Star.
London, England, 1821-10-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. ex.
The Court was occupied nearly the whole of the
day upon a special case, a:king out of an ejectment,
tried before Baron Woon.
The question was, hether John Luscomb Man-
ning had complied with the proriso in a will, by
which he came into possession of a considerable estate?
The testator, it appeared, left him the property upon
condition of taking the name of Manning, and using
the family arms. A clause in the will contained the
following words:—" And in case any heirs male of
the body of Margaret Manning, or of Mary Creen,
oy John Luscomb Manning, or others who shalt be in
possession of the lands and hereditaments, shall not
take my name, by Act of Parliament, within three
Tears, then, and in such case, the use of the estate to
such persons neglecting ,to get such Act of Parlia-
unent shall cease and be of no effect."
It was contended on the part of the heirs at law,
that there had been an adverse possession, and that
the terms of the will had not been complied with.—
The question was deferred.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, OCT. 9.3.
CURIOUS AND IMPORTANT CASE AND DECISION.
A question of some importance relative to the ad-
missibility of bail came on for decision in the Lord
Mayer's Court to-day, before NEWMAN KNOWLYS,
Esq. the Common Scrjeant, in the case of Anthony
Harding and others, plaintiffs, a, ai list Peter Angustris
Heyliger, defendant, and Sarah Alcherne,
Mrs.Heyliger, the wife of Captain Heyliger, the
defendant, a Gentleman of fortune and welt respect-
ability, had obtained from several tradesmen a variety
of goods, consisting of wearing apparel, books, house-
Vold furniture, Scc. which had been sent to Mrs. Ai-
ello! ne, a respectable packer in the city, to be packed
up in order to their being for siarded to Mrs. I leyliger,
then at St. Omer's, in France. Against these goods,
Svllich, from their quantity, were contained in no less
than 56 packages, several foreign attachments were
issued while in the hands of Mrs. Alchorne, the gar-
nishee, and among others by the plaintiffs, Messrs.,
}larding and Co. of' Pall-mall, for a claim of E 2.52
due to them. Messrs. Houlditch, coachrnakers, of
Long, acre, whose attachment was the last issued of
eight or nine, accidentally got information as to the
correct Christian name of Captain Heyliger, and
filed a second attachment in the name of Peter Au-
gustus, all the other attachments describing the de-
fendant as Peter Heyliger only. By this piece of
management, Messrs. Houltlitch's attachment, from
being the last, became the first; and from the value
of the property attached, there appeared every pro-
bability of their recovering the whole of their debt.
The garnishee, however, was advised to try the case
With them, upon the ground that the goods were not
delivered to her in the name or as the property of
Captain Heyliger. On the trial in tht Mayors Court
the Jury found a verdict for the validity of the at-
tachment, thereby deciding the property to be the
defendant's. Notwithstanding this decision, the gar-
nishee persisted in going to trial upon the same point
on every other attachment against the goods, to the'
amount of eight or nine, the verdict in each case
being the same as in the first. Messrs. Houlditch now
looked upon themselves as secure from loss, when
the garnishee put in bail to their attachment, and the
goods, not without suspicion of some private arrange-
ment between her and the plaintiffs, Messrs. Harding
and Co. who had the second attachment, were pub-
licly sold by auction at Mr. Murrell's room, in Skin-
ner-street, in August last. 'though the sale purported,
according to the printed catalogue, to take place un-
der an attachment, no precept of appraisement, it
appears, had been returned; and the property, which,
according to Mrs. Heyliger's statement, had been re-
cently purchased at an amount of nearly 12000, pro-
duced at the sale between £5OO and £6OO only :
among other articles, worked cambric handkerchiefs,
which hatibeen invoiced to her at three guineas each,
sold at the sale for no more than 9s. a piece.
Captain Heyliger is, it seems, at the Island of St.
Croix ; but Messrs. Houlditch seeing the property thus
sacrificed, and themselvis thrown out, gave informa-
tion to Mrs. Heyliger, at St. Omer's, who imme-
diately furnished them with instructions to put in
bail, on behalf of the defendant, to all the attach-
ments that had been issued against the property.. As
the bail in these cases must be freemen of London,
Messrs. Houlditch applied to their iron-merchants,
lidessre. Daly and Kipling, of Upper Thames-street,
and through them procured as bail a Mr. Quint, of
Bush-lane, and a Mr. Bickerman, of Tower-royal.—
When the bail appeared before the Lord Mayor, at
the' Mansion-house, to justify, Mr. Andrews, as Coun-
sel for the present plaintiffs, and Messrs. Reynell and
Ogle, attornies ler the garnishee, opposed the accept-
ing of them, not on account of their insufficiency,
their solvency being undoubted, butupon the ground
that they had not been applied to by the defendant
to become his bail; Mr. Andrews contending that,
'ruder such circumstances, the bail could not, in eon-
fogaity with the practice of the Keno; Courts, be

