Star.
London, England, 1817-08-18 00:00:00

LiffiF 1117ELLIGENTS

COURT OP CHANCERY, AUGU3T
QUEST:ON 01 CrSTS BETWUN WA-IC:TOM
Mr. BUCKLEY had been Solicitor in a Commission
of Bankrupcy, which was superseded by a c,mmis-
sion, in which Mr. Hurd was solicitor. Mr. Buck-
-111 was sued for the expenses of the first
sion—heresisied this by an affidavit that he had not
been served with warrant to that effect. la reply,
affidavit was made that the warrant was given to his
clerk, and the clerk swore that he laid it on his mas-
tee', table. Mr. Buckley next made affidavit that
Mr. Hurd had agreed not to claim costs from him,
and had s.tid so at the Grecian Coffee.house, when
Mr. Hewett, solicitor at Manchester, was present.—
Mr. Hurd immediately made affidavit that he had
never entered into any such agreement. The Lord
Chancellor ordered an affidavit from Mr Hewett.—
He swore that he recollected no mention of such
agreement. and did not think it probable that Mr.
Hurd would make such an agreement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR —I shall dispose of the case
on Monday morning. Every word of these affidavits
I shall read. There are two views in which it is im-
portant—as a case between Buckley and Kurd, and
as a case involving the dignity of the Court and the
interests of suitors. He telt a sentiment it might
perhaps be removed by the affidavits, hut he felt a
sentiment that Buckley must have acted upon a per-
suasion that Hurd had entered into an agreement
not to sue for costs. if this were so, it might have
weight as between the patties, but not as respecting'
the Court and the public.
_

AUGUST 16.
OPARAMOUSEWATERS O. TAYLrlit.

The Loan CHANCELLOR came down this morning,
prepared to give judgment in this long pending suit,
but was interrupted by the Counsel for one of the
parties. As tar as his Lordship was allowed to pro-
ceed, the following is the substance of his judgment:
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, this Case Came before
him in the shape of two petitions, one of the 24th of
April, which prayed that the plaintiff, who had been
confirmed the purchaser of the Opera House, should
be ordered to pay into Court the sum of £63,135,
being the balance of the purchase-money, with inte-
rest from last December, the time of the sale. The
other petition contained a motion by Mr. Waters, that
oct payitig into Court the sum of 428,973 (which,
with 47015 already paid by him, and £34,162 due
to him as a creditor ou the Opera House estate,
making the sum of 470,170), together with the in-
terest of £63,135, the Defendant should be ordered
to execute, and to deliver over to the Plaintiff, a
good and valid tide to the Opera House. Tire first
of these motions was made to shew that the premises
were sold before the Matter, in November, 1816;—,
that one condition of the sale was, that the purchaser
should pay the whole of his purchase-money on or'
before the Ist of December; and that then he should',
be let into possession immediately. When the motion
was made, in April last, that the money should be
paid into Court, it was opposed, because it was said
that Mr. Waters was a creditor on the Opera House
estate to a considerable amount; because the Master
had allowed a great oNny of his claims; and that,l
therefore, it was unreasonable to call on him to pay
the whole of the purchase-money, while he was him.
self an incumbrancer on the estate. On the other
hand, it was contended that these claims, even if
allowed, could not alter the situation of Mr. Waters
from that of any other purchaser. It appeared that
there had been a nEgociation set on foot between
these parties, that Taylor, after the purchase by
Waters in November, should allow the latter till
11some day in April to pay the money; and it seemed
to him (the Lord Chancellor) that this was for the
purpose of enabling Mr. Waters to sell the property,
and to allow Taylor a share in the advantages of ,
profits of that sale. It was insisted that the claims
of Mr. Waters would not have been allowed if they
had been properly sifted into. On the other hand itl
was contended, that Mr. Waters had not put in all
his claims. In consequence of the Master's report
having been given in, the second motion was made,
that Mr. Waters should pay into Court the sum of
428,873, and that he should then be let into imme-
diate possession. On the other hand it was contend-
ed, that that ought not to be allowed, as exceptions
were to be taken to the Master's report, and then that
rt port would fall to nothing. Oo these grounds it
was contended, that Mr. Waters ought not to be let
into immediate possession. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) had often advised the parties to come to some)
agreement among themselves; they had not dose so;
and it was for him now to settle it as well as he could.
The effect of the negocietion between the parties
was, that some calculations had been made, which he,
wished to be set right in.
At this stage of the judgment it was suggested by
Mr. Taylor's Counsel, that they bad not had an op-
portunity of examining those calculatiOns.
After some conversation, the LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that he did not think it would have made any
difference in his judgment whether he should or
I should not have ordered the money to be paid into
I Court; but as it had so turned out, the remainder of
the judgment might as well stand over till Monday.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
lIICKEMBOTTOM V. JACOIS.
The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Hickenbottom, the
proprietor of the St. Petersburgh Hotel, Dover-street,
Piccadilly ; the insolvent is a very young man, the
son of a gentleman at Bristol, who does nut appear
to be, and is not, by his own account, more than 2I
years of age.
Mr. D. Poixocit opposed his discharge for the
plaintiff, on the giound of gross fraud, in obtaining
money and credit to the amount of £ll6, by means
of false representations ; and also under the last Act'
of Parliament, for contracting debts and making en-1
gagements without the means of discharging tbe one
or fulfilling the other.
'lite insolvent, who was dressed in the first style'
of fashion, was Owed at the bar, and sworn to truly
answer all quuttons.
David Hickenbottom sworn.—Witness keeps the
St. Petersburgh Hotel, in Dover-street, Piccadilly;'
the insolvent came to his house in January last, in,
great style, in a carriage, bad a footman, and he had
some of the best apartments in the house ; he repre-
sented the carriage to be his own, and said he could
afford to live at the rate of dfs.per day ; his servants
were in rich liveries; he told witness that he was
gu-
ling to marry the Duke of Leinstxt's niece; he said

