S 31'0 - THE M INAL R: FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. Mr. Nixon ordered end paid for the pliathstr-prate ail types I •—som ar - in question, and they were deposited in Pall-matlilleort.— _, B.ANKRUIiTS. e'-••1 0 . .., • Afterwards s , a fags" rarinicci Hatliweeld li s a paper oeljed ET Woodward, Detby, innkeeper.'vfolicitdir Mestra.Xell The Observer of the Ti m e s , o f ' w hi c h' Mr. Soot became the and Co. Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. editor and p y rinter. Tha Jury were aware t h at the daily W. Sanders, Bristol, tistimonget. Sols. Messrs. Clarke and newspaper ca/led The Times had a very extenaiv• circelatiou . F. C. Co. Gray% In., Square. Co. Chancery Lane. ookworthy, Bristol, bookseller. Sols. Messrs. Poo ls and therefore the proprietors of several oth e r papers had wa C imitated its title i n th e h ope o f s h ar i ng i n i ts success.— d B. Wainwright, Hereford, ma star. Sole Messrs Daz and —This was the case o f th e paper its quest i on w hi c h M r. S cott :t. . Co. Guildhird Street engaged to print and e dit, an d to enable himto perform the W. S. Williams, Brampton, coach master. Sole. Messrs. printing, he removed the types of Mr. Nixon from Pall Robinson and Co. Charterhouse Stittaie. Mall Coed' to C e th er i ne • s t rect, w h ere t h e O b server of the In VID:.:NDS. Times was conducted. Tide, however, was not all ; for he Nov. 30, A. Anderson, Philpot Lane, merchant-23, W. caused an exeontion against himself to be levied on these Law, Copthall Chambers, Throemorton Street, merchant—Dec. effects ; and then, vatic., they wereput np to sale by 14, T. Samson. Lyen, cotichmaker— 14, IL Purdock, Andover. auction, uffered to heroine their purchaser. Notice was given etailehThilltet.;--14, G. Lows. Commercial Buildings, Min 1 - -- to the Sheriffs not to sell ; but they persevered and sold the Lisle, wine merchant-14. J. Howley, Willow Street. Banksid e o proerty ; and had th us made theinaelvas liable to the pr e sent cure' merchant -14, T. K i l war d s , !Li g h ten , merc h ant -14, B. ! Bliatiorough, Belgrave Street, PLIIIIICO, rowleePer---10, J. action. Walker, Nich o l as L ane , i nsurance b ro k er - 1 3, J. and J To support this c ase on b e h a lf o f the plaintiff, evidence was Thompson, Newcastle upon 'Fyne merchants-1 t, W. Sandford given to sho w th a t th e types and printing-press were ordered and and J. Hoz, Salient, dyers - 14, 11., T. and P. Farr, Bristol. Paid for by Mr. Niiem. Mr. Ilatlaway stated that lie engaged merchants ...11), V. Ockley, Terrington, 1 , /ortiilk. general s h op _ Mr. Scott to point and edit the (Werner of the Times at a salary lot:per—it, W. Timer cal J. North, Mold Green, Yorkshire, GI 161. a week, but never heard the name of Nixon till after- Fancy clothiers—i 1, T. Ilirat, Marsh, Yorkshire, cloth dresser— wards. The °nicer who took the property in execution obtained 11, D. Thornton, Kirkhearun, Yorkshire, victualler—in, W. admittance in consequence of a servant of Mr. Scott cuming Kemp, Bath, banker —It. 11.. Frost, Macclesfield. and J. and M. and asking some question, which gave him the opportunity to Ashton, Liverpool, timber merchants -40, N. Nicholls, Holborn enter. The seizure, and the offers of Mr. Scott tourchase of Bridge, balter....l 7. 'F. I lalliday, Old S ou •h S ea H ouse, Broad the auctioiseer, were also proved. p Street, merciant—lti, J. Coppard, s en ., Mit c h am , d rug gr i nder —Hi, T. Morri s , B arton upon H um b er, and IL Nicholson, Mr. Gurney, for the defeedant, expressed hi s con fid ence th a t • Glantford Briggs, bankers -11, J. Hampshire, Kirkburton, be should be able to alto N that the property was partner. Yorkshire, fulling miller -10, J. W. Sanders, Newcastle Manx alilli property, and therefore rightly taken by the Shatilr ; and Tyne, merchant—i 7 J. B. Player, Bristol, b o ttl e liquor liter - m that, even giving eelt to Mr. Nixon's share in it, lie was in clam—Jan. 12. I'. emitting, Csuale Cou.t, urchin .Lune, iner • debted to Mr. Soott in leiwards of 19:11. To establish this case chant-21. W. G. Haney, Battle, Sussex, manufacturer of he called Mr. Scott. gunpowder. It was objected to the competency of Mr. Scott, that by es- CERTIFICATES to be granted Dec. 10. teblishing