Star.
London, England, 1826-10-25 00:00:00

SLAVE TRADE

• • •
The following is a Proclamation from Gen. Sir George
Don, Lieut.-Governor of Gibraltar, to prevent the sub-
jects of foreign countries from fitting up vessels at that
place to carry on the Slave Trade:
lirodansatidn by his FxceUency George Don, Knight Grand Cross
of :he 'Most Honourable Order of the Bath, General "of his Ma-
jesty's Forces, Lleutenast•Gisrerner. and CoinsoanJer-in•Chief of.
the Garrison and Territory of Gibraltar, Ste.
Whereas representation has been made to his Ma-
jesty% Government, that certain ships and vessels, *wined
by the subjects of Foreign States in amity with his
Majesty, are suspected to have entered the Bay of Gib-
raltar, and the roadsted and anchorage ground of
Gibraltar, for the purpose of fitting out or completing
their outfit for voyages undertaken by them for the
purpose of carrying on the trade in Slaves on the Coast
of Africa:
" HL Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, in pursuance of in-
structions received from Earl Bathurst, his "Majesty's Secretary
of State for the Colonies, bearing date the 6th July last—
" Hereby warns all his Majesty's subjects w ith in the said
Garrison and Territory of Gibraltar, and the port, road-
sted, and anchorage ground thereof, that any person who
shall be engaged in the fitting out, &c. or contract for
the fitting out, &c. of any ships, vessels, or boats, in
order to accomplish any of the objects or contracts de•
dared unlawful by the Statute made and enacted by
his Majesty, with the advice and consent of Parliament,
in the fifth year of his Majesty's reign, for the abolition
of the Slave Trade; or who shall lend, or contract for
the lending, &c. money, goods, or effects, to be em-
ployed in accomplishing any such illegal objects or con-
tracts; or who shall, in any other manner engage or
contract to engage therein, or who shall ship, receive,
or put oa board, or contract for doing the same, on
board of any vessel such money, goods, or effects, to be
employed in accomplishing any of the said illegal ob-
jects or contracts, shall incur and become subject to
the pains and penalties, provided in and by the said
statute for the punishment of persons guilty of all or
any of the offences aforesaid ; and his Excellency does
hereby suietly enjoin all Judges and Officers, &c. and
all others of his Majesty's subjects within the town or
garrison of Gibraltar, that they assist in the prevention
or detention of all such offences' as they will answer
the contrary at their peril ; and his Excellency does
hereby warn and strictly command and enjoin all his
Majesty's subjects,within the said garrison and territory,
that they do abstain from all such illegal practices, and ,
from aiding, &c. any person engaged therein, on pain ,
of his Majesty's highest displeasure, and of incurring
tke several penalties provided by the said Act.
"GEORGE DON,
" Gibraltar, Sept. 43,1826." " Gen. and Lieut.-Governor."

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, Ocr. 24.

JOINT STOCK. COMPA NIES.•••••.PA MEIN V. PRY.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a
compensation for services performed for the defendant,
and other proprietors of the National Stone Road,
Company.
Mr. SCARLETT stated that Mr. Parkin was Secretary
to the Company, and Mr. Fry one of the Directors. The
plaintiff had obtained a patent for a new mode of making
roads. By his process the roads becanie a solid mass
—hard as granite. One horse, upon I toad made by
his plan, could do as much a► five vpon the existing
reads. The plan was not new invention. The city
of Milan in hal blind Petersburgh in Russia, were paved'
by the means Mr. Parkin held our, but the plan bad
never been acted upon in thii country. In case it bad
been universally adopted, the nation might have saved
millions., Having_ obtained a patent, Mr. Parkin al-
lotted a Joint Stock Company to have the benefit of k.
The Company had meetings, and the defendant being
in the Chair, it was resolved that Mr. Parkin should act
ass Secretary, for the purpose of opening negociations
with the Commissioners of Sewers, for paving the roads
upon the new plan. He accordingly entered upon the
business, and also went to Guernsey and Jersey to make
contracts: The Company was never dissolved, but
when so many speculations proved to be bubbles, the
project was not supported to the extent the plaintiff ex-
pected. In the present instance, the plaintiff thought
he had a right to call for a remuneration of his services.
Mr. SCARLETT called witnesses, who proved the
Meeting of the National Stone Road Company, the ap-
pointment of the plaintiff as Secretary, and the business
done by him for the Company.
Mr. Por.Locx, for the defendant, addressed the Jury,
and contended, that tire plaintiff being the sole pro-
jector of the plan, could not support the action against
Mr. Fry.
The LORD Cups arms said it would have been
a different thing if the Gentlemen of the Committee had
sent for the plaintiff to do their business, bat he did not
find any one who employed him. He was the mover
of all the proceedings, and was to have a benefit in the
success of the project. It did not appear upon the whole
that there was enough to enable his Lordship to leave
to the Jury the question whether the plaintiff was em-
ployed by Mr. Fry ? therefore there must be a nonsuit.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.
THE KING V. JAMES LA THBURY.

The defendant was indicted for perjury, assigned to
have been committed in a certain affidavit, sworn by
him in the Court of Con.mon Pleas, under the following
circumstances:-Mr. Brown, the person at whose in-
stigation the prosecution was instituted, and the de-
fendant, were both carcass butchers in Aldgate market.
The defendant having been arrested by Brown for some
arrears of rent, thought proper to revenge himself for
that proceeding, by abusing Brown wherever he met
him. On the sth of November,lB24, Mr. Brown, who
had a residence a short distance from town, was in his
chaise, passing the defendant's shop, which was within'
a few doors of his own, when the defendant called out
4, Hoy, boy," as if he wished to speak to him. Brown'
returned, and asked him what he meant by calling him'
back, and what he wanted ? some altercation ensued,
when Brown's son, who had witnessed the commence
nient of the affair, came to his father's assistance, and
after some abusive language between him and Lath-
bury, struck the defendant, who said, that was all he
wanted. An action was commenced by the defendant
against Brown the younger, and his father, and having
consulted Counsel, as there appeared no doubt that
Brown, jun. had struck the first blow, they were advised
t.' let judgment go by default, which was accordingly
done, and the damastes were afterwards assessed by
Mr. Callingridge, the Secondary, at 2001. The Browns,
astonisi!eJ at the large sum for what they contended
was so trifling an assault, on Application to the Court of
e. mason Plc.'s, in Hilary Term, 1825, obtained a rule
calling on the defendant to *hew cause why the result-i

,cif that inquiry should not be sat aside. l'hiedendant,
in opposing that rule, made an affidavit denyingehat ha
had called the elder Brown 'back for the purpose or
insulting him,and on that, and several other allegations
therein contained, the petjury was assigned to have
been committed.
The writ ofinquiry in the ease of" Lathborye. Brown," matted
in hammy, let& hating. bees pat in, end the slimes* (Atha de-
fendant to the affidavit havitiffbeen proved,
Mr. Brown, the elder. described the way in which the
assault took place, the conduct of the defendant to his
:an; and that, instead of the defendant being winch in-
jured by the blow behadreceived, he was seen winking
about directly after. The witness also positively denied
havin; struck the defendant, although he threatened to
ram his whip down his throat.
Thomas Carver, another witness, described the transaction nnwiy
in the same terms.

-'

.....
The Loan (Misr Aroma here suggested, to prevents triumph on
either side, that a Juror should be withdrawn, which, after some
consultation, was assented to.
The record in " the King v. Holloway." and' the King v. Body,"
two other indictments for perjury arising out of the same transac-
tion, were then withdrawn.