Star.
London, England, 1829-11-24 00:00:00

T ATTERS A LL'S.
The betting yesterday was not very Important, unless it may
be considered so front the palpable improvement of the Sister to
Emma, who is spoken of its nothing but a flyer. The Nina filly,
now called Zebu, is also improved, and is certainly one of the finest
mares Mr. Maberley has had in his stable ; we believe she is the
first of Middleton's get that has been brought before the public.
The St. Leger favourite, Bud, has been re-named Raby, by Lord
Cleveland; the old name was certainly the most appropriate. The
only offers were as under :

Dian.
7 to 1 apt Sir M. Wood's Mummer
12 to 1 - Sir M. Wood's Cetus
13 to 1 Mr. Petre's Beunswicker
17 to 1 --- Lord Exeter's hlainnoud
18 to 1 Mr. Thornbill's Wat Tyler
18 to 1 Mr. Chifney's Cressida cult
20 to 1 -- Lord Sefton's Sal. Colt
20 to 1 -- Lord Cavendish's Mouse colt
20 to I --- Mr. Petre's The Major
t 2 to 1 -- Lord Sefton's Mouche
OAKS.
15 to 2 ---•• Lord Sefton's Mouche
9 to 1 -- Mr. Stonehewer's Leeway fiUy.
12 to 1 -- Lord Queensberry's Sister to Emma
15 to 1 --- Lord Jersey's Fillagree filly
16 to 1 --- Mr. Maberley's Zelus
ST. LSOIS.
8 to 1 Lord Cleveland's Raby (late Bud.)
16 to 1 Lady Mowbray.
16 to 1 -- St. Nicholas.
20 to 1 Reginald.
SHREWSBURY HUNT.
The members of the Shrewsbury Hunt, under the Presidency of
Henry Lyster, Esq. of Rowton, have been spending the week in
the vicinity of that town. On Friday last, the hounds threw off at
Woodcote ; the fox was soon lost, and the hounds were at fault.
After much loss of time and noise, an elderly Gentleman, a pe-
destrian, discovered, with his spectacles, the fox in a tree! He
was routed thence, and almost instantly earthed himself.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 23.
JUDOMWIT,•—IN U ASHTIRLD CURIUM
The LORD CUANCW.LOS gave judgment in this case. It was
petition presented by the Perpetual Curate of the pirish of Great
Ashfield, Norfolk, under the following circumstances :—Some cen-
turies since a Gentleman, of the name of Nicholas Phineage, gave
by will a landed estate, of the value of .€3OO, and-certain personal
property, and other funded property, to be laid ontirttrO purchase
of other lands for the maintenance of a Minister ""td• preach the
Word of Go." every Sunday morning, and for each service the
Minister was to receive the aunt of eight shillings, which was to be
paid out of the funds above-mentioned. The election of the
Lecturer was vested in the bands of the Trustees for the time being.
As the perpetual curacy was last a scanty benefice, it had been the
almost invariable practice of giving the lectureship to the incum-
bent of the living. In 181.7, however, the Rev. Mr. Norgate was,
by a vast majority of the Trustees, elected Lecturer, and he conti-
nued to perform the duties of that situation till 1823; when, being
a Fellow of one of the Colleges at Oxford, he resigned, and re-
moved to that University. Upon his resignation. his brother, Mr.
•James Norgate, was chosen by the Trustees as his successor. Dr.
Norgate remained at Oxford till 1827, when, having married, he
removed again to Ashfield, when his brother gave up the lecture-
ship, to which be was, by the almost unanimous vote of the Trus-
tees, re-elected. Shortly after this, the Rev. Mr. Stegall, the Per-
petual Curate, refused to allow the Doctor the use of ids pulpit,
and presented' this petition, in which it was prayed that the Court
would declare that the lectureship ought always to go with the
curacy, or that the Curate was entitled to some pecuniary compensa-
tion for the use of his pulpit. It was further alleged, that the election
of Dr. Notgate was void, in consequence of an irregularity in the
appointment of the trustees; and it was suggested that an indi-
vidual of the name of Cracknell, who was represented as being in a
very inferior situation in life, had exerted a very improper interest
in the nomination of the trustees. The Court was decidedly of
opinion that upon some of these points the petitioner had succeeded
in making a case. This matter had been before the out as long
back as the reign of James the First ; and in the twenty-hrst year
of that King, a decree was made, which clearly vested the election
of the lecturer in the trustees ; and were the Court now to declare
that the Curate ought, as a matter of right, to be selected by the
trustees, it would be in direct variance with both the letter and
spirit of, that decree. It would, indeed, be giving the appointment
to the patron of the livin of Ashfield. Again, as it regarded the
alleged irregularity in the nomination of the trustees, the Court was
clearly of opinion that the charge fell to the ground. The indi-
viduals who now filled that office were respectable Gentlemen, and
they had exercised their rights in a way that it would be impossible
for tb Court to complain of. Dr. Norgate was a divine of ex
emplary learning and piety, of high standing in the University to
which he belonged ; and certainly securing the services of such a
man for the benefit of the parishioners of Ashfield, was a great
boon. Upon the only remaining point, the refusal of Mr. Stegall
to allow the use of the pulpit to the lecturer, the Court could make
no order. It was not for him (the Lord Chancellor) to dictate to
that gentleman, but be much hoped that he would well consider the
subject. As, therefore, the petition was in every part of it alto-
gether ungrounded, it must be dismissed. and those individuals
who have plunged the parishioners in this litigation and unplea-
sant proceedings, must pay the costs.
Petition dismissed with costs.
VICE-CHAPECIAL INJNCELLOR'UNCTION. S COURT, Nov. 23.
S
LORD DI TAILIT, IT MS MIT /AMID, v. DRUM
Mr. Tammy' moved for a special injunction, to restrain the
defendant from selling or removing certain crops, and, other
produce off a farm, held by the defendant under his Lordship,
in Cheshire. The tenant of the farm took it from year' to year.
It appeared that the defendant had advertised in the Cheshire
Paper the sale of the property now sought to be restrained.
By a clause in the lease, the farm was not to be left in an anima-
band-like manner.
The COURT granted the injunction.
His Homo& took causes to-day, but nothing of further im-