the validity of the execution he would discharge H. Bryant, Norwich, leather cutter—W. T•vedilell, Marshy, himself from the debt due to the original plaiutiffs ; bat a re- Cuinbeiland, common wrtier—J. Parr, Stand Lane, Lancashire, lease from them was produced, which rendered him a competent email manufdetuier witness. lie stated that the property was part of a premien* of 5151.t0 be advanced he Mr. Nixon, and belonged to the partnership. The original debt was due to t'.e landlord of the premises where the business was carried on in Pall-mall-court, which lie possessed before the commencement of the partner ship, and continued to possess now. He never sent any one le point out the goods to the Sheriff, nor was there ally collusion between himself and the plaintiff in the action. Mr. Nixonu was DOW indebted to his more than 1991. : he had a share in the profit of printing, though not of editing the Observer of Ike Times. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY. WEHSE'SDAY, ROW. 20. THE MERMAID.--HELLERYO. uottrurr. Hr. Hart moved for an injunction to restrwi4 the defendant from disposiog of, or sending out of the country, the figure of a mermaid, or the supposed figure of a mermaid, low exhibiting i t St. jallie4 . ll street, by the defendant, under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff and defendant were partners in the ship Pi, kering, trading from the port of London to South America. The defendant sold the ship in South America fur 6.11001. and bum thence proceeded to Batavia, and purchased the figure in question for 1,2001. out of the proceeds of the sale of the ship. He afterwards went to the Cape of Good Hope, and exhibited the figure to great profit, from whence he brought it to this country, and was now exhibiting it in it. James's street, and reinst d to account with the plaintiff for the profi:s ; and threatened, if the plaintiff interfered, that he would dispose ut the figare, or take it out of the country. He (the learned counsel) therefore contended that he had stated sufficient to his Lordship for the purpose of grauting the injunction. The Lord Citancellor—" is it positively sworn that the figure was purchased out of the proceeds of the axle of the ship, and that the plaintiff and deft 'Want were jointly iuterested in the proceeds !" Mr. Mot answered, it was so sworn. Lund Cliauectlor—" Take the injunction. On cross-examination be denied that he ever said to ➢lr. Miller that the press and type■ were Nixon's separate property. Henry Reynolds, the articled clerk of the last witness, stated the types were intermingled with partnership property. The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to say whether they believed Mr. Scott's statement, or that of the other witnesses, under which direction they found a verdict fur the plaintiff— Damages, 2301. TUESDAY, NOV. 19. ELLIS V. AttMsTRONG. This was a question under the Enclosure Act, and the point to be decided was, whether a ditch was to be cousidtred a ft nee. The Lord Chief !twice referred to the pleadings Anil evi dence in the cause, which was tried before bite at Guildhall.— His direr lion to the Jury way, be thought that a retitle ander the The Solicitor General shewed cause against the rule. The act set forth that a good and suilicieut tplickset was to be planted. Johnson's Dictionary gave this definition of a fence—a boun dary, a dyke, or wall. lie (the Solicitor General) contended that a river was a sufficient boundary, but not falling within the term fence. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY, NOV. 18. TUE KING f. CLARKE. Chief Justice Best—A ditch is a very sufficient boundary in fortification. The defendant in this ease, who had been convicted of pub lishing an afr istieal libel, entitled " Quesu at the sit tings of the Eist term. Guildhall, London, was this morning brought up is receive the judgment til ihe 'lite Lord Chief Justice read the libel and the evidence of its politic:duel by the defendant, as adduced on the Unit, and men tioned the fret of the Jury having strongly re•eummeuded the dependant to the merciful considevaion of the Court, on the grwind of the state tit destitution to whir 6 be had been reduced. The defendant sow put in an idliJav it, sluing; that lie had