Star.
London, England, 1817-12-08 00:00:00

LAW IMELLIGESCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 6.

WILLIAMs v. !STEM AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
LAND TAX.

The Loan Cu/.Nnem..nt g .ve an ilahorate judg-
ment in this Cast? It will be recf,llected it came be
fore his Honour the Vice•Chancell r, in the shape of
a demurrer to to e plaintiffs bill, on account of the
Court hot having jurisdiction. The hill prayed for
the specific performance of a contract which the plain-
tiff alleged he had made with the defendants, the
Commis.ioaers of Land Tax, for the purchase of
certain laud taxes in the Borough of Weymouth,
and his honour allowed the demurrer. The plaintiff
appealed to the Lord Chancellor against that decision,
and his I....rdship, in giving his judgment this day,
allowed the demurrer, confirming the judgment of
his Honour. His Lordship held that the Commis•
sioners were servants of the Crown, and merely in-!
struments to carry into effect part of a contract which
was cohdi...t.xf by other officers of the Crown, and
were therefore not respor.s.ble as a body.—Demurrer
confirmed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECSMBER 6.
Till SING w. LEMURS.
Mr. E. LAvilti.—" May it please your Lordship.—
Gentlemen of the Jury—This is a prosecution by
John Grettoa, 4gainst George Leyburn, for perjury.
My instructions in this case are very specific, and I
am inclined to follow there, by reading them in their
very words:-1 am instructed by the prosecutor to
state, that, feeling himself unable to bring forward
such evidence es would lead to conviction of Mr.
Leyburn, has declined btinging forward any wit-
nesses, and Mr. Ley burn may be honoured& acquitted!'
Mr. SCARLETT.—" I appear for the defendant, my
Lord."
The Jury immediately pronounced the defendant
" Net Guikp."
TICE MO v. TIPLIAS CABLE.
Mr. Cunwoon stated, that this was an indictment
for perjury, preferred against the defendant by Tho-
mas Washington, a silk dealer, under the following
circumstances In 1816, a person named Millar, a
dealer in silk, was robbed of a considerable quantity
of that commodity; a person named Bagster was af-
ters. irds apprehended, Hied, and convicted, for the
rubbery; some silk, vlleged to be part of the stolen
property, was afterwards found en Thomas Washing-
ton's premises, under circumstances which causedl
h m to be held to trial. Pending the trial, the pre.'
sent defendant cailed on Washington, and told him
if he would give him ASUO, he (Gable-) would take
care no harm should come to hint. Washington
wrote .t letter to his wife, desiring her to let Gable
" Lave 4.:00. Mrs. Washington got together f 250,
wLic.J, she wok to the defendant. She was accompa-
sited by 1 er brother-it: 1.. w (Allan Washington), but
Cable w"uld hold no conversation with her till Allan
Washington withdrew, when he received the 4450.
The prosecute r as afterwards tried and acquitted,
ard soon alter applied to Gable to have Ibis money
b•ick ; at this time another brother of the prosecutor
was with him, but Gable insisted upon it he should
withdraw. This was c•implied with, and Gable then
repaid .elOO, at the same time observing that the
• prosecutor might as well give bins a receipt fOr £lOO.
paid in pirt, and tendeted what the prosecutor sup-
posed to he such a receipt as be described. Under
that suppos•tion the prosecutor signed it; but after-
wdr.4, on applyin:4 further payment, his receipt 1
in full feu one pound was produced, signed by him,
ilstead ill a tecopt for £ll,O in part, as he had sup-
U; on this discovery of the imposition put
upon him, the prosecutor tiled his bill in equity in the
E. ch q'ver ; to which the defendant put in his an-
ass,l upon that ahswer the perjury was assigned,
namely, the defendant having there sworn that the
• receipt for one pound in full of all demands was en-
tirely in the hand-writing of the prosecutor. This
receipt was in the possession of the defendant. The;
production of it would prove decisive of the cause, 11
as it would prove itself either to be, or Hot to be, the
band-writing of the prosecutor.
The bill and answer were then put in and read.
Thomas Washington stated that he tea; a ribband
weaver, residing in Thomas-street, Bethnal Green.
The defendant was a silk weaver. Witness was in
prison 4n 1816; whilst there, he advanced some mo.
ney to the defendant; after his discharge he applied
to have it back; on that occasion he gave a receipt;
be did not think be was signing a receipt for 41 in
full of all demands ; did not examine the stamp ; to
the best of his recollection, he did not write the whole
of the receipt.—trhe receipt was here Landed to the
witness.)—The signature was his ; he thought the
words received the 20th April," were his writing ;1
bu; did not think the words'. of Thomas Gable, it:l
•in full of all demands," were his writing; he did not
think they were.
Lord ELLnivninsotron told him it was necessary he
should say positively whether he had written the
whole or not, which He must know.
The witness again said be did not think the words
be bad mentioned were his.
Lord EL.1.5N11.,1100314 asked, if on this evidence
shegounsel to the Prosecution would proceed further?
Mr. Gur_sav said, be had a dr zen of witnesses
who would swear to the whole being the prosecutor's
band-writing. •
Mr. CURWOOD Aaid, on this evidence he would not
press for a verdict of guilty.—The Jury immediately
tuand the defendant—Not Guilty.
DOC ibit.s* COMMONS.
- C. UAMILTON, MACIA itsBeCCA lIAMILTON.
This was a proceeding in pceaarn against the wife
far adultery with Lieutenant Knight, of the Royal
Navy, she not having appeared to the suit.
.Alter re-
citing various affidavits in proof of the facts con-
tained in the libel, Dr. Swabey prayed semence.
Sir WILLIAM Sc )71. observed, the marriage in this
Case was proved, and also that the parties afterwards
- cohabited and lived together as man and wife. The
hoaband, it appeared, went to Jamaica on his private
shies in 1811, and resided there for several years.—
During his absence his wife resided in Kent, with
Lieutenant Knight, by whom, it was proved, she
Was afterwards delivered of a child, in a cottage in
Hampshire, they both passing under the name of Mr.
and Mrs. de Bare; and living -and cohabiting loge-
tber as man and wile. The proof connected itself
with the identity of the parties, which established the
fact, that Mrs. de Bate was Ms. Hamilton's wife;