thschArged.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 25.
Before Sir JOHN NICHOL.
IN TIM GOODS OF TIIOM6S HUBBARD, ZIG.

portance occurred.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, N0v.43. .
THE KING V SABAH ALIO?.
The defendant appeared in custody of the keeper of Stafford
gaol, having been brought up by writ of Habeas to be discharged.
Mr. WILLIAMS stated that she had been committed by the Staf-
ford Magistrates for a malicious trespass on the premises of a Mr.
Thomas Roby. The warrant of commitment he held to be de-
fective, and the Court being of opinion that the objection was
well-founded, the defendant was discharged.
unman v. VASSICK.
This action was brought in the Common Pleas by Mr. Kembie
against Mr. Farren, the comedian, for breach of agreement. The
Jury gave a verdict for £750.
The proceedings having been removed by writ of Error and
Certiorari into this Court,
Mr. CAM this day applied to the Judges to allow the Mas-
ter to say whether any, and if any; what sum ought to be prat!
into Court, in order that bail might be dispensed with.
Learned Counsel observed that the rule he required would place
the plaintiff in a more advantageous situation.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
THE NIKO V. WILLIAM AIIOKSIVII LOBECKIII.
The ATTORNIV-GISKRAL prayed the judgment of the Court on
the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to an information filed by
his Majesty's Solicitor-General, charging him with having entered
into an agreement with a person named Lutteral, to receive a sum
of £3OO for a recommendation to an appointment to an office under
Government.
It appeared by the affidavits put in on the part of the prosecu-
tion, that the defendant, in December, 1827, entered into a nego-
tiation with the father of Hungerfoni Lutteral for procuring for
his son an appointment in the chief office of the Coast Guard Ser-
vice; that he afterwards corresponded with the son on the subject,
and the latter, in January 1828, remitted him from Bristol £3OO,
the amount of the sum which the defendant stated was required as
the price for toe appointment. Mr. Lutteral. jun. was appointed
to the situation, but dismissed shortly afterwards en account of his
being above age.
The affidavit of the defendant stated, that he had paid £3OO to
a person with whom he had carried on the negotiation on the part
of Mr. Lutteral, and that be was not aware at the time that he was
committing an offence. He had a wife and eight chidren depend-
ing on him for support.
The Arroastiv.Gensawa addressed the Court on the part of the
prosecution in aggravation of punishment.
Mr. D. POLLOCK appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Justice BATLIT-111r. Attorney-General, the defendant is
very poor, with a wife and eight children ; and there has been a
good deal of indiscretion elsewhere.
The Arroasev.thensaat.—Does your Lordship think this an
offence that ought to be passed over lightly ?
r. Justice Bar LIT—No ; but one is always sorry that personal
inquiries are not made in these eases by the persons who have the
means of ACCwit.
Mr. D. Pommes said that the defendant would use his utmost
exertions to bring the great offender to punishmnit.
The Airroarai-Gtsmaat etiggested that the case 'Mold stand
over, in order that further inquiries might be made.
This was acceded to, and the defendant was remanded.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. I COIRT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 23.
--..........-- JARVIS 11. BALMS ARO MIME.
• Mr. Sergeant WILD, move to make absolute a rule for &wham•
