Star.
London, England, 1818-06-18 00:00:00

,_

THE. LILY OF THE VALLEY.'

'Pairinedat liswer, glee sinned pare*
Whomsweass all ether sweetened.
Oft lave I sought thee M the shelder
And waseled dry slowly epode( Wilt
•-• ' 'la lib's.fakalen.s Vr)hea Magi
And dlillei tibet I"! le be PP-
Pale *Weir] TOM Mee afar eafbreast,
Aad threw the Madan( rose away!
Tst Nees me loaned that did guide
My What dodos, and awe lay sews;
. the rose was sleds with pride,
Middles aeglected and federal
May pity ever thus prevail,
AM soMy dl say soul India*
To listen to the pldadve tale,
Lad make the same et sorrow Mae!'
And wise two Mldottane sink
'Death cruel Prides Mande rail,
Ili rain its dreepbg heed, and think
On thee, sweet Lilly of the vale!
• • LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF LINO'S BENCH, JUNE Id.
' WI/PAL V. LANOLOW.
The parties were attornies, carrying on business
in Grays Inn : the action was for assault and ba
Mr. Toreuto stated, that the plaintiff had beesstterij.
Years in the profession, and had always been coot'
dined a man of a most regular and peaceable
racte,r, never before having appeared in Court, ex-
cepting for his clients. The outrage was of the
grossest kind, and was committed under the follow-
ing circumstances plaintiff and defindant were
engaged as attornies to two partners, who were jointly
defending an action, and it became necessary that
the plaintiff should have an interview with the defen-
dant, and a request was sent for that purpose.-a-
When the Plaintiff came to the chambers of the De-
fendant, for some unexplained reason, the latter put
himself into a great passion, and qrdered the former
to quit the room. Mr. Aspinal made some objection,
and a friend of the name of Willoboys remonstrated,
but without effect ; and Mr. Langlow, with the ut-
most impetuosity, rose from his seat, seized Mr. As-
phial by the collar, acid with all his force thrust him
out of the room, -shutting the door afterwards with
the utmost violence. Some time elapsed before the
plaintiff could procure his hat, but Mr. Langlow
thought fit to be more moderate in his conduct to-
wards Mr. Willoboys, as be was a much stronger
man than the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel rub-
mined that his client was entitled to considerable
daniages for this most unprovoked assault.
The witnesses were then called to support the cue
of the plaintiff; and Lord Eszasisoaoucm recom-
mended a reference, observing upon the singularity,
that two attornies, not on opposite sides, but on the
same side of a cause, should have such a violent dis-
prate : his Lordship asked if the defendant were in
liquor? but the witness answered in the negative,
though he had never seen a sober man so miscon-,
duct-himself before s he shut the door with such vio-
lence, after having thrust out the plaintiff by the col-
lar, that had his hand caught against the door-post,
it would have been severed from his body.
Mr. MARRYAT, on the other side, said, that it was
quite impossible to believe that no provocation had
been given, and he called a witness who swore that,
as clerk to the defendant, he was in the room when
the plaintiff called. The plaintiff had insisted on
le wing the room, but the defendant said he should
not, telling the plaintiff that he might if he chOse,
skewing min the door, and at the same time taking
him gently by the hand and leading him nut.
Lord Eta.atmoitooon left it to the Jury to say,
whether this was the courtesy due from one gentle-
man to another ?—The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 40s. Costs 40s.
- CASE OF SLANDER.
THE WHITE HORSE V. THE WHITE-HART.
Mr. SCARLETr stated this case to the Jury. He ob-
served, that the present dispute fully verified the old
proverb, m. That two ofa trade can never agree." The
plaintiff in this case had for a considerable time kept
the White Horse public-house, in Pontipoel-lane and
the defendant kept the White Hart, immediately en
the opposite side of the same street. The plaintiff
had for a long time enjoyed a good run of business,
and sold an average of about six butts of beer per
month, and to the amount of SOL of spirits. This
was a very good run of tattiness fee such a neigh-
bourhood as that where the house was situated.—
The plaintiff wishing. to let his house had a valuation
made, from which it appeared that it was worth
£3OO. The plaMtiff, however, wishing to dispose of
it immediately, offered to let it go for £250, and ac-
cordingly several persons applied about it. The de-
fendant hearing this, circulated various repasts to the
plaintiff's prejudice; he said, the White Horse was a
house of ill fame, that he would forfeit 000 if the
plaintiff sold so much as a butt and a half of beer, or
more than £lO worth of spirits per month, that seve-
ral persons had been successively ruined in it. Several
persons who were about taking the house, gave it up
as soon as they heard these reports, and the conse-
quence was, that it remained on the plaintiff's hands
to this day. It was for the slander so given, and the
malicious motive which dictated it, that the present
action was brought.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call evi-
dence, and called over the names of several persons,
none of whom however appeared. At length John
smart appeared.
Mr. Scaimarr—" Well, Mr. Smart, where are the other wit-
nesses r
Mr. lissart—" I really do not know, Sir; I was summoned
here on the part of the defendant."
Mr. SCAILLITT-0 Oh, you were, were you? then Mr. Smart
you te::1 not do for us."
Lord Fceresoaoutin--" I think, Mr. Szartett, your witnesses
are all gone to amuse themselves at the other public-house."
Mr. SCARLItrT-4` I tear they are, my Lord ; and I really
cannot go any further without them."
Mr. Ouluctr—s, My Lord, I have no objection to the record
being withdrawn, and I hope my Learned Friend is tco wise
to think of coming here again on this subject."
The record was accordingly withdrawn.
allfE 17.—WOOD V. THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX.
This was an action brought upon an alleged faled
return by the Sheriffs Officer, to a writ for the arrest
and custody of a defendant, in vitals ram he
stated, that he did arrest the defendant, and had
him hi custody, but had afterwards suffered him to

