Star.
London, England, 1810-07-19 00:00:00

FROM LLOYD'S LIST.

GRAVFSLNP, het 18.—Arrived the Mary Ann, (lamer, from
Amelia Islands; Swallow, Wheatley, from Mogadore ; Coiling-
word, Webster, Isom Newfoundland ; and ;he London Packet,
Holum, from Oporto. No vessels sailed to-day.

The VENGEurt, a new 71, built at Harwich, has
proceeded up the Liver Medway for Chatham.
His Majesty's ships Donis and PSYCHE have cap-
tured in the China Seas the Dutch annual Japan ship
oiled the Rebecca, she had on board the Dutch Re-
sident for Japan. The PsvcirE had arrived at Co.
limbo with her prize, in January, when the Rebecca
was to sail for Bombay for adjudication.
The OWEN GLENDOWER frigate has arrived at
Quebec, with a fleet from Portsmouth.
The Ann, VAIH.EV, from Liverpool, has arrived at
Quebec, with damage.

The Arnistad, —, from Spain to Vera Crnz, has
teen taken by the Superieure French privateer, plun-
ckred, and given up.

Were we to form an opinion of the number of fa-
shionables in Town, by the nightly display of corn-
pray at Astley's Amphitheatre, we might be led to
believe that very few of the Nobility have as yet left
it: convinced, however, from circumstances, to the
contrary, we must attribute the appearance of such
as are still in the Metropolis to be attracted every
evening to this place, to nothing else but the superio-
rity of the entertainments, led on by the Blood-Red
Knight, and the new pantomime of the Judgment of
Tuesday night as Mr. DESIIAYFA was commencing
the Pas de 7.ois, in the Ballet with Mesdames CLAM
and Desnal•E.s, his font turned under him. He ap-
peared at the moment in excessive pain, and, after
some ineffectual attempts to walk, was obliged to be
carried off the stage.
A BLIND PEDESTRTAX.—Yesterday, a poor blind
man, for a wager of 7s. undertook to walk six miles
in an hour and a half. He started at eight o'clock,
'A the Fulham road, conducted by a faithful dog,
!sing one mile out' and one mile in, and completed
his undertaking in an hour and a quarter, to the great
surprise of those who were present, amongst whom a
sum of 40s. was readily collected and given to him.
In the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday, a
!traw-hat manufacturer, of the name of Hewlings, re-
covered fifty pounds damages against Giller, the land-
lord of the Ball-faced Stag, on Finchley Common.
The plaintiff and a friend were snipe-shooting, in Ja-
nuary last, on the Common, and about eight o'clock
at night applied at the Defendant's house for beds and
supper. This acctimmodation, due by law► to all tra-
veller", they were not only refused, but sent to High-
gate watch-house for the night.
Persons who are anxious to obtain anyirmicular
Numbers in the present Lottery, should make im- I
mediate application, otherwise it is more than pro-'t
bable that the Numbers they want will be issued from
the Bank, as the demand for Tickets and Shares
is
daily increasing.

