Star.
London, England, 1829-07-10 00:00:00

THE SHIP BETSY CAINS.

Betsy Gins was the yacht •hi;h brought over King
William in 1688 Ttadition states that when selected
for Bic voter pr ise she Was • an oid ship," but a" lucky
and fast sailer." With the success of her noble freight,
her fame rose proportionably She became one of the
appendages of the Com:, and for many years was the
pleasure yacht of Qleen Anne. This we may safely
tam 'be meridian of her glory. On the death of her
ftbyal eiri.tiess she was doomed to esperiente the
vicisctrides inherent in all sublunary object•. Br
order • f George the First she ceased to form part
of the Royal estabh•braent. Still she weathered it
brave.y•under the r rotection of one of the Lords of
Court. On his disgrace, change and chance again
assailed her; and at length, of er manifold degrada.
lions, sne settled down-1 burn with shame while
record it—into a common collier; and was employed
in the coal trade between Nearcastle and the Metro-
pol•s I In this lost and deplorable ctordition many
weary years and heavy seas rolled over het ; till, at
length. having up to the last hour of existence main-
tamped her original character of a " lucky ship and a
fast sailer," she struck on a reef of rocks near Tyne-
mouth Bar, en the morning of February 17, 1827.
Though con.iderably damaged, it war not deemed, at
the time, impossible to get her off; and a neighbour-
ing Clergyman, in particular, s•as extremely anxious
that her preservation should be attempted, and if pos-
sible secured, by transforming her into an episcopal
Hosting chapel. His wishes, however, were not seconded.
The Antiquarian Society at Newcastle were applied to.
but the state of their funds precluded their negotiating
for her purchase. And thus, through the supineness of
some, and the indifference of others, the opportunity of
presetting the oldest ship in the navy, perhaps in the
world—a ship which had been coastently at sea for a
space at least of one hundred and thirty-trine years, and
very probably one hundred rind sixtst •-11 ship with
which so many and such stirring ass .ciatrons were eon-
netted, and which might frailly have been conside•ed
an object of national interest—was lost u truly and
irretrievably.

For two or more days she lair stvanJed on the rock.
beating about at the mercy of the elements; and to
one mind. at least, seemed to present a melancholy
emblem of fallen greatness. What hipes,were bound
up in that ',resell With what an eouttptise—how
righteous in its designotod how magnificent in its re-
suits—was she fraught! How many beating hearts felt
their all was involved in her safets I What oumerous
and what ardent supplications were offered up for her
semis! How many were anxiously. eagerly, how ly,
on it e look-out for tidings of her arrival I And them,
af,er so 1 ngtbened and useful a career, she lay fallen—
' pr strate--desertec—plandered!
In this abject. but nevertheless inte.esting and pios
turesque situation, a drawing was made of her, from
which 1 have reason to believe an engraving will be
taken. From the frequent repairs she bad 'indef.
gone. but little of the original vessel remained. That
little, however, was very fine. It was oas, richly nod
profusely carved, approaching in colour, from itee.
and exposure. to ebony. There was literally a scram-
ble .among the .pa, ulace to obtain fragments.—John
Bull, though ever boasting of his roiliest mtism, is as
eager as any Ca holic for relics—which were 'Sad at
exorbitant pricer. Considerable portions were sent over
to Ireland. and were eagerly bought up by men.beis
of the different Orange Clubs, and manufactories* into
snuff-boxes. Among others, Sir Hatcoutt •Lees feeds
his Protestant nose from a tabatiete loomed out of tl)e
sinews of her whom 1 laved when heist?, and moutned
when fallen--,'Betsy Mosahly Magazine.
f Assuming that she had bees tase and twansy reams: sea when
she sailed with King William—a° barrabAble or,impesevideat sap-
residua. as she Is stated to have been then as ". old stsigt."

.COKNAUCCHANGR, bIAKICLANE. JULY 10.
Os. asatket condones in s stagnant ware, the consunirr., being
aware t►at a large portion of bonded Whet will be liberated h fore
T►ursday new; prices of 'eery kind w Grain wart, therefore, be
quoted nuanually as on Jdonday..

IMPIIMMITIOIN slid MONDAY.
Wheat, English (qrs.) • 1.01 Foreign .
Irish . ••• Oats. Foreign .
Ratios . ..11,7te Nagliali
Barley. Rusk& . :v. WO , .leieb . _
Irish 4.• Plums. (sacks) . .
SMITHEIKI.D MAIkKET. JULY Q.

