Star.
London, England, 1829-07-18 00:00:00

'the defendant, was accosted and asked what he would
sell his horse for ?- The plaintiff said more than you have
about you. Upon this, the defendant said to the plaintiff,
" Why do you not pay your debts ?" To which the
plaintiff said, "do I owe you any thing?" Some further
words arose, and the defendant collared and pulled
the plaintiff off his horse, and was proceeding to ill-treat
him, when the brother-in-law of the defendant interfered.
The plaintiff did not, said the Learned Counsel, ask for
large damages, but was in justice to himself compelled to
bring this case before a Jury, to enforce a compensation
or apology fur conduct which no man could submit to.
A witness, who saw the transaction, deposed to the
effect stated.—Verdict for the plaintiff; damages, L.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jinx 17.
AYRES V. BON DEN.

Mr. Sergeant Merewether stated this to be an issue,
proceeding from the Court of Chancery. A person by
the name of James Ayres, of Frome, bequeathed a sum
of 20,0001. to be divided among his first cousins, their
children, and grand children. It was completely a ques-
tion of identity, the point being, whether a Mr. Ayres,
who was married at Reading, in the year 1714, was the
same William Ayres who was born at Frome in the year
1684 ?

After the production of several copies of parish regis-
ters an old gentleman, aged 83, of the name of Ares, the
brother of the plaintiff, and who had given a release, was
called. lie proved that his grandfather was the William
Ayres in question, and that he always said he came from
Frome.

Upon his cross-examination he said he expected to share
equally with the rest of his family, and he never recol-
lected having given any release.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde, for the defendant, said he should
show that the William who was born in 1784, died in
1707 ; and he should show that William, the son of
William, was buried at Frome in 1707, and he would
show who this William of Reading was. There was to
be found the baptism of William, the eon of Thomas and
Martha Ayres, at St. Lawrence's at Reading, 1690.
Mr. W. L. White produced copies of registers of the
burial of a William Aires, son of William, in 1707, and
the baptism of William, son of Thomas and Martha Ayres
at Reading. There were several families of the name of
Ayres, both at Frome and Reading.
On the part of the plaintiff, Wm. Ayres was proved to
have been buried and married at Reading.
Mr. Sergeant Merewether replied, and said he would
leave the whole case upon the evidence of the old gentle-
man.

The Learned Judge summed up, and commented upon
the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

NEWTON V. NEWTON.

This was an action by a brother against a sister for a
libel. On the suggestion of his Lordship, a disclaimer
and apology was made by Mr. Sergeant Merewether, on
the part of the defendant, and a nominal verdict for the
Iplaintiff accordingly taken.

COURT OF ARCHES, Int 11.
lIAMEILTON V. lIAMERTON.

This suit has been pending in various courts, for up-
wards of four years. Before judgment was pronounced
on a former day, the proctor for Major Hamerton prayed
to be permitted to bring in further evidence in confirmation
of the allegation of adultery against Mm. Hamerton. The
question was referred to the Condelegates, whodecided upon
admitting fresh evidence. The proctor now asserted an addi-
tional allegaion,which affirmed, that Mm. H. had been re-
peatedly seen inParis,arm-in-arm with Mr. Bushe ; and that
lady had hired private lodgings, where she was constantly
in the custom of receiving visits from that gentleman.
The proctor further prayed a decree for the immediate
examination of the witnesses, as he had reason to believe
they were being tampered with at Paris.
The Judge said, coupling the circumstances of the,
lady's indecorous conduct at Cheltenham, by encouraging
a clandestine correspondence and intercourse with Mr.
Bushe, and continuing that connection during the pend-
ing of the suit, while living at Paris, he was of opinion
the additional part of the allegation should be fully ad-
mitted.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, July 17.
.........
unr.L UPON TILE LORD MAYOR.

The Lord Mayor, accompanied by the Governor and
one of the Directors of the Bank of England, and his
Lordship's own banker, Sir Richard Carr Glyn , went
this morning before the Grand Jury, -at the Old Bailey,
to prefer a bill of indictment against the proprietors of
the Morning Herald newspaper, for a libel in a state-
ment in the City article of that Paper, on Friday last, in
the following words :

it is said that a large house In the iron and lead trode was
yesterday accommodated by the Bank of England with a loan of
100,0001. The iron trade, we understand, is in a most deplerahle
state. At the present prices. a loss of ten shillings is sustained on
every tea disposed of. The great expenses which the stoppage of
iron works entails upon their being recommenced, is the only
reason for the proprietors carrying on their business at a loss like
the one here mentioned."

The Lord Mayor being connected with the only great
iron and lead works in the City, the house of Craw•shay
and Co. being dealers in iron alone, his Lordship imme-
diately directed his solicitor to apply to the Editor of the
Paper for his authority for so injurious a misrepresenta-
tion. We understand that there was a refusal of any
information as to the author. On Monday, however,
there appeared in the Morning Herald newspaper, under
the head of " City Intelligence." another paragraph,
stating that the Bank of England had not lent 100,0001.
to the great iron and lead house, to whom they had referred.
The Lord Mayor thought it advisable to proceed by
way of indictment against the proprietors of the Morning
' Herold, as it gave hint an opportunity of at once de-
nying upon oath the truth of the statement ; whilst, if he
bud proceeded by civil process (it being the long vaca-
tion) a considerable time must elapse before the article
could be satisfactorily contradicted.
The Grand .Jury immediately returned a " true bill."
His Lordship intimated that it was his intention to re-
move the indictment into the King's Bench.
Several applications were made by the first merchants
in the City at the Bunk of England, privately, for the
purpose of aseertainiug whether there was the slightest
foundation for this report, and the private b►nker of the
Lord Mayor was also applied to by mercantile men, who
were astoni4hed at the report. A plump and most un-
equivocal denial was instantly given to all inquiries of
the kind.

The observation of Sir C. Glyn, upon being interro-
gated in so extraordinary a wanner, was, that he would,
be much obliged to any body who would bring him
double the amount of the Lord Mayor's bills, and he.
would discount them.
We are given to understand that the bread of no fewer
than 20,000 persona depends ou the prosperity'of the
great house alluded to in the paragraph.

- - -
Before 111 r. Sergeant Auntie.
John Smith, aged 211 years, was capitally indicted for
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Charles
Rushlrouk, of Leather-lane, on the lith of March last