Star.
London, England, 1829-07-15 00:00:00

• l•• rld
Wheat, English (qrs.)
Irish .
Foreign .
Barley, English .
Irish

COAL MARKET—Tin DAT.
HALF-PAST Ors.—The supply of the different sorts of Coals at
market to day, both trout Sunderland and Newcastle, was not so
great as on Monier bat, but there was a good msamlty of die best
Welland Coals. Only two new .ships were at market, making
total so tbe wee►'a arrival of 46 ships. l'be .E.schasige was not
well attended, and but hide business was done. Number of ships
arrived during the present mouth, 363.
• Best Wallsend Coals 3ls. 6d. Eta ed.

Other ions £4s. od.. sos. id.
Ships at Market...4l.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JIILT 14.
LORD WINCHILSEA V. WARP.

%fr. Horne was instructed to apply to the Court for
',:Ygment upon the application that was made for a new
i-1 in this case some considerable time ago.
The Lord Chancellor believed the entire question to,
I*, whether he should or should not grant a new trial?'
and which he should dispose of on Saturday.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR GREGORY PAGE TURNER.

Mr. Phillimore asked, upon a petition for the pur-
pose, an order to confirm the Master's report, approving'
I) t' the granting of a lease upon given terms of a house
bt longing to the lunatic in Mark-lane.—Granted.
IN TILE MATTER OF POTTIWOER.

Mr. Home stated, that in this Brighton matter 30 or
46 new affidavits had been filed, which made it impossi.
ble for the briefs to be got ready by to-morrow, the day
appointed for the hearing, therefore he hoped it might be
permitted to stand for Thursday.
Mr. Montague did not oppose the application; on the
Contrary, he was of opinion that it would be better to
have it fixed for Saturday.
The Lord Chancellor mid, it was probable that on
Thursday there would he a Recorder's Report, and that
in such case he should not sit. Should he be in Court
on Thursday, it might be brought on then; if otherwise,
on Saturday.
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE—CONST V. HARRIS.

Mr. Lowndes stated, that a short time ago, on the
motion of Mr. Bickersteth, the Court had ordered an ap-
plication to be made to-day in this case, having for its
object to disallow from the receiver's accounts the salary
which had been kept back by him as treasurer, and as
allowed by the Master. The solicitor who then instructed
Mr;Bickersteth had since written a note, saying that he did
not now wish the application to be forwarded out of the
general paper; but the order of advancement having
lwen once made, he (Mr. Lowndes) submitted that the

applicant ought to be held to it, especially as the other
side were ready, because the effect of suspending the ap-
plication would be to prevent his Lordship delivering his
judgment on the case that had already been argued.
The Lord Chancellor was not of this opinion. He saw''
no objection to the application being allowed to fall back
into the general paper, as he should take care that should
not delay him in disposing as early as possible of the case
now before him, except, indeed, it might be with respect
to the one item—the treasurer's salary.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. JULT 14.
BROOKSIAN V. ROTHSCHILD.
Mr. Knight understood that it was the intention of his
Honour to give judgment in this case to-morrow ; it would
be n great convenience to Mr. Rothschild's solicitor, whose
professional duties would require his attendance elsewhere
on that day, if the Court would postpone giving its judg-
ment till Thursday, if not inconvenient to his Honour.
The 'Vice-Chancellor observed, if it would render Mr.
Knight any service he should be most happy to comply
his request ; it would be a matter of no inconvenience
to him to postpone his judgment for a day.
The Solicitor-General, on the part of Mr. Brookman,
c6111.d see no objection to this.•
The Vice-Chancellor then ordered the case to stand pe-,
remptorily for judgment on Thursday, and trusted Mr.
Knight would take care the parties on the other side knew
of t!.e intention of the Court.
LIBEL.—HUMPIIREY V. MILLER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a wine and
spirit merchant and Custom-house agent, residing in
Water-lane, in the City, against the defendant, the Secre-
tary of the Society for the Protection of Trade, to recover
a compensation in damages for a libel.
Mr. Brougham (with whom were Mr. Kelly and Mr.
re':,cio stated the case to the Jury, and said the plaintiff
v one of the most respectable wine merchants in the
Ci .y, and had been obliged to bring this action against
t%e defendant, the Secretary of the Society for the
Protection of Trade, who published for this Society
an annual list, purporting to be a list of all dishonest
tradesmen ; and this list was sometimes called " a list

for the suppression of swindling." The libel which the
plaintiff complained of was the insertion of his name in
that list. The cause annexed to his name was "no
arcount ;" and the imputation which was intended to be
cons cued by this was, that the plaintiff had drawn upon
a banker without having any account with him. The
Jury, who were intimately acquainted with all affairs and
transactions relating to trade, would be enabled to appre-
ciate the great injury the plaintiff would necessarily
suffer by the insertion of his name in the printed list of
this Society, and the utter impossibility of his carrying
on trade with such a stigma attached to his character.
Tile libel, which was published in the 12th list, printed
in 18..28, was then put in and read, and several witnesses
%ere called to prove the injury the plaintiff had sus-
tsined in consequence of his name appearing in the list
of this Society.
The Attorney-General submitted that there was no
evitle::ce to fix the defendant ; but

J.,rd Tenterden overruled the objection.
Tile Attorney-General, for the defendant, said he
prove a justification in this case; he should prove
that the plaintiff had a bill drawn upon him by a person,
liana Crawford, which was accepted by him, and made
payahle at a banker's, where he had no account, which
was the case, as the defendant had stated in the justifica-
tion, and which he would distinctly prove by the most
indo!:itable evidence.