she had no fortune, brit that he had ..41000 a-/ear.
He asked witness if he could keep his family for £5
a-day when he hrought his wite to :own ? Witne—
said that he could, if he did no: keep a great deal of
company. The insolvent alto krin a gig as well as
the carria;.s,e. Ile. staid three days at the hotel, :nit
paid the 1,111, amaiinting to 41'1. lie said that be
was going i but should return in a welk with
his wile; he said that his father was one "1 the richest
men in Bristol. Just before the insolvent left ti•Wfe,
he asked the witness, to lend him J 233, until his re-
turn from Bath with his wife; he lent him the money.
While he was at Bath, a bill of £lOO, dr swn upon
him by the insolvent, was presented to him ; he re-
fused to accept it, and it was recurred thr• ugh the
mesiiiim of the London Bank to the bankers at Bath,
who tad advanced the insolvent the amount.
Mr. finaTii, on behalf of the insolvent, asked wit-
ness how he knew the insolvent had received the one
hundred ?
Only from being told so ?"
Mr. Ha 5711—" That is no evidence."
Witness had no doubt but the insolvent had recei-
ved the money, hut did not know it of his own know-
ledge. Willie the insolvent was at Bath he received
A Later from him, which stated that he was sorry wit-
ness hid disappointed him (witness supposed lie
meant in not acce,•ting the bill of £100) for he had
made large purchases, and cash had run shi.,rt, but
in a few days he should receive a dividend of ki.m.
About the 14th of January,, the insolvent returned
to witness's holm from Bath, with a young lady,
whom he said was his wife, and niece to the Duke of
Leinster. He lived very expensively. Witness 11.1 d
no other idea of him but that he was a man ol tor-
tune. The bill the insolvent drew on him at Bath
was endorsed by Captain Butler.
Mr. Serjeant RUNNINGTON-.--" You owed the insol•
vent nothing when he drew upon you ?"
Witness-44 Not a shilling ; lie WAS in my debt."
Mr. Serjeant RosiNtstarota—" And you are sure
he said he had an income of &MOO per annum ?"
Witivess—" Quite certain."
Witness cross-examined by Mr. lIKATH.—He lent
the insolvent £3O before he went to Bath, and cre-
dited him after that, not suspecting that he was de-
ceiving him. He believed the insolvent had friends
at Bristol who were opulent. The insolvent told him
that his lather was a great glass-manufacturer at
Bristol, and he believed that he was; he trusted him
merely upon his representations ; he made no inquiries
into the truth of what he told him.
Insolvent examined by his Counsel—He was the
son of the opulent Mr. Jacobs, glass-manufacturer at
Bristol; he disobliged his father by refusing to unite
himself to a lady whom his lather wished him to
many; if he had not offended his father, his income
would have exceeded what he had stated to Mr.
Hicketsbottom ; he had not misrepresented to Mr.
Hickenbottom, when he told him that he was going
to marry the niece of the Duke of Waster, for she
actually was that Nobleman.'; niece whom be had
married.

