Star.
London, England, 1826-09-12 00:00:00

li►W ittPOWt.

•
'COURT OF CHANCERY, Smarm it.
OLASSINOTON V. THWAITIS.
The LORD CHANCELLbR went into his private room
at 11 o'clotk, and proceeded to make a variety of ob-
servations in the case of " Glassington v. Thwaites."—
He stated, that in an experience of 4.0 or 50 years in
that Court, he had never met with a cause that had
puzzled him more, from the entangled state into which
it had got. He wished the Counsel had been present,
for the case required a great deal of consideration, be-
tore he could make an order on the subject.
Mr. Farquharson promised his Lordship to lay all the (*Ser►a.
dons he might think proper to make before the Counsel.
His Lordship then went into a history of the whole
proceedings, from the commencement of the suit to the
present time, but stated, that what he had just said was
intended solely for the information of the parties in the
suit, and to be laid before Counsel, and he therefore
trusted, that h s observations would not be published,
as they could not be made public without being at-
tended with great injustice.
His Lordship afterwards disposed of several cases of no public
interest.
The Somme Gamut came into his Lordship's private room,
and had a long interview with him in the course ache morning.
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Seer. 11.
These Sessions commenced this morning, before
FRANCIS CONS; Esq. and a full bench of Magistrates.
After the usual ceremonies of swearing the Grand Jury,
the Chairman delivered a very brief charge to them,
when they retired to their room.
Henry Hawes was indicted for assaulting Elizabeth
Martin.---The prosecutrix said, that on the 15th May
two of the defendant's children came into her shop, and
on finding them behind the counter, she gave one of
them a box on the ear, and turned them out. The
I defendant came up afterwards, and struck the prose-
cutrix, and beat her so severely that she was confined
for a fortnight.
Several witnesses were called, who confirmed her testimony.—
The Court sentenced him to pay a fine of 101. with liberty to
speak is the prosecutrix.
The defendant said be would not pay Ss. He was accordingly
committed.
Zadiariah Wombwell was indicted for an indecent
assault upon a little girl, named Harriet Beek, about
13 years of age.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS stated the case for the prosecution.
The defendant is a cowkeeper, and on the day stated in
the indictment, the prosecutrix went to his cow shed to
get sortie hay, when the defendant took her into a stable
and committed the assault complained of, the particu-
lars of which are unfit for publication.
The facts were proved by the prosecutrix.' and her mother said,
that she told her of the assault the moment she got home.
Mr. ALLEY addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
pointed out some improbabilities in the prosecutria's
story, and called their attention to the fact, that she
gave no alarm, although the defendant's wife was near
the spot at the time, and that no complaint was made
until three weeks after.
The Jury acquitted the defendant.—Several other trilling assault
cases were disposed of.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sunman 11.
Captain Theophilus Patterson was opposed by Mr.
HEATH on behalf of ten creditors for small sums.
It appeared from the examination of the insolvent,
who is a Gentleman of a very prepossessing appearance,
that he was a Captain in his Majesty's marine service.
His debts from the year 1805 to the present time
amounted to the sum 4f 4351. of which 2601. was due
to his agent, and the remainder to several tradesmen in
Deal, Rochester, and that neighbourhood. The insol-
vent had been engaged in the blockade service at Deal
from February, 1820, to May. 1823. At the latter pe-
riod he was put upon half-pay, but continued to reside
at Deal till May, 1825. In the interval between May,
1823, and May, 1825, he contracted several debts
which the reduction in his income disabled him from
paying. In October, 182+, he was obliged to sell his
furniture, the proceeds of which were paid into the
hands of his agent. His agent offered to pay two shil-
lings in the pound to his different creditors; but as they
refused to accept iq he paid over 3.51. to the insolvent's
wife, with which she went to France with two of her
children. It appeared from the charges made by the
insolvent's agent, that the luggage which she carried
with her weighed 9cwr. Being asked of what the lug-
gage consisted, the insolvent said, " that it was the
clothing of his wife and children. and that an account
of it was contained in the list of excepted articles an-
:sexed to his schedule." Being considerably pressed upon
this point by Mr. HEATH, the insolvent said, that he
conceived that the weight was so great, owing to the
clothes being packed up in an old bateau, which of it-
self weighed more than lcwt. and which he had always
used himself as a sea-chest. Ile positively swore, that
there was not in that bureau any other property than
that which was mentioned in his schedule, to the best
of his knowledge and belief. His half.-pay amounted to
1271. 15s: but he had a wife and three children to main-
tain out of it.
Oa his cross•examination by Mr. COOKE, it appeared
that he had dealt with most of his opposing creditors
for many years. To one of them, who now opposed him
for a debt of 101. he had been in the habit of paying
considerable sums ; and to another, a tailor, of the name
of Clements. at Rochester, who now opposed him for a
bill of 971. 4r. he had been a regular customer for the
last eighteen years. His eldest son was now at St.
Omer s, and about eighteen years old : his youngest son
was at the Blue Coat school ; and his daughter, who
was quite a child, was at present with his wife in France.
He had been in the service for thirty years.
Mr. }WTI! said, that he had been instructed to ap-
pose the insolvents discharge on the ground that he had
' conveyed to France considerable property net included
in his schedule. As the insolvent had sworn that he had
done no such thing, and as he was without witnesses to
prove that he had, he (Mr. Heath) would now withdraw
' his opposition. He most, however, request the Court to
order that part of his half pay might be set aside for
the benefit of his creditors.
Mr. Coosa implored the Court not to make any such
order. The income of the insolvent was already suffi-
ciently straitened by the claims of a young and rising
family ; and if it were to be further diminished, the
only thing that could result from it was, that he must
soon apply to the Court again to be relieved from
his difficulties.
The insolvent protested, with much feeling, that he
had nothing, but his haif-pay on which to subsist his
wife and children. Whilst he had been on full pay, he
had been able to maintain them in creel t and respect-
shil ty ; and it was not till lie was reduced to hall-pay
that he had contracted any debts which he was unable
to discharge.
Mr. lleATn then asked the insolvent what the net amount of his
. half-pay was, as he knew that it was liable to some deduct ons.

