The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-02-04 00:00:00

is._ tam. *AMKPh;Pf.* -4‘l.

nANBARD'S PARLIAMBNTAfiIf pal Tgs• •
THE SUBSCRIBERS to thla Work aro romtPet
folly Informed, That the SEVENTY! VOLUME of
the New Merles, will be ready for delivery on the 10th
Instant,
London published by Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy , and
the other proprietors.

BLACKWOOD'S li4 it47oue.
OWING to contrary witiels. The rtnt4l. board n 1
which the new Number Wes chipped. on the 20th 01
last month. ie not yet travel], but It is hourly expected.
Stroud. Feb. I, IBM

. .
ryß • piR COL' NTH Y ligt,/AlgPLltilLcior•
IMITCHRLL's HISTORICAL CYPLOOMCIVIki
Idg boon peblished and delivered la the London iVlietea
Trade on Friday last. Jen. 31. it is considered propel?
apprise the Bookselling Trade throughout the United.
bagdom of this Act, 'in order that misapprehensions ma]
gMerded against. ening to ll* Psblicaturn havicit beet
bly deferred from the Slat of December lb tbsillee
/*Living see the alherseteristics oft fl wt~
, it In byitielf septuplets library et WIC Of lvedisrelsela
es'hlstory. shronology, lad historical bwmpavy.
• L There Is no Dictionary of the samointereeting subjects
10-tho language.

3. It Is one of Ike most beautiful specimens of modern ty=
leraphy, and equally tasteful in all its embellishments of
lops and Portraits.
4. It mutains nearly as such letter press u an octavo

'ohm. at Os.
b. The next Volume will commis. Chemistry, Mineralogy,
and neology, and be equally complete and elegant.
8. Tee other Felease wilt contain other separate branches
of knowledge, the 12 forming together a. circle of them
Sciences, either volume of which will be as complete by it-1
serfas though it formed no part of any series.
7. Such Cyclopedia will obviously be the most lumi-
nous, complete, and convenient ever published in oar lan-
guage.
S. The price of every volume is only 10s. 61. boards, or
12s. 6d. elegantly bound, calf gilt, and as the latter will be
kept uniform. its preference is recomnireded-.
0. The whole is stereotyped, sod the plates being on
steel, the last of 30,000 impressions will be as perfect as
the first.
N.B. The volume of Scripture Narratives, with 120 en-
gravings ; the long espeeted work of Public Characters of
all Notion% in 3 vols. wills 136 portrait*, etched nn copper,
will be in course of delivery withie the present weak ; aid
Dr. Robinson's Abridgment of Hume and Einsollett, with
bib Cootioaation, and 100 engravings, will be ready at the
ead of February.
Bridge-street. Feb. 3, ib23.

riIIOWERS'S TONIC PILLS, for Weakens of the
Stomach, ladigestioe, Costiveness. Bilious Irregnlail,
ties, rte. are earnestly remarmended in all those cases, (and
they are very numerous) 'Sere, the stomach being already
weak, and the digestive powers deranged, activepurgetives
are highly prejudicial, and productive of seriogs injery ti
the constitution. These Pills, is their operation, ere pecu-
liarly mild, safe, and 'teethe!. As a gentle aperient Tonle,
they cleanse, and yet strengthen the stomach. restore the
appetite, promote digestion, and keep the bowels la a rap-
ier and comfortable state, free from costiveness, but by SO
111e11111 too velared. The Tonic Pills arc sold (at 95.9.1„;
4s, 6d.; 11s. ; and 4tts, per boa), by venders of genuine
medicines throughout Enaland. Seollaod. and Ireland.
4,0 Observe The airtatare of •• Joss Towtas" ott the Is-
telaikail kis !Pp.' Iltar vs* saw atllMa 1011: • —^

