Star.
London, England, 1828-06-23 00:00:00

SONG.

The following Song, written by Mr. WitAxams, and composed by
Mr. &awns., has been sung by Miss Hums, at Vauxhall,
during the Lan Week, with great applause:
Come, buy a nosegay, buy of me,
I've flow'rets rich and rare--
For beauty and variety
None with me can compare.
Come, deal with me, I sell the best,
So, peythee, come and buy ;
Thro' London streets—north, east, south, west,
I pretty lumpy. cry.

So buy. &c.

I've Violets sweet for maidens good.

For beaux I've Tulips, too ;
Old bacluksrsTve Southern wood,

For old maids I have Hue:
Fur Lovers Eve" Forget me not,"
With Heartsea.e, too, besides ;
For rakes Wild Flowers I have got,
For dandle* Loudon Pride.
So buy, &e.

I with the Sun each morning rise,
fly basket fresh to fill;
And through the streets you'll bear roe cry,
I nosegay. have to sell•
If on my posies you would let
Your thought+ a moment dwell,
I thin& you never could forget
The little nosegay girl.
Then buy, &c.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jonts2l.
The Marquis of Westmeath addressed the Lord
Chancellor, and said he had a complaint to make to his
Lordship of an act of great oppression exercised by a
Gentleman at the Bar against him, Lord Westmeath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he thought he had better
speak to the Noble Marquis in private.
• HO Lordship accordingly did so, and, at the rising of
the Court, addressing the Bar, said he had intimated to
Lord Westmeath the propriety rf keeping the affair
private until lie, the Lord Chancellor, had an opportunity
of investigating it, and determining whether he bad
jurisdiction to interfere, in which es ent lie thought it
should be made public. In this the Marquis concurred.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took an elaborate view of
the Statutes !elating to Queen's College, Cambridge,
which involves the question, whether the Master must
approve of the person elected to be a Fellow, to make
iuch election valid? His Lordship decided that the ap-
proval of the Master was necessary. These Statutes
Were directed to be read literally, and according to their
true grammatical construction. "I am the more sa-
tirfied, ' said his Lordship, ‘4 with the decision to which
I have come, as I have given my judgment on the
• ground of grammatical construction, and such con•
struction is the obvious and plain meaning of these
Statutes—they are as clearly framed and worded as
possible, and such appeared to be the opinion of the
• founder; yet she had her d.)ubts, for she adds, 4 inge-
nious men will throw doubts on any Statute, let it be
ever•sto plain ; and she was right, for very Learned and
ingenious men in this Court have raised an argument
upon these very Stamtes* for two whok dayi. I decide
thus case without reference to the opinions of other
Judges; yet I am gratified that my judgment is borne
out by that of Lord Eldon, in a case involving circum-
stances very similar."
COURT OF KING'S 13ENCH, Juss.2l.
REX D. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN ON LONDON.
Mr. PARK resumed bis argument for the defendants,
end recapitulated what he had before said on the neces-
sity of continuing the proceedings of the Wardmote
for.the electionpf. Alderman, till the business should
he concluded ; and contended, that in this case, as the
Wardmote had beta dissolved in the interval between'
kbepoll ancttbe scrutiny, this circumstance vitiated the
. rhi)le proceedings, and there must be a new election'.
trkwallet irregilatity was, that the poll was nut taken
in terms of the Act of Pariiament, *WO directed that
the votes should be taken bra sworn poll clerk, and
entered in a book, and not copied into that book from
suly other book or books; tint the main point was that
. fo. which he had at first called their attention—viz. that
..the Court of Aldermen bad the exclusive jurisdiction to
. determine whether an Alderman. had or had not been
duly elected, and that this Court had no power by law
to issue a peremptory mandamus to that Court to admit
pity particular person.
Mr. ALroutsla contended that this Court had, by
the common law, the power of review over. all the Civil
Corporations of the kingdom, and this jurisdiction could
not be taken away, except, by express words in an Act
of Parliament, or by necessary implication; and in this
instance there was no exemption in favour of the Cor-
poration of London, for the Act if 11 Gen I. had no such
'effect. If the jurisdiction of the Court cf Aldermen was
exclusive as to the mandamus, it must be exclusive
against a quo *arrant*, which it clearly was not, as had
been held in the case of Rex v. Hart, decided when
Wilkes was Mayor.
Lord lillgTEßDEN—This case has been exceedingly
well argued on both sides, and the Court will consi-
der of it.. •

• HUTCHINSON 'V. WILCOX AND. OTHNIIII,
Mr. Coot( ived fora rule to show cause why three
persons, Attornies, of, the names t,f Rushbury,. Black,
and Hulbert, should not be :truck off the rolls of the
Court, and why an -attachment should not be issued
against a person of the name of Wilcox, under these
circumstances,—Wilcox applied, in March, to be dis-
charged under the Insolvent Debtors' Aft, and was
opposed by one of his creditors. The opposing cre-
ditor's Attorney made inquiries, and found that the
whole wit a sham transactionl—that Black was' the
Attorney who sued out the recipe for the feigned
plaintiff, apd • that Rusbbury was the Attorney
.for Wilms; the feigned defendant. . When. Wilioa
presented his Petition to be discharged to the Insolvent
'Debtors Court, the officer refused to take. it in, without
having the precipe produced. It was then ihits pre-
tips was surreptitiously filed, and signed Hulbert,
as the Attorney for Black, whereas be was s Bally the At-
torney for the other Attorney, Rushbury. Up• n. appli-
cation at the proper Office the fraud was di'scovered, and
ihis.being nirotioned openly the Insolvent Debtors'
-Court, the parties contrives most ingenious! y to get the
'fahe precipe stolen from the Office, andithe pet son 'who
bf
did it was taken before a itglttrates.ao there the ee-
fence they made shared thekti.oara opinion of the tians-
action, for the defence was, that the precipe was an ii.
legal one, and that ihere could, therefore, be no harm in
' taking it from the Office.—Rule to show cause granted.

Till LING V. YEERIS.
• • Mr. KELLY moped for a criminal information against
the defendant, for writing libellous and indecent letters
to a 'person named Bromley. It ipleartd that' Mr.
,fltoroley was an extensive builder, and fdttrid necei-,
silty to prosecute some parties for conspiracy, since
wilier he had been constantly annoyed with lettsts from
Me defendant, emit lining the 'most opprobtiosit 'lan-
guage.—The Court grained a itile'toihow cathe.'