Star.
London, England, 1828-07-01 00:00:00

EPITAPH.

The following quaint inscription may be read 00 a tablet in one
of the cloisters of Westminster Abbey :
With diligence and trust most exemplary
Did Witham Lawrence serves prebendary;
Aid for hie pains now past, before not lost,
Oain'd this remembrance at his master's cost.
Oh. read these lines again ; You seldom find,
A semenl faithful and a master kind.
Short band hr wrote; his flower in prime did fade,
And hasty death short hand of him bath made.
Well south he numbers, and well measure land;
Thus dotb he now that ground whereon you stand,
"''Wherein hr lies, so gennsetricith

Art maketh sonie, hut thus will nature all !
Obit. Dec. 28, 1621, Ztatis Su* 49.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, Jima So.
CARPENTER e. JONES AND calms.
The plaintiff, a carver and gilder, in Green•street,
Bath, brought this action to recover damages for the
publication of a libel injurious to his character.
It appeared that the plaintiff had written a letter an
the suhject of a bankruptcy, which was published in
Keene's Bath Journal. Oa the sth of September, 1826,
The Bath and Cheltenham Gazette published a letter,
which appeared to be an answer to the plaintiff's letter.
The publication imputed to the plaintiff, that he having
received from a Lady at Bath a frame to gild, which
contained a fine picture by Wright of Derby, feloniously
forged the same, by taking a copy which he put into
the frame and sent to the Lady, keeping the original.
The stamp of the original was also said to be forged
on the copy.
The plaintiff complained that the above was a serious
attack on his chat acter, and called upon the Jury for
damages.
The defendant pleaded a justification, and called a
witness named Stafford, who proved that the plaintiff
declated to him that he had done all that was published
in the lihel.
The Jury retired from the box, and on their return
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.
JOYCE AND WIVE v. POPE.
This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff sum-
moned the defendant to the Court of Requests, in
Kingsgate-street, for the value of a flute, and lost his
suit. Meeting the defendant coming out of the Court,
be called him a perjurer, a cheat, and other opprobrious
epithets. The plaintiff's wife coming up at the time,
joined in the abuse, and it was alleged that the defen-
dant struck her a blow on the heart, which obliged ber
some time after to consult a surgeon. The defence set
up was, that the defendant had not struck Mrs. Joyce,
but that her arm, by accident, got jammed in the door
of the Office.
The Jury, after consulting for a considerable time,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One
Pal thing•

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jusur 30.
RDWARDS V. BROOKES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a wine
merchant, residing in Hanover-street, against the de-
fendant, to recover 351. 10s. money received by bim for
a (pant ti of wine which he had sold by auction for
the plaintiff. It was admitted by the plaintiff that the
wine was of an inferior quality, but he had not instructed
the defendant to give a warranty respecting its quality.'
Mr. Sergeant TADDT, who appeared for the plaintiff,
called witnesses who proved the delivery of the wine to
the defendant, and the sum for which it was sold by
auction ; also that the plaintiff bad given directions that
that portion of the wine which was unsold 'should be
returned. The defendant bad not sent is his account,
although he had been repeatedly desired so to do.
Mr. Sergeant WILDIS, for the defendant, said, that his
client had declared to Vie agent of the plaintiff, that if
the buyers at the sale did not like the wine, he would
take it back, and return it to the defendant. The wine
was of such a wretched quality that no person would
keep it. The plaintiff, however, refused to take it back,
notwithstanding his declaration.
Mr. Delmer, the clerk of the defendant, examined
by Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS—They had formerly sold
some wine frr the plaintiff, which was of very bad
quality, and when the agent of the plaintiff came to
• Mr. Brookes's room respecting this wine, the witness
told him that if the wine was like that formerly
sold, they would not permit it to be brought into
their rooms. They were told that it was very good.
He was also told, that if any of the buyers objected to
the wine, it must be taken back. Several persons re-
turned the wine as being extremely bad. The money
received for the wine sold amounted to 141., and the
expenses of the sale, duty, SCr.. amounted to 171. Bs.
The wine, in the witness's opinion, was absolutely
worthless and not drinkable.
The LORD CHIEN JUSTICS ..said that the wine, per-
haps, was not intended to be drank—(A laugh).
The witness had offered to make out the account
immediately. Mr. Clementson, the agent for the plain-
tiff, sent an order to that effect. A portion of the wine
was sett back to the plaintiff's cellar, which was left
in the passage, as they refused to take it in.
Several other witnesses were called on the part of the
defendant, who confirmed the evidence of this witness.
Mrs Sergeant TAW!! replied to the case on the part
of the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIE7 JUSTICC said that there was much
conflicting evidence in tais case. He was c f opinion,
that if wine was sold by auction, and sample> shown,
the auctioneer was bound to produce it equal to the
samples, or the parties were at liberty to send the wine
back. Oise of the witnesses had proved that the wine
did not coriespond with the samples. His Lordship
made some further observations on the evidence, and
the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
BAIL COURT, .firma so.
SWAB V. LORD PALSIODTIL
This was an action against the defendant for an ex-
cessive distress; the case was tried at the last Assizes
for Cornwall, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with
401. damages.
The case came before the Court to-day upon an ap-
plication to set aside the verdict, on the grounds that
there had been an abandonment of the distress immedi-
ately atter the seizure, as it appeared that Lord Fal-
mouth's agent left the premises at once, and merely
caused a notice of the distress to be served on the
tenant. The verdict was also sought to be set aside on
the ground of excessive damages.
The Court was of opinion that, as between the land-
lord and tenant, there had been a continuance of the
distress, it not being necessary that the landlord should
leave a person on the premises in charge of the pro-
perty which had been seized.
It was agreed between the Counsel on booth sides that
die damages should be reduced to '2Ol.