Star.
London, England, 1829-05-25 00:00:00

.w A 1.1%-LAM%, mAy v. 5

We continue to be scmtily. supplied from lifstes, Kent, and
Suffuck, but out so with Foreign Wheat. At the early part of the
nacituing higher prices were demanded for floe ...topic. us English
Wheat, which the purchasers were not inclined to mahout
although there were a great many at market; and upon the whole.
Nu Monday'. prices mu.t be quoted fur bite lingUdi as well as
Foreign Wiwi& Grinding Bailey was Is. per quarts
Beam and Peas are alma is. per quatier higher. Dam were free
sale, at last .rimiday's prices; and in one or two instances more
money was obtained. booth. r amide, there I, no alteration.
Wheat. Kent it Ewes. 706 7:6 I Peas, Grey 546 376
Suffolk, 706776 tk.uss, Small 346 37s
Norfolk, dO6 dss Tick 3ths 356
Rye Yds 32a Oatt, POtiit.le Us 306
Barley ItiN 345 Poland 441 Mk
Malt 306 58. Feed Ids 24e•

Peas, White Z.Ss 37.
Builverb :As 41s
FORTATIOII
Wheat, English quarters 8,897
Do. Foreign 21,383
Irish Ditto

Flour, per sick. 60*. 6564
Rapeseed 241 211 per Lea.
;Art wass.

IrWs Oats
Rye, English
Do. Foreign_

Bark,. British
Us Furesig
Irish

6 657
4,910.
3.054
8,635

Beans, E lisp
Ditto, Fors igu
Pras, English

1,690
It

300
1,0711

929

Ditto Portly' SU
English Flour, sacks -5.5113
American ditto, bris 2,.4.:0
lA RH ET, Rae 25
MARICRT.
rp Pis NO I Calve. 113
Veal . . 5. 04 to is 04
Pork . . 4a 44 is 44

Malt, English
English Oats
Foreign Ditto
SMITHFIELD
CATTLE A'
Beasts 2,195 I Sheep 111.0
Beef . . 4. Od to 4s 44
Mutton . 41 04 44 64
Lamb . is 6d 6s 64
Hay per load, 411 Os. to 14 Is. Clover 23 Os. to 23 10.
Straw Li is.. to .12 4s.
COAL MARKET—Tans DAT iv Otte.
The Coal Exchange was not very numerously attended by mer-
chants to-day, and no great business was done. The supply of
different sorts of Coal was plentiful. Thirty-nine new ships were
at market.
Beet Welland Coals . . 30e. 301. 6d. 31.. Od.
Other sorts . . 1142. 04. 119 e. Od.
Ships at Market. 101.
LIVERPOOL, MAT 23.
earns—The import this week is 9,4e6 hags, and the sake reset
17.390 bags (including 750 Americans and &wets taken for ripen),
at steady sad somewhat improved prices. There are no later ad-
vice. from New Turk than those of 15th April, which quoted the
prices of Uplands at to 10+; and Premium of Exchange at Si
to 64. The latest accounts from England, received at New Tan,
were dated Liverpool, sth March.
Suomi, Sce.—l'he saks of RP. Sugar are 600 hbds. at serif
prices. Of East India 100 bags very Sae brought 77.. 200 bags
Bengal at 71s. and 200 bap Mauritius at 55a. In Foreign no miss.
The transaction, in Coffee are about 160 casks at former rates, and
about 200 casks Molasses have found buyer at 211 s. 6d. for Dewar
rans. 250 bags Pimento have chaapd Sands at sid: Is 714 sad
30 bags East India Rice at lits.
Paovsmam—Very little doling In either new dry or *lied
Butters tbis week, sad prises are rather lower. ID Beef and Park
the principal Maims doing is for ships' stores; prices ate gee*.
Bacon lower, from SI& to ana. par cwt. and ht limited demand.

