Star.
London, England, 1820-08-17 00:00:00

coirEs,.4 UG UST 14.

.
This interesting place eras never more:full than
present. The inns and. lodgings are crowdedlo el-
cess, and such is the accommodating disposition of the
inhabitants, that many private nouses are open to
strangers, who seem determined to put up with every
inconvenience rather than forego the more substan-
tial plea,sures of this terrestrial Paradise. The Coburg
steam packet, from Southampton and back, by the
rapidity, regularity, and safety, with which she per-
forms her daily voyages, is fast gaining the confi-
dence of the I'ublic. Last week she conveyed to and
fro above 1200 persons, and amongst them many
families of the first class, so that her reputation may
be said to be. completely established.—Amongst the
visitors aye distinguish Lord FITZHA RRIS and family,
Lord and Lady GRANTHAM, Lord DARNLEY, Lord
Cnir-ros, Admiral 111.1ou, Lord GEORGE Sevuoun,
the lion. Colonel linowx, Major PATERSON, Captain
GRANT, Mr. SHER, Rev. Dr. DEAR and LEE, Gene-
ral Sir FREDERICK ROTTENBURG, &c. &c. and to
crim n the whole, our august SolizitetcN, with a
sviendid retinue, is expectei daily.

ASSIZES.

HEREFORD.
BENNET V. SIR C. NIORGAN.

This was a Srecial 'Jury cause. The plaintiff is

an Innkeeper at Brecon, and, during the contested
Election for that County, kept open house for the de-
fendslit's son, one of the Candidate% The worthy
and independent Freeholders, according to a certain
document called a long bill, drawn up in due form
by the plaintiff, had contrived to eat, drink, and
devour the good things of this life, to the amount of.
J.:(2,700, but the Gentlemen who acted for the defend-
ant, in promptly settling the various demands against
bim, on account of the Election, formed a .afferent

estimate of the gastric powers of the Freeholders of
Breconshire, and offered £9OO as a fair sum. The
plaintiff, not content, brought his action ; but the
Juzy confirmed the opinion of the defendant's Com-
mittee, and awarded 000, which had been pre-
♦iously paid into Court.

SURREY.
DOE ON DEMISE 07 DUDMAN V. ATTFIELD.

This was an action of ejectment, on the issue of
which depended the legitimacy of several children.
The action was brought by J. Dudman, as the son
and.heir of J. Dudman deceased, to recover posses-
iion of certain copyhold estates at. Farnham.
The late Mr. Dudman, who died in 1813, was a

tradesman at Farnham, and in 1791, he formed an
i.licit connection with a young woman, who was then
hi a menial capacity at a public-house in that town,
the consequence of which was the birth of a female
child. The intercourse continued until Mr. Dud-
man's sister, who had kept his house, was about to
let married, and he then expressed his determinationl
to enter the matrimonial state with the young woman
alluded to. In October, 1792, he went from Farnham
with her for the avowed purpose of getting married
in London, and they returned in a few days as man
and wife. They lived in high repute in the village
far many years, during which she bore several chil-
dren, and no question was attempted to be raised as
t ) their legitimacy until the death of the father and
mother, upon which events the relations of the for,
mer took possession of the property which the plain-
tiff; as eldest son and heir at law, sought to recover.
Eleven witnesses were examined, all of whom con-
curred in stating the above facts,' Tice register of the
births of the children'born after the supposed mar-
riage were produced, and it appeared they were re-
gistered as the children of John and Mercy Dudman.
The register of her burial was also put in, and she
was there described as Mercy, the wife of John Dud-
-eon. She was similarly described on a tomb erected
to her memory.
Mr. MARRYA Tr, for the defendant, contended, that
if*they had really been married, the mother would
have been eager to blazon it to the world. He re-
marked on the extreme improbability of the story of
th marriage, and observed, that a woman, situated
"as she was, would have been married at Farnham, in
tlle lace of her friends, and not have gone in a clan-
)4l:isPine manner to London for such a purpose.
The CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury, who found
a • verdict fur the defendant, thereby declaring the
children to be illegitimate.
ANDESISON V. RICHARDSON.
This action was brought to recover damages for
ari assault committed under curious circumstances.