go at lase, by order of .the plaintiff. The writ was
at the suit of this plaintiff, who is a tmlov, against a
?L'Pil, or die 4th Polish human, for wear-
ingarpo V furnished to his‘t. at an betel in Bond-
street, and for the mow of which the defendant
gave wtheck upon.' Buhr is the City, where pay-
ment was refined, and all hawk/dr of the drawer
disc{. In consprati of which a writ was is-
sned!Tot Ills arrest, winch writ was executed by the
Officer and hie nesistant in the resesseet
upon the dam, erhoni litiy masa lodging at s
tavern eined -the o.r- /ad P. S. in Russell-court,
Drury-lane. It appeased in evidence, that when the.
Sherifsnlinerii went to arrest this Gentleman, they,

found:him is bed, up two pair of stairs, at thel
above nanwsLbit-m a very dangerous gate,
the elute alai Mince ands 'half oT laudanum

he had takes with a purpose of self-destruction, in
c oldest meat of his affairs;
and the plairidlE- who was present, saw the la-
ment.* state in which the unfortunate Gentle Man
was, he declared, that if he had .known of the cir-
cumstances, he would net have had the writ etecuted
for double the amount ; and he desired the Officer to
withdraw from_the place, which the seer thought
a suffident authority for abandoning his caption, and
in consequence made his return upon the writ.
It erar contended by Mr. hLten.W, on the
tir e pert, that although the caption was abandoned
for dent time,' as the ?arty was in a state unfit to be
SerAOPedlo ajail ; yet he afterwards was convalei-
cent, and at large in public, and Might have beesar-
rasted by the Officer; but he wain sulked wholly to
escape, and the plaintiff knew not where to find him,
and therefore brought his action against the Sheriff,
on account of the gross negligence by which the
debtor was suffered to escape. •
-Mr. TOPPING, on the other side, contended, that
the debtor was not at large, nor in a Et state of con-
valescence for removal, until after the return of the
writ. That therefore the plaintit at whose desire
be Was discharged in the first instance, if he wished
to proceed further, ought to have issued a new pro-
cess, the first having bete esecuted, and the caption
abandoned at his own desire ; for the Officer had
done his duty.
Lord tLLENSOROUGH was of the same opinion;
the Officer had done hil duty under the first warrant,
and the prisoner was discharged from custody at the
plaintiff's own desire, which Was 'certainly much to
the credit of his humanity. Bat when he once threw.
open the cage door, and set the bird at liberty, there
was au end of the caption, under that warrant ; and
if the plaintiff repented of his-,benevolence, and
wished to renew his snit, he to have issued a
fresh process.—Plaintiff
BOOTH Si. MIATLX.
This was an action brougin by Mr. Junius Brutus
Booth, one of the perfirmers of Covent-garden
Theatre, to ree,over from Mr. Manl , the Manager
of an Itinerant Company of Its, perforTulg
'pro tempere at Stamford, reytu.keirittion for two nights
performance at the Theatre 4th that town, for which
he had engaged Mr. Booth; but on. Mr. Booth's ar-
rival there he would not 'offer hint to fulfil the en-
gagement; and afterwards refused him any compen-
sation for the breach of agfeenient, or the fatigue
and expenses of his josirnir. .
Mr. ADOLPHUS, who stated the case for the plain.
tiff, represented to the Court and -Jury, that in con-
sequence of the celebrity obtained by his client on
the London-boards, Mr. Mealy, desireus to increase
the popularity of his Theatre, and treat his auditory
with a dish of novelty from the metropolis, wrote a
friendly letter to Mr. Booth,' for the purpose of in
ducing him to come'doWn and perform two nights,
if practicable, consistently:with his engagements at
Covent-Garden. This letter, dated the 7th of March,
and couched in very laconic and eccentric twins, told
Mr. Booth the Manager's wish to epgige him for two
nights, if Fe could make it convenient to come—that
this was the fair time, the to vn Theatre
crowded every night; and no stareer--aud offering
him his choice of either twenty guineas for two nights,
or to share profits, after deducting £lO a night for
house expenses, which might make from £3O to £35,
or sr they bite (meaning the public) to play lago, Sir