LAID tYPELLICSIOI,

COURT Ol? ICING'S BENCH, JULY 17.
LOVELL V. WALLER.
The ArfOnNEY-GEsERAL stated this to be an action
brought by the Proprietor of the Statesthan News-
paper, against a News-Vender, for substituting and tit-
cnlating another evening paper, called the Alfred,
among persons who had ordered, and were in the ha-
bit of taking in the Statesman Newspaper. In the
particular case on which this action was founded, the
damage sustained was very insignificant in itself, but
the principle at issue was of considerable importance
to Newspaper Proprietors, in a general view for if
the News-venders were to be permitted to circulate
one paper instead of another which they were com-
missioned to send, the interests of the latter would not
only be so far injured, but also in another point of
view, by having a rival established on its own loss.
The circumstances of the case were shortly these :
the Statesman some time ago belonged to a number
of proprietors, but Mr. Lovell at last became the sole
proprietor, and one of his antagonists, who had left
the Statesman, lately set up the Alfred, whiCh thus
became a kind of opposition newspaper to that which
was conducted by his client. Before this separation of
interests had taken place, a Mr. Horsley, of Canter-
bury, happening to be in London, had ordered the.
Statesman of Mr. Lovell, who, according to the cus-
tom of the trade, desired Waller, a News-vender, to
send the Statesman to... Mr. Horsley, at Canterbury.
In cases of this sort, the profit of News-vender arises.
fro:li this, that he has an allowance of three half-pence,
per paper, according to the custom of the trade, which,
allowance he receives from the Proprietor. The
Neves-vender has the full price from the person to
whom the paper ie sent, and thus. receives a profit of
three, half-pence for every paper he thus circulates.—
For a considerable time Mr. Horsley received the
Statesman regularly,bnt at last he received the Alfred,
which he at first thought might proceed from a mis•
take ; but as this substitution went on for some
time, he was convinced it must be by design ; and
Mr. Horsley having occasion to come up to town
about the 19th of May last, complained to Mr. Lovell
that his paper was changed. That Gentleman, of
course, exptessed his surprise at the circumstance to
Mr. Waller, the News-vender, who made, some fri-
volous excuse, which it was unnecessary to mention ;
and it was for the injury which he had thus received
that Mr. Lovell now sought compensation in a Court
of Justice. In the present case, however, his client
wanted only nominal damages ; for he brought this
action rather to stop a practice on the part of the
Newsmen, which ought not to be endured, and to
establish a general principle on the subject, than with.
any other motive.
Josiah Ryder was then called, who said he was
Printer, and occasionally Publisherof the Statesman.
He understood Mr. Lovell to be the proprietor of that
papor. On being cross examined by Mr. GARROW,
witness said he acted as a kind of clerk in the office,
awl that though Mr. Lovell's name stands as Printer,
Publisher, and Proprietor, yet that a Mr IsKardell
was in fact the printer. Sometimes they sold papers
from the press, to chance customers; did not gene-
rally refuse newspapers to chance customers.
. Q. Did not your regular customers, the News-
venders, complain of your paper being kept so late,
that they could not get it in time for the Post-office ?
—A. Only once or twice there were complaints of
this kind ;, once during the 0. P. business, and aim.
ther time, about Sir F. Burdett's procession. With
these exceptions, the paper was always time enough
for the News-venders.
William Horsley proved the circumstance of his
having ordered the Statesmal ; of his having-received
a letter from the defendant, as news-vender, asking
for his reference in town for security of payment; and
also the circumstance of the Statesman being changed
for the Alfred, which he had complained of to Mr.
Lovell.
Mr. Gannow then addressed the Jury. He sub-
mitted that there was no proof of any undertaking of
Waller to Lovell. to send the Statesman, and there-
fore the plaintiff must he nonsuited, es Horsley alone
had ground of complaint against his client. At the
commencement of a new paper, nothing was more
common than to send it round to different people.—
lie himself recollected having received the Alfred in
this way, containing a long, dissertation of that politi-
calc,
veteran, Major Cartwright.
Lord ELLENBOROCCII thought, that from Waller's
letter to Horsley, in which he seemed to say, " Your
order for the Statesman is given over by the Proprietor
for me to execute," there appeared an implied con-
tract that Waller should send that paper ; and if the
Jury were satisfied that Waller substituted the other
paper of his own accord in the room of it, then the
plaintiff would be entitled to the nominal damages
which he sought by the present action. The Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is.
JULY 18.—wir.zaa11s v. •CALLENDER•
This was an action of damages for a libel. The
circumstances of the case were briefly as follow :
The plaintiff, an Attorney in Monmouth, and posses-
' sing a large fortune and extensive family connection
in the shire, had been the confidential adviser of ii
person of the name of Jones in his neighbourhood.
Jones fell into misfortunes, and applied to the plein.
tiff to point oar, a way in which he might liquidate
the demands upon him. In consequence of the advice
which be then received, his family property was sold,
and he left the country. Jones happening subsequently
to meet with Mr. Hill, a Chancery Solicitor, at Mar-
gate, was induced to commence an action, for the
value of a bond which had been given to him in part
payment for his estate. For the purpose of deter-
ring him from suing on the bond, he was threatened
with a Commission of Bankruptcy. He persisted ;
the Commission was obtained, and he was stripped
of whatever property had remained to him. In
consequence of some further investigation, this
Commission was superseded by the Chancellor's
Order, and leave given to bring an action against the
plaintiff for the part which he took in the transaction.
—A pamphlet was published, purporting to be a re-
port of the trial in the Court of Chancery. This
publication charged the plaintiff in the present cause,
with a tissue of fraud and treachery of the grossest na-
ture, representing him as having been the teal purcha-
ser of Jones's estate, under another name, and at a
depressed value, at a moment when he was the At-
torney of that unfortunate man; and afterwards,
when the bond for £3OO, was required to be paid,
tcrrifyingJones by thratelliss to strip him of his last

