Star.
London, England, 1826-06-22 00:00:00

7-ttr,ipz-7,....-terper•rn-------
---"--- . • .•••••• .04nots • - ........„,„:",,:0,4,„*„.„,,---,-""',,,,,..,..;-,a1.12 _ ,
. . .
•
,t,frity I ..
.. .
. :-?-er ..-..•r:zit.
• ... .
• ifilii .
; '.4 -111,4e.F-4Y, ''.
~
....
~,,' 1... ~ Is': • •
..• • _
4 t:, I ,-.44tikez;-_____--- ' ...,• • • ir• • 61$. • ...I.W ' ••- I,
.. 1,. ... .
I , ..,, rl• ... •Is
• ' ••'%:::s4;=-: '-'4"‘
• 4* zi
•• • •
.• -. .
-.••. . . • • -
• iii/p..-"'-........_ , , • •
. , k . • ''. -7:1.- ...., ._ •
~
• , ', ... •••." ,
.. _ . . 11:09•/:+,,,,e. , t
- ,
ot „... ,
- • -vil/4/,,f .4
.
1; . -
. .. . ....
L' t: - ,•--t.,.. ) Gt
• . ...11,4rr .. . .
.... •
~,,

prosecutor-was stationed in Conduit-street, and in conse-
quence of the Ones: of a Mrs. Cooper, who lived
nets the spot, he had been drdered to prevent any noise
or disturbance. Lord Harborough was making the
Yeo ho of a sailor, and was very noisy. The watch.
Man begged he would desist, but no attention was paid
to his remonstrance, and Lord Harborough ran to Ste
vens's- Hotel, where he resided. The watchman fol-
lowed, and said if the noise WAS repeated he mu t take
him to the watch-house. Lord Harborough then said)
he had a right to make a noise at his own door, and
set up another yeo ho I The constable collared him,
with intention to take him to the watch-house. The
hotel door having been opened, Lord Harborough
rushed in, dragging the watchman after him. The'
Gentlemen in the house came to Lord Harborongh's
rescue. An affray ensued, the watchman came in, and
Lord Harborough called for the poker. Having ob-
tained a piece of iron rod, he applied it to the head of
the watchman, Anderson, whose person soon exhibited
mai ks of bloody combat. Mr. Bayley came down from
his room and-joined the affray. He protect. d Lord
Harborough, and fought the watcl.rnan, who at last
succeded in 4. agging Adderson out of the house. These
facts were proved by the evidence of the prnsecttor and
several other watchmen, who were present in the scuffle.
Mr. TIND ALL for the defendant, Lord Harborough;
and Mr. Worrvono for Mr. Bayley, contended that the
watchmen had been the aggressors. Lord Harborough
WAS described to be much a tached to naval pursuits.
Th;t Noble Lord had a most beautiful yacht, in which
be occasionally made trips to sea. The Nable Lord had
a peculiar custom, which was harmless, namely, when
he passed the house of a friend, he saluted with a Yeo
he! to let him know he was going home comfortably to
rest. When he passed the house of a Noble relation in
Conduk-street at night he almost invariably gave his
seamanlike salutation. On the night of the SOth of
June, when this affray took place, he had uttered his
Yeo ho ! when the watchman interfered, in the most
impertinent manner, and followed' Lord Harborough
into the hotel, after he had been told by Mr. Bray and
others that it was Lord Harborough, and that he might
call the next day for any legal purpose he might have
in view. The watchman however insisted upon taking
him out of the hotel, and those who came to Adder-
son's assistance said they would have him out dead or
alive. Lord Harborough was cruelly used, and beaten
dreadfully. He called for the poker whilst he was re-
ceiving blows from Addersen's stick. Mr. Bayley
merely came dawn from his room hearing the fracas,
and endeavoured to prevent the watchman from dragg.
log Lord Harborough out of his hotel.

