Star.
London, England, 1821-11-09 00:00:00

CAN I FORGET YOU?

/ROM HAPPINEss:" A TALE FOR THZ GRAVE AND

THE GAY-JUST PUBLISHED.

Can I forget you?—Ask the silent hours,
That glide unseen by ev'ry human eye;
View me awhile, when radiant morning pours
Her glitering colours o'er the illumined sky !
Ask, while each lovely flower erects its head,
And hails with fragrance sweet the rising morn—
Why the fair tints that once were mioerare led,
And left alone within my breast the thorn?
Can I forget you ?—Ask the midnight hour,
When all is silence round my lonely bed ;
'Tis then for thee I tears of anguish pour,
And chase soft slumbers from my aching head !
Or worn with grief, sr spent with fruitless sighs,
Should nature yield, at length, to sweet repose,
In dreams, I see thy form belov'd arise,
And feel a sad renewal of my woes!
Can I forget you?-11n the social hour,
'Why shed I oft the strange unbidden tear,
And turn, indifferent, from the wonted power
Of scenes chat late were tv, my bosom dear?
And why has solitude such charms for me
Above each joy that friendship can bestow?
Alas ! because I weep unseen for thee,
And, undisturbed, indulge my silent woe !

11=2

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT.OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 8.
/MALES V. BARLOW.—CONTEMPT OF COURT.
This morning Mr. ROUPELL, the Counsel for
Messrs. Barlow, stated that his clients had filed affi-
davits in answer to the plaintiff's case, as stated
yesterday by Mr. Ching, but they were of that na-
ture which would render it expedient that they should.
be read in his Lordship's private room, his Lord-

ship being willing.
Mr. CHING said he had received no instructions
how to proceed, as he consideted the case as ended,
after what had passed yester by. He had not read
the affidavits of v. hich Mr. Roupell spoke.
The LOHDCHANCELLOH.—" You will come into my
private room, Mr. Ching, and hear the affidavits
read ; for the case, as represented to me yesterday,
is one of the worst nature of contempts I ever heard.
I cannot presume it to be proved until I read the
affidavits on the other side. If the Counsel and So-
licitors of the patties will attend me now in my pri-
vate room, I will hear it."
His Lordship then retired, and after being absent
an hour, returned.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" I had some difficulty
in hearing this case out of Court, or any other where
a Ward of Court is concerned; hut where both par!.
ties consent, Ido not think I ought to refuse. I ap-
prove highly of the conduct of Mr. Roupell, in asking
that it should be heard out of Court, and of the con-
duct of Mr. Ching, in consenting to it ; for, nom the
painful circumstances disclosed in the affidavits, it
would have made it very unpleasant tor me to have
performed my duty in Court. 1 have committed one
of the defendants."
His Lordship committed Thomas Barlow to the
custody of the Warden of the Fleet, and observed,
that he would read the affidavits, and further con-
sider how he would deal with .Joseph Barlow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 8.
John Lindsay Turner was brooght up at the sitting
of the Court t:, plead to an indictment preferred
against him by the Bridge-street Society, for the
publication cf certain parts of Carlile s Works. The
indictment was read over to him by the Clerk, and
the defendant pleaded Not Guilty ; and was informed
his trial would come on at the Sittings after Term.
RICHARDSON V. SIR R. NEAVE.t
This was an action against Sir Richard Neave, as
Sheriff of Essex, and another for an assault and false
imprisonment of the plaintiff. The action was tried
before the Chief Justice at Guildhall, and a verdict
was taken for the defendant.
Mr. SCARLETT now applied for a new trial. The
following were the circumstances .of the case, as
proved at the trial :—The plaintiff, whose name. was
John Richardson, resided in Essex, at a short distance
from London. On the day of the alleged assault he
was on his way to town, when he was met by the
Officer of the Sheriff of Essex (the second, and real
defendant in the present action), who stopped him,
and stated, that he had a writ of ca. sa. against him.
The plaintiff said he must be mistaken, as he did not
owe any person such a sum as that mentioned by the
officer ; he also observed, that the name in the writ
was William Richardson, and not John. The officer,
however, persisted that he was right, and made the
capture, taking the plaintiff to his own house, where
he kept him prisoner for some time, until it was
ascertained that the whole proceeding of mill; out
of the writ was the malicious act of some individual
unknown ; that no such proceeding, or judgment, as
that upon which this ca.sa. was founded had ever
. taken place. The plaintiff was accordingly discharged,
and, subsequently, brought the present action. At
the trial a small note was produced, which was pin-
ned to the writ at the time it was delivered to the
officer ; and pointed out the residence of the plaintiff,
and such other circumstances as led the officer to
believe he was the individual meant; and the Chief
Justice, in summing up, observed, no doubt could
exist that here had been a fraud and deception prac-
tised on the Court ; and that the writ was sued out
with a malicious motive. The only question for the
Jury would be to say, whether they believed the
plaintiff was the person meant in the writ, though
the name was William, instead of John ? The Jury
being of opinion that the plaintiff was the person
meant, found a verdict for the defendant, on the
ground that he was justified by his writ.—Mr. Scar-
lett now contended, that the writ could not be pleaded
in justification for arresting a person of a different
name, and cited several decided eases as authorities
in support of this opinion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, this was a most import-
ant question, as regarded Sheriffs and their officers
If they were to be made liable for a mistake". in the,
name, though the identity was proved, the conse-
quences might be most serious.
Mr. SCARLETT.--My Lord, the present action
would not have been brought, but for the conduct of
the officer in keeping the plaintiff so long.
The Cam Jvancr.—True; he was detained three

or four days; but it appeared that the fault of his
detention rested principally with himself and his
friends. His friends were most zealous and active;
but their activity and zeal were directed to a
wrong object.
Mr. Justice BEST.—Was there no Attorney's name
to the writ? Why did not the plaintiff make inquiry
in that quarter•?
Mr. ANDHEWBr—WE did, my Lord, but were de-
layed in consequence of there being four attoraies of
the same name.
The CHIEF Jusnca.--On account of the import-
ance of this question, you may take your Rule to
shew cause.