received, and the Lord Mayor not choosing to take
upon himself to decide so important a question,
the case was referred to the next sitting of the Court,
which took place at Guildhall to-day.
Mr. NORTON, for the defendant, now tendered the
above-mentioned bail.
Mr. liouksen, upon the part of the plaintiffs, pot
m the affidavit of Mr. Alsop, one of the partners in
the house, which stated that he had written to Capt.
Heyliger, at St. Croix, giving him information of the
whole transaction ; and, although sufficient time bad
elapsed, no answer or instructions whatever had been
received from him, nor from Mrs.Heyliger, nor their
son, to both of whom he had likewise given notice;
and be verily believed the bail now tendered had not
in any way been applied to by the defendant, or au-
thorised by him.
The bail were then called and examined by Mr.
BOLLAND ; and, in answer to the questions put to
them, stated that they had not been applied to to
become bail either by Captain Heyliger or by Mrs.
Alchorne, the garnishee ; that Mr. Kipling, residing
in Thames-street, had procured them to be bail, as
the friend of the defendant, and had undertaken to
bear them harmless. They had been introduced to
Mrs. Heyliger, since her return from the Continent,
by Mr. Kipling's brother, as the persons who had,
as he said, so kindly undertaken to become bail in

the business.
From this examination Mr. HOLLAND contended
that, according to the uniform practice in the supe-
rior Courts, this bail could not be accepted, as it was
now in proof that they had no communicationwhat-
ever with the defendant, and consequently did nut
offer themselves to become securities at his instance
or by his authority.
Mr. NORTON urged the peculiar nature of the
foreign attachment a, taking the question out of the
reasoning of the rule of the superior Courts. In the
superior Courts the defendant had always personal
notice of every suit against him, either by arrest or
service of the copy of the writ, and consequently can
communicate with his intended bail; the offering of
bail, therefore, with whom the defendant has had no
communication, was upon the very face of it objec-
tionable and suspicious. But in foreign attachments
it is necessarily implied, and indeed generally is the
case, that the defendant is out of the kingdom. li:the present instance the defendant is at St. Croix, and
his wife in prison in France. How, then, were they
to communicate with freemen resident in London ?
Indeed, had Captain Ilevliger been upon the spot,
he must have employed' some such friend as Nlr.
Kipling to procure bail to these attachments, as, from
his hal,its and situation, an Officer of Dragoons,
he was not likely to have much acquaintance ith
freemen of London. The I rile laid down by his
Learned Friend; if strictly acted upon, would there,
fore prevent, in most cases; the possibility of giving
bail at all. Tile rules of the superior Courts were
not necessarily binding, especially tyou a process
that has no similarity with any of their proceedings,
upon a Court of ,local jurisdiction. In this case the
bail were authori,ed by Mrs. Hey lier ;.and a wife,
ender such circumstances, ought to be considered as
the proper agent of her husband,. especially as the
greater part of the property in question consisted-of
her own wearing apparel ; and she was ready to
swear, if necessary, that she has acted in the arrange-
