Star.
London, England, 1827-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OP RING'S RIENCEIc Pima's 6.

Agactitigrstits MILLIAMI ZOWAIID oIUo$ WAlltrlltab.
Mr. Serjeant Caou moved for a writ of procedentia,
to try the defendants at the next Assizes for Lancaster.
A Certiorari, removing the indictment into this Court,
hiti been obtained before Mr. Justice Bayley, at Chaos-
bers t and the Learned Sergeant now made his motion,,
on the gtound that no good and sufficient ease could
be made nut for taking the indictment from Lancaster.
The certiorari had been obtained upon affidavits,
shtwiim that the abduction with which the detendants
stood charged, had been so often stated in the County
Papers, and so much prejudice excited, that the defend-
ant could not obtain a fair trial in Lancaster. The,
Paper which► had made the exparte statements, was the,
Macdesfieli courier, which was circulated widely in
Lancashire. The Learned Sergeant contended that no
prejudice had been excited, and that the indictment
ought to be tried in the County of Lancashire, where
the parties were known.

The Coca: granted a Rule ps phew cause.
hlr. Sergeant Coosa made a similar nsotioo with respect to the
Indictments of two others iMplicated in the transaction, and oho
obtained a Rule.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS, in a subsequent part of the day,,
r.btained tl..e sanction of the Court for the service of tiel
Rule on the defrodantiattorney. which is to be deemed
geed service.
C.ousv thee proceeded to Special cues.
WINDL&Y C. TUX MAMMA or WatTifitAlll.

this was an action brought by a tradesman against
the defendant, to recover 801. odd, the amount of ne-
cessaries supplied to Lady Westmeath chatting her se-
paration from the defendant. At the trial the verdict
was entered for the plaintiff, subject to a reference to Mr.
Alderson, who was to decide is to law as well as fact.
Mr. ALDERSON, on the face of his award; fend that
a deed of prospective separation was entered into be-
tueen Lot d and Lady Westmeath, in 1817, but no ac-
tual separation took place. Another deed, apparently
of actual separation, was entered into between the same
parties in 1818, by which a separate maintenance Sires
agreed to be allowed by the defendant to her Ladyship,
bat after that period they lived together under the same
root; they visited the Marquis and Marchioness of St.
liabury, and resided in their house apparently as man
and wife, and ii was only known to a female attendant
of her Ladyship that they occupied separate beds.—
After this her Ladyship refused to live with Lord West-
Meath any longer, and voluntarily 'Separated herself
from him, regardless of his entreaties and remonstrances
that they should cootinue to live together. During this
separation the debt in question was contracted by her
Ladyship. Ti e Learned Arbitrator was of opinion
that the Deed of Separation offliStB was invalid, as no
actual separation toot place, and the plaintiff having
trusted Lady Westmeath, while she was voluntarily,
and without her husband's consent. separated from him,
the verdict ought mire entered for the defendant.
Alter Mr. Rasa was heard for the plaintiff, end bin Blokes=
for the defendant,
The Couar pronounced their unanimous opinion, that
the Arbitrator was right in his conclusion of law from
thefacts found on the face of the award. Upon princi-
ple, their Lordships were of opinion that tradesmen
ought always to be considered as siting at their own
peril, when they trusted a wire who was not living with
her husband. The only ground upon which the plain-
tiff could recover in this cave, would be open the suppo-
sition that the Deed of Separation, ermined In the year'
1818, was valid, and that Lord Westmeath had se-
glected to supply the separate maintenance agreed upon
for his wife; and even then, the Trustees were the per-
sons to compel him to adhere to his agreement. But
the deed was Invalid, inasmuch as it recited a separation
which was not founded in fact. The parties lived together '
ostensibly as man and wife for a twelvemonth after its
execution, and then Lady Westmeath voluntarily chose
to separate herself from her husband. Under these cit.-
camstances their. Lordships were clearly of opinion that
the Arbitrator was right, and that the verdict ought to
be entered for the defendant.

tali LINO IP. 'AIM
Mr. Sergeant Wit.Da moved for a rule to shew cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
the defendant, who h the Mayor of Powey, for alleged
misconduct, tending to defeat the ends of justice. The
Learned Seige ,nt stated, that an application was made
to this Coutt in March last, for a criminal information
against pencil ir. office in the Boroegh of Fowey, on
account of corrupt practices rescrted to for election pur-
poses. On the occasion ti chewing cause against the
rule. Mr. Bennett, the Deputy Mayor, made an affidavit,
which became the subject of an indictment. A warrant
was issued, and he was arrested on the 6th of Sep•
tember. Having been taken to the Mayor's house, be
entered into recognizance' to appear in this Court on
the Bth of November. Some time after, it was &sere-
cog that Mr. Earle had aot transmitted the recogni•
Lances to the Crown Office. On being directed torsions
the same, he delivered recogniusces differing from

those origninally tabors. insomuch as Bennett was to,
.appear, according to the pibperft=isisance4 otf the
Bth of November; and in the meet sent by
Mr. Bennett it was not stated when he wits to appear.
The Loan Cuszli htsrios ordered the warrant to be
read;'and finding that Bennett was to be apprehended
and brought into Court on the Bth of November, grant-
ed the rule to shew caws.

fill MD awrises.
Sergeant WYLDI thin applied to file informations
against Mr. Bennett, for refusing to grant summonses
to persons who had refused to pay Poor Rates, and fot
corruptly withholding toublic-house licences, whilst he
granted the same licences to others. All these transfix-
tinny were described to be the effect of a corrupt party-
spirit, which has long disgraced the Borough of Powey.
The Court granted a Rule to dm" cause why one or mare cri-
minal Informations should not be Sled against die defendant.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

