Star.
London, England, 1819-01-29 00:00:00

The Theatre is now. going on well. A Piece is now
under representation, whsch iliceeds extremely wall.
It is true, there was a failure in a Pantomime; but
that ivai-a circiimstanceolcomparative insighificanci.
The LORD CliAscsuzia.--This case goes to: a‘
frightful length. There is no doubt but that an exe-
cutiou may betaken out, subject to the rights of the
new rinters. This 'Theatre ix now in a situation in
which many partnership concerns have been placed.
I have been blamed over and over again for delay in
such 'cases; but that delay has enabled me to save
hundreds of persons from ruin. No blame at least
shall deter me from saying, that I will not decide this
case until Monday morning.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY sts.
suAwE V. ROBERTS AND HORN.

This was a motion for a new trial. The cause was
tried at the Sittings after last Term, in London. The
plaintiff, a stage-coach proprietor, brought his action
against the defendants to recover the amount of a
bill of exchange, indorsed by Roberts. It appeared
at the trial, that the defendants carried on an exten-
sive stage-coach concern at tis White Horse, Fetter-
lane. In the beginning of 1812 they dissolved part-
nership, and published the dissolution in the Gazette.
Some time after, Roberts became a bankrupt, and
the plaintiff received a dividend under the commis-
sion. It was alleged, however, that the plaintiff dis-
covered, some time after, that the dissolution of part-
nership hid not been rtgularly made known to the
creditors of the firm. The n.ime of Roberts and Co.
remained on the coaches long after the deed was exe-
cuto by —ado' wey dissotved parmermtp; and the
plaintiff; upon a presumption that the bankruptey
was collusive, sought to recover the amount of his
bill, minus the small dividend received under the
commission. The Jury, after a long investigation,'
found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Coder, after hearing all the arguments in
support of the application for a new trial, held that
there was no ground for disturbing the verdict, and,
the motion was refused.
MORRIS V. HUNT.

In this case a rule had been obtained by the de-
fendant to shew cause why the judgment recovered
against him by the plaintiff should not be stt aside.
The rule expired this day; but
Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, stated that he had
not the papers in Court, and therefore was not pre-
pared to proceed.
The COURT said, that as this delay was against
the plaintiff, the matter must be allowed to stand
over till to-morrow.

DOCUMENTS

r'EDto CONGRESS.

(Concluded from the Sees a/yesterday.)
une =MAZY 07 STATe OF TIM TTITIS SLIM TO nu ainnens
runthonirimar or sus perm MITI to von, At NAM&
You will remark among the papers produced on
lArbuthnot's • trial, a power of attorney,. of June 17,
11817.givenhim by twelve Indians, pertly of. Florida,
end pardy of fugitive outlaws from the United Staten
lie states, that this.power, and his instructions, were
*memorialize the British Government, and the Go•
yernor-General of the Harannah. These papers are
not only substantially proved, ai of his handwriting, j
imrthe trial, but in the daily newspapers of London, ,
lerthe 24th and 25th of Anon last. his letter to'
Nicholls is published (somewhat garbled) with a copy
of Hambly's above-mentioned letter to him, , and
reference to this Indian power of Wankel to him,
approved by the Cominandant of Bt. Mark's F. C
Luengo. Another of the papers is a letter written in
the nameof the same Chiefs, by Arbuthnot, to the Go-
vernor-General of the Havannah, asking of him per-
mission for Arbuthnot to establish a warehouse an
the Appalachicola ; bitterly and falsely complaining
that the Americans had made 'settlements on their
lands, within the Spanish lines, and calling upon
the Governor-General to give orders to displace them,
and send them back to their own country. In this
letter they assign as a reason for asking this licence
for Arbuthnot, the want of a person to put in writing
for theta their talks of grievances against the Ame-
ricans ; and they add, the Commander of the Fort
of St. Mark's has heard all of our talks and com-
plaints. He approves of what we have done, and
what we are doing : and it is by his recommendation
we have thus presumed to address your Excellency.'
You will find these Papers in the printed News-
paper inclosed, and in the proceedings of the Court
Martial; and will point-them out to the Spanish Go-
vernment, not only as decisive proofs of the unexam-
pled compliances of the Spanish Officers in Florida
to foreign intrusive agents and instigators of Indian
hostilities against the United States, but as placing
beyond a doubt that participation of this hostile spi-
rit in the Commandant of St. Mark's, which General
Jackson so justly complains of, and of which we have
!so well-founded a right to demand the punishment.
Here is the Commandant of a Spanish fort, bound
by the sacred engagements of a Treaty to restrain
by force the Indians within his command from com-
mencing hostilities against the United States, con-
spiring with those same Indians, and deliberately
giving his written approbation to their appointment
of a foreigner, a British subject, as their age; •
lick assistance and supplies froth the dovera.
neral of the 4.lavannah and from the British Go-
vernment, for carrying on these same hostiliti -
—Let us come to the case of Ambrister: He
taken in arms, leading and commandingthe Indians
in the war against the American troops; and to that
charge, upon his trial, pleading Guilty. Bur, tug
primary object of his coming there was still more
hostile to Spain than to the United States. You find
that he told three of the witnesses who testified at his
trial, that be had come to this country upop
Woodbine's business at Tampa Bay, to see the Ne-
groes righted; and one of them, that' he had a COM-
-1211540n in the Patriot Army under M'Gregor; and
that he had expected a Captaincy. And what was
the intended business of M'Gregor and Woodbine 4
Tampa Bay ? It was the conquest of Florida from
Spain, by the use of those very Indians and
whom the Commandant of St. Mark's was so 27:as
aid and support in the war against the United Btates.
The chain of proof that establishes this (moth coo*
tamed in the documents communicated by the
side& to Congress at theii last Beisiess,
the occupation of .Amelia blandhy
From these documents you will 'Sod-
M'Gregor Was there, Woodbine went from New r.
vidence, in a schooner of his own, to join him i that
lie arrived at Amelia Island just as *Gregor, aim-

to