ment of her husband's business since his absence, and
that he has a just defence to the action. No injury
could accrue to. the plaintiffs by accepting the bail;
they were acknowledged to be solvent to the amount,
and the rapid progress of the proceedings of that Court
would render them liable for the payment in a very
short space of time in case of a verdict.
Mr. HOLLAND, in reply, said the acceptance of bail
would place the plaintiffs in a worse situation than
they stood at present, inasmuch as they now had
their remedy both against the goods and also the
person of the defendant ; whereas, if bail were. taken,
they would lose one part of their security, viz. the
goods, and get the personal remedy only.
The COMMON SERJEANT, in giving his judgment,
said, that as the rules of that Court differed from
those of the common law, it was of importance to
take care that they were not improperly extended.
The Court was therefore bound in its decisions to
keep strictly to the custom. By the custom, the de-
fendant and the garnishee were entitled to give bail
within the space of one year and a day ; even after
judgment had, and after the goods had been seized
and the appraisement made; and the plaintiffs were
bound, upon payment of their claim, to restore the
goods or the value to the defendant. The defend-
ant's claim to give bail, therefore, was undoubted;
and the only question was, whether bail was now
properly offered. The rule in the superior Courts
was for the purpose of preventing improper bail, or
such as might be put in for the mere purpose of liti-
gation. In this case no objection was made to the
sufficiency of the bail; and the wife being a party to
the transaction, it did not appear to him that the ob,
ject was mere litigation. His judgment, therefore-
was, under all the circumstances, that the bail should
be accepted.
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, OCTOBER 23.

Thomas Mahrtv, James Draper, John Smith, Wil-
liam Scott, John Barnes, and Mary Plumb, were in-
dicted for a riot on the night of the 10th of Sep-
tember. The defendant John Barnes was not pre-
sent, having been since the disturbance apprehended
as a deserter.
On the part of the prosecution, about half a dozen
watchmen were examined to substantiate the case
against the defendants, and it appeared by their evi-
dence, that a number of dustmen had assembled be-
tween eleven and twelve o'clock at night, is Bidbury-
street, Burton-crescent, to celebrate a wedding, and
were, according to their own fashion, ringing their
dustmens' bells to the great annoyance of the whole
neighbourhood. The defendant Mahew was a trades-
man residing in the Old Bailey, but was present on
the occasion. When the watchmen came up, they
met with very scurvy treatment. Some were knocked
down, and others received very violent blows in va-
rious parts of their bodies. The female defendant
was observed to be peculiarly active in resisting the
watchmen : while they sprung their rattles the dust-
men were ringing their bells, and completely drowned
the sound of the rattles. The defendant Scott was
heard to say that he would knock (loft the first
b—y watchman that offered to interrupt them: The
defendant Mahew was particularly active in exhort-
ing them to resist the watchmen. He said to the
; . dustmen, while the watchmen were ondeacoaring to

