3118 FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BANKRUPTS. T. Teesdale, Newington, linen draper. Solicitor, Mr. Gates, Citeaton Street. G. de Ugune, Wilma. Street, Finsbury Square, merchant. S.sl. Mr. Cole, Broad Surest Buildings. It Embleton, South Shields, wine merchant. Sol. Mr. Van heythusen, John Street, Bedford Row. W. Banton, Northwich, Cheshire, grocer. Sol. Mr. John, Palsguive Place, Temple. H. Snelgnive, Warningeamp, Sussex, Tioolstapler. Sols. Messrs. Freeman and Co. Coleman Street. W. Smith, Plymouth Dock, cabinet maker. Sols. Messrs. Darke and Co. Red Lion Square. J. lieppenstull. Doncaster, agricultural machine maker. Sol. Mr. Lever, Gray's Inn. C. Lloyd, Thetford, Norfolk, bookseller. Sol. Mr. Nelson, Barnard's Inn. J. Crump, Birmingham, money scrivener. Sols. Messrs. Long and Co. Gray's Inn. T. Gibson, jun. and J. Eaves, Liverpool, ship bread bakers. Sol. Mr. Chester, Staple Inn. S. il. White, Edingley Cotton Mill, Nottinghamshire, cotton spinner. Sol. Mr. Barber, Holborn. F. Taylor. Adlington, Lancashire, shopkeeper. Sol. Mr. G tskcll, Wigan. W. It..ker, Ticehurst, Sussex, blacksmith. Sol. Mr. Allen, Clifford's Lin. DIVIDENDS. Nov. 17, R. Sharpris, Davies Street, Berkeley Square, dealer in china—to, J. Day and J. Spratswell, Tavistock Street, drapers—in, J. and 11. Cleugh, Leadenhall Street, wholesale linen drapers-27, J. Cook, Eye, SufEilk. miller-50, T. Bug. nail, Birmingham, toy niaker-27, H. Hewitt, North Shields, linen draper- 27, .1. F. and J. Dubois, Aldermen's Walk, mer chants-29, G. Garlick, Westport, Wiltshire, tanner-27, G. M. Thurkle, New Street Square, trine merchant-24„ M. Hafther, Cannon Street, St.George's,ce rpentcr-28. J. Martin, Liverpool, merchant-30, S. W. Bvks, Rotherham, Yorkshire, mercer-20, J. Sanders, I vybridge, Ilevon, tanner-28, J.Gratton, Denshaw, York, and .1. Grafton, Manchester, calico printers-30, E. Lewis, Abbey Cwinhir, Radnorshire, farmer—Dec. 8, J. Archer, Ware, Heirs, miller-3, W. Prince, Pontefract, Yorkshire, grocer-6, .1. Morrell, Halifax, gmeer-11, .1. Packer, P.iinswick. Glouces tershire. clothier—a, D. Giles, Lyfind, Berks, inealman-3, T. Price, Itoillinrough, Gloucestershire, civil engineer. CERTIFICATES to lx wanted Nov. 2?. NV. Stanitinth, Little Eastcheap, wine merchant—R. Consist and It. Lee, Sculcoatcs, Yorkshire, incrchants—.D. T. Price, I lidy well Street, Shoreditch„ butcher-1 Boom, sen. Bristol, mereliant—B. S. Sawden, Bridlington Quay, corn factor—R. Crowden, Kiiightsbridt,se, hootinaker. LAIV INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY. WEIMESOAY, NOV. 7. ELOPEMENT WITO A WARD OF THE COtRT. Elisabeth Sr ales, Margaret Scaks, and Elisabeth Scales, in fants, v. Trapp and Scales. Mr. Ching, in ',hesitance or a Rpecial appointment this rimming : made a motion for the committal of Thomas and Joseph Barlow, to the Fleet Misfit], for contempt of the court. Ile staled that the motion was supported bj the affidavits of Mrs. Scales, her uncle and appointed goal (ball ill a snit in Equity slow pending in this Court; and also by that of Air. Brookshank, the solicitor in the cause. From these affidavits, which lie read, the following par tielll:ll9 appeared: Mrs. Scales had sworn that Miss M. Scales, one of the above-named plaintiffs, was a lady about nineteen years of age, and Mr. Scales being her guardian, lie had placed her in a boarding school near London to receive an education equal to her fortune, which would amount to several thousands of pounds on her attaining the age of 21 years. Having remained at a school till Alidsmniner, 1820, she was taken home to reside with Mrs. Stales, at Whittington, near Chester field, where, fur a considerable pet hut, her conduct was most exemplary, and that of a young lady el Ler fortune and expectations. About six weeks since her conduct lied nefort unmety been the reverse, and her manners haul become disssolitte and it regular, from a connection which site had formed with a young man, named 'rhos. Barlow, a journeymen toohmaker, residing at Staverley, about four miles trom Whittington. Upon the intercourse be. Me discovered, it was immediately discountenanced, and Miss Scales seriously aditionielivil tot holding a connection ehoether so unworthy her station in life. This admin. Cent not meeting with its desired effect, Barlow received notice In desist Isom continuing his connection with her; of the consequences that would result to himself from a non-attention to this advice, be was informed she was a ward in Charcery, and of course that lie must be in volved in serious troubles, if his conduct made an appli cation to the Court necessary. The good advice given to the lady was also unheeded , and on Monday evening, the of October, she left her grandmother's house, es caping through the garden gato, ahem Barlow was in attendance to receive her; and they directed their course across the country, in such a direction as to elude the vi gilance of those aho pursued them for a considerable lapse of Mute. These