The plaintiff was.the daughter of a respectable
tradesman in Church-street, Borough, and had for
some time been on terms of a tender nature with
a young man of the -name of Heron : it was confi-
dently anticipated that he would, in proper time, lead
her to the altar. After some time, however, the false
swain suddenly, and without any assignable cause,
broke off the courtship, and married another woman.
The effect of this
.intelligence upon the young Lady
may be easily conceived, and when it is stated that
the defendant iu the present action was instrumen-
tal in bringing about this marriage, it will natu-
rally be supposed that the plaintiff regarded her with
no small degree of acrimony. On the 29th of Octo-
ber last, Mts. Richardson called at the house of Mr.
Anderson, the plaintiff's father; for the ostensible
purpose of demanding the payment of a small bill;
but the real object seemed to have been to have ajolly
pow! Soon after her arrival the plaintiff came in, 1
and 'high words ensued between them ; the plaintiff'
accusing Mrs. Richardson of lending money to Mr.
Heron for the purpose of enabling him_ to form
this matrimonial connection, while Mrs. Richardson
charged Miss Anderson with having had an'impro- j
per intercourse with Mr. Heron. Accusations.- of
this nature were not likely to restore peace, and after
as &gent dialogue, Mrs. Richardson seized the.
plaintiff, who was much the "weaker vessel," and
having amused herself for some time with pushing
and kicking her about the room, she left her. The
consequence was, that she went into hysterics, and
was ill for at least a month. This illness, the plain-
t:ln Counsel contended, was caused by the violence
of Mrs. Richardson ; while, on the•other side, it was
maintained, that it was solely owing to the irritabi-
lity of the young Lady's mind, it: consequence of her
disappointment.
Mn. Gillum, Surgeon in the Borough, was called
to prove'clie indisposition of Miss Anderson ; but he
admitted it alight be owing to mental irritation, and

