Star.
London, England, 1811-07-13 00:00:00

LAW INTEL IGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY it.
CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

A motion was made, requesting his Lordship's at-
`tention to the state of Christ's Hospital, with a view
of restoring it to the purpose originally intended by
its Royal Founder, namely, 4, the Education of Chil-
dren whose Parents were unable, by poverty, to be-
stow an Education on them." Sir SAstoxt. Rostlttv
and Mr. LEACH were heard in behalf of the applica-
tion ; but at two o'clock, the Cuatscitton being
obliged to attend the House of Lords, the considera-
tim was deferred.
PROPRIETORS OF TIIE HAYMARKET THEATRE.,
MORRIS V. COLNIAN.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved for an injunction to
prevent the defendant- from engaging other per-
formers than those already engaged. Mr. HART ob-
jected to tile motion, as the defendant had not an 'op-
portunity of answering the plaintiff's affidavit, and
trusted that his Lordship would allow it to lay over
until the next Seal. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed,
he would notobject to its remaining over, on condi-
tion that in the intermediate time, the defendant should
not engage any performer. This was assented to by
Mr. HART.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JULY it.
PROPERTY TAX...-REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION
ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST.
THE ATTORNEY.GENERAL V. CHARLES PACE.

This was a prosecution instituted by the Board of
Taxes, and is of general importance, particularly as
a caution to money-linders, and as a notice to bor-
rowers, that they are protected is demanding an al-
lowance and reimbursement of the Property Tax, on
the payment of Interest.
Mr. DAUNCEY, for the prosecution, stated the case
to be this—The defendant having lent one Robert
Wright, a farmer, 8800, on the mortgage of his
farm ; Mr. Wright regularly paid him £2O for the
int:Telt }calf-yearly, and on claiming to deduct the
noperty Tax on each half-yearly payment, the de-
fendant, on three different occasions, refused to allow
t e deduction ; and at length told Wright, if he per
ssteel in his demand, he, the defendant, should call

in the money. Wright, finding he could get no re-
dress, stated his case to the Boaid of Taxes, who
thereupon diretted the present prosecution. This
was followed by the defendant's calling in the prin-
cipal money.- Mr. Dauncey stated that the penalties,
if enforced to the full extent under this prosecution,
were treble the amount of the principal money on
each refusal, amounting together to £7200. But
the defendant havi;lg offered no defence, and by his
Counsel admitted the impropriety of his conduct, a
verdict was entered for the Crown in the reduced pe-
nalty of £l4O.
?HOPEI= TAX.—ZtAUTION TO lIROKERS ON DISTRESSES
FOR RENT.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. JOSEPII DALES.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-
General at the instant e of his Majesty's Commissio-
trrs for the affairs of Taxes, against the defendant,
Joseph Dales, a broker, for the penalty of £.50, incur-
red by his having, in making a distress for rent due
to one Henry Clark Grainger, the landlord, refused
to allow Joseph Walden, the tenant, the sum of
£l. Bs. being the landlord's property tax, charged
on and paid by Walden for two small tenements in
Upper Thames-street and Elbow-lane.
Mr.lDatmcEr, the Counsel for the Crown, having
proceeded to state the facts in support of the prose-
cution, the defendant, by his Counsel, olp,erveel, that
he was convinced of his error, and that he had not
tiny defence to offer in mitigation,• except that he
acted under the express direction of the landlord,
Grainger, by whom he was employed to distrain for
the rent, and who is not now to be found.—A verdict
fur the Crown.