•
nominees pagina nostra sae.
Oar pone relates to osan.—Mmtwiss..
Jut published, price As, in boards (Fifteenth Edition),
THE IEGIS of LIFE; a Non Medical Commen-
tary on the indiscretions arising from Human Frailty,
in which the Causes, Symptoms, and baneful Effects of Lure
Venoms, Gonorrhea, Stricture, Seminal Weakness, dte. are
rally developed; Part 11. contains some remarks on cer-
tain Female Complaints, in particular Sterility ; Part 111.
embraces Practical Observations on Sexual Debility, Self
Mien, sad Mental irritation, with some interesting observa-
tions on vegetable and animal life; in Part IV. is a Series of
Cases illustrative of the preceding subjects, explaining
them is a &miller manner, and the whole addressed to the
Youth and Maturity of both Sexes. By DOSS and Co.
Consulting Surgeons, Landes.
Nature beads
Omnibus ease dedit, si qui§ eegnoverit ati.—Ctau DIAN.
.iaee Heaves to all Use fund of bliss supplies,
Its frugal application marks the seise.
May be had at 20, Paternoster-row ; CS, Pall-Mali ;
Piccadilly; HI, Princes-street, Soho; 39, Fleet-street;
174, Fleet-street ; 44/, West Smithfield ; 98, Cheapside. Lon-
don; Stevenson and Co., barks and Co., Norwich; R-
-7eak. Ipswich; Barratt and Dneeld, Bath ; Sheppard, Bris-
tol; Hatt, Cambridge; Headley, Leeds; and at all Book-
sellers.—Messrs. BOSS and Co. are to be consulted, as
usual, every day, at their house ; and Patients in the Country
are requested to describe minutely the case, enclosing • re-
mittance for Advice and Medicine, which can he forwarded
so any part of the World.—OOSS and Co. M. R. C. Sur-
geons, No. 7, Jermyn-street, St. James's ; and I I, Bouverie -
street, Fleet-street, London.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Fu. 3.
:
I TOE COURIER REWSPATIR.
This day the Vtca-CuAxccyion pronounced judg-
ment in this cause. There weti, he said, two ques-
tions. First, was the plaintiff, William Stewart, en-
titled to call for a declaration of the Court on the right
of pre-emption which he claimed under the deeds of
assignment made to him by the defendants, Daniel
Stuart and Street ? The second question was, what,
if the plaintiff were entitled to call un the Court for
a declaration on that point, the justice of the.ease re•
qnired that declaration should be? 01 the G.-at
question it appeared, that in April and• Nay. 1819,
the plaintiff purchased from the defendants,Stuart and
Street, two shares from each, of the Courier news-
paper, out of twelve shares each, Into which they had
previously divided that paper; that be was, by the
terms of his purchase, to be retrospectively entitled to
the profits arising on the shares he had purchased
from the month of October preceding : and that on
the last day of the month of July following, a receipt
was tendered to him by the defendants to be sizned
by him for his share of the profits then dne, which in
effect called on him to renoul.ce the right of pre-rtup-
lion, which by his bill he sought so estahlish. That
l'eceipt be refused to sign, and on the litli of Angus',
%five days after, Mr. P son, the plaintiffs solicitor,
'rote to the defendants, that unless a COll,lll m receipt
Were taken for the money coming to the plaintiff as
rofit on his shares, he would file a bill in equity to
lstillilib'his rights, and to compel payment. To this
ems. Mr. Clarkson, the defendants' soli,: tor, replied
y letter e• the 10th of August, refusing on the part
If the defendants, to pay the plaintiff his share of
profits-on a common receipt. There could be no ques-
tion that the plaintiff was by that refusal pliced in
a eitintion entitling him to call on the Court to