Mr. }LIAM was about to address the Court, when
Mr. Pou.oca objected, it being contrary to the
practice of the Court, he having called the insolvent
.as a witness.

Mr. Serjeant Runnintrrosr summed up the evi.
Bence in a most perspicuous manner, and dwelt upon
that part which he said operated in his mind much
against the Insolvent ; he referred to his saying that
he had £4OOO per annum, and having to receive
dividend of 4400 in a few days. Such conduct
was grossly dishonest, but it was the duty of Mr.
Hickenbottom to have inquiries into tie circumstances
of the Insolvent, and not to hive credited him merely
upon his appearance and represen taunts ; yet alter
his having refused to lend him 410 u he intrusted him
to a greater amount without ever making inquiry into
the situation of his guest. The Insolvent bad acted
in a most extravagant manner, but had the Plaintiff
used that prudence which it becomes all men in bu-
siness to do, he would not have suffered him to have
got so deep into his debt, and would not have been
there that day to oppose his discharge. He should
he extending the Act indeed, were he to remand him
finally for gross fraud, which would doom him to
five years imprisonment; it would be a heavy in-
fliction, a most severe punishment, and, under all
the circumstances attending the case (which he could
not think lightly of), he believed the Insolvent had
been more imprudent than guilty. The account being
true which he gave to the Plaintiff' of his being the
son of a Wen of property, of his having married the
niece of a Nobleman, are circumstances much in his
favour. His being so very young must operate in
his behalf; and although he 1..1,1 acted exceedingly
improper, he (the Serjeant) was of opinion that the
provisions of the Act upon which he was opposed were
too severe to eitend to his case. He overruled both
of Mr. Pollock's objections, and the Insolvent was
discharged.

SURREY ASSIZES.—CROYD3N, AUGUST le.
CIVIL SIDE.
TEE KING v. POTTER AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against the defendants for
an outrageous riot at Wandsworth, in the month of
March last. The case was conducted by Mr. Cou-
nty and Mr. BARNWELL for the prosecution; and
Mr. MARRYATTI Mr. COMNIIIN SERJEAST, and Mr.
CHITTY, for the defendanti.—lt appeared that Miss
Fairbank, the prosecutrix, and her three sisters, re-
sided in a lo.use by themselves at Wandsworth; and
late on the evening of the dar menti•.red in the. iii-
dictment, they were alarn:ed .by a violent knocking 1
at their door. The elder ut the young Ladies, who
had retired with her sisters to bed, descended from
her bed-room, and without openi.ig the door, de-
manded the cause of the mida,gilt obtrt sion. Sire
was answered by the defendant Potter, a young
townsman of Wandsworth, and several of his com-
panions, that they wanted to pia admittance, art'
threatened that if they were nut let in they v-0 old
break open the door. Alarmed by such an inzima-
tion, Miss Fairbank called from a window for the
watchman's assistance; but in the mean time the
midnight obtruders began a regular s;ege against the
door, and would probably have made a forcible en-
trance, but for the interposition of some of the neigh.
boors, whose timely interference made the defendants
decamp. Amongst the rioters, the defendant Potter
was recognised by the Misset. Fairbank, who knew
his voice, and the next morning an information was
lodged with a Justice of the Peace, and lw was taken
up on a warrant, and ordered to find bad. This led
to the detection of several of hi:, companions, who

were incladeti id this inclictrisent. It arpared that
during the assault, th- defendants had e-rnpletely
covered Cie front of the house with the filth of a
neighbouring slaughter•lionse. The windows ar,d
dour were besmeared wiil: blond and °Nur?. '0 the
part of the defendants, it teas insinuated that they
had been guilty of the outrages imputed to them,
from an erroneous idea that the house. in question w?s
inhabited by Paphian nymphs; and that being inst.
briated witii wine, they do:tight tits rhselves entitied
to pay their respects to the supposed temple of ill-fame.
I Lord ELLENBORfIUaII interposed, and suggested.
that as the object or the young Ladies was probably
nothiog more than pr •tettion from a repetition if
similar disorders, the just;cit of the case would be U.
tisatal by taking a verdict of guilty, holding the
judgment et the Court ia hrevrern over the def:ndants'
heads, if they repeated their misconduct.
The Counsel on both sides acceded to his L'rd-
ship's meommendation, And a verdict of guilty was
accordingly recorded; and it wax agreed, that a vet=
diet for jodgmeut shonl.l be governed by the f nu:to
behaviour of the defendants.

