Star.
London, England, 1829-02-19 00:00:00

that the Plnintiu, wag
conducted himself in a mutinous mariner, and that the
punishment had breo indicted Upon him for the purpose
of preserving discipline in the ship's crew. The assault
complained of consisted in the administering'of four
dozen lashes. upon the plaintiff, and afterwards putting
Aim in irons, and confining him in the quarter gallery
pronto; for several days. It appeared that the elvain
had been under the necessity of punishing one of the
men for disoreerly conduct, and while the crew were
assembled on the quartet deck, in the usual manner,
to witness the punishment, the Captain said, •• I thought
thdre was an end of ell !hiss" to which the plaintiff le-
plied—"l-thought so toe;" and aided, N if I had any
mind, there should be no more flogging on board."—
The Captain considering this impression as indicative of
a mutinous spirit, ordered the plaintiff aside until the,
.gging was over, and then had him tied up and
punished in the u.oal manner as a mutineer. No wit-
nesses were called in support of the plea of justification,
Sir James &mint conceiving, after the cross-examina-
tion of the plaintiff's witnesses, that the evidence pre.
ponderated in favour of the defendant. The Jury, ho..
ever, found fir the plaintiff—Damages 504
In Easter Term Sir James Scarlett -obtained a rule
nisi for a hew tri.l, on the ground that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence. The case now stood
fir argument on the rule nisi; and Lard TUT/HMO!
was procee.ling to read his noses of the ids', when •
Sir J. BCA ou.rrT said hehad received no instrections
to support the rule.
Mr. BROUGUAIf, for the plaintiff, said, he was not in-
structed to appose it, and his client was willing to have
it made absolute on payment of cost,.
Lrrd TENTEIDZW-.4 suppose, then, you expect to
get larger cianiages on a s, could trial? •
• Sir. J. SCA num'. sail, the Court might deal with the
ease as they pleased. He was not prepared to support
the rule.

Lord TVlTlnDlei—Then it most be discharged.
Mr. lisovonAu said. that his client meld prefer
having it made absolute.
bed TinTiftolllo ob,es•ed. that the Coast could not
mate the-rule absolute on the application of the patty
who was called upon to show cause against it. As the
defendant's Counsel did hot appear to support it. or
pray to hare it *wade absolute, it must be discharged.—
Rulodischatged.
SWIIITIII43 V: HALIC _ _

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 157!.
dated the 25th Of Match, 1826. drawn by the plaintiff
bpon the defendant. and a person named Hammond.
and accepted in their jlitst names. payable two months
bites date. It appeared by the eiriden:e on the trial.
athintsoook place in June last, that on tie day the
bill became due. an end. nement was made upon it its
the form if a bill drawn by the plaintiff, as fonowss
46-London, May 28, 1626. Sis Mouths atter date pay
to me or my order New. 4 per Cents for
value received." This endr.raement. or new bill, ler.
potted to bear the signature of the plaintiff, as drawer.
but the body of it was in the handwriting of a son of
the defendant; and the defendant, to whom alone, and
not to him and Hammond jointly, it was directed, ac•
cepted it. and the acceptance to the -original bill was
struck through with a pen. Lord Tenterden having
told the Jury, that if they were of opinion that the am
ceptance had been erased with the consent of the plain-
tiff, the last-r was not entitled c' recover, they found a
irerdir t for the defendant: In Trinity Tani SIT James
Scarlett obtained a ruse Nisi to •set aside the verdict,
and enter a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount of
principal and interest, or for a new trial : thrdefendaut
being at liberty to state, by affidavit, any particulars
tegaeft the transaction between the plaint ff and him-
tistbe might think proper.
CARIFBILL and Mr. BAusTow DOW showed cause
against the role, and contended, that the original bill
Gras estiaguisbed by the endorsement, which was in the
came of new security, and misht be stamped and
put is suit at any time.
Sir JAWS& SCARLITT (with whom was Mr. CIIITTY)
characterised the transaction as fraudulent on the path
of the defendant, and observed upon the circumstances
of there being no affidavit in explanation. nownbstand.
lag the Court bad given leave to produce one. It was
tree it had been proved that the bill bad been cancelled
with the plaintiffs assent, on the new security being
given ; but it did net appear that the plaintiff was aware
that such security required a stamp. The streog inf. .
rents was. that the plaintiff had been imposed upon by
the defendant, and the question of fraud or no fraud
ought to have been left to the Jury.
The Court was of opinion that there ought to be e
new trial, inasmuch as it appeared that the J sty had
limn left to determine whether the plaintiff had con.
Tinted to the cancellation of the bill, witheat having
bad their attention drawn co the circomstance of the
fresh sectnity being on onstamped paper.
Rule absolute for a new trial.
COURT' OP COMMON PLEAS, Wavranisras; beadle.
7.• .
atone IP. SRUMIRT.
The plaintiff is a livery stable-keeper in High-street,
Afaryali-bonne • the defendant a cati:ermaiiiifactuier
)a the Lon ion load. The action was brought to re-
'over the value of a horse, which had been killed udder
thq following circumstatices--A set vant of Alf Seigeant
*dams (who had hired the horse Of the plaintiff) was
leading the animal along the Surrey Road. when he was
met by the defendant's servant leading' 31 hearse Ind c
?be sheft of the cart came in violent contact with the
ofaiatirs hove, and indicted a dreadful wound in its
tfiials. iii or eight inchei in depth, of 'Which, alter an
%divine! attempt to cute it, it died. Thme wits, as is
.said in cases of this desCription, the Most .confliCting
'yst.mony on bosh sides, as to which of the plittiei-vral
is tank; 'the plaintiffs witnessei ascribing the Mischief
pa the carelessness of the carter; lid 'the defendant's
*atheism imputing it partly to the sitsonrind partly to
tl e fact of ;be led horse having inadal ipitited move.
pent t,..wirds the cart et the moissent in question.
The Jury rieiraird'a verdict fir the defendant.
The other eases disposed of to day nem net of pub'
interest. TheSpetialalpry caseailie fixedfot to.musrcr
COUKT• gactimoss, na.-111.
tats Stinerv: waist wow*
*This weals. inforneation against the, litiptiOst, a
*Warnes at aenowects, to teCOVet arrears itfEr • she
ate of paper, which bad taw tatpelblielt sea.
silir4: the slefeedaen
...F!Mis the fridge's cf a person. eassedllytli.
=servant of the defendant, it appeared that the
Of the defendants business was carried on is the

