Star.
London, England, 1810-12-14 00:00:00

4 • • 11.1epl 9. COM
This was an action to recover £23 11s. V..
leas, and 45 2a. lid. for the resat of a piece of poet-
'toe gropnd. ,
Mr. Toprixa stated the case, and said the -
were both natives of Bandon, in Ireland, t
were also relations, the plaintiff being nephew
defendant; they had given a joint promisory
a third person for £lOO, which the plaintiff discharged:
the plaintiff's signing it was merely to accommodate
the defendant : this he would prove by a witness who
heard the defendant acknowledge that he was in-
debted to the plaintiff in the sum mentioned in the de-
claration ; and that he was also indebted to the plain-
tiff in the sum of £.5.25. Ild. for a piece of potatoe-
ground which he had rented. The transaction took
place in Ireland, in 1506, from which time the defen-
dant had resided in this country. He would prove
the defendant's acknowledgment of the debt, which
would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict.
John Scott deposed, that he was the proprietor of a
public-house at Bandon, in Ireland, in the year 1806 :
the plaintiff and the defendant came into his house to
settle their accounts, and the defendant acknowledged
that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum set
forth in the declaretion.

Mr. PARK addressed the Jury, as Counsel for the
defendant.

Lord ELLENBOROVGH summed up the evidence, and
observed, it was very singular that this action should
be brought in this country; particularly so, as the rent
for the potatoe-ground could have been recovered by
a very simple process in Ireland. It appeared strange
that, a transaction which took place in 1306, in Ire-
land, should be brought in the Court of King's Bench
in London in 1810, and supported by a witness who
has nothing but his memory to assist him, without
any memorandum. It would be for the Jury to con-
sider what credit should be giiren to the witness, and
for them to give their verdict according to their opi-
nion of that evidence.
The Jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
DEC. 13.-HUGHES V. NAYLOR.

This was an action to recover the snm of £525
upon a bill of exchange, of which the defendant was
the acceptor.
Mr. MARRYATT stated the circumstances of the

case, by which it appeared that the plaintiff had been
completely swindled out of his property, consisting of
3CA beasts, by a combination of swindlers. The plain-
tiff was a Welchman and a cattle dealer, who employ.
ed his brother to sell for him. The brother, who ap-
peared as a witness, was a simple Welshman, and a
very likely subject to be duped by the artifices of the
designing. In the month of March, in the year 1806,
he was at Croydon Fair with A lot of beasts. The de-
fendant, in company with a person who called himself
Stratton, came to him to purchase his beasts. Naylor
appeared very much like a gentleman, and talked
very largely before the poor Welshman of his estate
and brewery at St. Alban's. He affected to be above
dining in the common room with the dealers, but in-
sisted on a room and dinner to himself, and invited
the witness to dine with him. There was in their com-
pany one Tyndall, a hay salesman, of whom the wit-
ness knew a little. While they were at dinner, Mr.
Naylor and his friend spoke a great deal of Naylor's
supposed concerns at St. Alban's. At last Mr. Nay-
lor observed to Mr. Shelton, that he had not brought
money with him, and he must draw on Stratton for

£6OO to pay for the cattle ; to which Stratton re-
plied, 44 Oh yes, Sir, for a thousand if you please."
—Tyndall then interposed, and observed, it was all
the same, as his friend Hughes would take their
bill. The poor Welchman, supposing his customers
must be persons of great respectability, took the bill ;
and when it became due, no such brewer was found
at St. Alban's, nor any where else. By diligent in-
quiry, however, the defendant Naylor was lately ar-
rested at Dalston, near Hackney ; and the defence
now set up was, that he was not the Mr. Naylor who

had accepted the bill, but another of the same name,
and his Attorney had been instructed to take out a