1W

. 1,1540

3 5‘4)

carnal or maim.
Beasts MS Soap and Lambs 11,00.141 gs ISO `Cakes 4.13
Beet . .• Ss 10d 11..4. 4.1 Veal . in is ad
Sutton . as Otl 4..64 Posh iges s. thl
Leath . 49 ed 3. 4d
Hay per load, 43 10a. to 14 15k Closer 10 Os. is fi 101.
—Straw Al Os. to AV .54.
COAL ARKET—Tnis DAs.
HALF rase Ona—Then waa a very plentiful supply both of
Sunderland and Newcastle
.Cools at market to-day, St Air having
anived dna Wednead y last, asakiog a total as the week's arrival
at 135 ships. The &Waage was nuaterwally attended by mer-
chants, and Coakgooarally were in tar. demand. Skips an Wed
daring the pt esteg wok 316.
30s.
Bose WallOgOd . 6b11.. od.
. 14s. 04. 30s. Od.
shire at Market, 111*.

Oihar ems

ER ASSIZES.

IRD CIRCUIT.
,ILLOCZ and Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.
July 25 at Abingdon.
—.— 29
Aug. 1
- 6
-- 12 at Shrewsbury.
, 17
22
Gloucestershire.-- 26 at Gloucester.
HOME CIRCUIT.
Before Mr. Justice Pau and Mr.:halm GAME&
Hertfordshire July 29
Rues Aug. 1 ........ at Chelmsford.
Kent — a at Maidstone.
Sussex l5 ...... at Lewes.
Surrey. -- 20 at Croydon.
NORFOLK CIRCUIT.
Before Mr. Baron GAMMON and Mr. Justice PARE&
Buckinghamshire... July 27
Bedfordshire...... 50
Huntingdonshire. Aug. 1 ...... at Huntingdon.
Cambridgeshire 5 ..... at Cambridge.
Suffolk.. ....... 6
Norfolk —lO ... at Norwich.
City of Norwich same day.
MIDLAND CIRCUIT.
•
licfore Lord Turraanes and the Loan Cour Balms.
Northamptonshire— July V 7
litnlandshire....... —,-- SO
l.incolnshire Ail. 1
City of Lincoln ... same day ... Ditto.
Nottinghamshire.— Aug. 6
Town of Nottingham same day at Nottingham.
Derbyshire... ... Aug. 11
Leicestershire. —l4 at Leicester.
NV arwickshire ....... 19

LAW INTELLIGENCE:
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JuLT 9.
4 HE SOLICITOR-GENERAL V. SPURS AND ANOTHER.
Toss was an information filed by Sir Nicholas Tyndal,
a. soli.itor General, against Messrs. Spiers and Red-
head, the object of which was to procure the condem•
11.1" z ion f four cases of silk. The information was filed
under the 6th Geo. IV. and it charged that the silk had
hems unladen before due report or entry of it was made
at the Custom House, and before the duty was paid or
secu•ed, in any of which cases the goods would be
•ior'rited.

The Arroam GENERAL stated the case. After
alluding to the recent reduction in the duty on foreign
•ilk, and the necessity which now existed for estrum:di.,
nary vigilance to defeat any attempt to evade the pay.
ment of that duty, he said that it had been usual to'
a.low all packages belonging to any of our Ambassa.
dors to pass the Custom House without examination,
on the assurance that they were really the property of
an Ambassador. In December last several packages
belonging to Lord Granville, our then Ambassador to
tie French Court, arrived in this country, and were
delivered to the defendants, Messrs. Spier, and Red-
head, who were his Lordship's agents. and who were
very eminent silk brokers. On the 7th of December
five packages, marked L. G. which signified that they
hr longed to Lord Granville, artived in the Superb
steam boat, from Calais. They were landed, but in
consequence of some suspicions entertained by the Cus-
tom House officers, they were not suffered to pass, al-
though a person, said to be an agent of the defendants,
represented them as Lord Granville's property. Upon
subsequent examination, it was found that one of the
packages only c .ntained furniture. and that the other
four were filled with silks to the value of 4.0001. The
ca•es containing the silk were consigned to the defen-
dants, as were all the former packages, and they were
marked on the outside a furniture." &c.

After the examination of witnesses in support cf the
information,

Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury for the defen.
dints, and contended, that under the Statute the goods
could not be forteited, unless the unlading took place
with the knowleJge or consent of the consignee. In
the present instance the unlading was directed by the
steam packet agent, without the slightest knowledge
on the part of the defendants.
'she Jury found a verdict for the Crown; and in
answer to a question from the Court, gave it as their
opinion, that the silks had been shipped with the intea.
Lion of defrauding the Revenue; but they did Dot agree
in connecting the defend .nts with the fraud.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JOLT P.