LAW -INTELLIGENCE.
JET OF CHANCERY. Mar es.
MATTER OF EIRSY, A sAirkRUPT.
the bankrupt had been interrogated by
issionets as to whether he had not procuied,
. by a conspiracy, a considerable quantity• of. propeity,
which he had afterwards disposed of to paiticular ife•
dims, in fraud of the general body. •This.question the
bankrupt had refused to answer, uppi the ground of
its tending to snake him criminate himself, and for this
refusal he seas sent to pri-on by the Commissioners., It
was now proposed by the Ldrd Chancellor to sfiichaege
• the bankrupt from eti.tody. his Counsel alleging.l in
support of his application, that familiar principle of the
common law, that no man is bound to *Myr -Wraith,
of a criminal act.
Mr. Bose, who opposed the application, cited some
cases to show that Lord Eldon had been of opinion
that the cases of bankruptcy furnished an• exception to
the general tale which protected a man agairisthii own
testimony.
The Loup CHANCELLOR thought the case cited only,
showed that bankrupts who had come fraudulently by
certain property were botind to intorm the Commis-
stoners of the manner in which they had disposed of it.
In the present case the question bad beta proposed in
the form most objectionable in point of law, and least
useful for the purpose of discovering the property. His
Lordship. therefore,' directed that the bankrupt lbe
brought before the Commissioners again, and questionled
as to ihe manner in Which had disposed of the propeity
in que•tidn. ' • "
WELLESLEY V. THE DUEL OF BEAUFORT.
This Was a petition presented by some of the defend-
ants, praying that a taxation of costs ordered to take
place in this Court may not be proceeded in.
-Mr. SuoDars addressed the Court at some length, in
support of the prayer of the petition, in addition to
some arguments derived from the practice of the Couit,
and the circumstances of the parties, observed, that tbe
object which the Misses Long had its view in pre-renting
tt e petition was to prevent Mr. Wellesley from beieg
present in the mas'er's office dating the taxation of the
costa. Authority to go there bad been given to Mr.
Wellesley by the order for taxation made by Lord Eldon
tiro years 80. But documents had been introduced
into the cause, -roan the power to inspect which it would
limtaxtremely desirable to prohibit Mr. Wellesley, arid
'other circumstances had occurred which rendered it veil
'inixpedient that he should now be permitted to enjoy
the right which he obtained in the original order. M.
Wellesley's chief object in desiring to be present at the
taxation was, that he may be able to gain a sight of the
documents connected with Mrs. Scott, who had giveb
very material evidence in the cause; and who, from the
tide Which she bad given her-evidence upon, had
aimed the hostility of .Mr. Wellesley in a manner which
had been lately exhibited by soma very ,nnequivotat
Proceedings upon his part.
The LORD Comm:A.on invired of Mr. Horne upon
what ground it- was,thut- hlr. be*
Present at the taxation.? • -
Mt. Hoaua onsieered, that Mr. Wellesley had, as a
father, a right to •coreflool the expenditlure sbich was
to 141 upon his Childsen'sestate, rind this rigfittitd-beih
expressly and without opposition aclotowledged by'
Lord Eldon in the order under Which 'Mr: Wellesley
was now about to proceed. ' • • •.%
The LORD CHANCELL.)ft inquired W any steps had
been taki•is towardsthe appointment of n guardian?
The Counsel on both sides answered in various mys-
terions allusions to the d fficulties and delays which had
obstructed the appointment of the guardian, which
difficulties the :epitomic-edges of the litigating pieties
reciprocally imputed to each other. A great deal it
irregular conversation and discussion took place' as to
certain items of expenditure connected with Mrs. Scott
and her husband. Mr. Wellesley's Counsel said that
large sums bad been paid to these persons. and hinted
at the consequences which might' be drawn from that
fact. Miss Lons'a Counsel admitted the -parodist of
. the money; brit said that it bad never been the intro-
tion of the Misses Lon,' to charge to the account of the
infants more than what' bad been •paid to &Ott and his
wife fur their actual attendance, or al a tedsonable
compensation for the loss of their time: The liter
sums Mr. Sogden stared to have been given to Stott
by the Misses Long from feelings of chafity, and 'it
some time after the order had been obtained.
Mr. Holum contended that Mr. Wellesley had a
tight, as well as the parent of the infants as
order of Lord Eldon, to inspect the taxation of thretists.'
The 'Learned (Teddies-au bad -not concluded-Utah-set.'
various at the rising of the. Lord Chancellor, vthri left
the Court at balf.past one O'clock:: • •
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Mar ES.
• OLOMAN V. SLAYER—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this ease, the questiot
in which related to the legal construction of the will of
a Gentleman named Watson. The testator, after giving
several sums to charitable institutions. made die follow-
ing bequeet—"l give to my dharlybelovel Wile 1s10)1-
a year for het life, and tnyi house and furniture; and,
after her death,' to My friend, Samuel Slater, and his
heirs for ever."

The Counsel for the plaintiff (who is the next of kin).
contended that the Meinfig of the testator weal only to
give thrhoese and furuittit eta Slater, and not thel..)ol.
His lictuovu said he could not clime to such a-coni
elusion. It was clear from the while will' -that' the
testator was not conversant with the idium of (he'Eng..
lish language, or he wobld, instead of the wand ma/have
vied the word el" which would have prevented the
possibility of doubt respecting his intentions.' ." He, (the
Vied Chancellor), however, felt no difficulty in the Cue,
- ..brdeB dead* of Opinitm tbai it was the deceased's Saida
to gave the 1,2001. a year, as well as the house and fer-
oiture, to Slater ; Jse should, therefor*; dieter aecord-
ibglya7 With reipect lathe costs... He thou hr, as• thti
questhao haid been propErty brought undit the "cotitiscli+
ration of the Coonh they might. be Paid-out of- At*
test 'tees estate.