..

' the insolvent ieped, cut ira; 12171. ißs. hot foil
tome time past,• his agent, who had a considerable.'
claim upon him, had not allowed hirii to draw more
than 87. 4 month. Lat erly, however, he had not per-
mitted his agent to receive his half-pay, and had, con-
sequently, received himself the whole sum which he
had stated.
After some conversation, Mr. tiaArH, in consequence
of a remark from Mr. COOKS as to the length of time
during wh ch the insolvent had been incarcerated, said,
that he must request.the Cow t to
.set aside 251. every
year out of the insolvent's half-pay for the benefit of
his creditors.

Coosa then requested that this portion of the insolvent's
half-pay might not be srquestrated till the next quarter; and after
some conversation, this proposition was agreed to.
The insolvent was then declared entitled to his discharge,

BLANDFORD (DORSET) PETTY SESSIONS,

Sirrzarns 9.
—‘.—_

Present, Sir John Smith, Dart. E. B. Portman, Esq. M.P. J. H.
Dattard, Esq. and the Rev. George Pickard.

NEGLECT OF RETURNS TO TILE COLLECTOR OF AVERAGES

UNDER THE CORN LAWS.

Mr. Julia Biggs complained of Mr. Fryer's having
made a purihase of 20 sacks of wheat, and neglected to,
inform him thereor, and to state the price, as required
under the Corn Laws.

Mr. Roper proved, that on the 19th of August, he
sold Mr. Fryer 20 sacks of wheat. The latter pleaded
that he had sent the return by Coambes, the postman,
on the 23d of August ; but the Collector also declaring
that he had not received it, further time was given to
Fryer.to prove that he had regularly sent notice.
Mr. Bigp made a similar complalht against Mr. Randall, who
had bought three parcels of wheat, and returned only one of them.
Randall made an excuse, and said it was not an intentional neglect.
Mr. POIITMAN said, that it was very important to the
whole country that the returns should. be duly made.
Out of three purchases it was very clear that only one
had been made. It was the duty of the Magistrates to en-
able the Collector to make a proper return, which he
could not do if purchasers refused or neglected to fur-
nish him with the means. The judgment of the Mae:-
crates, therefore, was—that he should pay 40s. and 10s.
costs, that being the lowest sum to which they could
mitigate the penalty.