• '

. a . •:*

name of Blyth. A paper Mill belonging to the defen-
dant at Ling, about twelve miles from Norwich, was
taken by Blyth.ut the instigation of the defendant, who
,advanced money upon all occasions_ for the purpose of
'carrying it oil the lease was made out in Blyth'.
'name, the savants were engaged by him, and the carts
bore his name upon them. At the defendant's tegraest,
'a cottage was taken near the m.ll, where paper was
conveyed from the mill,-and from thence to the defen-
dant' s's chop at Norwich. the same wrappers being Used
sever 4 times over, and in many instances:the paper
_
being sent out without wrappers, so that Wee: evaent
no dritY had been charged upon it. A forged stamp.
similar to that used by the Excise, was provided by the
defendant to stamp the wrappers.' "•
The witnesses concurrel in Stating their opinion that,
At least, one-third of the paper manufactured at the
mill during the period from 1821 to 1829,•was sent out
in the way above described, and the duty evaded:-
1111th had been already convicted of defrauding the
Excise, and the defendant was now in prison for penal-
ties to the amount of I.oool.—The Jury returned a Set-
diet for the Crown for S.OOOl. ' ' • "
THR MHO V. SIR CHRISTOPHER 2* CADlnigarow. satire.
This was an information in the nature df an action for
intrusion, which, in the case of a-Subject; was called an
action of 'sever, to recover possession of certain build-
ings in Park lane, at present occupied by the defendant.
It appeared that the def admit had 6 lease of those
premises under the Crown, which lease expired in Feb.
1E22; nevertheless, he had ever since retained posses•
lion of them, paying no rest. Therefacts being proved,
and no defence being made, the Jury found a verdict
fur the Crown.

. ylict a 17. ,:- nal..tr.)
ti(eouut - • --•-' ' -
.... • . •
- -
INTELLIGENCE:
—....
(
... :,404.4 ..,-;,. BENCH. Warming:a. Fla IS.
o P ihs in Banco.)
„It ,
\V, 4 I '-,--- jr.DIALL V. HEAVISIDII.
111,4 • *,t k ich VMS tried at the adjourned Sittings
I. r'r"..in ilary Term, in the last ye.r, IV:ts rot
an assault and battery. committed on the plaintiff oil
board the ship Tharrsik, an East Indiaman. The de-
fendant (the Captain of the ship) pleaded in justification,
that the plaintiff, who was a seaman on board, had