circumstances were communicated to the attorney in the suit, and he immediately made an a ?plication for, and produced an order of the Court, ill recting Barlow forthwith to restoie the lady to her guar dian, and interdicting them front contracting a mart loge. It also cited Barlow and his brother, who was also an petite agent in promoting the elopement, to appear Lobo e the Court on the first day of 'feint, to show cause aby they should not stand committed for contempt of the Ceurt. On the 31st of October he traced the fugitives to Chesterfield, and was intermed by the agents that had Lt e n engaged there, that the lady with T. Barlow, and his In-tither had left that place on the preceding day for NIA. verley. When the parties arrived at the house ut Bal low, a great resistance was offered, and it was not till alter much opposition that he and his brother were served wit in a copy of the order of the Master of the Bolls, and the pursncrs tt ere successful in obtaining the custody of M Scales. On their art ival iu London she was given into the 'mode of her nude, with whom she has since remained. In a conveisation which, r. Brooksbank had with Joseph Barlow, he appeared to hate a perlect knoalege of the snit in Chancery, of the lady being a ward of the Court, suit of die amount of property it was probable she would Lc potter,med of. He also said that he had expended up wards of an hundred guineas in assisting his brother in the flapement, and they had actually been married at Gretna, tot the [Nuyr statement, it is believed, is untrue. 'flu. Lord Cleineellor.—What is Joseph Bat low t Mr. elting.—lle is muster toolmaker, and his LI edict Thomas is his join neyman. Frum the inquiries which had been made, it appeared that thc whole of die family of the Barlowx weir illiterate„ and of low habits and condition. In concluf ion, it was observed, that in Whig- THE NATIONAL REGISTER mg the case hafore tha Court, there was no feeling of a vindictive nature, the sole object being to prevent an improvident expenditure of the young lady's fortune, and to protect her from the miseries which such au alli• once would in all probably impose upon her. The Lord Chanecllor.—When will you be ready with your affidavits, Mr. Reopen, to answer this case? Mr. Houpell conceived a very short time would be re quixite. The Lord flaneellor.---I understand the two Barlows were in emu' yesterday, and I cannot conclude that they refuse to attend, before the breaking up of the cont. I shall remain here till half-past one, and if they are not then present, I shall conclude this case. The court was then occupied with other matters until the above mimed time, when the Lord ChattedMr depart ed without 'nuttier noticing it. NOV. 8. CONTEMPT OF COURT.—SEALES V. BARLOW. _ Mr. !Loupe!! stated that the affidavits on the part of the defendants were of great length, and their contents vier,. of such a nature, that he had to request his Lordship would hear him in his private room. The Lord Chaarellor—" If the Counsel and Solicitors of the parties ss ill attend me now in my private-room, I will hear it His Lordship then retired, and after being :anent an hour, returned, . . The Lord Chancellor—" I hnd some difficulty in hearing this case out of Court ; or any case where n ward of Court is concerned; hut wh o re both parties consent, Ido not think I ifir4lst to refuse.' His Lordship commit , ' d one to the custody of the warden of the Elect, and observed that he would rend the affidavits, and further consider how he would deal n ith the other. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WF.ONESD.III, NOV. 7. Rigid of Bathing on the Sea Shore. IILUNUNI.L, U. COTTER \t.. When the Judges took their seats this morning, judg ment was given upon this interestiug question. It was an action of trespass tiied before Mr. Justice Bayley, at Lancaster. The plaintiff, who is Lord of a Manor, and owner of soil on the River Mersey, where he claims an exclusive right to fish, sought to exclude the defendant, who keeps an hotel on the spot, iffein flossing machines between high and low water k, for the purpose of bathing. The defendant insisted on the common law right of all subjects of the King, to bathe on the sea shore. 'flue question censequently arose, whether per sons had a commofflaw right to pass over the barren sand of the sea for the purpose of bathing? Mr—lnslice Best first delivered his judgment upon this important question. He commenced by expressing his concern that he was compelled to (hike from the Court. 4fler giving this rase all the consideration he could, he fmmil Himself bound to say the subjects of this country had a co 11111 l on law e ight to pass over tjle sand of the sea fir the purpose of bathing. The right of fishing, claimed exclusively by a Lord of the Manor, could not interfere with the politic right of the sniiject—all the legal authori ties be could find were against it. To claim such a right was inconsistent with the law of the land.