Star.
London, England, 1828-11-21 00:00:00

.

•
Walker might, as she was very helms t•-• telt the Ma•
gistrate all aboot the matter.
This was the delendanes case.
Mr. Sergeant A.Dnews addressed the 4nry on the
evidence, which, he c' mended, did m 4. inieuut to a
justification of the publication.
The CHIEF Ju.TICI, in chat g;ng the Jury, solid. the de-
fendant had pleaded a ju of cation on the ground that
the report contained a true account of what took place
at the Police Office; and also on the ground that the
facts stated in the repo, t were true. If they were
satisfied that the report was substan•ially true, as to
the facts which made out the list plea, that would
be sufficient to entitle the defendant to their verdict.--
The Learned Judge then commented on the evidence
given of the prisoner Walker having been acquitted
when his trial was first called on, which must have
been known to Tayli r, who at that rime pt evei t-d
the witnesses going into Court, and kept them two
hours after in waiting, on pretence that the trial had
not yet come on. If this were not the ca se, why did
not Taylor call his friend Manse to prove the con-
trary ? He (the Lord Chief Justice) c. uld have
wished to see that pe►son. Thi ugh Watktr had escaped,
and could not again he tried for bigamy, yet there was a'
way in which he and others might be brought to punish-1
ment. If the Jury were satisfied that the plea el justifi-
cation on the truth of the facts was made out, it was un-
necessary for him to charge them on the plea respecting
the correctness of the police report.
The Jury here consulted for a moment, and said they
were satisfied of the truth of the facts, and fount a verdict
for the dtfendant.
The Oily, JUSTICE said that was soffic'ent, and he
sl ould not require them to find a verdict on any of the
other issues.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Novnissa 20.
TELL KING U. MAUNDE, AUSI'ILN, AND TILVIN.

An application wits made some •ew days since that an
extent in aid might issue against the defendants, bearing
the same teste as one which issued again t them so far
back as 1816. The Court then taking into consideration
the great lapse of time which had been suffered to take
place, and the injury which might arise to innocent pat-
ties from a renewal of the writ, refused to grant the ap•
plication, unless some very strong reasons were ad-
vanced by affidavit in support of it.
A Gentleman appeared to-day on behrlf of the re-
presentatives of the defendant, Mauna.; and requested
that the solicitor, by *horn the former application was
made, might be directed to give notice of the day on
which he intended to renew it, in order that the re-
presentatives of Mr. Maunde might be in readiness to
noose it.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK •-•I am afraid that we cannot
compel the solicitor to give w.tice; but thus much I
can say, that Ole Court will, in all probability. not be
in a great hurry to issue the fresh extent, after such a
long interval. The utmost that I. think the Court will
be inclined to do, is to grant a Rule nisi in the first
instance. As far as I understand.the manner in which
the Court has issued a fresh extent, when the matter has
lain dormant for such a length of time,,they guard the
interests of innocent parties, and do not allow the fresh
extent to disturb bona fide purchasers. Indeed, the ex.
tent in such cases is twt generally directed against any
other parties than the original defendants.
Mr. Baron GA RROW felt himself called on to say, that
Mr. Baron Hullock had paid great attention to these
extent,, and that they were not now passed over sn much
of course as they formerly bad been.—. The matter
dropped here. •

HIGII COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 20.
THE SPRING.

Dr. DODS.)N applied to the Court. for an order calling
on Mr. Charles Drew to show cause why he should nut
be adjudged to pay salvage. The Spring was an East
vessel, and on her voyage home from Bombay, on
the 16th December. 1827, fell in with a most violent
gale off the Cape, which continued without intermission
for three days; during that time the ship became much
injured, and was obliged to make to the nearest port f t
repairs; on examining her cargo, which was a valuable
one,it was foundthat a great part wasentirely spoiled,and
the other much datnaged,in consequence of the ship hay.
ing let in the water. Uncle! these circumstances the Peti.
tionerc, John and George Cornet', with the assistance of
64 labourers, excited themteves for a long time in pre-
serving what part of the cargo remained undamaged,
and after the ship had undergone repair, she sailei for
England. On her arrival here Messrs. Bazett, Farquhar,
and Co. te whom she was consigned, abandoned the
cargo, when application was made to the underwriters,
who also refused it : tl:e consequence was that it was
sold in the usual manner by the East India Company ;
,and the only mode by which the Petitioners could obtain
remuneration for their services was by this Con: t calling
upon Mr. Drew, as the owner of the ship, to pay then.
nut of the proceeds of the sale, as he would receive the
amount of the sale from the Company.
Dr. heattaft contended that Mr. Dm ew was not liable ;
it was the. East India Company wh.,, after the cargo
had been abandoned both by the parties to whom they
were consigned and the under writers,had sold the goods,
anti they aline received the proceeds, which they now
held; therefore the order ought to be against them.
Sir C. Hontriaos thought this was not the proper
time to argue the question of which party was liable
for salvage. They were not as yet be4ore the Court;
he was of opinion the order ought to be granted, and
when the y appeared thnt pm int could be decided.
The Ps actor for the petitioners then prayed that the
Court would assign &h. Drew to report the value of the
goods which had been abandoned by the consignees and
underwriters. which was accordingly ordered.