The first witness called was a member of the Society/ to
wl.osa evidence Mr. Brougham objected. • !
T•e Chief Justice doubted whether the evidence could
Le received, but said he was rather of opinion that it
: he would therefore admit it, and give the plaintiff
le:,v! to move to set aside the verdict if it was against him.
'lie evidence was then received, which clearly proved
the defendant's case, as stated by the Attorney-General.
Several other Witnesses corroborated the evidence.

Tice Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, found a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JOLY*I4.
SMITH V. BROWN.

Mr. Sergeant Wilde said that the declaration stated
tlutt the defendant had kept the Hero, at Maida-hill,
public-house, the lease of which he was possessed of;
that in making a bargain with the plaintiff for the pur-
chase of the lease, he represented that he had been doing
a trade of £240 per mouth, and that there were thirteen
mont!:s in a year; that he drew fifteen butts of porter per
niont,h, £l7 worth of ale, and one himdred gallons of
gin ; that this was not true; that the plaintiff was in-
ii;:ced by these representations to give £2,400 for the
lease, but in the event they turned out to be misrepre- ,
hen•-tions. It was usual for publicans to keep a book
in which they entered all the articles they received, and
therefore no persons knew better what business they were
doing. The plaintiff, therefore, brought his action to I
recover damages for these misrepresentations. The
Learned Counsel then called

Thomas Roberts, who proved the terms of the bargain,
and the representations made by the defendant.
Another witness, a wine-merchant, also stated that the

-s _ ~..___.

defendant had made the same representations to him.
This witness also stated the profits in the trade on porter
25 per cent. ale 25 per cent. gin from 12i to 15 per cent.
James Smallbone corroborated this evidence given by
the former witness, and proved that some time afterwards,
upon an examination of the books, it appeared there were
only twelve butts of porter per month received, amount-
ing to 821. 12s. only 91. worth of ale, foreign spirits and
wine 25/. Bs. gin 33/. 3s.—about 74 gallons—being,
altogether, 1501. per month ; and adding a profit of 25
per cent. would make the receipt 1871. 13s. If the
taking had been as represented, the profits would have
been 601. per month ; the difference per annum would
be 3001.
Mr. Sergeant Cross addressed the Jury on the part of
the defendant, and contended that the plaintiff took the
house chiefly on account of its situation; and then urged
that the bargain had not been a hasty one ; that he had
applied to the different parties with whom the defendant
dealt, and had learnt from them that the statement made
by the defendant was correct, and that, therefore, he re-
lied more upon the representations made by them, than
upon that made by the defendant.
The Learned Judge, in summing up, regretted the tax
had been taken off gin ; he was very sorry to find 100
gallons a month were consumed in one public-house. His
Lordship went through the evidence, and commented
thereon.—The Jury delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 3501.

MIDDLESEX SESSIOIITS, JULY 14.

CRARGE OF PERJURY.

William Lindell, late of Tower Royal, Watling-
street, and Bennett-street, Doctors' Commons, was in-
dicted for perjury in his' examination before the Commis-
sioners of Bankrupts. There were thirteen assignments
of perjury in the indictment.
Mr. Charles Phillips opened the pleadings.
Mr. Alley stated the case for the prosecution. The
defendant commenced business as an umbrella-maker, in
the year 1826, having previously lived as servant to a Mr.
*Kenzie. When he left that person's service, he re-
ceived 3401. being the balance of wages and some money
he had lent him. Defendant failed in December, 1828 ;
and when examined before the Commissioners of Bank-

rupt, he said he had but 1301. when he commenced busi-
ness ; that in Jul}, 1828, his house was broken open,
and property to the amount of 5001. stolen ; and that he
had not secreted 4001. He persisted in this state-
ment on his next examination, after having received

repeated cautions. On inquiry, it was ascertained that
a few days before that examination, he boasted to several
persons that he had defrauded his creditors, and that he
had £4OO in cash and notes, and that he would place it
where neither rats nor mice could get at it ; that he would
sew pert of it in the lining of his trowsera, and the rest
of it in his wife's stays. It was also ascertained that he
had never been robbed at all, and that he had applied to
a person named Monney to prove a debt of £3OO on fic-
titious bills of exchange, and had offered another man
two sovereigns to prove an act of bankruptcy on his part.
The Learned Counsel said he should confine his evidence
to three of the assignments of perjury, namely—that as
to the defendant's having but £l3O when he commenced
business—that as to the alleged robbery—and the third,
as to the attempted collusion between him and Mooney.
Witnesses were called to prove the commission being
issued, and some of the facts as stated.

Mr. Adolphus was about to address the jury for the
defendant, when

The Chairman said, that although the prosecution was
a very proper one on the part of the assignees, yet that in
his opinion the evidence was not sufficient to support the
indictment two credible witnesses being necessary in
such a case ; he should therefore direct the jury to acquit
the defendant. Verdict—Not Guilty.

lit MC V. HARDING.

This was a prosecution on behalf of Mr. Geo. Wagner,
of Greek-street, Soho, against the defendant, for. an
assault.

The defendant stopped Mr. Wagner in his cabriolet, in
the City-road, on the 21st May last, and in an infuriated
manner demanded a meeting, and insisted upon Mr.
Wagner's getting out, which was refused, when the de-
fendant protruded to his view a pistol ; he was afterwards
taken into custody, and a brace of pistols and dirk were
found on his person. The defendant pleaded " Guilty ;"
land on his Counsel soliciting Mr. Wagner to accept an
apology, and the defendant entering into recognizances to
preserve the peace for three years, he was discharged.

ii..