do their duty, " D—n their eyes,
they are alit par-
cel of old toddlers, pitch it into them—you will
do for them all in five minutes." At another time
he was heard to- say, when the watchmen were drag-
ging some of the men to the watch-house, " Oh, poor
devils, let them go," and pushed among them.—,
When the dustmen were in the watch-house, Mahew
addressed the mob, saying, " D—n your eyes, break
the door open, and pull down the watch-house ; you
are no men if you don't." There was at that time a
great crowd about the watch-house, and Mahew was
exhorting them to interfere on behalf of the men.
Mr. WALFORD spoke in defence of Mahew, and
called three witnesses, who proved that they were
present with Mahew on this occasion, and swore that
he never used the expressions imputed to him. Mad
hew, instead of exhorting the people out of the
watch•house, went into it, and remained there for
seven or eight minutes.
The Jury acquitted Mahew, and found all the other
prisoners Guilty. Draper was ordered to be um-
prisoned for one month, Smith fourteen days, Scott
seven days, and the female was discharged on pay-
ing, a fine of one shilling.
Jame& Hootlier, William Hoother, and Mary, his
wife, were indicted for an assault on Rebecca Mol-
loy ; .and Rebecca Molloy, Hannah Abergale, and
Mary Seagtave, were indicted for an assault on
Mary Iloother.
This, it appeared, was a double indictment, in
which the ptositutors on both sides were also de-
fendants. All the parties resided in Ilartshont-court,
which has of late been the scene of a deadly feud be-
tween the 'bothers and the Molloys. The enmity
began between them, like most of such hatreds, from
a very small beginning. The children of both par-
ties, who, it seemed, did not inherit the ofl
their parents, were playing together in the court.'
Mrs. lioother observed it, and in the presence of
Mrs. Molloy, desired her children "not never to play
with them there rotten creatures," meaning Mrs. Mol-
loy's children. At this Mrs. Molloy, usually a placid
mild tempered lady, grew irritated, and upon using
some harsh language, her antagonist stripped to fight.
Matters at length proceeded to a high pitch, and the
ladies were separated by their husbands.
On account of a misnomer in the indictments, the
evidence was not gone through, and of course a ver-
dict of " Not Guilty" was pronounced against both
parties. Thus the Molloys and Floothers were re-
luctantly compelled to leave the Court as wise as
they came, and perhaps a little better friends.
Elizabeth Drinkwater was indicted for assaulting
Mary Povey, in her dwelling-house.
The patties wet e both persons of rather respectable
appearance, and were accompanied into Court by
great numbers of their female friends.
Art s. Povey stated, that on the 10th of September,
the defendant came to her house in Bethnal-green,
and told her, that she was commanded by the Ma-
gi:trates to break all the windows in her house, and
also to teat- out her liver and murder her. She in-
qantly proceeded to execute part of her commission
by commencing a furious attack on the prosecutrix's
windows, and after she had satisfied herself with the
performance of the task assigned her on that point,
she entered the house, telling the prosecutrix she
would then murder her, and immediately commenced
a desperate assault on her person. She tore the hair
from her head by handfuls, and a beautiful lace
cap the prosecutrix wore at the titre, was demo-
lished on the very first attack. The prosecutrix pro-
duced the relics of this ill.fated cap, which appeared
by her account, and the feelings she evinced, to have
been a favourite ornament of her person. The pro-
secutrix said, it was quite impossible to tell what
might have been the consequences of the defendant's
fury, had not a lodger in the house come to her re..cue.
The prosecutrix was cross-examined by Mr. ALLEY.
Pray, Nla'am, did not the defendant go to your house
one day and catch her husband in bed with you ?
She never did—but she sent me word she would be
much obliged to me if I would accommodate him a
little—she sent him to me for that purpose !—(The
whole court were convulsed with laughter).
Mr. ALLEY made a humorous defence for the pri-
soner; but called no witnesses.
The deLndant was found Guilty, and fined 135.4 d.
on condition of repairing all the windows.
SURREY SESSIONS.

John Donovan, a child, aged nine.years, was in-
dicted for stealing a piece of printed cotton from the
shop of Mr. Jersey, linen-draper, Mount-street, Lam-
beth. The prisoner was seen running down Oakley-
street, with a bag, and on being stopped, he flung
away the cotton, which was picked up by an accom-
plice, who, on the pursuit becoming hot, dropped it
also.—The prisoner acknowledged taking the cot-
ton, but salt! it was his first offence.—Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN said, there could be no doubt he.
was leagued with a gang of thieves, and to break the
connection, sentenced him to six months' imprison-
ment, and to be twice privately whipped.