—Chatlotte Newnian, Cu:ity—Death; ark! atom.
Mansfield, Not Guilty.
J. Hetars, for stealing several articles of wearing
apparel, the property of Fred. J. Reader, was also
capitally convicted.
Davi: was capitally indicted for stealing in the
dweLing house of Mr. W. Blundell, of Gracechurch.
street, a quantity of nankeen, and other articles.—
The pris mer had lived in the service of the prosecu-
tor for two years, during which time quantities of
property were missing. At length, suspicion falling
upon him, his chest was watched, and various ar-
ticles, the goods of the prosecutor, found.
The CoNIMON SERJEANT informed the Jury, that
the capital part of the charge could not be sustained,
inasmuch as it was not proved that he had at any
one time stolen property to the amount of 40s. The
punishment, however, was transportable to the ut-
most ester t.—'rhe Jury found him guilty of stealing
to the •aloe of 39,. _ _

The prosecutor instantly stepped forward to N-
un-mend the young man to mercy. He did so upon
4 conviction that he had not formed any improper
conntction with thieves or other bad characters ; nor
did he even attribute the depredations he had com-
mitted to inherent ♦ice itself. He attributed them
solely to another though extraordinary cause—no less
than gluttony. The prisoner was in fact the most
immoderate glutton he ever knew ; the meals he eat
weie incredible as to quantity. and these would not
suffice, for after taking breakfast amine in the mor
ning, he never ceased masticating until dinner—in
fut. he was every minute gormandizing, while money
or any other means could procure victuals. To the
gratification of this inordinate appetite, he attributed
ihe robberies of which he had been accused.-rTh:s
story, which nazi' an extraordinary sensation in
the Court, was not a little heightened by the appear-
ance or the prisoner, who was as Ican AS the halt-
valved apothecary in Rome and Juliet.
The COMMON Sfuttamirr said. me recommendation
of the prosecutor (extraordinary as the circumstanot
was from which it arose) should be attended to.
The following were convicted of felonies :—R.
Clark, fur stealing fourteen pounds of bacon ; J.
Kemp, for having forged notes in his possession ;-
H. Hughes, for stealing a_ watch ; W. Budd, cur
stealing a quantity of ribbon, a straw bonnet, &c. and
William Bartlett, and J. Cane, for stealing a quan-
tity of timber.

We have already stated that carp Pearson and
Jlho rartis, for forgery, and Thomas Deahry, for
highway rubbery, are to be executed •)n .l'hursday next
at the Old Bailey. They were all informed of tl.eir
late on Fridty night, after the Recorder had made
his Report to the Prince Regent. Dealtry stated
that if hc'wete hung his blood would be spilt inno•
cently—he asserted with the greatest solemnity, that
the men who committed the robberies for which he
WAS about to suffer were now in Newgate, and ii he
Were allowed he could tnnst incontestihly prove it.—
lie acknowledged, however, that he itad been tufty
of many very bad crimes. Mr. Corros said, it be
was to: n;st;ed with that proof, he ought to delay no
time i•s making it known, in order that the represen-
mien shonld be forwarded to its proper authority.
The unfortunate men were all resigned to their fate
yesterd3y, when a condemned Sermon was reached
to them.