LoRD BRANDON V. LORD VISCOUNT MRLBOURNE.

This being the first day of the Nisi Prius sittings
after Trinity Term, Lord Tenterden took his seat on
the bench exactly at half past nine o'clock, when
Mr. GuRNTY, on the part of the plaintiff in the above
cause, applied to his Lordship to request he would 6z'
a day specially for the trial. The action was brought'
by his Noble client to seek redress for the greatest of
civil injuries (criminal conversation), and he must na-
turally be most anxious to have it disposed of on as
early a day as possible.
Lord TIDITIERDIN—We cannot 6: it for an earlier
dapthan the 21st.

Mr. GURNEY—I am quite aware of that, my Lord,
and shall be quite satisfied to let it stand for that day,
or any of the four days your Lordship has appointed
for the trial of Special Jury cases; any day from the
21,t to the 24th inclusive.

Lord Tr)ITERDIN—I see DO objection to that; are
you opposed, Mr. Gurney ?
Mr. GuNNEY—Before I came into Court, I understood
that Lord. Melbourne's solicitor had consented, but I
now find that my Learned Friend near me has been in.
strutted to oppose it.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then rose, and stated, that
it was of the utmost importance, that in a proceeding
of so grave and delicate a nature, and considering the
elevated rank of both the parties, that nothing should
be done that could wear the appearance of hurry or
precipitation; his Noble client would have to produce a
number of witnesses, the greater part of whom were
now resident in Ireland, and it might so happen that it
would not be practicable to get them all over within
the ensuingiottnight.
Mr. Guatitty—Lord Brandon is precisely similarly
circumstanced. and yet we shall take care to have over
ail our witnesses within the time.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL—But your Lordship will
find that no day can be fixed. At first, four day, were
fired for Special Jury cases, from the 21st to the 24th,
both inclusive; your L •rdsbip then changed the Special
Jury days to two, the 21st and 22J, and the Court has
already named eight causes for each day ; they are nut
now to be displaced, and your Lordship has quite
enough to do to try sixteen heavy Special Jury cases in
twr. days. _ _

Lard TENTRRDEN—What say you, Mr. Attorney, to
the 23J or 24th.
The ATTORNEY GINERAL—Your Lordship will find
that it will tend most to the convenience of all the parties
to defer this cause to the October Sittings. Several
Gentlemen, who are members of the Irish bar; are to
be %guesses upon the trial. It would be extremely in-
convenient to take these Gentlemen away from their
peotessional avocations, whets they can be had at a time
when they may not generally be so engaged.
Lord TZNIIIRDEN.—MO must feel disposed to accom

sedan these Gentlemen. Let some day be especially
fixed between the 27th of October and the sth of Nov.
for the trial; you can either agree upon a day, or let the
Marshal choose one.

HOPKINS V. THOROUGHOOOD.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated this action was brought by a
Mr. Hopkins, one of the lessees of the Whitechapel
road tolls, in the county of Middlesex, to recover from
the defendant Thoroughgood, who is proprietor of two
coaches running on that road, the sum of 81.35. 6d.
being the amount of tolls due from the 21st of July to
the 20th of November last. The fasts of the case were
as follow—The plaintiff claimed toll for the defendant's
coaches passing through Stratford-gate, they having
paid toll at Woodbridgeiate, and the grounds on which
the demand was made were under the Act of Parlia-
ment passed in 1823, wherein it was enacted that all
coaches having a fresh team of horses are liable to
fresh toll. The Learned Counsel observed that it would
be seen the toll was levied on the horses and not on the
carriage, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to their
verdict. It was, lie observed, a case of considerable im-
portance to the plaintiff, as, in the e►ent of the Jury
coming to a contrary conclusion, the plaintiff would be
a loser of 5001. per annum.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the part of the defen-
dant, said be admitted every fact stated by the
Learned Counsel in his opening speech; but be could
not say whether the plaintiff would be willing to admit
all that he (the Attorney General) was *boot to advance.
The lease of the tolls was about to be put in and read,
but that being also admitted,