COURT or N BENCH, • WIIITMIASTIU4
' • Stsioptia Disco.
3ARICEI ti:JaAT asiD•AlioTidea.
The circumbtancis out of which this case arose were!
the, Baster' *woo: the 'executor of ..person• named
114,wles. whe directed its his will thAt fektVstate
should be held as persensleitaie, and.spbject tothe pay-
ment cal a certain sum to iix xrandchildtra. • lise tW
dettodsuts badmen ied tweet thesesteettehilthett,iiiii
*Held the esecsltor %Abe Etilesiastitid C6firtisf littOtcV
fist. tbi moortbei tobitrefed ihtmea•
Batikr thew applied :to the 'Coals /Or; sad &soloed a
rale.to show cause why a writ of. prehibitiOn shimitd bat
1401010 'retiVaii-tire Eteltslitifteil akin'
''infr the Ott; 4ii.dte.4relliiid that it hid:Cause *wail sew -" Awe ep atinst the tyre.

rdti!( krdefediat
sokkonsiOrAiggh 1/4

_

defendant to show cause why an information, in tbelpp,
turn of I quo fairanl6, bhotild not be filed against m.
ha order to compel him to show by what authority he
held the ofue of Sheriff of Norwich, he not being a
freeman at the time he was elected, as required by'the
clutter. • Cause bras uow'sbosru against the 'rule; atitd it
-appeared fs orn the 1111divits that the practiCe haa, often
'belts to' elect 'Sheriffs wliti Were not freemen.
The COURT being of opinion that the qurstion might
to be settled, of whither the ilteriffshcruhlbeSiltetrOso
Ir. not, made the rule -abfolute." •
TN! LINO V. *ARMAND, °GOER. AND OTHIRS, STALL.

MFRS OF SUNDERLAND.
In this case a rule had be;ti obtained] to
.show cans:.
why an information, in the•nature of a apro 'terra*.
should not be filed'agaiost the defendants, claiming 4i
be a Corporation.
Cause was now shown against the rule, and
,it.was
stated that the defendants.tielonged to a private bet
of individuals who claimed' collectivelj to hava"*..
party in a certain nick/flier* SOW Tfieirm
cised no public cOrtiolate.function'iwhifevei.
Rule diseharged.
THE COLLEGE OF MITSICIANS O. HARRISON
This was an' mints 14.41 ft-by the Cotlero4l3oF
eians under the statiite Jadiet 'th.reeover a worifilet
of penalties of Sl. a ch trorn'ihe.dr;fendant, for havenig
practised as a physician. he not being a Licentiate or
the College. At the trial a verdict
.was found' fiw the
defendant, and the Master, an taa'tion. him his
costs.
Sir J. SCARLRTT had obtained a rule calling upon the
defendant to show tutu why the nisisteeshould not be
required to resit* his tatation, on thegroptid Omit the
College watt not boOrol to Pa* costs.
Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. ARMSTRONG now showed
'MOT against the rule. A 'penalty of 51. per MAO 'w a,
imposed on all persons who ptactised is r lipiciaos in or
within seven miles Of London, ssitbout being licentiate'
or member of the College of Physicians. Half of this
penalty was to go to the King and half to the CWI%I;
and, as'it was It that was duti'itnoirdately any
person infringed die la 4; 'tl;e Pollege stood in the posii.
tints of a party aggrieved. and as such was entitled to
receive and pay Costs. Besides,lhe Colley could pot
now say that it neither paid or reetiired*fesiti, aii'there
were two cases reported at length-1i a book Publisli4d
under the authority of the College, where they had re=
covered costs.

Sit J. SCARLETT and Mi. BROM:MAI' appealed io
support of the ttile. 'The aubbtnniiat question Was;
whether the plaintiff; weie parties aggrieved ? and that
was the propos tion the'Opposite side was bound to make
out. Neither the chatters nor any of the Acts men-
tioned the Colle:•e as a pert f .agpireed'hy the in(riC-
don of the law. The Aetritl4mes the Virg Was pissed
for the benefit and protection of the public, iud the
College was merely the party 'put in mdtion to protect
,the-gebl:c.• ferfai the'public'ihich Was ngOisvei bY
the ittfraiition 'Ai. kw. liad. *it 'Wen perhaps, se•
• •. • •
.Oisly; but the College, *sindowlog tone of the delta.
data's medicines, was mat in the same situation.
The enuar Pehtpnited.giVtng at, ()Onion tie it had
'taken iirne'toldek intoiblauttitOtle*.
L%'rJ rstritionit however, observing that if tbn,
College era, so be taken to be a party aggrieved it mast
be Upon the giuntid contended for bx•thi defendant,
that the 'wonky, Vested ih the'College.direOtly 'the Tat
was infringed, led that in detain it fiem them was it.
I.grieestaie.

tx/ie
coil]•
hi se, si
In this case tl
• the Commissior