Star.
London, England, 1810-07-07 00:00:00

EAST INDIES.

BENGAL INTELLIGENCE, DEC. loM.

It is stated in a Supplement to the last Mirror,
Oti
the authority of letters from Hydrabad, that Meer
Khan's force, on the Nerbuddah, has been defeated
in an action with the troops of the Rajah of Berar,
and pursued beyond Gabulpere, in Gurrah Muncle.
lab. Meer Khan himself, it is added, was wounded
in the engagement. This intelligence, if correct, is
calculated to impress a very contemptuous opinion
lof the strength and efficacy of the force collected by
the Mahratta Chieftain. Ever since Sir Arthur Wel.
lesley's campaign in the Deccan, the Bhoonslah has
been considered as the weakest military power in
Hindoostan. Not two years ago, the inroads of the
bands of Pendarries, from the Nerbuddah, were sufli.
cient to throw the City of Nagpere itself into conster-
nation.

Accounts from the Deccan state, that Colonel Close
had joined the detachment at Jaulna, and pushed on in
the direction of Omrattee, 38 miles south of Elea:-
poor, where the army was to assemble, and where a
powerful reinforcement was expected from Hydrabad.
By crossing the Nerbuddah. at Gurrah Mundelah,
Meer Khan had placed himself nearer to the frontier
of Bundlecund. Intelligence, therefore, of the pro.
gress of the campaign may be expected from that
side.

Lord Minto was not expected to leave Madras be-
fore the latter end of February.

A detachment of his Majesty's 14th font, com-
manded by Lieutenant Rawlins, with a detachment
of European artillery, under Captain Shaw, sailed
from Bengal for Bencoolen the latter end of Decent-
ber, to reinforce that Settlement.

LAW INI ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 6.
iiAIF.AS CORPUS.

A child was introduced by writ of Habeas Cot..
pus, to be delivered to the father, under peculiar cir-
cumstances respecting the mother. The mother
making no resistance to the writ, the child was or.
tiered into the care of the father ; but it was under-
stood that he sliould give an indemnity for its pro.
tection and safety.
rile Court sat to hear cases at law; but they were
wholly unimportant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 6.
ANNESLLY V. CROOKS.

The plaintiff, an Attorney, sought a compensation
for damage done to his furniture, while it remained
in the possession of the defendant, who is an Auc-
tioneer in the City.
It appeared that the property in question, which
consisted of a Brussels carpet, mahogany chain, and
other articles, had been sent from Thavies Inn to the
defendant's warehouse for preservation. When the
furniture was returned to the plaintiff at his house is
York Buildings, the carpet appeared to be much da.
maged. The chairs were also injured: It was snit.
gested by Mr. Scrjeant SUSPHERD, that the chairs had
been damaged by the feet of several persons, who had
waited on Mr. Crooke at his warehouse, to cavgra.
'taste him, after he had stood at an election for Cim-
mon Council of the Ward. The visitors were enter-
tained on the occasion with a cold collation, and in
the pressure and hurry of the meeting, the chairs had
suffered.

Mr. Serjeant OssLow was on the point of addres-
sing the Jury for the defendant, when the Learned
Judge threw out a hint to settle the cats' more to the
advantage of the parties, in consequence of which at
Juror was withdrawn:

The other proceedings were not important.

COURT OE EXCHEQUER, JULY O.

I'HZ MISCH OF WALLS V. sift JOHN ST. AUBIN AND

OTU ER!.

This case, which we have already detailed, and
which related to the riht of soil in the Duchy of
Cornwall, came on to be` further heard. Sir Sauces.
Romit.tY appeared on behalf of the interests of his
Yoyal Highness, and urged the same arguments al.
ready advanced by the Solicitor General and Sir At.
thur Pigott. The reply of Mr. Dallas, on the other
side, was postponed till Tuesday nest.

LONDONSTSSIONS, GUILDHALL, JULY 6.

HARTLILT V. TH WEST INDIA, AND LONDON DOCK

COUPANIVi.

Mr. Guftwrr, in the absence of Mr. Serjeant BIST,
who should have conducted the plaintiff's cause,
stated this to be an action to recover a compensation
in damages, for deterioration of certain premises be-
longing to the plaintiff, and for loss of trade occa•
sioned by the erection of the West India and London
Docks. The plaintiff is a 'Wharfinger, near Free-
man's-Line ; and it appeared had obtained a lease of
his wharf, for 99 years, in 1793. He had gone on
improving his premises till ,1797, until he had ex-
pended upwards of £12,000 on them ; and at that
time his average profits were 01600 per annum.—
After the erection of the Docks, however, his an-
nual profits decreased at least 47112. To prove the
value of the premises several Surveyors were called,
who stated it to be £1330 per annum, before the
erection of the Docks, but pow worth not above ,0800
a year. One of them also proved, that the plaintiff
had expended upwards of £lO,OOO in improvements
on his wharf. Accounts were also produced to shew
his loss of trade.

Mr. GAnitow, for the defendants, addressed the
Jury in mitigation of damages ; and after about half
an hour's aluence, the Jury returned a ♦erdict for the
plaintiff—for deterioration of premises, loss of trades
and interest, the gross sum of g952$ 161.

A Coroner's Inquest sat on Tuesday at the King's
Head, on the road from Mitcham to Colnbrook, 00

the body of a Mr. Watts, who was shot in a duel on
itew Heath. The deceased was conveyed to the.
King's Head from the Heath, in a wounded state, at
fly G o'clock in the morning, and he died in the course
ok the day. The two strangers Bed at the death of
the Gotleman, and sent a letter to the landlord in-
forming hins who the deceased was. The cause of
the duel was not known, nor the opposite party. The
wound was in the head, and the Jury returned a ver•
diet 0f....1reN1 Murder.