—The learned Judge cited .the Wein of Judges found in various legal authorities, and conchided by declaring, that the defer. dant, npon his view of the law,was entitled to the judgment of the Court. Mr. Justice Hohoyd was of opinion, that the right to hathe on the sea shine was not to be found in the common law, and consequently held that the plaintiff, in this vase, ought to have judgment. Mr. Justice Bayley said, the question in this case was, whether there was a co 1111 l ion Law right in the King's sub jects to pass the sea shore to bathe, notwithstanding a person had it preset iptivc right to fish? He was of opinion the public had not the right of going on the sea shore to bathe. The sea shore belonged to the King, who conferred the right of navigation and fishing, hut it did not follow that they had the right of bathing. If that right did exist, it would not be confined to one spot, but extend to the whole extent of the sea shore. The Crown had the right of the sea shore, and it would nut withhold the right of bathing where it dill not Mies fere with private property. It bathing had been allowed ou any tit and proper part of the coast, it would become a light by custom. The pas sages from Lord Hale fell short of the establishment of the claim contended fur. The only authotity he could find to make out chat the jus pato/irons was, lie found in liracton. Their it was said, the public had a right to fasten hers on the banks of all navigable rivets, but could it really be possiole to allow that right in the absence of authorities to show such right exists? Not satisfied with the a tit hot ity in Brat:tom the Judges considered the this case entitled to recover. - - J lid guirnt was accordingly entered for the plaintiff. CHA DN. IC& V. SILLS. Mr. Scarlett moved to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsnit. It was au action against the defendant upon a contract. It was stated in the declaration that the defer'. dant undertook, as a common carrier, to convey 14 chests or black dye, four iu 4 Kill!), to 11r. Chadwick, dyer, at Leeds. The chests were not sent four in a skip, and by the biemelt the plaintitisurtained a loss. A written order was sent to the defendant in 'the following te,ins :—" To be forwarded, four in a skip, to Mr. C. Chad ait k, dyer, Leeds." The paper %vas slatted by the defendant's servant with the initials W. IL 14 inn lilt paper was IsiOdsiced at the trial as evidence of a Cillittilet, Mr. Scat lett contended that it could not be received, being a contract which re quired a stamp. Tire learned Consisel now contended, in support of his motion, that it was evidence of a contract, and could nut be received without a stamp. The Court held that the paper was not to be considered a contract, but evidence of the ilslivety of goods to the Irtilinger, upon which a contract arose. The rule tot a tionsuit was consequently refused. PAIIKtiR V. INGHAM. Mr. Gill nil noted for a new unit iii this case. It was all action on a bill of exchange (or 'lite defence stt up was usury. There bad barn a discounting of the bill, and silver articles taken, to the amount of ltd. At the a person who was desct shed to be a captain of local militia stated, that lie took the silver articies to • pawn broker (Arclibutt) on the Surrey side of Westminster firidee, who declared they were worth no more than 41. The gnt•stu n taause on that esiilenee,whedies the plaintiff, in taking WI., had received a usurious consideration for diset.ooting the bill: Dory found for the defendant. 'Mr. Gainey now stated, that as soon as Ilic trial Was tat a , the plaintiff %scut to the paw uhreker, and fund the story respecting the 41. a wicked Imposition. The f ac t was, they pawned the articles, and never made inquiry respecting the value. The learned Counsel said, he had the affidavit of Mr. Archbntt, proving that the articles were pawned, and that to the hest of his judgment as a silversmith, 101. was not an overcharge. The plaintiff had since endeavoured to get an inspection of the articles, but without success. The Court granted a rule to slicw cause. THURSDAY, NOT, H. THE KING, V. TURNER. The defendant appeared at the sitting of the court to plead to an indictment preferred by the Constitutional Society, for publishing Car works. The indictment was read by the officer, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. He was told his trial would come ou at the Sit. bugs after Term. RICHARDSON, V. SIR R. HEAVE. This was an action against the defendan6he Sheriff of lEsssex, and another, for an assault and false imprisonment. —The cause was tried at Guildhall before the GliiefJustice, and a verdict given for the defendant. Air. Searlett in this instance moved fir a new trial. It appeared that the plaintiff, who resides in Essex, was going to London, when he was stopped by the officer of the Sheriff of Essex, who said he had a writ of Ca. Sa. against him._ The plaintiff said it must he some mistake, as he did not owe any person the sum for which the writ was sued out. The name in the writ wits William Richardson, and the plaintiff's name was John. The officer insisted on his caption, and took the plaintiff to his house, where it was discovered that the writ bad been sued out by some malicious person, and the plaintiff was discharged. He then brought this 'action. The Chief u•tice, in his charge to the Jury, said there was no doubt the arrest had been malicious. but the Jury had to consider whether the officer had received instruction suffi cient to point out the plaiotiff as the person to tie arrested. The Jury found a verdict fur the defentlant.