Star.
London, England, 1811-11-29 00:00:00

x

must have assented to hold fecnsiles„. for the use,
of the plaintiff ; but, $l4 fai from doing so, be posi-
tively dissected. Suppoping the sto be lost or
stolen before they became due, the loss mu :glutei),
have fallen on the person' remitting them, and not ma
the appointees. This seemed to the Court to'be deci-
sive of the question. There was-here no agency for
the Plaintiff, on the part of the defendant ; on the
contrary he repudiated it in the first instance.
The rule fur entering a nonsuit wit accordingly
discharged.
- - -

TIOL KING o. CORPORATION OF BATH.
Lord Eweasoaouon gave the judgment bf the
Court on this appeal from. the Sessions, against a
poor-rate levied by the parish of Lidcombe and Whit-
combe, upon the Mayor and Corporation of Bath, as
occupiers of certain springs and reservoiis situate in
that parish : and the first question for the Court was,
Whether the Corporation was rateable at all to the
Parish in question for these water-works ? and the 2d
question, Whether, if they were so, they were rate- !
able in Lidcombe and Whitcombe for the whole, or
only for so much as was profit on the concern by the
,water-rent collected in that parish ;it being stated'
that the profits of the whole water-works were £6OO
per annem, whereof £5O was collected in the parish
in question, and the remaining £350 from three other
parishes in Bath, to which the water was conveyed
by pipes from the reservoir ?
The Court decided, „that the Corporation were
doubtless occupiers of local and visible property
within the parish, and were therefore ramble ; but
only by the parish of Lidcombe and Whitcombe; !or
such profits as were made within that parish.; and that
they were also rateable in the three other parishes in
which they derived profits pro canto. It was not ne-
cessary, for the Court to pronounce to what amount
they were rateable in the other parishes, and indeed
they had no, materials to enable them to do so. It
was sufficient to say, that this parish was improperly
rated for the whole profits; and the order of Sessions
.
must therefore be quashed. ,

THE KING V. POTTINGER AND
These defendants were brought up for final judg-
ment, having been convicted of a conspiracy to de-
fraud the *Barrack Department, at Hilsea Barracks,
as particularly mentioned in a former Paper.
Mr. Justioe Gnaw., in pronotincing the judgment
of the Court, having adverted to the nature and
enormity of the offence,
.observed, that a country so
drained by leeches as this was could not long exist.
These defendants were both in confidential situations,
and in this respect they resembled a servant placed
by his master in a confidential situation, who had be-
trayed his trust. They were mote guilty
,than the
man who stopped another on the highway, and took
ft om him, lis purse. He who robbed the one would
have had the power to rob thousands; and he who
felt no remorse in robbing thousands, as these defen-
dants had done, if he had the same opportunity,
would plunder .his neighbour, his friend, or his
father. The affidavit of a Clergyman had been.put
in, in the pi esent case, which gave to one of the de-
fendants a most excellent character. The Learned
Judge regretted nothing more than the apparentfa-'
cility with which persons standing in the siltation of
these defendants procured affidavi:s to character.—
'With respect to the affidavit of the Rev. Gentleman,
to whom he alluded, it had been stated, that it origi-
nated in mistake ; but when he reflected an thenery
great number of Persons brought before this Court
for frauds upon Government, and the affidavits ge;
nerally produced from persons of the greatest re-
spectability giving them the best of characters, he
WAS inclined to think there was no mistake in the
affidavit of the Rev. Gentleman, and he was rather
inclined to think and lament that persons did not look
at this offerce in that point of view in which they
ought to see,, it, and reflect, that he only was righ-
teous who did righteously, and he alone honest who
acted honestly. The degree of criminality in this
case was equal ; both the defendants had been placed
in confidential situations, and both' had violated the
confidence which had been reposed in them. It only
now remained for the Court to chew, by their sen•
tence, the opinion they entertained of this offence.—
He then sentenced them to be imprisoned in the
County Jail of Hants for the space of six calendar
months, and to stand in the pillory for the space of
one hour in the open space in front of Hilsea Bar-
racks, Portsea, once within that period, between the
hours of twelve and two o'clock in the forenoon.
THE' KING V. ARMSTRONG. _ _ _

Mr. PARKE Moved the judgment of the Court
against this defendant, having pleaded guilty upon
an indictment for a libel.
Lord EI,LESSOROUUH said, that at the time of the
trial he had suggested the propriety of this Gen-
tleman's entering into recognizance, which then
appeared to have been acquiesced in on the part of
the -prosecution.
Mr. Paiute replied, that it was then so understood,
but since that time the defendant had most contuma-
ciously refused entering into any recognizance, and
bad continued to libel the Gentleman who was the
subject of this prosecution, and had written two let-
ters libelling him, since the trial.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, fir the deleridant, said, that his
client was ready and willing to enter into any recog-
nizance the Court should think fit, and had always
betn ready to do so, but the party required him to
into recognizance, that he would not directly
or indirectly, either by himself or any other person,
libel, or cause to be libelled, this Gentleman ; he
conceived the terms were too indefinite, and therefore
bad refused to comply with them.
Lord ELLENBOROMHI.44 Those terms were with-
in the form and spirit of my recommendation, but
you claim the liberty of indirectly libelling. In all
those cases the Court will see the disposition of a
pasty by his demean( ur, and ifte does not this mi-
nute enter into the recognizance according to those
terms, he must stand committed, and be brought up
for the judgment cf the Court next term."
Mr. ADOLPHUS observed, that such a recognizance
would atrect him during the period of his whole life.
Lei d ELLENSOROUGH..."." Well, then, let him be
bound over for the space of seven years."
The 'defendant accordingly entered into a recogni•
zanee of ,500, personally to appeur in Court on this
day seven years • and, in the mean time, he should
not directly or indirectly send, or publish any libel
against the prosecutor, nor to do, for assist limiting,'
*or, instigate, nor encourage illy other person4oo pert
sons to tvrsteosendoclublith any libetor Gni
was then disabarged.
• .•

.