Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-04-23
{y0L. XY.--N0. 5is.

ii"iitS street, t'':S NTi"si. %"' Hriao-
iishcd The nli''ows q; his hoasa. 20 nj
these places nari.es o. officers Wtge ties-
pal, Leit wIi!i Ill possible Sp I'd.
sixteen c,lifrs were ,Ya,gi, ~ BIZ tif-
ivieni ronaisbies. aud were positively
''sWoIn 10, as having aecn actively cncag-
ed ~ vasious oniragcs s@ie II having
peiieG Lord SETON au,i lis ,-ietttS, sonse
81 breaking wiuGow., AND OILERS at Is.-
iiic'ing viclcut blaws ni;a bll...eeot,s. =.
Several Of the prisoners were ordered
To ind bail; some We're discharged on
their.pFomse to appear when called upon,
and inc were committed. Several we're
committed tor picking pockets.
Ahempta at Nuier.-A ;nongst the fell
lows brought up 10 Bow street Office On
Wednesday,, OF charge al rioting, was
one named james Mitchell. .sho MAS com
! united on suspicion al lis being The
wretch who made the desperate attempt
10 murder Miss Rowles al hurnham, as
stated IN our paper of yesterday. He
was charged by William Dickinson, a
constable, VITA beisg very active among
the crowd in henrietta street; he was
armed with biudgeon, with which he
struck Dickinson and several PERSONS.
he gave very strange account Of him
self, saying be had only lately arrived
from Hampshire. His name being the
ed the above liorrid transaction, The wor
thy magistrate examined him very strict
ly.
Queen Square ATTACK on Mr.. LaalJ's
House. Yesterday Thomas Hole aud
| VIM. May, young men about The ages ~
| 90, were brought 10 this Office, and eA-
amined before w. Fielding, charged with
| being actively concerned with a mob WHO
attacked The house ofihe hon. MIR Lamb,
| M. p. at Whitehall, Oh Wednesday night
| The mob consisted of az leas, 5000 per-
sons, men and boys, and seem TO haze
/ provided themselves wiil, stones ard
bricks for the occasion however, as
| soon as the turbulence OF the multitude
| began TO manifest itsel! ia Coveut garden,
! at all early hour OF the day, an attack on
| MIR. Lamb's house WAS naturally aniic-
| pated, and proper measures taken 20 pre-
vent ine outrage.
| They were committed.
Court of' Kings Beach, Maych 4.
| RENNY V. CRoRAR.
This action was brought By the plain
! Tiff who is the widow OF Capt. Ecnny.
l0r The recovery of = sum of e 1000, under
lie following circumstances -
Captain Renuy was the owner Of nler-
chant ship, which he chartered tolhe de-
| feu.iants, who are British merchants, for
| voyage from Liverpool 10 New York
| and back. The vessel carried cargo
Outwards, and was bound 10 bring hone
another of American produce, II the con-
signees of the plaintiff should chuse 10
send one, but the plaintiff was not bound
to seek cargo on his own account. as
| the entire voyage was settled al siIpu-
lated sum. However, The consignees,
Messrs. jenkins q Co. at New York, did
ship homeward aquaniiiy of wool, " bich
t.fD 10 ,f,aG %f,tv, - 4, hoo,
brought to New York by British vessel
from some other part of the United States
But on his arrival home, il was di.coy-
cred by The Custom House officers, 10
came on board off Liverpool, That ii was
Smyrna wool and that all vessels ccu,-
ing from that country, or having on board
The produce thereof, were at that time
subjected 10 quarantine las The plague was
prevalent at Smyrna, The vessel, was
therefore, ordered TO quarantine at Mil
ford Haven, and where her cargo was 10
ken on: and re-shipped, and her detention
- days on this duty, under charge
for demurrage of l5s per day, the whole
charges for which amounted to 4 1000,
beside the charges for the dir CT voyage
out and home. The employers refused
10 pay this sum, and the plaintiff brought
her action.
BY The British Navigation Law, no Bri.
fish vessel bound 10 foreign country is
permitted TO bring home any cargo 10
England, except Of the growth, produce.
or manufacture ofthe country from which
such goods are shipped. The question,
therefore, in this case, as stated by the
learned Judge in his charge 10 the jury,
was, whether the captain Of the ship was
informed, or knew tsat this wool Was OF
Smyrna aud not America, or whether he
was deceived By The shippers, who we've
the correspondents of the defendants,
and by whose orders he was instructed TO
act. Il he did know, or was Informed OF
the circumstance, his act was voluntary,
and he must be liable 10 The cOnscuuen-
ces Of his own default on Tue charges in
Cured but il lie did noi know, and was
deceived by The shippers, then The YER
diet must be tor him.
The Jury, after d short consultation,
found for the plaintiff damages f. 1000
with costs.
The Holy alliance. In lie English House
Of Lords oil the 18th of February, the sew
erai state papers which grew out Of The
late conferences at AK la Chapelle, were
submitted.
Lord Holland inquired, if a copy Of the
treaty generally known By the name Of
Tie " Holy Alliance" was amsngille pa
pers, or intendedio be given.
The Earl Of liverpool, IN reply said.
that tie British government was no
direct party III what was called The Holy
Alliance. That treaty WAS concluded at
Paris III 1915, snd il was actually signed
by the contracting sovcreigns Themselves.
and MOI, as usual, through the imer,en
ton Of their respective ministers. Ii wa
therefore i'm rdctlcdbic iiat the prize es
/ regent should he IcrsODallV a marty. buf