summons to compel the plaintiff to produce a bill be-
fore a Judge, in order that he might see it and have
a copy of it. The Learned Judge then told him, if
he would swear he had never made any such bill, he
would grant an order for producing it. But this Mr.
Naylor declined. The Attorney for the plaintiff went
further, and stated he would produce the bill at any
time, if he, the defendant, would produce himielf to
the witness in order to see whether he could identify
his person or not, but this he also declined doing, and
they never could get sight of him. It wa; also proved
by a waiter of the Langbourn Ward Coffee-house,
that a person, calling himself R. Naylor, used at that
time to frequent the house, and was frequently met
there by a Mr. Stratton.
Lord ELLENBUROUGH said, the defendant, as he had

notice that his personal identity was in question, was
most imperiously called upon to shew himself, that
the witness might see whether he was the same Nay-
lor or nnt, who gave the bill, and it was the strongest
presumption against him, that he did not do it.--
Verdict for the plaintiff.
JUDGE MORGAN AND VALLEY.
This was an action to recover damages for a mali-
cious- arrest.
Mr. JEavis stated that this was an action brought
to recover damages, by the plaifitiff, against the two
defendants, for arresting him for the sum of W3OO,
without any probai)le cause of action. He (the
Learned Counsel) would prove the malicious arrest
by the testimony of Mr. Waddington, late a great
dealer in hops.
Some preliminary evidence was gone into, when
the Learned Judge (Lord ELLENnonouou) directed,
that the plaintiff should be misuited, on account of
some irregularity in the pleadings.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. Is.
GRUEN U. BARKER.

This was an action for assault and battery. The
plaintiff and defendant were Officers in the Customs!;
and it appeared that they had quarrelled respecting
sone tea in the Grstorn-house. The plaintiff having
refused to leave the defendant's office, a pugilistic
contest ensued. The plaintiff was overthrown in the
combat, and received a few blows.

Mr. Scrjeant Coucto., on the part of the defendant,
made a humourous appeal to the Jury. He observed,
that in this paltry action a few blows of no conse-
quence had been represented as a most violent assault.
AlearnedAnatomist and Surgeon had been called, and
a touch on the plaintiff's shoulder was called a bruise
on the scapula; a blow ot; the back, a coutusiou on the

have said, a you you
must expect blows. The Learned Serjeant conclu-
ded by calling on the Jury, if they were of opinion
that the assault was proved, to give the plaintiffa far-
thing, in order that he might hang it round his nick.
The Learned Serjeant observed, it would be a good
new year's gift ; and the plaintiff by looking at it
would avoid fighting, and say, if I should get a touch
on the spine or scapula, I won't commence an action,
because an English Jury won't give ine more than a
farthing damages.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages Is.
I'ESDRILL 11. AITCHINSON. _

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a boot
maker, residing in Newgate-street, against the defen-
dant, one -of the same trade, in Butcherhall-lane, to
revover damages for slander. It appeared, that the
parties met at the Plough, in Giltspur-street, in No-
vember last, to celebrae the acquittal of Mr. Hardy,
and " Trial by Jury." When , the plaintiff entered
the room, he was charged with having seduced a
married woman; in answer to which, he said, if he
was a seducer, he had followed the example,of the
defendant. The latter then rose and used the words,
" You an: a thief ; you have robbed me, and I can
prove it." For these words, described to be void of
the least foundation, the plaintiff expected large da.

mages.
The first witness was cross-examined by Mr. Ser•
jeant BEST, who put the following questions to prove
that all the company had been making a liberal sacri-
fice at the shrine of the jolly god :
What time did Mr. Pendrill come into the room?
About half-past ten o'clock.
You had been to celebratethe acquittal of Mr. Hardy,
at the Crown and Anchor Tavern ?—Yes, we had.

You had taken your glasses cheerfully ; drank wine
enough, I suppose ?—We took it at discretion, as
every man should do.
I take it for granted a few bumpers were drank ?
I don's recollect any bumpers.
What ! not drink Mr. Hardy's health and Trial by
Jury in a bumper ? If you did not you don't deserVe
a verdict in future from any English Jury.
It was contendA ou the part of the defendant, that
the words were spoken in the moment of inebriation,
and that they were not used to convey a charge of fe-
lony. It was also stated, that the defendant had been
deprived of several of his customers by the plaintiff,
who had formerly lived with him as a journeyman,
and, under all the circumstances, that it was not a case
for damages. The Jury found a verdict for the plain.
tiff—Damages Is.

