The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-26 00:00:00

LONDON GAZETTE.-FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22.

The names of the several persons nominated by the Judges of the re-
spectiveeyiff C
or ircuits ietns
siuni
nN%,',asl.eesa
rear, for
rotteerrterseoxv
eto e
osueizee s the°Tic, of
g
AxoLnsua.—Thoulas' Parry Jones Parry, of NantbYelian, Esq.
41.:0rg.e Ausan Walker, of Meriogan, Esq. ; James King, of Presadd-
fed, Esq.
BUM:Ol.lam as.—William Stretton, of Danhv-park, Esq. ,• Joseph
Bailey, of Ghmusk.park, Esq. ; Anthony M. Storey, of Glanusk,
CAILIGIANSHIRE.—CharIes Richard Fongeroft, of Llanina, Esq. ;
Thomas Davies, of Nantgwylan, Esq,; Philip John Mika, of the
Priory, in Cardigan, Esq.
CAR lIAIVIIIEN P.III HR.—Thomas Morris, of Llanstephen.eastle, Esq.
John Walters Philippa, of Aberglasney, Esq.; Edward Rese Tunno,
of Llangennech, Esq.
CalsauvoNslituv..—Richard Lloyd Edwards, of Nanhoron, Esq. ;
Robert Williams, of Llangfosteuin, 'Esq. ; Frank Jones Walker Jones,
of Bryntirion, Esq.
DINBIOWiIIIHR.—The Hon. Frederick West. of Rtrthin ; the Hon.
Lloyd Mostri, of Rodidrys ; F. R. Priee, of Brynypys, Esq.
Fulaysmilta —Sir Edward Mostyn, of Talacre, Bart. ; Charles Fre-
sierick Phillips. of Rhual, Esq. ; James Wills, of Plas Yellin, Esq.
GLASIORGANSHIRR.—Henry John Grant, of Gnoll.castle, -Esq.
Richard Franklen, of Clemenstoue-house, Esq. ; John Dillwyn, Lle-
wellyn, of Genllergare, Esq.
Nl.cniopresristlias.—Hugh Jones, of Hengwrt I;cha, Esq. ; Charles
Gray Harford, of Bryntirion, Esq. ; Reginald Fowden, of Arthog,
EN,
2•loNronmarrsHian.—William Morris, of Pentrifnant, Esq. ; Hugh
Davies Griffith, of Llachwiddgarth, Esq. ; William Peel, of Llandrinio,
L'a.
VIIIHHOILUSUIRE.—John Barham, of Trecoon, Esq. ; John Leach
of Pembroke, Esq. ; William Chailas Allen Rhilippi, of St, Bride's
hill, Esq.
riaDNOUSHIHR.—James Eysam Graham, of Dolley, Esq. ; Guy Par-
a.,n, of B,.ttws, Esq. ; Thumas Williams, of Clirow, Esq.

INSOLVENT.
Nov. 22.—Moses Mason, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, tallow-chandler.

BAND RLTPrCY SUPERSEDED.
tJworge Dandy, TarLuton, Lancashire, corn-dealer.