•
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 111.
LIIIIL--PRICI v. Til W A ITLS.
This was an action brought by George Price, Esq. a
Barrister-at-Law in the Temple, against the defendant,
proprietor of the Morning Herald newspaper, to re-
cover a compensation in damages for a libel published
in that journal• on the 11th of March last, affecting the
character of the plaintiff. The libellous matter in
question was contained in a report from Bow-street,
Police Office,where the plaintiff was stated to be charged
with indecent conduct to two Ladies in Maiden Lane,
at a late hoax the preceding evening. On the following
morning, Mr. Price, it seemed, appeared before the
sitting Magistrate (Mr. Minshull), who, after hearing
the watchman's statement, ores:-red the plaintiff to be
discharged. The Learned Counsel (Mr. Ludlow) said,
that the report which appeared in the above newspaper
WAS an incorrect account, and affected his client:a cha-
racter, who was in the prnfeision of the law, andentitled him to a. verdict, leaving the amount of da-
mages in the bands of the Jury. •
An affidavit from the Stamp-office, with the names
of the printer, publisher, and proprietor, was produced,
as was also the Moraixt Herald newspaper by the Re-
gistrar of the Stamp Office, announcing the defendant
(Mr. Thwaites) as one of the proprietors.—This closed
the plaintiff's case.
Mr. ilfitirla, for the defendant, addressed the Jury
at considerable length, and called the'Reporter, James
Acland, who had furnished the Morning Herald with
the account, and from his testimony he declared the
statement a correct one.—After hearing the evidence of
two other witnesses, John Richmond, the clerk at Bow-
street, and Bartlett, the watch-housekeeper, who was
present when the charge was entered in the book,
Mr. Lousily again addressed the Jury, contending that the 8.-
pen was an inaccurate one.
The Loss Cum lissom summed up the evidence, when the
Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
Damages, ieloo.

PREROGATIVR COURT, Jan it.
BURCIMLL b. MA HAM.
This_was a testamentary cause, regarding the succes-
sion, by representation, to the property of the late
Signora Storace, the eminent vocalist. The circum-
stances, as they were stated in the argument of Counsel,
and in the decree of the Court, were curious, and may
be best gatbertd from a brief abstract of the substance
of the latter.

After the witnesses had been examined for the defendants,
The Loan Qum Jurrien left the Jury to decide whether the
watchman, before be followed -Lord Harborough into the kotel,
bid Ise,oli told oho he was. Ilia Lordihip did not consider the pro.
mentor justliied in taking Losije Harboroagh to the wateh•house
front the lidtel, after he had beep told who he was.

The Jury found Salt Sefrad.aSts—Not
LISEL.f—THEJEING v. IMAY.
Mr. ADOLPHUS opened the pleadings. The defendant
was charged with having sent a libelous letter to Sir
-Gilbert East, of Hall-place, in the county of Berks.
•Mr. &AIM= stated the case.—Sir Gilbert East, in
October, 1824, purchased at the Docks from the de-
fendant a hogshead of port and a quarter cask of sherry.
He paid for the same by a cheque on his bankers.—
•When the sherry was bottled off it appeared that it did
not produce so much as Sir Gilbert expected. Sir Gil-
bert enclosed, in a letter to the defendant, the certificate
cf a cooper a t Maidenhead, by which it appeared that
the quarter cask only contained SO gallons instead of
34. The letter also stated, that Sir Gilbert had received
a quarter.cask from Mr. Wright, of the Opera House
Colonade, containing St gallons. The defendant re-
plied by letter, that all the casks were made by his
coopers; that some might be larger than ethers, but
that he (defendant) was not aware that any cask con=
tained less than the usual quantity. The defendant
afterwards sent for the casks in order to have them
measured, but the prosecutor would not return them,
as he considered himself entitled to retain them until the
defendant heuld give him wine to make up the defi-
ciency. The defendant, in January 1825, wrote to the
prosecutor the letter which was the subject of this pro-
secution, and which was to the following effect :
" Sta2What you have stated about the casks is entirely false, or
you would not have refused to send them back to be measured.—
You may be a Baronet, but you are a disgrace to your rank. lam
sure, you are net a Gentleman."
The prosecutor's solicitor afterwards called upon the
defendant, for the purpose of asking him to retract the
expressions contained in his letter, and to prevent legal
proceedings, but the defendant refused to do so, and
repeated to the solicitor the expressions in the letter,
and told him that he might repeat them to Sir Gilbert
East. :The defendant also added, that if he had not
been in trade, he would have taken notice of Sir G.
East's conduct in another way.
Mr. J.WIL LIAM; addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and said, that the imputation cast upon his client, who
was a respectable British merchant, was the grossest
that could be imagined, and the defendant, irritated by
such an imputation, did nothing more than other mer-
chants, under similar circumstances, would hate done.
His Lordship summed up and said, there could be no doubt that
the letter written by the defendant, and the words made use of by
him to the prosecutor's attorney were very libellous.
The Jury immediately found the defendant Guilty.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jinx 21.
WAKELY V. JOHNSON, M.D.
This was an action brought to recover a compensa-
tion in damages for a libel, which appeared in a work
called the Medieo•Chirurgical Review, for the month of
April, of which the defendant was the proprietor. The
plaintiff was the proprietor of a work called The Lancet
and from the statement of the Learned Counsel it ap-
peared that a literary warfare had been carried on
between them in these works, and that the libel com-
plained of imputed to the plaintiff that be had been an
incendiary, by inference from the words in the libel,
particularly the•word I, Salamander," and that he, the
plaintiff, had been driven from his medical profession.
Mr. Common &mama and Mr. Kura- were Counsel for the
plaintiff.; and Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN. Mr. Serjeallt WILDE, and
Mr. HILL, for the defendant.