discontinued the aide of the offensive work, after he hail bees indicted, anti submitting that be Lad not, either on his trial or otherwise, aggravated the crime with which he bad been accused. He also entri kited, as he was completely destitute, that the Court would rather increase his term of imprisonment than call upuu him to bud sureties for his future goof behaviour, as be should out be able to procure them. lie did nut rare if it wits solitary confinement, as lie had some literary works in bawl, to which lie wished to apply Mr. Gurney addressed the Omit iu ic,gravation, and in for tilde leims called their Lordsl:ips's attention to the bilious character of the libel. The Chief Justice asked the defendant, whether, if the Court wale disposed to let him go upon lily own recognizance, to come up on any future day for juilgineut that the Court might choo►e to dot et, be was prepared on oath to give up all the twice oldie libel which were is his possession The defendant said he was prepared to give up the only Iwo copies whbL were in his possession ; hut that all the remiliniii; copies had been detained by the printer for a debt of 501. which he owed him, and were new selling at the tuschi,,e, of which his Lordship was nu doubt aware, ler the benclit of the piinter, and nut hit his benefit. Gorey said, this was an additional aggravation of the pi ismier's ulfeuce, as he stated on the face of the wit► that be was himself the printer. 3 . he Chief J ustiee—W ill you give up the name of the printer 'roe defeudatit replied, that, although lie and the primer were at varianc.:, still, uuder the agicesocut into w liieh they had originally entered, he could out fairly give him up to pro secution. The Chief Justice observed, that the object of the Court would be to ►ecure the copies of the well' which were unsold. The defendant was then permitted to retire, upon w undir standing that he should come up again this day ',ie . :might, and in the iutertin have such communication with the solicitor of tbc prosecution as might lead to the object which the Court was desirous of elluctin4—naui;:ly, the entire suppres►icn of this moat blasphemous publication. Solicitor General—A fence, brook, or rivulet falls under certain distinctiona. He apprehended a fence, according to the terms of the act, did out mina a ditch or a Ole, but a hedge. Mr. E. D. Jones supported the rule. The Lord Chief Justice thought if a dike, ditch, or rivulet had been sufficient, thousands of pounds ought have been saved under she enclosure act. The Court, however, refused to disturb the verdict. Tile ►olicitor General intimated Lis intention of bringing a N% lit of Error. Nl\/9 V. CARRATT AND \'ESABLES• Mr. Platt stated that this was au actiuu of ties,iass for taking Ilk plaintiff 's Saarlett detailed the circumstances wider which the plaintiff sought to rLeorer. The action was brought nominally aAaiust the late Sheriff of Middleneti for trelipllSS, cuinmittrd in tr , tug • p. toting press and 13 pe , of the plaintiff, tinder an exe cution against a pet son astiled Scott- Mr. Scott and Mr. Noson bad entered into pirtiterstlip in the pad'. ntion of a or a pass sailed the Military Re l ister, lu Pall-well tuurti but BUTT v. wisrmAN. This was an action to recover tithes, tried before the Chief Baron at the Spring Assizes for Suffolk. The plaintilf is Vicar of the parish of Laken, in the diocese of Ely, and the question at the trial was, whether certain abbey lands, on which the defendant, a farmer, was a eopyliulder, were liable to pay tithes. The Chief Baron told the Jury, that it was not only necessary that the defendant should prove the lands in question were abbey lands, but he must els() prove, that when the abbey held them they were discharged from tithes. . _ . . The (ury found fur the plaintiff. Mr. Eagles moved for a new trial on several points. First, on the gronnd of variance between the description of the parish, as set out in the declaration, at the es idenee.