must be called. If the
plaintiff had not given to the assignees his bills for SOl.
he (Lord T.) thought they could not, under all the cir-
cumstances, have recovered any thing for the proles.)
sioaal services of the bankrupt—Plaintiff nonsuited..
HOLLAND AGAINST WEDS.

This was an action for a breach of contract.

Mr. Baovottess stated the case. The plaintiff' was
coachmaker, the defendant was a Gentleman residing
in Langbam-place. On the Ist of July, 18g3, the de•
fendent agreed with the pla.ntiff to take on hire a new
landau for four years, at eighty guineas per annum,
payable half-yearly, each halt-year to be in advance.
The agreement contained a clause, that if the defendant,
after two years time,felt inclined to give back the landau,
and gave three months notice, and paid three months'
hire from the time the carriage was given up, as an
equivalent for not keeping it the whole four years..the

proper landau had been supplied to the defendant, who
regularly paid the half-year's hire in advance; and on
the Ist of January, 1826, he paid 40 guineas for the half-
year up to the Ist of My, but on the 27th of February
he gave notice that he should return the landau in
three months, and accordingly he did return it on the
27th of May. The plaintiff claimed under the agree•
meat, to be paid for three months from the day the
landau was delivered up, and the action was brought
to recover the hire, from the Ist of July to the 27th
of August.
Mr. GURNEY, in defence, took an obj-ction to the ye.
cord, in which the word " notice' was left nut, the
words being " three months of such intention,* and
contended, that the agreement proved was not the
agreement set forth on the record.
The Loan Cam Juirrics said, he rather thought it
would do, but he would save the poir•,t.
Mr. GIIRNIT then said, that Mr. Holland bad assigned
the contract to a coachmaker of the name of
The landau had been delivered up to him ; he had re-
ceived the last two half-yearly payments; he had,.under
the contract, done such repairs as were wanted ; and it
was for his benefit that the action was brought. As
the landau itself was now the propeity of Mitchell, the
plaintiff, haying no further interest in it, could not sus-
tain an action for the breach of a contract relating to it.
John Mitchell, examined by Mr. Guann—ln May,
1825, witness purchased the contract of the plaintiff,
and his interest in the landau for four years. He received
the two last half-yearly payments from the defendant.
Cross-examined—lf the contract had run out, on its
expiration the landau would become the property of the
plaintiff, unless a fresh bargain were made between him
and witness.

Lord TENTIMDZI4 held, that as an assignee of a chase
in action cannct sue, Mitchell could not have maintained
the action, which was well brought by the present plain-
tiff. The agreement enabled the defendant to give up
the carriage at any time, on three months' notice, and
on paying three months' extra hire; and if on the Ist
of January, 1826, he had given the notice, that would
have done: but be must, Under the notice he had given,
pay for the hire from the Ist of July to the expiration
of three months from the 27th of May.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 18/.135. 6d.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Juur 7.

The LORD CHIEFJUSTIOR disposed of several causes
this morning of no public interest.
ARCHES COURT, Jucy 1.

ICING V. SAMSON. IAI.3ItLY CALLINGHIRULY SIMI.

This was a case of considerable importance, not in re-
spect to the facts, but from its involving a question at to
the legal construction of the Marriage Act, 3 Geo. IV.
c. 75. It was a suit of nullity of marriage, origipally in-
stituted in the Consistory Court by the hugsand against
the wife, on the ground of want of constitti hr having
been under age. The parties were in a low station
of life. being domestic servants. They were married
by license at Bath, in 1812, the man falsely swear-
ing he was above the age of 21. In 1819, nine mcmhs
afterwards, the parties, who had continued in their re-
I spective services apart from each other became never-
theless weary of their very limited society ; and the Inn-
band executed a bond by which he engaged to allow
his wife (so called in the instrument) .51. per annum • to.
wards her maintenance. In 1820 he was first aware of
the invalidity of his muriage, but touk no proceedings
in the Ecclesiastical Courts till 1824, whets a snit was