At half-past
,two the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 1001.

(;4)

Sir JOHN Nlcuott., in giving judgment, stated, that
Anna Maria Selina Storace died in the month of August,
1817, leaving behind her her mother, Mrs. Elizabeth
Storace, who was her sole next of kin, and the only per-
son entitled, in case of her intestacy, in distribution of
her property and effects, and, consequently, the only
person who would have been authorized to contest the
validity of any paper which might have been pro-
pounded as the will of the deceased. A few drys after
the Signoras death, a will, in her own hand-writing,
was found in a bureau, wherein was deposited the
greater portion of ber papers of valise and moment. It
was attested by two witnesses;' it disposed of all that
property (very considerable in amount), and probate of
it was taken out by her mother, Mrs. Elizabeth Storace.
It bequeathed for her use, to trustees, 50001. East India
Company's stock (then standing in the name of certain
other trustees for the testatrix), the interest for the mo-
ther's life; and, after her decease, the principal to her
nephew,,Mr. Brinsley John Storacel if he lived to attain
the age of 9.5 years; but if he died without issue, pre•
viously to such period, then to the children of her
cousin, Emily Taney. To her mother she also left
the lease of a house in Howland-street, Fitzroy-square,
together with the use of her plate and furniture
for life, with remainder, in the same way, to Emily
Toosey. The will comprised many other legacies--
5001. to one of her aunts; 2501. to another ;
5001. to Mrs. Mary Storace, her brother's widow, to-
gether with her harp, her music, and • her wearing ap-
parel ; to M. Rauzzini, of Bath; 5001. to Joseph Bur-
chell and Prince Hoare, Esquires, het' trustees, honorary
legacies of 501. each; to Mr. John •Bralans, 2,0001. to
the Old Musical Fund, 1,0001. to the' New Musical
Fund, 1,0001. The executors were Mr. Joseph Burchell
and Mary Storace, the widow of her brother. The will
was dated 20th August, 1797. These were some of its
contents; and under the circumstances of its remote
date, and of her having declared a few days only before
her decease, that she had made her will, and that such
will was to her satisfaction, it was with great propriety
that a diligent search was 'made among the papers of
the deceased, in order to: discover whether there was
any subsequently dated *Hilo be found among them.
None such, however, was to he discovered. Mr. Bur-
chell was still reluctant,' notwithstanding, to take pro-
bate; and as the deceased had left a natural child by
Mr. Braham, the singer—namely, Mr. William Spencer
Harris Braham, the party in this cause, to whom she was
supposed to have left same money—he caused adver-
tisements to be inserted in the Gaiette and the daily
newspapers, offering a reward of 5001. for the discovery
of any later will of Anna Selina Storace, deceased.—.
The only information which those very proper measures
elicited was, what would he derived from the production
by Mr. Buxton, the Solicitor, of a draft, which turned
out to be only the draft for the will of August, 1797.
As far as the declarations of the deceased, supported by
several affidavits which had been brought in, in the
cause, could be relied upon, it must be allowed that
there was evidence of an extraordinary affection on the
part of the testatrix for this natural son of hers, and of
an intention of providing fot him. But declarations, in
point of testamentary intentions, were, of all others,
least to be relied upon. In the present case, it could not
be shown that any other testamentary paper had ever
actually assisted but that which was propounded by the
executor. No person could be produced to speak to his
having seen such other instrument, to the time and place
where or when, or to the contents of it. At length, on the
10th of Dec. 1517, the executor, with the fall knowledge,
consent, and concurrence of the mother, took probate of
this will of 1797. This was certainly with her concur-
rence,for she then made a voluotatyaffidavit,setting forth
that she was living with her daughter at the time of
her death, in t' e same house; and then describing the •
manner in which the will in question had been discovered
in an escrutoirr. The affidavit she thus made was, in
ta,t, contrary to her o ri interest; for had there been