ing the defendant Salmon out of custody, on entering a common,
appearance for himself, on the ground of the violation of good faith(
in his caption.
Mr. Sergeant Seams showed saute against the rtde. Front the
defendant's affidavit it appeared that he was an attorney in Dublin,
and that he had been made a bankrupt .there, and had gm a Pro-
tection from the Irish Commissioners till the Ist of December- In
the Interim (on the 14th of August) a meeting of his Entlbh
dims took place in London, at which it was resolved that the de-
-
fendant should be invited to come to London, to inform his Cre
ditors of the state of his affairs, and that be should be protected
from arrest while here. Upon this the defendant came to Louden,
and called upon theplaintifs attorney. The attorney subsequ eml Y
sent for him, to confer with him in the evening. The defendant
accordingly came to his office on the 30th of October, and was ar-
rested as he came out of It, by some officers who were in welds'
at the door. The Learned Sergeant submitted that there were no
grounds for the application, and read the affidavits for the plaintiff
and of Major Wm. Pitcher, collector to Messrs. Stultz and Co.
also teflon, who stated that a subsequent meeting of creditors was
held September the 9th, at which the former resolutions were
rescinded, and that the defendant told Messrs. Steitz' collector
in Dublin, that be was aware of the change in the resolution of
the creditors • therefore the defendant was entitled to no more
protection than any other debtor, and the Court would not inquire
by what means a " shy cock," as it was called, was lured into the
hands of his captors.
The Comte decided that the rule must be made absolute, as it
appeared that protection had been promised and an invitation had
been sent to the defendant in Ireland to come here, and there was
no proof that any formal renunciation of the resolution had been
communicated to the defendant.
surnwilen v. TAYLOR.
Mr. Sergeant WILDR spewed cause against a rule obtained in
this case, calling upon the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs in
an alleged malicious arrest. It appeared from the affidavits,
that In the year 1825 the plaintiff contracted with the defendant to
build a large pin manufactory in the London Road; this building
was completed in 1827, when the plaintiff claimed a balance due to
him of £327. The plaintiff, acting under the advice of some emi-
nent Surveyors refused to pay the sum, alleging that part of the
work was overcharged, but made a tender in gold of two hundred
and fifty pounds, which the plaintiff would not accept, and in a day
or two afterwards be was arrested at the suit of dr. Sherwood for
£327. This action war defended, and on its being called on for
trial at toe last Surrey Assizes, at the suggestion of the Judge, it
was referred to an arbitrator, who bad made an award, by which
he found that £250 was all the plaintiff was entitled to. The learned
Counsel contended that the rule must be discharged ; it was a
common case of a disputed account, and when opposite surveyors
gave an opinion as in this case, they never agreed to what was a
fair charge. There was not the least pretence for alleging that the
plaintiff was actuated by malice.
Mr. Serjeant Joe', was heard at considerable length is support
of the rule. The plaintiff had been tendered the full amount
awarded him by the arbitrator, before the defendant ergs arrested
or the writ issued. It was therefore only common justice that Mr.
Taylor should have his costs.
The Comer were of opinion that as there was no proof of the
arrest being malicious, the rule could not be supported.—Rule