BAN KRU PT S.
Edmund Cassell, sen., Croydon and Reigate. dealer in coals.
William Richard Croggon. Ilartholomew-lane, auctioneer.
James Hook, Cannonbury-square, Islington, and Lloyd's Coffee-
!louse, insurance-broker.
Thomas Hargreaves, jun., Wakefield. Yorkshire, money-scrivener.
George Danger, Road, Somersetshire, maltster.
•
DIVIDENDS.
Dee. 12, J. F. Taylor, Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate-street, wine-
merchant.—Dec. 16, F. Foster, Oxford-street, tailor.—Dec. 14, D. N.
Smith, Friday-street, warehouseman.—Dec. 13, L. Mosely, High-
street, Shadwell, Staffordshire-warehouseman.—Dec. 16, R. Fiddes,
Hackney, tavern-keeper.—Dec. 14, J. Plowright and J. B. Bond,
Great Surrey-street. linen-drapers.—Dec. 13, B. Verrinder, Davies-
street, Berkeley-square, coal-merchant.—Dec. 13, T. Lavcock, Mi-
nories, slopseller.--Dee. 13, J. Large, Great Queen-street.' Lincoln's-
inn-fields, coach-maker.—Dee. 13, J. Jones, New Bond-street, linen-
draper.—Dee. 16, J. Moon, Acres-barn, near Manchester, cotton-
merchant.—Dee. 16, 'T. T. Isemonger, Littlehampton. Sussex, mer-
chant.—Dec. 16, W. Patten, Heaton Norris, Lancashire, drrig,gist.—
Dec. 16, J. Round. Stourbridge, Worcestershire, plumber.—Dec. IS,
J. Gartit, Gainaborough, Lincolnshire, wine-merchant.--Dec. 16, E.
Nightingale and G. Worthy, Manchester, tea-dealers.—Dec. 21. R. P.
lloulsou and P. Fawcett, Wigan and Manchester, manufacturers.—
Dec. 14, W. Moors, Ludworth, Derbyshire, cotton-manufacturer,—
Dec. W, Kendrick, Birmingham, jeweller.—Dec. 27, M. Gateley,
Birmingham. victualler.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
C. Lane and J. J. Barry, Margate, surgeons.—Harrison and Brock-
r. hatters.—Paterson and Stevenson, Upper Thames-
Street„ commission-agents.—C. Tennant and Co., Upper Thames-
*beet. commission-merchants ; as far as regards R. Paterson.—J.
Taylor and J. Whiting, Vassal-road, Brixton.—J. Wright and J. Bag-
tall, Bristol, printers.—P. Barnes and 11. Badcocke, Axbridge, So-
mersetshire, drapera.—W. Steen and I. Fisher, Birmingham, silver-
smiths.—S. Danford and E. Robinson. George-yard, Lombard-street.
solicitors.—J,
F. Reeves and It. James, Glastonbury, Somersetshiry,
attornies.—Smith and Goddard, St. Alban's, manufacturers of Brazil-
ian grass.—R. and P. Pillin, Doncaster, grocers.—Storey and Cock-
burn, North Shields, common-brewers.—G. Burnham and H. M.
Hudson. Wellingborough. Northamptonshire, attornies.—H. Homer,
W. Watson, and, E. Crosland. Nottirrdiam, wine-merchants ; as far
VI, as regards W. Watson.--kackson and'Wood, Leeds, carvers.—B. and
A. Brown. Huntrerford. Berkshire, grocers.—R. Milligan and It. Mo-
dsea, Bradford. Yorkshire, linen-drapers,

• CERTIFICATES, Dactuara 13.
M'Colgan, Liverpool, tailor.—J. Downes, Leieestor-aquare, jew-
eller.—S. Ashby, Staines, and Upper Thames-street, mealman.—T.
L. Jones, Ilolyhead, Anglesea, brewer,—W. It. Poole, Birmingham,
lirten-draper.—Z. DeLerma, New Bond-street, milliner.—B. Breeds,
Battings, EIISSPX, lime-burner.—J. Coates, Ingieton, Yorkshire. cot-
sou-spinner.—J. Walton, Nereastle-upon-Tyne, slater.
The average prices of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from
• retnenalmde in the week ending Nov. 19, is 28s. lid. per cwt.

LONDON LAW COURTS.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, TnunsoAi, N0v.21.
BOLTON V. LORD NELSON.