"lAA Or " Skirt Or Cali," ♦ Mina MS ?Kr LAWT2IIII.
Joh,' Gaacope, late of Tutbury, Staffordshire, licen-
sed victualler, was opposed by Mr. Putasocz, on behalf's
of Mr. Wheeler, a wine merchant, a creditor, for 161.
for goods sold and delivered, and legal expenses incurred
in attempting to recover the, same.
Edward Roe, clerk to Messrs. Tooke and Carr, of
Gray's Ina, agents to Mr. Burrish, of Birmingbant,
,produced the pleadings in Wheeler v. Gascoyne.
It appeared by these documents, that in Hilary vaci-
tion last, the plaintiff issued a Staffordshire Ladle
against the insolvent (the defendant in the action),
whereupon he gave bail to the Sheriff in the usual way.
On the following Easter Term special bail was put in,
and iii the same Term the plaintiff bled a declaration.
,The insolvent then put in the following singular plea
Ito the action, which, by the witssess's account, proved a
puzzler to the Staffordshire Gentlemen, 4‘ learned in
,the law."

, Atter the usual preamble the plea ran thus: " And
the said defendant in his proper person, comes and de-
fends the wrong and injury, and says he does not owe
the said plaintiff the said several sums of money in the
said declaration mentioned, or any of them or any part
thereof. in manner and form as the plaintiff has above
complained against him. And this he, the defendant,
is ready to verily on proof. however the Court of oar'
Lord the King, before the King now here, shall consider." i
, It was intimated to the Court that this plea was in-
tended to have been made, conformable with a mode of
defence almost obsolete, termed Wager of Lan."
_ _

Mr. Hume said that Mr. Chitty ought to be here to explain k.
The Cater COMMISSIONER (alluding, we imagine, to
the case of Abraham Thornton's wager of battle) re.
plied, that Mr. Chitty had been engaged in a memorable
case of wager in connection with the sante County
(Stafford).
To a subsecoent question, the wittiest Roe stated,
that tht extra expenses were three gUitPial, and they
would have been more, but the proeeedings were stayskl
in consequence of an intimation that the insolvent was
about lb apply to the Court for relitt ander the bid-
' vent Debtors' Act.

The Carat Coststrestottell (after a deaultory tenter-
eation as to the plea) acid, that he thought the *Mall
amount of three guineas hot *arrant 'the Court
to remand the insolvent.
Mr. HeAra-, the advocate to the petitioner, snide an
application to the Cdert, that the ease might be ad-
journed, in order that the schedule might be amended in
certain particulars.—The Court granted the applic=ation.
&char:ail Afortrom, of fire-work celebrity, was herd
do hit petition. To interrogations by the Court, the
inidlvent said that he had no stock in trade, it having
all expkuTerl. The last time he exhibited *as at Windsor,
the 29th of July, 1826, for which he received 801. bat,
be Considered, upon a rongh guess, that he did not
clear a shilling, his expenses being commensurate with
his receipts. Some time since he stipulated to pay fo►ty
guineas for the use of the Public Qardens ■t Norwich,
and it was by the proprietor thereof that be was arrested,
although he had attempted a settlement.— Discharged. ,

SHERIFFS COURT.
COCKIII P. lITIMILL.
This was an action brought against the defendant,
who is a colmon cagier horn Exeter to London, to
recover of him the sum of (even y-sevea pounds, (Or
the loss of a box entrusted to his care, to convey by his
waggon to London, in January last.
Mr. ArroLenus was Counsel for the plaintiff, and it
,appeared that his client is an attorney residing at
Exeter. In January, his son packed up a box, contain-
ing music books, valued at 831. other books valued at
211, jewellery valued at 151. and linen valued at 61. I6s.
and it was left at the defendant's waggon office, at
Exeter, to be conveyed to his waggon office, in London,l
and a direction was placed on the lid, " To be left at
Ruskell's Waggon Office till called for." The plaintiff's
son, on calling for the box, was ,hewn another boa, but
never recovered possession of his own.
Witnesses were examined to speak to the value of the articles
Which the hot contained.

Mr. C.lPftsttttra addressed the Jery for the defen.
dant. He contended chat the value of the contents of
the box had been greatly exaggerated, and called upon
the Jury to give only a fair Int d Moderate coppenntion
to the plaintiff for Ms Icatu+The Jury gave eantages,
Efrty-five Pounds.

Last Monday, as Mr. Chapman, a builder, of Black-
land's Lane, in company with Mr. Wit iteh rad, of Chelsea,
was driving in his horse and gig between Torches%
Green and Hounslow, the horse took fright, and ran
off at a furious rate. Mr. Chapman, in order to avoid
the danger, jumped out of the gig, and such was the
violence of the fall, that he unfortunately broke both
his legs: he was taken up, and immediately conveyed to
St. George's Hospital. Mr. Whitehead escaped unhurt.
Pustic Cnaatrtas.—As we expected, the commu-
nity is likely to derive a material benefit from the in-
quiries now in progress into the state of charitable
foundations, many of which had fallen into decay, more
from the inattention than the direct cupidity or mal-
versation of trustees: An instance of this is afforded
by Trounan's school, Bunhill-row, which, though hand-
somely ended as a free school of popular instruction,,
and situated in one of the most populous precincts In
the metropolis, had at the period of inquiry by the
Royal Commissioners only twelve scholars. The at-
tention of the Haberdashers' Company, who are go.
vernors of the charity, being called to the neglected
condition of this well meant endowment by the state.
Bents in the abridged reports of the Commissioners
now in course of publication, a Committee was appointed
to inquire into the management of the school, and
measures have been subsequently adopted to restore it
to real usefulness and efficiency. The Company are
also actively engaged in a general inquiry into the state
and management of the nuattellollitatitable donations
under their controul,