The ATTOISNIT GINgRAL observed that one would
have thought the plaintiff bad taken a lease of the tolls
in question, in the hope of making good his present
claim, otherwise he would be a loser. The defendant
had several objections against the propriety of the
plaintiff's bringing the present action. In the first place,
the plaintiff went before a Justice of the Peace, for the
purpose of enforcing his present claim. but the Justice
d& tide! against him. He then appealed to the Quarter
Sessions, when his claim was again decided against him,
on which the present action was brought; and another
ground of objection to the present action was, that by
the Act of Parliament, the Scl Geo. IV. chap. 26, it is
enacted, that the proprietors have three different modes
of proceeding—the first is by a summons before a
Justice of the Peace, an appeal to the Quarter Sessions,
or by distraining the goods of the party so refusing to
pay the toll. This latter proceeding was not adopted
by the plaintiff, and, therefore, the objection to his pre-
sent proceeding was well founded. In this case the
plaintiff had his claim decided against him both io
Essex and London. It was then agreed between the
parties, on both sides, that the matter in dispute should
be left to the final decision at the Quarter Sessions, at
Chelmsford, the defendant, in the meantime, keeping a
regular account of whatever tolls might accrue from
the time of the Magistrate's decision to the next Quarter
Sessions ensuing; and it was for the recovery of that
sum the present action was brought. It was therefore
clear the plaintiff, who had previously entered into an
agreement that the matter in dispute should be left to
the decision of the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions, had
no right after that to bring the present action; besides,
on looking into the express terms of the Act of Parlia-
ment, and putting a fair construction on the wording
of that Act, there was no doubt that the defendant was
entitled to the benefit of their verdict. The toll in
question was never thought of until the present plaintiff
became the lessee, so it was unnatural to suppose he
would be materially affected should a verdict in this, as
on all former occasions, go against him.

Mr. Humphries, solicitor, deposed drawing the agree-
ment now produced. He was not aware who gave the
instructions, but he charged the lessees with the ex-
pense of drawing it out. He saw Mr. Goodman, who
was also one of the lessees of the toll gates in question,
and handed him the agreement.
Mr. Goodman deposed giving instructions to Mr.
Charles Humphries to draw out the agreement pro-
duced. He took the agreement afterwards to the de-
fendants, who signed it, but on going to the other
coach proprietors they rtfused signing it, in conse-
quence of which the plaintiff also declined signing it.
There was afterwards an appeal to the Quarter Sessions.
Lord TENTUDEII inquired if the matter could not be
settled?

The ATTORNZY GENERAL said he thought the Act
of Parliament entitled the defendant to a verdict.

Lord TENTLIWZNI cannot see that. I regret much
that the framer of many Acts of Parliament are not
more explicit in the framing those Acts.
It was finally agreed that a verditt should be en-
tered for the plaintiff, in the sum claimed, reserving the
question for the opinion of the Court.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 81. Ss.6d.
murex—tams O. TZWICS.

This was an action to recover 1001. the amount of a
bill of exchange; the bill was dated January 20, 1829,
and payable two months after date.
The defence was usury.
Mr. Lewis, who is an Attorney of the Court, was in-
dorsee of the bill, and he sought to recover. on the
ground that he was no piny to the alleged usurious
transaction, but had given the full value for the bill.
M'Neal, an uncertificated bankrupt, and a prisoner
in the King's Bench, a Ili called to prove the usury. It
appeared born his evidence that being in distressed cir-
cumstances he applied to the defendant, and obtained
the bill with his acceptance. He then carried it to
Levy, a Sheriff's officer, to get it discounted. He was
there told that money in the city was very scarce, and
that he must take plate to the amount of sixty pounds.
The remaining forty pounds he might have in cash.
51,15/ea' accordingly took a silver milk jug,a sugar basin.
and other articles, for which Levy deducted 601. and
paid him 401. He took the plate to a pawnbroker in
Holborn, who lent him upon it 1.51. and oTered to put-
chase the whole tor 2.51.

The son of Levy proved that the articles mentioned
by Nl•Neal r, ere in his lather', possession, and that they
went from him_ He was present when they were ori-
ginally bought for 451. In order to show that the
plaintiff was a &min./We holder at the bill, Levy's son
iso deposed, that a few days before the bill became
due, his father sent him with at to the plaintiff, and said
•' ask him to give the money for it." He accordingly
carried it to Lewis, who took the bill, and gave him 801.
in bank notes, and the rest in sovereigns.
The above were the facts, and Lord TENTIRDEN left
the Jury Co say by their verdict whether they believed
the transaction between Levy and the plaintiff was free
from collusion ? It there was any contrivance to avoid
the effect of an usurious contract, it would not be a bona
fide transaction. and the plaintiff could not recover.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

ib.

Diccoturt
(g - • ... —..:.
‘' 7 tr' SUMM
v.-4,,
•••Ak. ‘.\l—Nil'a.rf., OXFOI
.44 ' ;an 6i...- . . Berm Hui
...\0144,;;‘ .... . J
VIJD .4
',"s'Air.-....
Staffordshire ...
Shropshire.... ..
11erefordshire