The object of this suit was to compel the defendants, Lord
Nelson and Mr. Hasletvood, to place in the hands of the clerk
in court certain documents and papers relative to the duke-
dom and domain of Bronte, consisting chiefly of confidential
communications and opinions of Sicilian lawyers on the sub-
ject of the descent of the title and estates of Brume, which
had been granted by Ferdinand, "King of Sicily, to the late
Lord Nelson, in consideration of the great and important ser-
vices rendered by him to the Sicilian court during the late
war. Under the terms of the grant the property was to be held
according to the law of the Franks, but in order more sig-
nally to -distinguish the great achievements of Lord Nelson,
Ferdinand created in him a tenancy in tail, and gave
him power to nominate,a successor to the 'domain. Lord Nel-
son accordingly by will appointed his brother, the present Earl,
and in default of male issue 'then the inheritance was to go
to the heirs male of his Lordship's sister, Susanna Bolton.
On the death of the late Lord Nelson, the present Earl, beCom-
ing possessed of the feudal right, entered into possession, and
had continued to retain it to the present time. Shortly after
he had entered into possession his only son died, and, being
desirous to ascertain if his only daughter (Lady Bridport)
could not by the law of the Franks inherit tne
_property in pre-
ference to the plaintiff, who was the son of Susanna Bolton,
and the person appointed by the will of the late Lord Nelson,
. he had instituted proceedings in the courts of law in Sicily, in
conjunction with his co-trustee, Mr. Haslewood, and had ob-
tained the opinion of several eminent Sicilian lawyers on the
subject. The motion for the inspection of these papers was
argued.oti the list'seal-day, but the judgment of the court post-
poned until this morning.
The Vice-Chancellor, on entering the court, expressed his
opinion that the Sicilian grant contained nothing that could
lead the court to suppose there could be any limitation of the
duchy giving it the qualities of an English estate, in the man-
ner contemplated' by the late Lord Nelson. It had been repre-
sented by the present Earl in his answer, that, as tenant in tail,
he had the power to nominate a successor, but in the opinion
of the court sufficient had not been admitted in that answer to
entitle'the plaintiff to call for the production of the documents
sought by the motion. The opinions of the Sicilian lawyers he
viewed in the light of private property, which, if his Lordship.
felt inclined, he had a right to purchase as any other species of
property. His Hononr saw nothing in the case to give him a
jurisdiction over the papers iu question, and theretore refused
to interfere on behalf of the plaintiff ; but as the motion was in
the nature of a speculation on the effect of Sicilian law with
regard to the will of the late Lord Nelson, and as he could not
know at present what would be the result of the suit, he should
direct that the costs of the motion should be costs in the cause.

ROLLS' CdURT, NOVEMBER 22.
'WILLIAM C. SPICER.

In this case the bill was filed against the defendant Spicer,
who was trustee under a deed of settlement which directed that
certain leasehold estates in question should be sold as soon after
the death of the settler as conveniently might be, the rents and
profits being to be invested to accumulate for the benefit of the
plaintiffs iu the cause. The defendant, who was a publican,
and sole trustee,-admitted that he had received tha rents of the
property ; but being an ignorant man, not being duly aware of
the duties imposed on him by the trust deed to lay out the funds
in order.to accumulate, and not haying acted under the advice
of any professional person, he had, kept the money in a strong
box in his own house ;" hut as he had not applied it to his own
use, it was subinitted in his behalf that the court could not charge
him with interest on the balances which 'night be.found due
from him. On the other hand it was insisted that his ignorance
of the meaning of the Word "accumulation" could not be held
to excuse hint for the breach of trust to lay out the money to
advantage; that the strong box only meant his own till for the
general purposes of his business; and that he should, therefore,
be decreed to pay interest at five per cent., together with the
costs of the suit, which had been occasioned by his own mis-
conduct.

Mr. Pemberton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Tinney
for the defendant.
His honour said he could not excuse a trustee for an obvious
breach of trust in consequence merely of an allegation that he
was ignorant and ill-advised. In this case it was stated he had
kept the trust money, which should have been profitably in-
vested, in a box, in his own house, distinct and apart from his
own funds; but that hudbot been proved; and it musttlierefore
be judicially inferred that they had been applied in the ordi-
nary course of his business. That was the unavoidable
inference which a court of justice must draw from his conduct,
and it was impossible to excuse him. He should therefore pay
interest at five per cent. on the balances in his hands which
should -be found due from him; and as the suit had been ren-
dered necessary, not in consequence of any difficulty or question
as to -the construction of the trust deed, but by his culpable
default as trustee, he should also be compelled to pay the costs
of the suit.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, Nov. 22.

PARISI' OF ST. JAMES V. THE EARL OF BC RLINGTON.

The Solicitor-General moved for a mandamus against Mr.
Conant, one of the magistrates at Marlborough-street, com-
manding him to issue a distress warrant against the noble earl
for the payment of poor-rates, assessed upon his town mansion,
(Burlington-house, Piceadillv,) valued at £2,913, which valu-
ation two county magistrates had reduced to £1,651 per annum,
or else that a certiorari should issue to quash the order of the
two justices at the quarter sessions.
The certiorari was granted.
TILE KING V. LADY BRISCO.