Giles, or Richard ; to make his decision promptly—
land if that should be aye, to wrap it up in a letter,
and send it down by return of coach, concluding—
" But for my love, I pray abuse me not." Mr. Booth,
without delay, made his arrangements to go down,
and answeril by the night's post " he would go down."
But finding all the inside places in that night's coach
pre-engaged, and not caring to risk his health. by a
night passage entside, deferred his journey, until
Monday morning, the coach being secure of reach-
ing Stamford by seven on that ever.ing, being one of
the two on which he was to perform ; and he wrote
another letter to Mr. Manly on the Sunday night,
which he pinned to the way-bill of the coach, stating
his disap t of a place that night, but saying
he woul ut next morning, and arrive at seven
in their-sling, agreeing to play lago or air Giles
Overreach—and adding, that when he canoe down,
they could talk further about Richard..ea propos-
ing, 'that on the first night, Mr. Manly should per-
form the farce first, to keep the autlieuce in temper,
as he would be there at seven, intim to actin the play.
On Mr. Booth's arrival, however, he found his name
had not been announced in the Play-bills, and that
he could not perform on that night. On his attend-
ing next day, he was told he could not' perform on
that night. His engagement in London could not
admit of his remaining at Stamford for two other
nights, unless Mr. Manly would agree to indemnify
him tor any loss he should sustain, in consequence,
at Covent Garden. This Mr. Manly declined ; and
Mr. Booth came away without performing, or re-
ceiving any remuneration for his trouble miexpense.
But, as the Learned Counsel stated, the die cause
of Mr. Manly's declining the services of Mr, Booth
was, that subsequent to his letter to engnge the latter
'for the two nights, the Marqtds of Exeter had arriv-
ed at Stamford, bespoke a May of the Manager, dif-
ferent from that intended, and promised to occupy
the fashionable part of the house with his fashionable
friends; and this attractive. pompously
announced in the bills, promisedd to skim the cream
of popular curiosity for the Manager, who foresaw
that aftemards he could only expect an audience of
Isop-squeezers ; and, therefore, instead of sharing, as
he ought, the casual advaptage with Mr. Booth, be
m.gzit fit to break his engagement, and leave the
plaintiff to lament his reliance upon the honour of
:the Manager. A. Booth afterwards wrote him a

letter to request a liquidation of his claim, in an aver
to which he received a letter, not only reluing any
compatsation, but couched in the most wounding
terms of defiance, sarcasm and insult. He thereforC
hoped the Court would recommend to the Jury a
verdict in favour of his client.
One witness proved the hand writing of Mr. Manly,
to the letters.
Lord Ettetmonouott, however, was of opinion,
that as Mr. Manly had stipulated in his proposal
that Mr. Booth should come down in time for all
arrangements necessary to his performance of the
parts mentioned, lago, Sir Giles Overreach, and Ri-
chard, on the two nights mentioned, namely, the 9th
'and 10th of March ; and that as Mr. Boothlad so
arranged matters as not to be there until seven in
the evening of the first night, and as he agreed only
Ito the performance of the two first mentioned cha-
ractess, and referred the part of Richard for subse-
quent consideration, he had not closed with the pre-
asotrems of the bargain proposed by Mr. Manly;
Ire could not, therefore, hold the defendant to those
precise terms. Had he been a man of the world, be
would have waited Mr. Manly's answer by return of
to his own modification of the bargain ; but
haring objected to the precise terms of Mr. Manly's
letter, he could not hold the latter to the engage-
ntent. His Lordship was sorry that the plaintiff, by
this error, slyuld have lost his claim to compensa-
Lisp, which was certainly a hardship ; but his Lord-
;hip asked the plaintiff's Counsel if he had any ob-
jection to withdraw a Juror?
Mr. MARIITAT, on the part of the plaintiff; readily
assented, which has left each party to their respective
costs, and Mr. Booth to his reliance on the honour
of Mr. Manly.

OLD DAILEY.

