Star.
London, England, 1827-12-05 00:00:00

WINTER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT, HIRTFORD, Mosnuir, Dic.s.

" Before Mr..Baren VAINISMIL
Thomas Betrers was indicted for an assault upon
' James Fordharr, on thit'ath of Joly, at Standen.
It appeared that the Prisoner was a blacksmith re-'
siding at Standon, tact that he possessed .4 tame jack•
daw, uison which he had placed his affections, and
which was the firm:lite c•irnpanion of his leisure hours.
This jsikdaw occasionally strayed froth home ; and
baying done so on the day in question, bad seated
himself upon a tree in a village, from which he was
knocked down by some mischievous passenger, and
Was picked up by the prosecutor, •2 poor boy in the
parish. The prisoner having missed his favourite, went
in seven of it, and came up with the prbsecntor just
as he had secured his prize; he claimed it as his o pen,
but the prosecutor refused to deliver it up, and a 'scuffle
ensued, which terminated in the destruction ,of the
unhappy jackdaw, which the prosecutor, 'finding •it to
be dead, threw in the prisoner's face, and ran awary,
About an hour afterwards the parties met again, when
the prisoner saying .4 Now ill teach you to remember
my poor jackdaw," laid hold of the prosecutor, and
" gave him a good leathering." This was the assault
complained of.
The Learned Judge told the Jury, that as an assieJt
had been sworn to. they most find the prisoner guilty ;
but it was a most trumpery CAS!, and ought never to
have heels brought into Court.
. The rrisoner was found Guilty, and oralered to pay a
fiae of 6d. upon payment of which he was discharged.

Before Mr. Justice Nee.
Charles Parks?, a Lad ot 17, was indicted for a high-
way robbery on John Crane, on the 20th of August, at
Hertford.

The prosecutor, Crane, was a limeburner at Ware,
and on the day is question went to Hertford, where
he sold a quantity of lime, and received the money 4
for it.. In the evening he was drinking in the Crown
and Thistle public-house, where the prisoner also.
was, and while there, he pulled out his Watch to
ascertain the time, which the prisoner observed.. These
was some difference of opinion among the witnesses as
to whether Crane was. sober when he left the public.
house, which was about 11, and it did not appear very
clearly whether the prisoner wrist away before or after
him. Crane had known the prisoner from a child. When
he bad got about a mile on his way to Ware, two risen
rushed out of a hedge upon Crane. One knocked him
down with a tremendous blow of a bludgeon. then knelt
on his stomach,squeezed his throat,and faced a handker-
chief into his mouth and over. his yes. anclso held him
while the other robbed him of his purse and his watch.
They then both tan away. Crane's hat was knocked off,
and his head 'cut very much. He gat home without his
hat, and the next day had the prisoner apprehended.
The prisoner did not sleep at his usual lodgings on the
night in question. and he was seen at five the nest
morning on tire wad from Ware to Hertford, and near
to the latter place. Nothing was found upon the gni-.
soner's person, er at his lodgings. The prosecutor,
on his cross-examination, swore most positively to the.
prisoner's person, and also to the fact that he himself
was periectly sober when the transaction oscurva4;
but he admitted that he had been drinking beer mil).
the whole of the day. without eating any thing; that it
was a dark night, without any moon ; and that he was
s. stunned by the blow he received, as to be quite ra-.
Irassibie for about a minute. .The prosecutor's hat, and.
a most formidable bludgeon, were found the nextlayi
'close to the spot where he was robbed; the hat wassOt‘
comple:ely through by the force of the blow inflicted.
The Jury, after a most impartial summing up by the
Learned Judge, and after deliberating some time, found
the prisoner Guilty—Death.
The Learned Junin said, he was perfectly satisfied
with the verdict. The prisoner's life would be spared ;
but as he had ascertained that, young as he was, only
di, he was an old offender, and the bead of a desperate
. gang that infested the neighbourhood of Hertford. lie.
must prepare himself to leave this country, never to
return to it more.

REMARKABLE Snovs.—A shrub has been discover-
ed in our new Indian countries, from whose stein, when
divided, there issues a copious vegetable spring of lim-
pid and wholesome water. It is a powerful climber,
and is quite new and nondescript.—Letter from India.
Our classical ReaJers should see KNOWLEi Tragedy
—it is one of the best efforts of the modern tragic muse
MACREADY'S action in Virginias is a splendid
No one since Jolts Realms has so incorporated him-
self with the character of a Roman citizen and patriot,
when Rome was in " her palmy state." We must not
forget, however, how well supported he is by the fine
pictorial effect of Miss Ftiovas performance of the
&MUM Virgin. She has little to say; but every act,
motion, and gesture is harmony, and, completes the
trouping of a series of theatrical portraits, which ought
to be sees repeatedly to be lily relished.
•