In this case the defendant had been convicted on an indict-
ment for wilful and corrupt perjury, committed by her on her
evidence given on the trial of one Mary Guinan, who had been
prosecuted by her for an offence of a similar nature.
Mr. Kelly, in the early part of the term, was instructed to
auly for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new
trial, on payment of costs, on the ground that subsequently to
the trial the defendant had discovered evidence which, on a
future trial, would induce a jury to come to a different conclu-
sion to that at which the former.jury.had arrived. The defend-
ant, on that occasion, not being in Court, their Lordships
directed that the case should be mentioned when she appeared,
to receive the' judgment of the Court. She now came up, and
the learned counsel made his appliCation upon a great number,
of affidavits, which went to disprove the testimony on which
the conviction was obtained.

The Court granted a rule nisi.
Ix RE PALMER.

Sir J. Scarlett moved fora rule calling upon Messrs. James
and John Palmer, attorneys, to show cause why they should-
not be struck of the rolls for allowing a Mr. Edmonds to prac-
tice in their name, for the use of whirl► he had paid £lO per
annum.
ltule aid granted.

ADMIRALTY COI; RT.
THE NEPTUNE.
In this case Dr. Dodson put in and read the affidavits of
several of the crew of the ship Neptune, who. did not join in
the first suits for wages; stating- the ,amount of their claims.
The learned doctor moved the court to decree the payment of
the sums due to them, jUdgment having already been pro-
nounced in their favour by the decision in the former action,
Sir John Nichol(; in decreeing the payment of the wages due
to the respective deponents, took occasion to observe that the
practice in the Court of Admiralty up to the present time had
been to limit the number of persons joining in a suit to obtain
payment of wages to six. On considering this matter he had
been led to believe that the practice was, in many respects,
inconvenient, and that it also was not attended by any advan.
tages equivalent to those inconveniences; for the principal ob-
ject of the Court of Admiralty in this respect was to _enable sea-
men to have recourse to a summary and joint process for the
recovery of their gages; whereas, if they were restricted to the
courts of common law, they would be under the. necessity of
proceeding singly. In order, therefore, that the full benefit of
this intention might hereafter be reaped by that very useful
class of men, the court had come to the resolution of removing
the limitation of persons as to number, and of suffering in
future the whole crew, if needs were, to join in one suit against
the owner for wages. This alteration in the regulations of the
court would be productive of no detriment- to the owners,
inasmuch as they would be at liberty to defend part only of the
suit, if they were so disposed, and it would certainly save ex-
pense, not only to them, but likewise to the seamen, to whom
the expense of process was a matter of serious consideration.
A further advantage .which would result from this alteration
would be to reduce very materially the number of defaUlti
suits for wages.
Mr. George Roger Langdon was introduced in form, and in-:
ducted as a proctor in this court.

LONDON POLICE REPORT.

MANSION-HOUSE, FRIDAY.