This was an application for letters of general administation to the
unadministered effects of Thomas Hubbard, Esq. deceased. Thu
Court was prayed to grant them to next of kin, Sir Lumley Skef-
fington, Bart.
Dr. LUSUINGTON, en behalf of Sir Lumley, stated that letters of
limited administration, granted to Mr. White and revoked by the
Court of Delegates, had been brought into Court, and he ap-
prehended there would be no obstacle to his party to enter on ad-
ministration.
Dc. Pnitussoss said there was a question to come before the
whole Commission, previous to such administration being granted.
The Jones said the Court of Delegates having fully revoked the
limited adm.nistration granted to Mr. White, the case now stands
precisely in the situation as if no administtation had been entered
into. The Court was of opinion there would be no violation
of the inhibition Issued in this suit. and know of no question
that could arise to take it from the adjudication of this Court;
therefore, I see no difficulty in granting letters of general admini-
stration, and therefore decree them to Sir Lumley Skeffington.
BOARD OF EXCISE, Nov. 21.
WRING MILK.
Mr. John Leonard, who keeps the Tap attached to a Tavern,
in Barron-street. Protonville, was charged with mixing salt,
sugar, and treacle for the purpose of adulterating beer.
Mr. Brearley, the landlord of the tavern, to which the other
defendant's tap was attached, was charged with a similar offence.
Thomas Bennett. a Surveyor of Excise, said, that on the 25th of
April last he went into Mr. Breariey's beer cellar, and found Mr.
Leonard at work, with his coat off and his shirt sleeves turned up ;
several tubs of water were standing near the beer casks, and the
bungs of some of the beer casks were out; it appeared as if some-
thing had been put in them • on the ground be found a pail co•
vered over, which contained a mixture of sugar, salt, and treacle;
Mr. Leonard, on being asked what be was doing, said he was
going to refine a butt of porter, for which he found that prepara-
tion answer better than white sand, which he had formerly used :
there was no communication between Mr. Bromley's house and
Mr. Leonard's.
Another officer confirmed this statement :
Mr. Prior, of the firm •of Meux and Co. said that Mr. Brearley
was a customer of the house, •but they knew nothing of Mr. Len-
, nard. He tasted the sample of two butt,, which the officers
brought to him, and which had apparently received the mixture,
and had no hesitation in 'saying that the beer, in that state was
never sent from their brewery ; there was swtetness and 'loess
in the stuff seised by the officers, which would not add to the
strength of the liquor, but it might add an apparent strength, and
would undoubtedly conceal any addition of water that might be put

to the beer.
Mr. Lennard had been in business only six months. and did not
know he was doing wrong when be followed she advice that was
given him, that it would improve the Savour of the beer.
Mr. Brearley said be did not compound the preparation, and
knew nothing about it.
The Coraussionsa said, that the system adopted by the defend-
ants was most scandalous. It was a great injustice not only to the
public, but to the brewers, to whom the fault of bad beer is often
attributed.
The defendants were then fined £lOO each, and the Commis-
sioners refused to mitigate it a single farthing.

MANSION HOUSE.
Mr. Bowler, Secretary to the Mines Royal Copper Company,
Upper Thames-street, appeared at the Justice-room, to prefer a
charge against two men named Boyles and Baker, under the follow!
log circumstances :
Mr. Bowler stated that Baker, who is a porter, called at the
company's office on Friday with a written order for some coppee. ,
professing to come from Mr. Butler of Wigmore-street, a easterner
of the company. The order was for leen. 661ba. goz. It oc-
curred to him that the writing was not that of Mr. Butler, and be
was soon confirmed in the opinion by that gentleman himself, who
happened to call. The prisoner was absent at this time, but he
returned in a quarter of an hour for the copper, which was given
to him at the direction of the witness, who took care that be should
be followed, in order, if possible, to trace it to its source.
John Mitchel, warehouseman to the company, deposed that he,
accompanied by two officers, followed Baker from the ctimpany's
premises. Baker went along without stopping anywhere until he
reached Fleet-market; there he stopped, upon being met by
Bayles, the other prisoner, to whom be delivered the bill of par-
cels. The two prisoners then went on conversing together as far
as Shoe-lane, when Bayles ran away, leaving Baker with the load
of copper still in his possession ; neither witness nor the officers bad
spoken to the prisoners at the time; they continued to follow
Baker, who went as far as Seven Dials, where ha was apprehended
in a public-house by an officer.
Betterton, the officer, confirmed this account, and added, that
the prisoner Baker mentioned that Bayles had seat him-,for the
copper. Bayles had been taken in Shoe-lane, unknown to Baker.
Mr. Butler deposed that the order was not in his hand-writing,
nor written by his direction. Bayles had been in his service
about three years ago, but had since, to his• knowledge, been
guilty of .many offences, and had been once convicted at the Old
Bailey.
Baker declared that be had been employed by Bayles, who told
him his name was Butler, and that be was theion .the gentle-
man who bad been ink examined. This Baylesbe declared dame
to his lodging and hired him to do the job ; that wail ell he knew
of the matter. The prisoners were both remanded.
GUILDHALL.
Wm Davis, a miserable-looking creature. 'wit brought before
Mr. Alderman Vasaistes, charged with sneaking into a cheese-
monger's shop, kept by a Mr. Bedell, la King-knee, Cloth-fair,
between tea. and,eleven o'clock on .Sundey fotenoont and dolling
L about 10Ibs of ' baton. The prisoner observing no person hi the
shop, walked in, molly unbuttoned his coat, and wal gong away
with the ham, when be was.pgraued by a young man,and secured.