Star.
London, England, 1821-12-18 00:00:00

LADY INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. DECEMBER 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice to the Bar,
that he would not sit after neat Saturday.
PARKINSON'S LUNACY.
Mr. HEALD applied to the Court to suspend the
new Commission of Lunacy which was about to issue
tgainst Mr. Parkinson, a Gentleman of Lancaster.—
The Learned Counsel said, he was convinced his
Lordship would not think Mr. Parkinson a fit object
for a Commission of Lunacy :—the fact was, he was
subject to a nervous agitation, which bad been greatly
increased by the issuing of the last Commission, on
which the return had beep uniatisfactory to his Lord-
ship. Every advantage tnight.be hoped for from a
little delay before the granting a new Commission,
which was at the instance of some of Mr. Parkinson's
pretended fiiends.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he would pearl the
affidavits himself in the course oldie evening.
Mr. HEAL° observed, that it would depend entirely
upon the affidavits whether this was or was not a case
in which a Commission should issue.
Mr. HAnr remarked, that the pretended friends,
alluded to by Mr. Heald, were Mr. Parkinson's sisters,
with whom he bad lived on terms of the strictest
friendship all his We.
Mr. Hsau) said, this Gentleman had married, ar.d
his wife being in the family way, his sisters asked his
Lordship to put an end to the marriage, in order that
instead's)/ his children hating the property, they (the
sisters) might have it.
The Lou CHANCELLOR desired to have all the ne-
cessary documents laid before hint for consideration.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. DECEMBER U.
THE KING V. GEORGE PATRICK DUNN.
This was an indictment against the defendant for
wilful and corrupt perjury alleged to have been com-
mine,' before an Election Committee of the House of
Commons, touching the validity of a return for Mem-
bers to serve in radian-Lent for the Borough of St.
Ives, in the county of Cornwall.
At the Election for the Borough of St. Ives, in i
March, 1820, Mr. James Robert Graham, Mr. Eve-1
iyn, and Sir Walter Stirling, were the Candidates,'
and the Election having been declared in favour of,
the first two Gentlemen, Sir Walter Stirling peti-
tioned against the return, alleging, that the successful
candidates were guilty of bribery and corruption.—
The petition being referred to a Select Committee to
try the merits thereof; the defendant, who was stated
to be a Gentleman who had served in South Ame-
rica against the troops of Old Spain, and had been
active in the canvas of the Borough, was examined,
as a witness in support of the allegations of the pe-
tition. It was alleged, that on that occasion he had
falsely deposed that a Professional Gentleman, named
liaise, who acted as agent fin• the successfitl Candi-
dates, had in his address to the Electors collectively,
and in the course of the canvas, stated to some of
them individually, That they bad better make up
their min& and vote in favour of Mr. Evelyn and
Mr. Graham, for if not, they would got Nothing by.,
the votes they were to give." Upon this, and outer'
statements of the like kind, the alleged perjury of the'
defendant was ataigned.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evi-
dence; and the Jury, after a short consultation, found
the defendant Guilty. It was past twelve o'clock
'when the verdict was delivered.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 27.
LUCKCOCK AND ANOTHER v. BLACKBURN.

Mr. Serjeant Latas stated the case to the Jury.l
This was an action on a policy of, insurance effected
on the ship Oroonoko, from Bengal to England. A
memorandum had, after the making of the policy,
been indorsed on that instrument, by which the ship
was permitted to call at Rio de Janeiro, in her way
home. A total loss had happened, and for that the

plaintiffs now sought to recover.
• Mr. Serjeant TARDY objected that the policy of '
insurance having been effected on the 27th of Jane,
MO, and the memorandum not having been added 1
until the 13th of November in the same year, the in-
strument should have had a new stamp, the more
especially so as the course of the voyage had been
materially altered by the memorandum.
Lord Chief Justice DALLas said he would reserve
the point for the future consideration of the Court.
Captain Richard Strickland had been Captain of
the vessel on the voyage in question. The ship ar-
rived at Rio Janeiro near the latter end of August,
1820. He experienced very heavy weather during
the voyage, such as would have strained any vessel
The leak increased, but not so much as to cause any
alarm. At Rio, part of her copper was stripped off,
and she was caulked. He staid there nearly two'
months; the ship caulked very sound, but he did not'
examine the timbers; left Rio on the 4th of Novem-
ber; took & Mud e cargo of sugar, cotton, and
coffee, principally coffee. On the second day after
leaving Rio, again met with bad weather, which
continued for about twenty-four hours then better
weather for a day or two, when it again became worse,
and continued so for two days. Off Cape Frejo
there was a current, which was dangerous in such
weather. The leak in the vessel still increased ; they
then had moderate weather until the 11th December,
when he experienced a very high sea from the north-
east. Ship's leak increased much in consequence of
this weather, which strained her considerably. He