William Light, Captain Ross's steward on the great northern
excursion, applied at the justice-room for the Lord Mayor's aid
in procuring for the widow of the armourer, who died of asthma
in that climate of eternal snow, the property to which she be-
came entitled by the death of her husband. It was with Capt.
Ross's wish be made the application.
The steward stated, that, in the year 1830, he made the will
of the armonrer, whose name in the arctic expedition was
David Huddy, but, in his Majesty's service, Thomas :gargling.
All the deceased was woith he bequeathed to his wife, but the
will was unfortunately deposited in a certain part of the ship to
which the watet, whenjhe ice dissolved, had access. The con-,
sequence was thaethe writing was completely obliterated. It
therefore became necessary to swear to a duplicate of the will,
which he (the steward) was prepared to authenticate.
The Lord Mayor expressed the utmost readiness to render
any service to any- person recommended under such circum-
stances by Captain Ross, and advised the applicant upon the
course which it would be most proper for the wife of the de-
ceased, as achninistratrix, to resort to.
In answer to several questions put by the Lord Mayor, the
steward stated that he had nearly lost the use of his arms while
the crew were wintering; that tile deceased armorer was in
bad health when he went out, &c.
The first intimation Captain Ross received upon his arrival
in London was, it is rather remarkable, an invitation to dine
at the Mansion-house on the 9th of November.
The applicant said that he bad not as yet received the money
to which he was considered entitled, although Government had
issued it.
TIIAMES POLICE. -
A BuecirEn AND sirs Rte.—Thursday, a Mr. Holton, a but-
cher, who carries on business in High-street, Shadwell, waited
on the magistrates in 'a very disconsolate mood, and said he had
particular business to transact with Mr. Combe, who happened
to be on the bench.
Mr. Broderip—Here is Mr. Combe (pointing to his colleague.)
If you have any thing to say, address him.
Mr. Holton (addressing :gr. Combe) said it was the misfor-
tune of his life to have a very bad wife, and he knew that the
worthy magistrate was the gentleman who would give him as-
sistance, as he decided the case about a leg of mutton which his
wife said his man stole.
Mr. Combe—Well, I can't help your having a bad wife. I
recollect she said you tippled a little. What has she been doing
to von?
Mr. Holton—Oh, I can't get on any how with her. She
does just as she likes. She goes out when she likes and comes
in when she likes, and she takes all my money as fast as I earn
it. How am Ito get rid of her?
Mr. Broderip said the magistrates could give him no advice
on that point. He had taken his wife for better and for worse,
and the worse seemed to preponderate,—in fact she was much
worse than when lie took her.
Mr. Holton—Yes, she is much worse than when I. took her,
for she abuses me if I talk to her, and says she will have her
own way whether I like it or not, and she goes out and remains
absent for a week with all the money.
Mr. Broderip—Well, if she does all that, why don't you
keep her out ?
Mr. Holton—Can't I kick her out when she comes in? Will
you let me hide her a little?—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. Broderip and Mr. Combe—Oh no;_ you must not kick
her out; you must not beat her. Why don't you keep the
money yourself?
Mr. Holton—Because she won't let me have it. She has
brought me to insolvency. Once I had a fine shop of business,
I killed twenty bullocks, and one hundred sheep and lambs, be,
sides pigs, every week, and now half my business is gone.

Mr. Broderip said that Mr. Holton ought to be able to regu-
late the4-1---nestic.alfairs of his own establishment Without mak-
jug aypiication to the magistrates to do it for him. Ile must
make the best of his bargain.
Ilolton—She is the worst bargain I ever made; she is
the plague of my life. She is so suspicious. that I can't look
about me. Will you tell me how I'm to get rid of .her? •
Mr. Combe—No, we can't, indeed. How long have you
been married?

Mr. Holton—For eighteen years, lam sorry to say. (This
was uttered with such a lung-drawn sigh, and ludicrous self-
sympathising manner, as to cause great laughter).
Mr. Coasbe—Aud how has she behaved- all that time?

Mr. Holton—Oh, just the same; exactly the same.
Mr. Broderip—Thon, if your story is true, I do pity.
Mr. Oombe said he endeavoured to persuade the parties-to
come to a better understanding when they Were last before him.
They made a very ridiculous exhibition, the wife swearing the
shormiu had stolen a leg of mutton, and the husband declaring
it was a falsehood, and that no mutton was lost.

Mr. Holton—'There was no leg of mutton lost; my wife will
swear any thing. She would swear the devil's life away if she
could. (Loud laughter.) - I never kneW such a woman! (Here
Mr. Holton was iuterrupted by the opening of the door, towards
I which he looked very anxiously, and evidently much alarmed,.
expecting to see his wife, but finding it was some one else he
took fresh courage,_ and proceeded to state that she -swore
falsely against his brother, and got him confined for debt for
live years.)
Mr. Broderip said that was no fault of his wife, but of the ap-
plicant, in whose name the action was brought. His wife, as, a
femme corert, could have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Holton—Oh yes, it was all through her, it was for a debt
of £250 she got him locked up.
Mr. Combo—You had no occasion to.proceed with the action
against your relative unless you pleased.
Mr., Holton-0 sir, I dared not do otherwise, my wife would
haVe it so. (Much laughter.)
Mr. Broderip—You could have liberated him. You had it in
• your power to do that.
Mr. Ilolton—Why yes, sir, I might, but I was afraid of my
wife's anger—besides he had done some dirty tricks; but I hope
you will assist me in getting rid of my wife.
Mr. Combe—We.cannot assist you to do that.
Mr. Holton-,Can't you now ? What am I to do ? (In-
creased laughter.)
Mr. Corn be—No. We cannot indeed.
- Mr. Holton stood still for a few seconds with his eyes fixed on
the ground, and then took up his hat and walked slowly out of
the office, ejaculating, "Oh dear, what am 1 to do ? "

THE LIVERPOOL STA_NDARD.