Maostox-HousE.—Yesterday, a curious case was
heard before the LORD MAYOR.—Henry Levi, a Jew
clothesman, of Petticoat-lane, attended the Justice-
yowl), upon a charge of stealing a coat. He had been
in the custody of the Jew constable, Joseph Hyam,
the night before ; but -an arrangement took place
privately between them, by which the prisoner was
left at his liberty for the night, upon the promise to
be forthcoming at the proper hour. Before the busi-
ness of the Justice-room commenced, the accused
made his appearance, and the person wt." charged
him with the robbery was also in attendance; but
the latter was not long in the room when he was ap-
prehended by Drinkwater, the officer, for a robbery,
and handed over by him to Hyam, to be taken care
of till the cases should be investigated. As soon as
the name of Levi was called, to the astonishment of
all, the prosecutor, who was also a Petticoat-lane
Jew, was not to be found ; but it was soon ascer-
tained that his departure had been sanctioned by
Hyam, notwithstanding the charge of robbery upon
which that constable was bound to detain bim. Levi,
no evidence having been brought against him, was
discharged, and then the LORD MAYOR immediately
turned to the consideration of the constable's conduct,
of which he soon received a very extraordinary ac-
, count. The person who had been just discharged
said, that be had been apprehended the night before
by Hyam, who told him that if he would give half-a-
, guinea he should not be locked up. Levi had not
, so much money, but he offered all he had (a crown),
, *tick was accepted. and be was his own mastcr upon

those terms until the next day, when he appeateJ
cording to his undertaking. It was the practice „c
Hyam to dispose of liberty upon coniitions of this
kind. Dridkwater, the officer, said, that a mar, sei.
had been in the Justice-room, in the early pal ofthe
°
day, pointed out to him the person who cll.teed
Levi with theft, and called upon him (U ;
to take hini into custody for a robbery. Wicks,
did
so, and placed him under the care of Hyatt), wh,
mitted him to escape. Lewis Lyons states!, that he
was present when Levi paid the as. to Elvana to te
allowed to remain at large till morning. IL declared
that it was the notorious practice of Hyam to Im
contributions upon pickpockets and other bad 4
ratters, whom he allowed to go about their 11,4
business for a fee ; that he had been excommunicated
from his church ; and that it was the wish of ail de„
cent people that ire should be excommunicated hook
the police. Mr. Wontner, the Marshal, saw, shai
Hyam had no authority whatever to act as constable
in the City, and that the sphere of his duties Was li•
mited to the keeping of peace in the Sywaave......
Hyam denied everything of which he was accused;
The LORD MAYOR said, it would be imposAme to
allow Hyam to act as a constable after having heti
guilty of such conduct, and suspended him.
QuEE'SSQU Alt E.—Margaret Dunn, mho was Tt,
manded on Friday last for tittering counterfeit 140.
crowns, was put to the bar in the presence of Nh.
Powell, the Solicitor to the Mint; but upon M.
Powell's hearing the evidence against the prison;
he declined prosecuting her on behalf of the Miry
.although it was the opinion of the wog thy Magistria
(Mr. RA I NsiJRD) that a sufficient case was ni.ide sit
to go before a Jury. Indeed, Mr. Powell statediut
he had the prisoner at Marlboroughsqreet (Ace
the 221.1 of August last for a similar offende. As X,
Galton, the person to whom she passed a bad h.
crown, declined prosecuting Dunn, she was let Inot
once more upon the Public to follow, no doubt,lat
usual avocations.