then here nt. rt.r 74.:arynant, which he reached elsout
the .26th of December. He called a .survey of the
ship, and applied to the British Consul, who is. also
an agent of Lloyd's. She underwent three surveys;
found no planks unsound in any part of the ship, ex-
cept abaft fore-chains, on the starboard side of the
paint.streak, which was nearly eight or ten feet above
the water ; that part was taken out:
Ooss-examined.—The surveyors recommended she
should be hove down and careened. Her tinabers,
were in such a state that she was not seaworthy. She
might, perhaps, have been brought home, if the cargo
had been left at Marynam.
Re-examined.—There was great difficulty in heav-:
ing down such a ship, and there were no conveniencies
for doing so at Marynam.
By one of the Jurors.— She might probably have'
been brought home in ballast, without repairs.
William Hooper, second mate of the vessel, thought
her perfectly seaworthy when she sailed from England.
Captain 'l'oug was at Marynam when the'
vessel arrived there ; he was one of the surveyors ; if
there had been sufficient timber at Marynam, se'
might have been repaired, but he believed there was
not a sufficiency of timber, and sbecould not behove;
down withunt it. Under all the circumstances, if Orel
had been the master of the vessel, he would have sold
her at Marynam.
Gilbert Mitchell, the Surveyor employed by Lloyd's''
at Liverpool, had surveyed the vessel in 1818, when ,
be thought she deserved the first character..
Mr.WilliAin Walker, Lloyd's Surveyor in London,
gave evidence to the same effect.
Mr. T. 11. Hawkes examined the ship in Novem-
ber, 1818; she was then about to take troops from
Cork to St. Helena; he bored her in several parts,
and found her perfectly sound; lie returned her as
being fit for theservice.
Several other witnesses proved the sound state of
the vessel before 1818. •
Mr. Serjeant V A UGII Aw, for the defendant,, con-
tended that the Jury could not be satisfied even on
the plaintiff's evidence, that the vessel was in a sea-
worthy state. He should be able to prove that she
could have been completely repaired at Marynam,
and that the imagined want of timber was an expe-
dient resorted to for propping an unsound case.
Two letters cf the Captain were put in, which
proved that he expected the vessel must ,undergo a
complete repair before she could sail for England.
These letters were dated from Rio Janeiro.
Captain Daniel Wilmot had been seven voyages to
Marynam, he had himself repaired two ships there,
and had seen a sloop of war repaired there.
Mr. Serjeant Laws replied.
Lord Chief Justice DAJLLAS observed, that the
question was first, whether the ship was seaworthy or
not when she sailed from Bombay ; and, secondly,
whether, if she were, and the injury which she suf-
fered had subsequently occurred, the Captain had any
right to sell her at Marynam ?
The Jury consulted together for about five minutes,
and then returned a verdict for the defendant, de-
elating it as their opinion, that the ship was not in a
seaworthy state when she left BengaL

OT.D DAILEY SESSIONS.
Yesterday, Henry ttm was put to the bar, on an
indictment charging him with feloniously taking from
the till of his master, Mr. Samuel Prestwidge, grocer,
of Drury-lane, a half-crown piece.
The prosecutor stated, that having had reason to
inspect the honesty of the prisoner, he had directed
a Gentleman who occasionally assisted him, named
Taylor, to watch his conduct, and on the 16th of,
November he left his house, in company with his wife,
to spend the evening with a friend. Three half-crowns
were privately marked, one of which was afterwards
found upon the prisoner.
The prisoner made no defence, and the RECORDER
put it to the Jury, whether there was any necessity
to sum up the evidence ? They did not think it neces-
sary, and immediately found the prisoner—Gailly.
John Doran, a hoary thief, was indicted for steal-
ing £l2, the property of a poor widow named Eli-
zabeth Hindes.
The prosecutris said, the was an itinerant dealer
in tin-wares, and on the 3d of November she was at
the Star public-house, in Wentworth-street, White-
chapel, and happening to take out her purse to pay,
for her refreshment, she laid it in the window behind
her, but kept her hand upon it. The purse contained
the whole of her little savings, consisting of six sove-
reigns and £6 in silver. The prisoner,who was among
the company, pushed against her, and removing her
hand from the purse, snatched it up and ran away.
She gave an alarm, but the prisoner escaped, and, on
her applying to the landlord, whose name is Service,
he bade her hold her tongue, and he would make up
the whole, or greater part of her money, by the nest'
Monday morning, if she would refrain from making
any complaint before the Magistrate. He failed to
perform his promise, and put her off from time to,
time, and at length offered her two sovereigns, which
she declined accepting.
It was further proved that the prisoner, when ap-
prehended some time after, mid, " he supposed it was
for shat Star job;" and that the publican knew where
he was to be found, having publicly declared that he
saw him in a public-house in Long-alley.
Mr. Service, the landlord of the Star, was then
called, and he swore that the prosecutrix, when she
first missed her purse, declared she had lost £4O, but
afterward% admitted hat it was only £l2. He added,
that she swore the same before the Magistrate.
The prisoner in his defence said, the prosecutrix
swore before the Magistrate, first, that it was £4O, and
afterwards that it was £l2 only.
At the desire of the [twosome, the deposition of
Mrs. Hindes before the Magistrates was read over ;
it corresponded in every particular with the state-
ment she had given to-day.
The Jury Cowin' the prisoner—Guilty.
The Officer said, the prisoner was one of the worst
lharacters even in that infamous neighbourhood; and
the RECORDER desired him to inform the Licensing
Magistrates of the district of the conduct of Mr. Sep-
vice in this Court to-day.
Marry was indicted for obtaining from Mar-
garet Bolton the Sum of £3, under preteoceof letting
her house, in the neighbourhood of Battle-bridge.—
The prisoner was found Guilty,
John Smith, a very respectable-looking man, about
40 years of age, was indicted for stealing a quantity
of lead fixed to * building. the property of Thomas
Haworth. The lead, about 5001bs. in quantity, was
traced' to the prisoner's house. It seemed to have

been newly cut, and matched with that which was
left on the dwelling-house of Mr. laworth. There
was, however, no proof that the prorerty was actu-
ally-stolen by the prisoner, and the Jury accordingly
acquitted him.
The COMMON Srltaadorr regretted that the indict-
ment had not been differently framed. If it had been
for receiving, instead of stealing, there would have
been evidence to convict,