.
LAW binlCL
COI,IIIT OF C fiA NC* it T. D 8841114 •
The Lod Chancei.or held hit firstiesitafterlete this
Jay, at Litcoin's-Inn H.ll.
HART V. HART'..
Mr. Ileac') moved tor tie committal of the dereodent
in this case, fora Violation of an injunction of the Cutts t.
The application was gutunded 0., various charges Je-
po ed ti', against the-defendant, for having appropriated
to his own use several sums of money, which, by the
injunction of the Court, he was 'Ts:rioted in applying
to partnership purposes. The plaintiff and defendant
were brothers. They had engaged in partnership as
w:ne and brandy merchant.; some misunderstanding
arose between-them, on which occasion the defendant
shuck the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in consecpience of
mils insult, filed a bill in Chancery, praying for a dieso-
littion of partnership. On the Ist of August he obtained
ais injunction to restrain the defendant from drawing
bills or receiving money-in the name and on account of
the firm, except for purposes of the partnership, and
that the money received or bills drawn by him should
he forthwith applied to the partnership purposes. In
violation of this injunction, however, the defendant gave
itrtice to the several customers of the house not to pay
any money to the p 1 sintiff. He gave a similar notice
ib the London Dock Company, cautioning them against-
liming any goods intended for the firm to the
plaintiff. The affidavit of the plaintiff further charged
the defendant with having received several sums of
money from the customers of the house in Derbyshire
and Lincolnshire, and also wish drawing a cheque on
tise,bankees of the firm, and applying the proceeds to
Ilsidiscount of an acceptance, which would not have
*rived at maturity for several months afterwards,
-sibicli,_of coarse, improperly diminished the fonds of the
The Learrledlientlemen proceeded toenumerate
tither breaches of the injunction by the plaintiff, which
hi designated palpable and meditated violations of it,
fully warranting the present application.
Mr. BICK ERGTETH followed on the same side, and
svh followed by Mr. ANDEUTON.
Mr. HORNE. on the part of the defendant, said, that
the injoncri •n, of which a violation had been charged
against his client, was an unprecedented one. •He con-
tended, however, that no act had been dose by his client
which could be fairly considered as a violation of it.—
The proper construction of the injunction was, that the
defendant was only restricted front doing any acts other-
wise than for the interests of the firm. He begged to
recall his Lordship's attention to an application made
to him in the vacation for a dissolution of the partner.
ship. That application-was refused by his Lordship,
and at the time of refusing it, his Lordship directed that
nothing should be done by the plaintiff himself in anti.
cipation of the dissolution. Notwithstanding these di-
rections, the plaintiff addressed.* lithographed circular
to the customers, acquainting them of the application
which helm/ made to the Lord Chancellor, and re-
questing them to refuse payment to the defendant for
any sums which they may be indebted to the firm. The
defendant, in his further. sffidavit, deposed that the
-plaintiff, -either by himself or his attorney, Mr. Van
Sandau, had applied to several of the customers of the
house, and received sums of money due to the fit m.—
Thetsffidavis stated farther. acts of alleged misconduct
en the part of the plaintiff, which compelled the de-
tenders:, in his own defence, to make similar applica
dons. The affidavit further stated that the plaintiff bad
offered to enter a composiion of a debt due to the firm
'without consulting him. M the inv 'ices accompanying
the goofs of the house, th 4 bame of the plaintiffalone"
ewes intioduard. Wisll4ll4 exception of an application
ea copy-of the circular letter ditribtukcramong the
stoutets of the house, he was not aware that he had
done anything to contravene the order of his Lordship.
It surely was not the intention of. his Lordship that the
plaintiff should be permitted to act as he pleased, but
that the defendant should be restricted from doing
anything respecting contents in which they had a com-
mon interest.

The Loa. CHaNCELLO2 said,. that the coarse pursu-
ed was the correct one. Any other mode of proceed-
fag would have involved the Coot and Counsel in a
labyrinth of affidavits, from -which they would find it'
difficult to extricate themselves. The latter part of the
order of his Lordship was that to *MO the parties were
booted to•attend. By that order the defendant was re-
stricted from the application of any sums due to the
firm to any other purposes than to the purposes of the
firm; and, that •besides, be should snake that appl ca-
tion of such sums forthwith. Now in violation of these
directions, it had been deposed to, that he had received
teveral sums, as much as 5001. which he did not apply
to the purposes diret.ted by his Lordship. He departed
from London, travelled through several towns, took up
money from the customers; without the sanction of his
partner. As he thought proper to do so, in violation of
an order of that Court, 'he should take upon him the
.consequences of tbar•violation. It had been attempt.
ed to meet the misconduct of the defendant by an
alleged misconduct on the part of the plaintiff also.
Now he (the Lord Chancellos), on examining the affi-
davits, found that the vat coos instances of alleged mis-
conduct on the part of the plaintiff were satisfactorily
answered•by him, except. in one trifling instance. Even
if Francs Hirt, .the plaintiff, had misconducted him-
self in the manner ih which it was alleged he had done,
that disobedience would outlive the defendant, Jacob
Hart, a right to disobey the orders of the Court, in the
moaner in which he had done. Under all the circum•
• ,startces, lie must•say that the present application was a
Vera, proper one!to be made: and -as the defendant had
violated the injuncrioo,, he must submit to the conse.
• quencet of that. v.olation. His 1.-rdship granted the
Motion, and ordered that the defendant, Jacob Hart, be
committed.

At the using of the C Ent, his Lordship intimated to
Mr. Rows that he would suspend the order on the
injunction until the day after to-morrow. -
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dammam 4.