Yesterday the Sessions commenced, before Mr.
Justice PARE and Mr. Justice Assorr. There are

200 prisoners for trial.
Williams Henry Howard, commonly called the
Sprig of Fashion, stood indicted for feloniously forg-
ing, oh the 19th of April, a certain order for the
payment of £lO, with intent to defraud John George
'Draper. The prosecutor stated he was waiter at the
Key, in Chandos-street, Covent-garden ; it was an
Hotel. On the night of the 18th of April, the priso-
ner and another man, and two women, came to the
Key ; after they had taken refreshment, &c. the
other person, in the presence of the prisoner, offered
witness a cheque of £lO, and he objected to it. The
prisoner said, he need not be afraid, and wished it
wai for £lOOO instead of £lO. They had supper,
and desired to have breakfast at seven o'clock in the
morning, saying, they belonged to the Guards, and
had to be on duty at the Horse Guards early. Wit-
ness did not see the cheque in the prisoner's hand.—
On the following morning the other person gave his
name and address, " Captain Armstrong, Clarendon
Hotel, Bond-street," and he-gave him the change.
The porter a; the Key said, the last witness put
the cheque produced into his hands, and told him to
take it to Sir John Lubbock and Co. Mansion House-
street, which he did, and it was refused payment.

. .
Mr. Justice PARK observed, that there was no evi-
dence of the forgery ; the instrument might be a
valid one ; but the Bankers' clerks behaved very im-
proparly, in not coming forward to give their evi-
dence,—Not Guilty.
The prisoner was again indicted for feloniously
forging and'utteripg a certain order for the payment
of five pounds five shillings, with intent to defraud
Elizabeth Hunt. -

The prosecutrix keeps the Crown and Anchor
wine-vaults in King-street, Westminster. This wit-
ness could not speak to the fact, and the witnesses
who could were absent ; they were called, but did
not appear. The prisoner was consequently acquitted.
Mr. Justice PARK addressed him as follows :
"-Young man, I see by the calendar that you are only
eighteen yews of age ; you have been extremely for-
tunate, and I trust the situation in which you have
been placed will Induce you to reform your life and
your conductin future."
John Namesand /V. Ball, two very young boys,
were convicted of assaulting Laiiisa Haynes on the
King's highway, and. forcibly taking from her per-
son a handkerchief, containing 15s. in silver, the pro-
perty of her husband. The Jury recommended them
to mercy on iccount of Oak yottth, one of them being
but IS, and the other. 15 years of age. ,
Thomas Hayes, a soldier, was indicted for ahigh-
way robbery upon the person of Benjamin Hooker,
and stealing from his person a gold watch, value
C5O, a gold chain, two gold seals, and two Napo-
leons, his property. 1
It appeared that the prosecutor is a gentleman of
fortune, who was upon a-visit to his brother-in-law,
in Parliament-street. On the evening of Sunday, the
4th of May, he and his brother went to take a walk,
and about a quarter past ten o'clock, his brother left
him; and he (the prosecutor) proceeded through the
Stable-yard and along the Pagoda-bridge, at the foot
of which a man came up to him, seized him by his
bosom, as he thought. for the purpose of stealing his
brooch; he then knocked his face against the sentry-
box, and demanded what he had. Prosecutor seized
him, and dragged him up towards the top of the
bridge, where there was a sentinel on duty, and he
'begged him to interfere in his behalf, but he would
not, and said it was no business of his. The prisoner
said, it was of no use to-ask the sentinel, as he was
a comrade of his, and that the prosecutor had given
him two guineas for a particular purpose. Prosecu-
tor begged the sentry to detain them both until the
relief came; but he refused to interfere, and the pri-
soner snatched his watch from his fob, and went has-
;iily away, and as he passed the sentry put something
'into his hand, which proved to be a corner of prose-
cutor's neckerchief; which he had torn off. The cry
;of " Stop thief r was raised, but the prisoner was
ei rg inot taken t!, ht. On the following day, a boy
;named Jos h Bentley, who was pot-boy at the•l'h ree
' Jolly Butc ,in Hungerford-market, took the watch
In question to Mr. Jarman, a silversmith in the Strand,
to have a glass put in it. Mr. Jarman, however,
suspvting that it had not been honestly came by,
made some excuse to the boy to detain the watch a
short time, and in the interim he went to Mr. Ed-
munds, the maker of it, and then ascertained that it
had been stolen from the prosecutor. In the even-
ing, the prisoner, who had sent the boy with it, called ,
ilia:melt for it in a state of intoxication, and said it
had been given him by a gentleman. ite was thenl
detained.

Tile piisoner did not wake any defence, but in-