0111i* by a iOMMissiott of bankruptcy, pressing that 1
commission by swearing to debts that had neves ex-
isted, and at once perjuring himself, and suborning
perjury. This pamphlet was published in London,
in May 1809, with a frontispiece, representing Jones's
wife and children returning thanks to Sir Samuel
Romilly and Mr. Hill the Attorneyovho gained their
cause in the Court of Chancery. In the back ground
there were sketched three figures, representing Mr.
Williams, and his two suLordinate agents ih the tran-
saction, carried by the devil, in regular progression,
from the court to the gallows, and from the gallows to
hell. This pamphlet was published in May. In June,l
Mr. Callender, also an Attorney in Monmouthshire,
ordered down a parcel of the copies, and distributed
them through Monmouthshire, some .of them illus-
trated with marginal references ; such as " The ras-
cal who did this ought to be driven from society."—;
" Mr. Williams the Attorney who ruined poor Jones
has now nothing to do but to put a pistol to his head."
The rest were sent where they were most likely to
prejudice the Plaintiff. For this act of circulating the
work, the action was brought.
A vast variety of evidence was gone into to prove
the allegations of the libel, but the particulars %vett'
too unimportant to the general merits o 1 the cause to
be worth detailing. •
After an excellent speech from Mr. Scrjeant CFST,
for the Defendant, and an acute and pointed reply
from the A rroirs G ,:x rata L, Lord ELLENBOItOCGII
recommended it to the Jury to find a verdict for the
Plaintiff; at the same time admitting the force of the
evidence which was brought to prove the truth of the
statements in the pamphlet. The Jury, without leav-
ing the box, brought in a verdict for the Plaintiff.—
, Damages £lOO.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 17.
LUCAS v. WILLAN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
had been a passenger in the Pilot, Liverpool stage-
coach, belonging to the defendant, and had had his
thigh broken in consequence of the coach having bro-
ken down. The plaintiff alledged the injury to have
taken place from the double negligence of the defen-
dant ; first, in provid;ng a bad axletree to his coach,
and next, in employing a careless driver.
Mr. Hickman, who was a passenger when the
accident happened, deposed, that it took place
about MO miles from London, at the foot of a steep ',
hill, where a rail-way intersected the road ; rain had
fallen, and the iron of the rail-way projected near'
two inches above the surface of the road. He warned
the coachman, when going down the hill, that he was
driving too fast, but the coachman laughed at him,
land asked him it he was frightened ? the coach jolted
' severely over the iron rail-way, and the axletree snap-
ped : the plaintiff had his thigh broken. .
Taylor, a country blacksmith, had examined
the axle after the accident, it was broken about a
foot from the shoulder.
Serjeant VAUGHAN—" By your oath, Sir, were you
not drunk when you examined it ?"
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD---." Indeed I think, brother,
if he was drunk you could scarcely expect him to re-
member it : you had better ask somebody else the
'question ?"
The Surgeon, who attended the plaintiff, was off
opinion that, from a curvature in the bone, the broken
,`thigh would be always shorter than the sound .bne,„
ao that he would be lame all his life.
Serjeant SHEPHERD, as Counsel for the defendant,
contended, that unless there was some negligence
proved against a Coach Proprietor, he was not to be
made responsible for any casual accident that might
occur to his coaches. If such accident could fairly be
imputed to the Proprietor's want of attention, un-
doubtedly he ought to suffer, but not otherwise. It
very frequently happened that coaches, belonging to
,private gentlemen, made with the greatest care, and
purchased at great expence, met with accidents which
it was impossible either to foresee or guard against.—
If such was the case with regard to them, it was
doubly probable in stage coaches which went constant
journies, and carried both luggage and passengers.--
Modern coaches were very liable, from their construc-
tion, to accidents. Every one knew that since the
war it was difficult to get as good iron as formerly,
and necessary to use even what we had sparingly.
Sir Jamas MANSFIELD--44 Indeed I, for one, know
no such thing. I have even heard the contrary. Since
the war there has been much good iron discovered in
England."
Serjeant SIIEPHERD-..." I know, my Lord, a coach-
maker once gave me that as a reason for the badness
.of a coach he made."
Sir JAMES MANSWIELD—" Very likely he did, bro-
ther, but you should not have believed it."
Serjeant SHEPHERD declared, that let that be as it
might, still he would prove all that was necessary in
the present instance—he would prove that not only
there was no negligence imputable to Mr. Willan,
but that every day a man Is-as especially appointed to
inspect the coaches, and see that they were fit to per-
form their journey : if he did this, he hoped the Jury
and his Lordship would be of opinion that his client
was not legally responsible for the effects of an.acci.
dent, which it was not in his power to prevent.
Captain Trotter was a passenger in the coach from
London : the coaehman, in his opinion, conducted
himself remarkably well. He attributed the accident
entirely to the raihray at the foot of the hill. He
examined the axle after it had been broken ; it did
not seem to have suffered any former accident. He
was a Sea Captain. Before the break down, the
coach had unloaded some of the cargo.
----, a wheelwright, proved his being employed
br Mr. Willan to inspect all the coaches previous to
their departure on a journey ; he inspected 70 in a
week It the Pilot had appeared at all unsound, he
would have ordered it to be laid aside, and have sent
another coach in its place.
J. Short was also appointed to inspect the coaches;
the was positive he inspected the Pilot, and that it was
: fit to go any journey..,--(This witness was very per-
I plezed in his evidence : he said the accident happened
in January, though it took place in November.)
Valentine Hallam was guard to the Pilot ; it was
quite a new coach. and had no flaw whatever. Tne
driver was as good AS any man on the road ; he was
I driving down, the hill at the rate of ;even or eight
miles tn hour.
The evidence was here closed ; and Serjeant LENS
having replied,
j Sir JAWS MANSEIELTI proceeded to comment on
the evidence. In case a carrier took charge of foods,