GURNRY V. GUYON.
This action was tried before Baron Wool), at Croy-
don.—The COMMON SERJEANT this day applied for
a new trial, on the ground that the Learned Judge
had rejected admissible evidence. The question was,
whether the signature of the plaintiff to a warrant of
attorney was genuine? Evidence was called to prove
the plaintiff was not in the room when the instrument
was said to have been signed, long enough to put his
signature to it. The father of the plaintiff also de-
posed, that it was not his son's hand-writing. The
Common Serjeant was prepared to call Mr. Lees, In-
spector of Bank notes, and persons from the Frank
Office in the General Post Office, as being well skilled
in judging of hand-writing, but the Learned Judge
considered such evidence inadmissible. The Jury
found a verdict for the defendant, thereby affirming
the signature to be genuine.
The COMMON SERJEANT contended, that the direc-
tion of the Judge was erroneous, such evidence as he
had rejected having been received by Lord Kenyon,
Judge Buller, .Mr. Justice Ashhurst, and Mr. Justice
Gould, in a trial at bar.
The Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
WEST V. ANDREWS.
Mr. GURNEY moved to set aside the nonsuit in this
case, and enter a verdict for the plaintiff. It was an
action to recover penalties under an Act passed in the
55th of his late Majesty for the protection of pau-
pers, and to prevent parish-officers supplying the
poor with provisions. The Bill was brought in by
Mr. D. Gilbert. The action was tried in Sussex,
and it appeared that the defendant was one of the
suardians of the poor of five consolidated parishes
in that county. It was proved in evidence, that he
had entered into a contract to sell sheep, to a person
named Griffiths, who farmed the poor, and the
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that such
a contract was an infringement of the Act of Parlia•
menu before named. The defendant consequently
had incurred the penalty of £4O. The Learned
Judge held, that inasmuch as the defendant did not
supply the poor directly with provisions, but the man
with sheep who farmed the poor, he did not come
within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. Justice BEST asked who the farmer was ap-
pointed by ?
Mr. GURNEY.—He is appointed by the guardians
of the poor, and the contract is obviously an infringe-
ment of Mr. Gilbert's Act, which was passed to pre-
vent the very thing which the defendant h:td done.
If half a dozen guardians of the poor make contracts
with the farmer, they have an interest in the provi-
sions supplied, and consequently they cannot exer-
cise a proper superintendence over the concerns of
the poor. In that view he submitted that the non-
suit ought to be set aside.
LORD CHIEF Jesrice.—Suppose on a complaint
made to these guardians that the provisions to the
poor are bad, and it appears one supplies the sheep,
another the bacon, and others different articles to the
farmer, will they not have an interest in upholding
, the supply, and consequently the judicious controul
they are expected to exercise be withheld.
The COURT, considering all the bearings of the
case, held there was sufficient ground to grant a rule
:o shew cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOVEMBER 7.
DAVIS V. VIE BANK OF ENGLAND.

Serjeant LENS moved the Court for a Rule to shew
cause why a new trial should not be grantei in this case.
It will be recollected by our Readers that the plain-
tiff, Mr. Horatio Davis, brought an action against the
Bank of England for the value of stock which had been
sold by his brother, John Henry Davis, under a forged
power of attorney, which was tried at Guildhall, be-
fore the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, during
the Sitting of last Term, when a verdict was given iu
favour of the Bank.
Serjeant LENS now moved to set aside that verdict,
on the ground that part of the evidence given in fa-
vour of the Bank on the trial, and which, unexplained
as it was by any evidence on the part of the plaintiff,
was fully sufficient to justify a verdict for the Bank,
had come by surprise on the plaintiff, which pre-
vented his being able to give it that satisfactory ex-
planation he was now fully prepared to do. The
Learned Serjeant proceeded to state the evidence
to which he alluded. The action had been brought
for the recovery of two sums of £5OO each, in
the Three per Cent. Consols, and £75 Long An-
nuities. There was not a question that the Stock had
been sold under a forged power of attorney ; but the
only question on the trialwas, whether the plainti ff had,
by connivance at his brother's act, precluded himself
from the right of recovering the value of his Stock
from the Bank; and, in proof of this connivance, evi-
dence was adduced on the trial that, on the 10th of
January, being the time of the payment of dividends
on the Three per Cent. Stock, John Henry Davis had
paid to the plaintiff's bankers, and to his credit, the
sum of 1:150, being the exact half-year's dividend on
the Stock that had been sold under the forged power
of attorney; from which, as the fact could not be
explained at the time, it was inferred that the plain-
tiff then knew that his brother had sold the Stock in
question, and that he received from him the sum
paid in lieu of the dividend that would be payable
on it if not, old. The plaintiff is now prepared to
prove that the sum of £l5O, then paid by John
Henry Davis, was a payment made on quite a dif-
ferent account, namely, on account of housekeeping
expenses incurred by both the brothers, and Lady Dav is,
their mother, who then lived together in Albemarle-1
street at their joint expense; and on a settlement of
accounts which at that time took place, there was a!
sum of about £460 to be provided for, and it was
agreed that each should pay £l5O ; in consequence
of which a t, John Henry Davis made the'
payment that sum to the plaintiff's banker, that
had been paid in evidettco. To this fact time was