CROWN SIDE.
Mann Clvots stood indlczed for uttering and hay.
ing in his poswssion divers notes for its and fil
purporting to be of the Governor dn.! Company
the Bank of England, lie well knowing the same to
be forged And counterfeit.

Oit the 12th of May last, the prisoner' tendered a
note f /65 at.tl.e Crown public•house, in Ewell, in .
this county, in payment tor some refreshment. The
landlord had nut change in the house, And sent his
daughter to procure it at a grocer', shop in the ne;/,1--
bourhond. 'Fite grocer wri.te the priso;:er's name,
According to the direction of the girl, on the back f
the note. He had no snspicion at the time of the
genuinmess f the note, but int picsenting it to Isis
bankers at Reigate, he seas i►.furmed that it was a
ftross forgery. He gave information of the circum-
taatice, iauained a description of the prisoner's pi rbols
and the latter was a few days after Apprehended by
Foy, a i.olice officer.• On searching him fine £5 and
seven £1 notes, all of the same spurious description,
were found upon his person. lie oracle a despera•e
resistance when taken, and made two or three subse-
quent attempts to escape. To tlvr officer he gave three
different accounts as to how he became possessed of
the notes, one of v:hich was that he had received
then► of a horse•dealer in Smithfield, where he had •
sold a horse on the morning c f the day on which he
tendered the ,t 5 note.

The prisoner, in his defense, said he knew not dist
the notes were forged.
The Learned Judge (Dlu.as) slammed up the evi-
dence to the Jury, who, atter a few turiments' deli.
beration, returned a verdict of Guilty—Death.
A man named Gorr, bordering on eighty years Cf
age, was convicted of stealing tro,-01 vessel on the
Thames, on the 19i't of _fully fine mainsail, the
property of Wiliiam Heni y. Broughton. He was
afterwards tried upon another indictment, char-
ging him wish stealin4 from a boat on the same river
one tarpaulin, two scuds, a seat-board, and other r.
tides, the property of Hairhottle.
The prosecutor, a very poor old man, and a Green-
wich pensioner, missed the proptiriy horn his boat,
which he had left but a short time ; and having given
intormation at the Thames Police Office, (Ater,
in the course of his endeavoins t,i dico..ir the pro-
perty, went to the priso:•er's where he found
the whole of it concealed in a csllar.

The prisoner denied :di knowledge of the property,
and endeavoured to sLew, in his defence, that the
robbery was committed by his bon.. In support of
this insinuation, he called one of the Thames Police
o.iicers to state, that his eldest ton had l"en once in
custody upon a charge of felony, and that be bore a
general bad character.
The Le.ttned Judge, iii summing up, commented
in severe tams upon the gross and wicked attempt,
on the pact of the prisoner, to throw the charge upon
nis son, and said there could be no doubt whattver
of his guilt.
The Jury, without he•i;ation, found the
Guilty.
There were three other indictment to be prcfe.r,.d
against this prisoner fGr sialil.,r (at-nets.

John Church, the preacher, of Sr. George's-fields
celebrity, was indicteri for an attempt to comntt an
abominzble offence upon Adam Foreman, an appren-
tice of Mr. Patrick, a resp..xtable potter near Vann.
ball. After an interesting trial of four hours, and
an emphatic charge from Lord ELLENBOROUGH, he
was found—Guilty. II will be brought up V:e .ir.t
day of next Term, to receive judgment in the King's
Balch.—Mr. Bou.atro and Mr. Mosinvat were the
Counsel, and Mr. 1-Imottut, Solicitor for the pow-
cution ; and Mr. GLir Fr for the prisoner, Aho made
a tnost eloquent appcal to the Jury ti t e•.u!pate
prisoner from the charge alleged again. t chserv-
ing, at the same tine, that it he WAs tiolty, scarcely
apy punishment was akgaate.
Three common informers, of the n Imes cf r,;O,
squid:nos, and rl'ariv, Wei e L.invicted of t•ouipfactJ ag
offences under the Pt:iial :lute..
' The Assizes for euvcritty proud maiden; th:re
not being a single criminal or action at law. '