— Secondly, that es 'Menet! was rejected by the Chief Baron which ought to have beet received. Another objection was, a misdirection to the Jury. Mr. Scarlett shewed cause against the rule obtained by Mr. Eagles. lle contended, first, that the evidence rejected by the Chief Baron was inadmissible, and that by all the documentary evidence the land held by the defendant, SLY a copylmlder, was liable to tithes. The Jury having found a right verdict, there was no ground for a new trial. Mr. Stocks, on the same side, said, the Chief Baron had left two points fur the consideration of the Jury. First, to what extent was the icar endowed. The nest question was, whether there was evidence to show this land was exempt front tithes whilst in Ilse cultivation of the Dean and Chapter of Ely. 'I lie argument on the past of the defendant at the trial, went to p•ove that the Dean and Chapter of Ely were Lords of the Manor, and that the defendant had been time immemorial dist cliargodfrom Alr. Robinson was also proceeding with his argument against new trial, when the Lord Chief Justice ruse to Oecitle with the Loft: Chancellor upon errors, and the cause was ordered to stand ever to another day. CRIMINAL INFoRMATION.—TIII. KING O. NOEL. Mr. Scarlett moved for leave to file a criminal information against • military ollicer, mimed Noel, residing in the Weht Riding of ale county of York, for sending a threatenin3 tether, with a view to provoke Mr. Sk ikon, a gentleman of the same district, to fight a dock. It appeared, by the affidavit of Mr. Wilson, that some cor respondettce had taken place between himself and Mr. Noel, on the subject of sporting on a manor and certain inclosares.— In consort:nee of betiu; beeu warned off tLe tumor by Mr. r illlolef :servant, Mr. Noel wrote to Mr. Wilson, threaten. g to iusuk him wherever they might meet. The. Caret ge.anted a role to whew cause. DOC, ON DENISE OF HOWARD, V. TAYLOR. Mr. Stocks said this case had been before the Court on a rmrr occasion, when the parties were invited to come to an reement. All endeavours to bring them to an agreement td proved useless, and the Court was again called upon to Mr. Justice Be t read the report. The cause was tried at the spring assizes, Cambridge, before the Chief Baron. It was an action of ejectment, to obtain I -ion of premises held by the defendant in the county of Cambridge. The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed pos. session, as abbignee of a mortgage deed executed in 1747. The sum of 1201. was paid for the property mortgaged. Mr. Ro binson had moved 1 - or a rule to shew cause why the verdict should nut be confined to premises only situate in Milton. The application - was made upon the ground that the lessor of the plaintiff had taken more land under his mortgage than he was entitled to claim. It was urged as a very bard case, inasmuch as the defendant's family, Milli) resisted the plaintiff upon a deed executed in the . year 1740, were not prepared to prove at the trial the precise quantity of land which came within the deed assigned to the plaintiff. They were guilty of an oversight in that respect, mid the Court was moved either to amend the verdict or grant a new trial. Mr. Stocks, this day, opposed the application, and an affidavit made by the Rev. Mr. Fisch, a trustee, under the plaintiff's deed, was put in. The affidavit proved the payment of interest, under the deed, by the defendant's family. The Court, under all the - new trial. i, refused to grant a WEDNESDAY, INDY. 197 The Court was engaged till near one o'clock in hearing Mr. Robinson and Mr. Marryatt on the motion for a new trial in the lithe cause of Butt v. Wiseman. Before one, the Lord Chief Justice left the court to sit at Guildhall, and the other Judges took only ordinary motions, and shortly rose. Nothing occurred of any interest to the public. It is still quite uncertain when the case of the King v. 1% illiattis will be heard. COURT or• COMMON PLEAS. TUESDAY, NOV. 19. ST. JOHN O. SIR 111011 Ab LHAMPNEVS, AND COVENTRY v. TUL These important cases were 014 morning decided. A rale was obtained some time back by Mr. Sergeant Lewes, to 'thew cause why the annuity granted by the defendant, in consider ation of the sum of 9,0001. should not be set aside, and the deed securing the same cancelled, part of the consideration money having been repaid—the address of the witnesses in the memorial not having been described—and the names of all the parties beneficially interested not having been named therein. Mr. Ser g eant Peek followed on the same aide. Messrs. Sergeants Pell and Vaughiut spoke against the rule at some length, and The Lord Chief Justice, in a luminous speech recapitulated the whole of the case. Ills Lordship concluded by saying. that neither justice nor law required the interference (Adds Court to set the annuity aside , and I stiLt'geat, said bin Lordship, for the consideration of Sir T. Champoeys, whether it might not be better to take until the neat Term to consider as to the other case of Gordon, the third annuitant, in which Sir Thomas, who was present, seemed to acquiesce. WEIrsEsDAV, Nov. 20. POST-11011 . :1; DUTY.