not awed by any bodily hurt. lie described the.
plaintiff as a „Toting Lady of a 4104 Yirtnoss ',And
and amiable disposition, and said then wes not the
least ground for the aspersion cast upon her in the
heat off the quarrel by Mrs. Richardson.
The case, under these circumstaleses,went to the
Jury, and a 'verdict was found I@sti'dipplakaiiff
Damages Five Pounds.
THE KINO V. CHARLES MARTIN AIM VIVI OTHERS.
This was an indictment against six defendants,
named Martin, Western, Richerdson, Bogdan, Ben-
nett, and Anderson, for a libel on Richard Roffey,
at the Parish of St. Mary, Newington, on the 10th
of February, 1819.
This prosecution arose out of the disputes which
have for some time agitated the Parish of St. Mary,
Newington. By the usages of that parish the Rector
has the power of nominating one Churchwarden, and
the parish another. The Rev. Mr. Onslow, the Rec-
tor, had nominated the prosecutor, Mr. Roffey, as his
warden, and the parishioners had chosen Mr. Martin,
the defendant, as theirs, in 1819. It had been the,
practice to hold Vestry Meetings in the Parish Church
at five o'clock in the evening, but, as was suggested,
in consequence of the disgraceful scenes which some-
times took place, and the very late hour to which
the discussions.at those meetings had been prolonged',
for some time previous to 1819, it was deemed expe-
dient
by the prosecutor to change the hour for the
assemblage of the Vestry, namely from five in the
afternoon to nine in the morning. Soon after he
came into office it became necessary to make a new
Church rate, and also to take into consideration
on what terms iron coffins were to be permitted
for interment in the Church-yard—that mode of
burial having been recently suggested as prOper.—
In order to take both these subjects into considera-
tion, Mr. Roffey caused notice to be given in the
usual manner by the Parish Clerk, from his reading.
desk in the Church, that a Vestry Meeting would be
held on the 3d of Febtuary, at nine o'clock in the
morning. The alteration of the time for holding Ves-
try Meetings, it seems, occasioned a great sensation
in the Parish, and accordingly, on the day above.
mentioned, all the defendants appealed at the Vestry,
and, as was charged, proceeded to propose Resolu-
tions highly defamatory of Mr. Roffey's character.—
The defendant, Mr. Richardson, was stated to be an'
Attorney, residing in London, having a house at
Newington; the defendants, Messrs. Bugdcn and An-
derson, were represented to be attorneys clerks, and
also inhabitants of that Parish ; and the remaining
defendants to be tradesmen, some of them carrying.
on business in London. On the occasion in question,
Mr. Richardson was stated to be the fraMer of the
Resolutions, the purport of which was to insinuate
that the prosecutor's object in altering the time for
the assemblage of the Vestry, was to obtaina packed
meeting of inferior inhabitants of the Parish, who
would be subservient to the purposes of himself and
the Rector. The Resolution which was the principal
ground of the present indictment professed "to be a
declaration of the sentiments of the Vestry, that the
conduct of the prosecutor, in attempting to alter the
time of the meeting, was a violation of the rights
of the Vestry-men, an insult to the Parish, and
a disgrace to the Rector who had appointed him.
It further stated, that he was wholly unworthy of the
confidence of the parishioners, and was an object of
their just indignation. It appeared that all the de-
fendants, except Mr. Bennett and Mx. Anderson, took
an active part on this occasion. Another Resolution
was passed, that the other Resolutions should be signed
by the Vestry Clerk, printed, and circulated among
the parishioners. The Vestry Clerk, it appeared, de-
dined signing the Resolutions, upon the suggestion
of a Solicitor present that they were libellous, and in
point of fact they were not published out of the Ves-
try Meeting.
This case was proved by the evidence of the Rec-
tor, who presided on the occasion,- the Vestry Clerk,
and other persons who were present.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury On behalf of the
defendants, and contended that, as the Resolutions in
question were of and concerning- the conduct of the
prosecutor as a parish officer, and were not published
to the world at large, they were perfectly venial, and
consequently that his clients were not criminally liable.
The CHIEF JustacE charged the Jury, that the 4th.
Resolution, which was the subject of the indictment,
was calculated to defame the character of the prose-
cutor, from its contumelious import, and inasmuch
as it would be recorded to postezjty by insertion in
the Vestry books, it was fairly the subject of criminal
prosecution. In his Lordship's opinion, the Resolu-
tion alluded to was a libel; but. the Jury were not to
be bOund by his opinion definitively ; they would
exercise their own discretion upon the subject, taking
into consideration that the evidence did not affect the
case of two.of the defendants

The Jury acquitted Mr. Bennett and Mr. Ander-
son and. found the other defendants Guilty.. •
In consequence of the non-attendance of Gentle-
men summoned as Special Jurymen, in almost all
the Special Jitry Causes-entered for trial,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said. he felt it necessary to re-
prehend the apparent inattention to the duties, 41
Gentlemen qualified to serve as Special Jurors. He
had observed, that in every other county on the Cir-
cuit) the Special Jurors had been most punctual in
their attendance, and is few instances had it been
found necessary to pray a Take. He begged it to
be distinctly. understood, that the duty of Special
Jurors was as imperative as that of persons who were
impannelled to try common Jury Causes, and in con-
' sequence of the unaccountable absence of Gentlemen
summoned as, Special Jurors at this Assize, he an-
nounced, that if, on any future occasion, when he
came this Circuit, he found cause of similar tom-
plaint, he should feel it his duty to fine the absentees.
In the five Special Jury Causes entered for trial,
there w ere not more than three or four Gentlemen
who condescended to give their attendance,