a/Plift dirof es. di )kffold r

~esblto • ditelaratios on has claim of pre-empion. It
gust grit be considered what took place between
the parties after deprivation of that right. On the
*34 of August, the plaintiff filed the preilent bill
.Al 4 on the Vitli of Angost, the defendants'
for, probably not knowing that the bill was filed.
emote to the plaiistifFs solicitor, stating, that the
defendants' were willing to pay the plaintiff Mil
thiire of profit*, and take a common receipt. To{
letter the plaintiff's solicitor replied that his
t bad filed Lis bill, but that he would acquaint
iti.th the defendants' offer, and on the 31st of
.he wrote again to the defendants' solicitor,
that the plaintiff considered the defendants'
offer fro pay the money on a common receipt an ad-
that they were not justified in demandiug any
Ober, and that they should therefore pay the costs;
la Witich.letter no answer was rammed. Tae delta-
-Isll.i.n dirk answer, say that they were MO/ Mil
e goat' Ms share of costs, end tithe front'
him a sacalaan receipt; bdt the defendant Street says,
Sheila* would bare verbally insisted that the plain
:tiff. was not entitled to the right of pre-emption which
be claimed. On the second question in the mem
what declaration the Court should make on the right
of pre-emption which the plaintiff claimed ? it ar
peered that, prior to the year 1808, the defendants,
Mulct Smart and Street, had been proprietors of
the Costlier Newspaper, an Evening Paper of great
iircolation, sod producing considerable profits —~
Illithat year for the first time they eaters into articles
• pertnembip, which was principally dune for the puts
pile of enabling them to dispose of the whole or a part
rat the shore which each possessed in the property of tbe
Piper. nod to prescribe the conditions an which they or
others o bormight become joint proprietors. should trans.
ler their shares. Fur that purpose they divided the Pe.
per into 24 shares. Stuart's shares being numbered from
1 to 1.1, and Street's shares being numbered from 13 to
114. The reason of this numbering of the shares was,
that it was agreed between the parties, that before any
proprietor of a share should sell 4 than: to a person who
was not a proprietor, he was hound to oder it to every
ether proprietor; and as provision was made for twenty
leer proprietors, it moon of course be offered to souse be.
others, sod the numbers of the shares were to deter.,
*Wedge order ofpriority. From the date of that *ere*. I
omit oo mach sane of a share was made previous to the
gale to the plaintiff in 1919 (fur the circumstances in
which lie. Hartford might become entitled to shares,
were not necessary to be taken into consideration in the
present cause.) On.the sth of March, 1819, the plaintiff
.purchased twee shares from the defendant Daniel Stuart,
podia the following month he purchased two shares frogs
the defendant Street, which might be considered in the
douse as one transaction, and it might be presumed,
that when any person became the legal holder of. any
Owe, he would necessarily take all the rights and into.
lists the partnership articles conferred, and became sub.
ttAS the emsrlitiont it imposed ; and that he would
ilisemseace become entitled to the right of pre-emp-
Sept. Mole! Stuart aed Street being sole proprietors
to nate otw tettos—.44l he charterer
44041141 t
iffilterlF—to deprive new proprietors of the right
of pre-emption, and to impose new conditions. It was,
therefore, a material consideration whether any alters.
lion of the terms of the partnership deed of 1808
was to be found in the deed of partnership and
assignment entered into with the plaintiff in leo,
and whether it was the intention of the parties
to deprive the plaintiff of the right of pre-
caption. The deed by which the first share from
Daniel Stuart was assigned to the plaintiff (and all the
shares wereassigoed in the stone terms) stated that Dan.
Stuart, of Wykhans Park, Oxfordshire, Eaq. its consider.
anion of 1,9991. paid by Wm. Stewart, Esq. sold, bar-
gained, assigned, and made over, fully, clearly, abso-
lutely, and for ever, all his right, title, and interest in
one twenty fourth part of the Courier Newspaper. &c.
If the deed stopped there, Wm. Stewart would be clearly
entitled to every thing that Daniel Stuart possessed under
the deed of 1868. Any qualification of that right must
he found in the words that followed, which were "sub-
ject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned." These
words it had been argued meant not merely that Win.
Stewart was booed by the conditions afterwards enumer-
ated in the deed • but also that he did not become enti-
tled to any benefits under the deed, but those that were
specifically mentioned in it; that was a principle of eon-
structiem which the Court could by no means admit ;
the deed of assignment gave William Stewart all
the rights and benefits belonging to the share it
assigned, as fully as they were enjoyed by Daniel
Stuart; they could only be limited by express terms
in the deed, and there were no such words to
be found. There was not a single word in the deed
which pointed at any inteniion on the part of any of
the parties, that William Stewart should be r xeluded
from the right of property that was included in she mi•
gieal deed. The deed of 180 was a code of rights and
laws agreed to by Daniel Stuart and Street, for their
mutual benefit in the government and disposal of their
joint property : and every subsequent proprietor was to
hound by all the obligations of that code, anti to enjoy
all its rights and privileges, unless in the instrument
creating him a proprietor, legal qualifications were in-
troduced. D.Btuart and Street bad the power to limit
those rights and privileges, but if their deed of assign.
meat to WilliadfStewart contained no such limits, then
he mast be entitled to the whole. There were no such
limits found in the deed, therefore %Valiant Stewart was
entitled to the right of pre-emption. In considering
the true construction of the deed, the Court was bound
to reject all parole evidence; the intention of the parties
must be learned from the deed itself; but on the goes.
tioa of costs, the ensue principle did not apply. The
Court was bound to take into consideration the answer
of the d. fendant, He was satisfied that at the time of
the sale to the plaintiff they had not the right of pre-
emption in contemplation; and it was by no means cer-
tain that the plaintiff had, but it was certain lie did not
mention it, nor in any way bring it under the consider-
ation of theilefendants. The original bill makes also
a claim of deduction in the original price paid by the
plaintiff for his allures, which ruins he hail failed to
establish. The decree should therefore be in ide with.
out C 0416. The cross bill prayerl that the sale to the
plaintiff might be rescinded: for that prayer there ap-
peared to be no reasonable grounds ; that bill therefore
must be dismissed with costs:

COUIiT OF KING'S BEIVCII.-11-caTamtssito, F lin 3.
Mr. SMIRKS moved fora rule to show cause why an
attornry of the Court, whose name for the present he
would forbear to %ennuis, should not he strnek off the
roils, for acting as agent to an unqualified person in the
country; anal why that person, wbese oame also he rrogt,s
conceal, should nut he committed for his °lrene.. ; and
why a cugnocit, given to that person, should not be de.

~,

SEVItIII PINCH.

livered pp,in the defendant against whom the proceed-
ings weist4idten.• The petty who, acted as pristipal was
not an attorney, but only a conveyancer; aid he and his •
agent in town had bath been concerned in the conduct
of a suit, which they had settled by taking payment of
the debt, and a eognovit for the Costs:
The Court granted a rule to show cause,
VIC XING V. WILLIAX Fox.
The SOLICITOR'tiIINSRAL moved for the judgment of
the Court on this defendant. When sidled, he did not
appear q and on an affidavit that lie had been duly served
with notice, his recogni lances were entreated.

THE KING V. .1011 V IRVINE.
This was an information against the defendant for a
fraud, in pretending to a person named Ashburn, that
he could, ,rocure bins a place in the Exoise. The de•
fendant having suffered judgment to go by default, he
was now brought up on tbe. motion of .the Solicitor
fiend to reeeivesen4nee. The testicular' of this case
have already been before the public.
Frees theafiLlavlts put in on tile part ef the meal,
,tiaajt eiepeereJ, that the prosrtwaer being desires' of
—obtaining an accession to his income, having failed ia_
business, bad caused an advertisement to be inserted in
The Times newspaper, offering a dower to any person
who could procure him a permanent mercantile situa-
tion. The defendant answered this advertisement, called
upon him, and told him he would take him to a person
named Goodall, who could influence a gentleman in the
Treasury, to get him a situation in the Excise. An in.
terview accordingly took place between the prosecutor
and Mr. Goodall, who told bim that be must advance
the sum of 661. for the situation The prosecutor said
lie was not possessed of so much money, but be was pre-
vailed upon to advance 351. receiving as a security for it,
the joint promissory note of the defendant and Goodall,
payable in five weeks. When at maturity, the note was
not taken up, and on further inquiry he found that the.
whole transaction was a bubble, and that Mr. Goodall
was enable to procure him the situation. In ccnse-
qnenee of threatening to arrest the defendant, he pro-
cored from the latter an assignment of some household
furniture, which amounted in value to about ten
pounds.
The defendant's affidavit represented that he himself
had been deluded by Goodall, whom he believed to he
possessed of Influence sufficient to procure hint the situ-
ation. That be bad not participated in the fruits of the
fraud; that he had done every thing in his power to in-
demnify the prosecutor by selling the bed from nyder
him t that he bad a wife and t hree children in a destitute
situation, and that be was sincerely contrite for theillegal
act into which he had been betrayed.
Mr. J. L. Adolphus addressed the Court in mitiga-
tion of punishment, and with considerable effect urged
the topics of compassion suggested in the affidavit.
The Court under alllbe circumstances of the case,
' sentenced the defendant to 6 months' imprisonment !ta
the Middlesex House of Correction.