he tea, petsd nally ielponsibie for theft) if should
he lost, no matter whether throne his carelessness
not ; if he even deposited them in a place of safety,.
he thought, and that it happened theywere stolen fbom
thence, he would be li.tble. In short, the law exempt a!
him in no case, exeept where the visitation of Penvt-
ARNCE, or the unavoidable violence of an enemy inter.
fered. With respect to a Coach Proprietor,the case wat
different—he was not responsible, unless he was neidi-
geol. It was not, however, necessary for a plaintiff,
spew that the Proprietor omitted to have his coaches
daily examined. If it appeared that on the departure -
the coach there was a- manifest probability that the
coach would break dawn, he was liable : I e was also
liable to the consequences of his driver's carelessness'
on the road. The present complaint was of a mixed
nature—it first objected to the weakness of the ail,
tree, and next to the negligence of the driver. If the
Jury should think, from what they had heard, that the
axle wat naturally unfit to bear the j( •1t over the raj)
way, which jolt was to be expected, because the ex-
istence of the railway was as well knows to the drivel%
as the existence of any turnpike-gate on the road, and
should have of course been provided against, they
would find for the Plaintiff. They had heard the
_driver was going down the hill at the rate of seven .
eight miles an hour, and that he was warned he was
' driving too fast, but he disregarded the admonition.
If then they thought the accident might have been
prevented ly the driver's going more slowly, or p:
ting a drag en his wheel, they would also find for thp
Plaintiff ; they would give him whatever damages
they might consider due to him, blth for his surgi:
expences and personal injury.—Verdict for the Min-
tiff—Damages £120,-40s. costs.