COURT OF EXCHEQUF,R, DEIBLIN.

EXECUTORS OF FAGAN V EARL OFLLANDAFF, &C.

The CHIEF BARON pronounced the judgment of the
Court in this cause—the most weighty and arduous
in this Court, which has lasted nearly 30 years, in•
volved numerous interests, and embraced some of the
most important questions.
The bill was filed by several creditors for the sale
of the great estates of Annefield, in the county ofTip-
perary (the ancient patrimony of the Mathew family)
for the payment of the debts of the late T. Mathew,
Esq. of Annefield, father of the late, and grandfather
of the present Earl of Llandaff.
In 1789 the plaintiffs obtained a decree, directing
an account to be taken of all the debts ; and now,
upon the Officers' report, made nearly two years ago,
after vat ions amendments, it appeared that the amount
of the several debts claimed exceeded £80,000( The
defendant, the Earl of Llandaff, contended in sup.
port of a claim set up by his father, that he was en-
titled, as first incumbrancer, to a charge of £90,000,
with a long arrear of interest, under certain articles
executed upon the intermarriage of his grandfather,
T. Mathew, with Catherine Mathew, in 1736, and
confirmed in 1716.

The other creditors opposed this claim, and con-
tended, that the late Earl was not entitled to set upl
those judgments.
The Court this day decreed finally, that the Earl
of Llandaff's claims under those judgments must be
postponed to those of all the other creditors ;—they
held that the late Earl had wholly relinquished them,
even if valid, by a deed executed in 1774, by him and
his father—which being in the nature of an honour-,
able family arrangement, must be held conclusive ;1
and directed that this patrimonial estate of Annefield
shall he sold publicly within three months, and the
produce be applied to the payment of the other credi-
tors (to the exclusion of Lord Llandaff) ; that all'
the costs expended by the plaintiffs be paid ; and if
any surplus remains, it shall be subject to future ar-
gument, However, the debts are supposed to exceed
the produce of these estates by forty thousand pounds
and upwards--and thus the Earl's claim is in effect
annulled.

It is singular that the late Lord Avonmore was
Counsel in this cause, when Mr. Yelverton ; he after-
wards pronounced several orders, and the first decree
in it as Chief Baron, between 1788 and 1808. The
present Chief Baron was also leading Counsel for
Lord Llandaff in this cause for 15 years, argued it
frequently and powerfully in his behalf ; and now,
after having presided five years, and taken nearly 12
months fur consideration since the last argument, he
has ultimately decided against the validity of all these
chims of his own quondam client. This, however,
only proves the intricacy of the case, and the daub:-
ful construction of the deeds aad documents, as well
as the candour and impartiality of the Judge, who
thus avows his change of sentiment upon grounds
which have impressed his mind with the substantial
justice of the case.

An Inquest was held on Wednesday evening, at the
llorso and Dolphin, Macclesfield-street, Soho, before
A. Gm.t., Esq. Coroner for Westminster, on the body
of Mr. Simons, who lost his life in the dreadful fire
at the Mexican Hotel, in Lisle-street, on S:►turday
last. The body was discovered lying in a heap of
rubbish at eight o'clock on Wednesday morning, one
side• being entirely burnt.—Verdict Accidental death.—
The body of Mrs. Simons has not yet been discover-
ed ; a great number of workmen were employed yes-
terday to dig in the ruins, but no trace of her could
be found.

• ‘a
Isprne. . ketire as ArleiSh boxing
!d. money 'match wax wou d not soder themselves to be imposed
te of pout- ion by anatomical terms. The plaintiff had only re-
ceived, in the iermt of pugiliim, two slight hits, one
she parties on the back, the other en the shoulder. What vvould
and they Big Ben and Johnson have said, if a man who had
tew of the fought a battle 144 complained of It blow on the
ry note to spine ? They would have said, " if you fight, you
. ~ Ph, Y.rarnPd Serieant conclu-