—Lio%bsE V. GARR A7T. The Court was occupied for some time this morning ha hearie; the arguments of counsel in this, which was a special ease. The point to be determined was, whether a pair of leaders, put in addition to the usual number of horses, to assist in drawing a stage coach up a kill, rendered the coachniaster liable to the duty as for post horses, under the provisions of the post-horse duty act. Mr. Sergeant LYIIII obtained the affirmative of the question. Mr. Sergeant Lawes supported the negative. The Court deferred its judgment to a future day. The Court rose at a quarter past two o'clock. THURSDAY, !VIM, 21. ?DR [ISO V. BRIDLE, LATE GAOLER OFILCHESTER! This was an information tried at the last Summer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Richardson, on which the dekndant was found guilty. Mr. Justice Best read the record of conviction, and the evi dence on the trial. The charge was fur cruelty, oppression, and tyranny towards the prisoners committed to bin charge. He was recommended to mercy ou account of his good dia. ratter. The defendants aflidavirstated, thatithe act of which he was convicted, was totally unpremeditated. That his fattier was a tradesman, who failed, and that an early age he left his father, and never called on him for a shilling. He was private and sergeant of fencibles, afterwards mate of a prison-ship. That during a period of sit ysars Is a conduct was never made the suhject of complaint. The affidavit further sal forth the defec tive regulations of Ilchester Gaol, which rendered it difficult for loin to act. That the prisoner Gardner was • violent and outrageous character, and the other a female guilty of picking pockets. That the sogsestion of the punishment of • blister originated with Mr. Bryer, a surgeon, who suggested it to de ponent. That :the irons in use at this prison were reduced in weight nearly one half. That divers ill-disposed persons had printed and circulated malignant libels to the prejudice of his character. Au affidavit was put in of Sir John Ackland, chairman of the Quarter Sessions, in support of the defendant's good cha racter. Mr. T. Smith, captain of one of the hulks at Woolwich, gave the defendant a high character. Affidavit of Anderson, who cammanded the 2d regiment of the Somerset Fencibles, likewise spoke to his good conduct as a soldier. Affidavits of V. Stuckey, Esq. and another, High Sheriffs of the county. likewise giving a high character of the defendant—of Edward Coles, Esq. Clerk of the Peace of said county, an excellent character—of Richard Pike, principal turnkey at flohester Gaol, that the said R. Bridle was a most Illumine find tender hearted nian--corroborating the defendant's affidavit to the violence of Thomas Gardner's conduct, as justifying the pu nishment inflicted. Sundry affidavits of prisoners antler his charge, being employed as his assistants, likewise spoke as to the good conduct or the defendant, and to the outrageous sod even blasphemous conduct of Thomas Gardner. I These affidavits took upwerds of an hour's reading. Mr. Williams for the defendant stated, that he had a great many more affidavits to the elike ffect, but which, to save the time of the Court, he should not read. The learned counsel was about to address the Court in mitigation, but the Court thought the affidavits quite sufficient, and asked if the Attorney General had any thing to say in aggravation. Mr. W 'nouns then proceeded to observe, that the only offence that the prisoner had committed was inflicting an un authorised poinieldnent. He coati:Weed the punislinient had Levu pros abed by the ptiaoner, but admitted the defendant Was I t• e is h 0 d e it a r. f a 1 r -