Wi/Harz Johnstone, a lad c f about 18 years of age,
was brought up by Clark, a constable of Cheists,
and placed at the bar for stealing a picture, rep
senting a view of Nurernhurg. The prisoner ta
stopped by Mr. William Johnston, a cora-Jae,
with the painting in his possession. Suspecting th 4
it was stolen from one of his ueighbours, afters,
curing the thief, he made inquiry, and found it to
belong to Mr. Stacer, of No. '3, Johnstorii.piare,
Thistle-grove, a tenant of his own. The Nlagistrau
thanked Mr. Johnston, in the name of the Pu'ulic,for
his conduct in securing his namesake, and remittal
the prisoner till Friday.
WoRSIIIP-STREET.—Jentima Mattison, whotetta.
duct we mentioned on a former day, tuiderwentan-
examination before M. SWABET, :p.n. an..l Jous 3fro
wAno, Esquires, and the three boys who weer.*
ployed by her to commit felonies were broughtto
from the New Prison, Clerkenwell, where they had
been detained for the purpose of being witnessesagaiost
her. The case excited considerable interest: the (h.
fice was excessively crowded, and amongst others
who attended were nine or ten parents who hank
their children. The prisoner was placed at the kk,
and the three boys were sworn. Little Bailey sa
questioned as to his knowledge of the nature do
oath. He said he knew if he told a lie he should go
to brimstone and fire. In addition to his former nar-
rative, he stated that he had been off and on, staying
with the prisoner, for the last twelve months. It
first time he went there, was after playing in the
street with one of the prisoner's boys. The prism
then told him he might sleep there for three-rencee
night, and for the last two months he had sleptthere
constantly. He and the others were sent ever) dry
under pretence of selling matches and pins, belle
prisoner told them to thieve. He had stolen spie
and meat at different times; the apples he attire
self, but the meat he took home to the prisone.lk
remembered stealing a piece of mutton in Spitaifile
market, which he took home, and told the proes.
he stole it. The prisoner told him to take cent
himself, and not get into a hobble. This hawed
three weeks ago, and if he went into the marfete
should know the shop. The prisoner often toldke
to go into the market and steal whatever he call:
she had a pack of cards, by which she told for=
to people; some she charged twopence, and sc •
she charged sixpence, and she could tell the chid:
whether they would get niagered when they went
to thieve. Frederick Clark said, he was with the
boner three nights, and was sent out by her every ,
to rob. In a short time he robbed three shops:
Whitechapel. He remembered a butcher's shcpe
the right hand going into Whitechapel, where:
stole a heart, liver, and lights, last Wednesday,
took them home, for which the prisoner gave he
the right of lodging for two weeks. John Clarks
little boy, brother to the last witness, said that%
was sent out a thieving. The prisoner had twotea
of her own, Ben and John. Ben went out and thini
every day, but she used to beat John with her 6t
and sometimes with a stick, because he vould.nt
go a thieving. In coming to the Office thistnom!
the prisoner doubled her fist and threatened the'
dren, and told them to say nothing about the
and the cards. John Tyrrell, another little*,
whose father had lately delivered him WO,
clutches of this monstrous woman, corroboramil;
story of the other boys. He said he rernembereat;
derick Clark bringing home the heart, lira,
lights; when the prisoner said, 44 Go out, one raw
of you, and see if you can get a bit of sawney,
ing a bit of bacon. The prisoner, in her defencerit
vied the charge. She said she was an unfottn
ua
woman, and she took the children in out of cht.O.
She was committed to take her trial for the visa
meanour in receiving stolen goods ; and the 1e
were committed to Coldbath-fields, to be prorlas
as witnesses against her. When she was renal'
from the Bar, she lamented her fate, .but her 1.100.,
tations were instantly lost, amidst the execrato°
those who had lost their children.

MARRIED.
On Saturday, the 20th instant, at Cheltenham,
geo, Esq. to Frances, daughter of the late Fleetwood mu—
Esq. of Ripple, in the County of Worcester.

DIED.
On the 21st instant, in the bloom of life, and most
lamented by her friends and relatives, Miss Osborn, dos'
Mr. P. Osborn, of

ATEIt at 1.0 hi DUN BIL105511")41,.°81:
Idurning - 31 annum Wei
Afternoon •
1.0 X) ; Aimed end published hi Lyra lilm/s PP"
ivnp!irlim•