Star.
London, England, 1829-01-27 00:00:00

POETRY.

* YOUNG CHARLIE IS COME," ec.
Young Charlie is come, he is now is the Highlands,
Then haste to his standard, and welcome him
Welcome him Highlands, and welcome him Load mil,
Since Charlie has come his ain kingdom to claim!
0! haste to the mountains of green Intergary,
Where Scotland's old banner is waving again ;

And there you will meet with Locbiel and Glengary,
For Charlie has come his ain kingdom to gaini
Let Scotland remember the days of her glory,
When a Prince of her ain did in !Limed reign;
Then wipe off the blot from the page of her story,
Since (Indic has come his ain kingdom to gain !
Charlie Is young, be 's the pride of the Highlands—
Charlie is brave, and all hearts are his sin ;
Then haste to his standard ye Highlands and Lowlands,
Since Charlie bas come his sin kingdom to gain !

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jam es.
Bittinp In Banco before the three Pulane Judges.
RR PARTS !MUSTIER.
Mr. CasseseLt. showed case against a rule obtained
by Mr. Tallow d, for a writ of certiorari, to bring into
this Court the record of a conviction against a person
of the name of Sylvester, for the purpose of its being
gnashed. The conviction had been made by a Magis-
trate of the county of Osford. It appeared that Syl-
vester was the servant of a gentleman of the name of
Leigh, who, being qualified, had gone out in the put.-
sut of game, and taken Sylvester with him, and the
latter having a gun, by his master's orders, fired at, and
killed some partridges. The Magistrate, under these
circumstances, hid convicted Sylvester of shooting
without a certificate, and the Learned Counsel now sub-
mitted that the conviction was right.
Mr. TA Lvoultu, in support of the rule, argued that
the act was that of the master, and not of the set vent.
The COURT, however. was of epinion that the con-
siction was right. In firing the gun the instrumetit
was.actu4lly used, and the skill employed by the scr-
awl; and it it were held that the act was that of the
• master, a servant, under the sanction of his master's
qualification and cettificate, would be at liberty to shoot.
—Rule dischatged;
Lord TIRTV.RORN did not take his seat till half-past
eleven o'clock. Hi. Lordship appeared to be labour-
ing under indispo4i ion.
Before the Four Judges.
TUE KING V. REOAWAY.
Sir J. Scat itti.t re moved for a rule nisi for a new trial
in this caste, which was tried at the sittings in Middlesex
after Michaelmas Term. It was an lathe' ment for per-
- jury its an affidavit made by the defendant, an attorney,
in the Court of Common Pleas. The facts of the case
as they appeared on the trial were these—ln October,
18'26, tie defendant was employed to defend for the
protecutnt, JAvn Alexander M'Laren, an action which
had been toolight against him as a stakeholder, by
Reuben Molt t tn. the pugilist, to recover the amount of a
deTosit of 501. on a bet made on a walking match.—
The drf.ndant put in bail for M'Laren, who had heap
recommended to him by a cite! t of the name of Hem)
Ilanhury, and took some other steps in the action, bu,
Raving sul)serpicntly given dissatisfaction to the patties,
• they re.olved ces taking the business out of his hands.
Hanhury .cco dinghy procured a Judge's rude' for the
de ivory of the clefendatit's bill of costs on him for busi-
ness previously done on his acccunt. and the defendant
then made out a hill amounting to between 501. and 604
in which he included the charges for defending M'Laren
in the action at the suit of Mai tin. Hanbury objected to
the payment of those charges (amounting to 91. Os- 4 I);
an .I,lm tax ati-n Of the bill, they v ere disallowed, or. the
ground that Nl'Laren, and not Hanbury, was liable to
them. M'Laren, then procured a Judge's summons
fir the delivery of the defendant's bill on him. The
. defendant opposed t!e summons, and stated to the
Judge, that Hanbury had employed him in M'Larets'sl
- business, and had made himself liable to pay the costs.
Upon this statement, which was corroborated by the
defendant's clef k, Walter Tyler, the Judge refused to
make any order. M'l.tren then applied to the Court
of Common Pleas, on affidavits made by himself and
Hanbury, stating that he (M'Laten), and not Hanbuty,
employed the difendaht in the action, at the suit of
Martin; and that Hanbuty had never undertaken, cs in
any way made him.ell liable, to pay the c. sts. The
Court, upon these affidavits, granted a rule nisi, for the
delivery of the defendant's bill of costs on M'Laren.
The defendant. in showing cause against the rule, made
at. affidavit, in which he swore positively that he had
been employed originally by Hanbury, and that Hart.
bury had desired hint to defend the action at his (flan-
. bury's) wan risk and expense, stating that he :Jour ua-
interested in it. Upon this affidavit, in wh,ch the deo k
( Eyler) joined and sopp, eyed the defendant's statement,
the Coon of Common Pleas discharged the rule fur
the delivery nt a bill to M'Laren, who was ordered to
pay tt.e costs of his unsuccessful application to the
Court. The alleged pt !jury was assigned upon the al-
- legatto-s in the defendant's affidavit ; and in support
of the indictm nt, prnsecnt-r, M'Laren, Hanlon y,
and a person of the name 111 Fut man, were examined
at the trial. Tr.c. f 'inter sw, re positively that he em-
ployed the'cletetidarit, being recommended to him by
Hanhur), and th-t Hanbuty accompanied hint to the
defendant's tharritNers, on his nrst interview, trellieb took
place on a Sunday in October. M'Larers'a .testimony
*as confirmed by that of Hanbury and Vurtnian. Far
the defendant several witnesses wcre called, and among
them was the defendlant's clerk (Tyler), whO contra-
dicted the evidence of the v itnesses for the prosi cotton,
and confirmed the statement made by the defendant in
his affidavit. The defendant, however, was found guilty.
The Learned Counsel now produced affidavits, showing
that all the witnesses had been mistaken in the dates to'
which they swore, and argued that in consequence of
such mi,talte on the part of the clerk, Tiler, due effect
bad not been given to his testimony. He alsocallesi
the attention a the Court to some discrepancies and in-
consist envies in the evidence for 'the prosecution, and
submitted,.that under all the circumstance: the ca-e
''ought to undergo further inquiiy.—ltult nisi granted.
COTTON V. JAMES.
Mr. F. FoLLocx moved for a rule to show cause

why a flew trial should not be had in this case, the par-
ticulars of which we reported on the 19th inst. The
-Asiction was in trespass for tl a illegal seizure of the
plaintiffs goods. The defendant had pleaded that the
plaintiff had been adjudged a bankrupt, and that the
seizure was wade under the authority of a warrant of
the Commissioners of Bankrupt. To prove the act of
bankruptcy, evidence was given that a number of win-
dinv sass es and a quantity of lead and other material.
were removed froni the plaintiff's premises by the au-
•tli rits of the plaintiff's son; andthis,-it was contended
on ti.e pail of the detendrin, constituted an act of bank
roptcy. being 44 af. audideOt delivery or transfer with
defeat or delay creditors" within the meaning

intent i