—Mr. Scarlett now comended that nu instruction received by a sheriff, officer could justify the arre s t of a person whose name sat not in the writ. The Cow t granted a role to stew• (-attic. VET V. ANDRE:IIR. Mr. Gurney moved to set aside the nonsuit in this case and cuter a verdict for the plaintiff. It was a penal action upon an act of the 55th of the late King, brought in by Mr. Davies Gilbert, to prevent parish officers supplying the poor with provisions. The net applied to five parishes in Sussex, in one of which the defendant was guardian of the poor.— It appeared he had made a contract to sell sheep to a person maned Griffiths, and it was contended he had incurred a penalty of 491. by infringing the aforesaid act of parliament. The learned gentleman contended that the contract was oh. viotedy an infringoment of the act, which had been passed to prevent the very thing which the defendant had done. If half a dozen guardians of the poor made contracts with the farmer, they had an interest in the provisions supplied, and consequently could not exercise a proper superintendence over the concerns of the poor. In that view he submitted the nonsuit ought to be set aside. The Chief Justice.—There is enough to induce the Court to grant a rule to shew cause. k _-# ~w 011FRNET V. carrom. This action was tried before Baron Wood at Croydon, and a verdict given fur the defendant. The Common Sergeant applied for a new trial, on the ground that the learned Judge had rejected admissible evi deuce, The question was, whether the signature of the plaintiff to a warrant of attorney was genuine? Evidence was called by the Common Serjeant to prove the plaintiff was not in the room where the warrant of attorney was said to have been executed time sufficient 111 allow him lo write his name twice on the instrument in ques • . lie also called the father of the Outdid', who swore it was not his son's hand-writing. Four other witnesses were called, all ac quainted with the plaintilf's hand writing, and they all de po,ed that they did not believe it to be his signature.—The Common Sergeant proposed to call the inspector of forged notes, and two inspectors of franks in the general post-office, persons well skilled a: judging of hand writing, who he was instructed to say, would bate stated their opinion that the signatures in question were forgeries. The learned Judge considered such evidence inadmissahle, and consequently rejected it. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, therebylaffirming the signatures to be genuine. The learned Common Sergeant contended that the direction of the Judge was erroneous, such evidence having been re ceived by Lord Kenyon, Judge Buller, Mr. Justice Aslint4, and Judge Could, on a trial at har. The question upon those authorities ought to be reviewed ; therefore he trusted the Court Would grunt a new trial. The Coust granted a rule to show cause. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOT. 7. DAVIS V. THE BANE OF ENGLAND. Sergeant Lens moved the Court for a rule to chew cause why a new trial should nut be granted in this case. The learned Sergeant stated, that the plaintiff had brought an action against the Bank of England, to recover the value of two sums of 3,0001. each, 3 per Cent. Consols. and 7:d. Long Annuities, which had been sold out by his brother, John Henry Davis, under a forged power of attorney ; and on the trial it was proved, on the part of the Bank, that, on the 10th of Jaanary, being the time at which the dividends on 3 per Cent. Stock were paid, John Henry Davis had paid to the plaintiff's bankers, and to his credit, the sum of 1501., which was the exact amount of the divi dends that would be due to the plaintiff on his stock, had it not been sold ; from which fact it was inferred, that the plaintiff knew, at the time this payment was made, that his stock hail been sold by his brother, and that he re ceived the payment as interest on the debt due by his brother, in consequence of making the sale. The plaintiff, (said the learned Sergeant), is now prepared to prove that this payment of 17,e1. was made by his brother on areount of house-keeping expenses, the two brothers and their mother being at the time lis ing together at their joint expense; and in sopport of this fact there was not only the affidavit of the plaintiff, but also of his mother, Lady Davis, and of their hinter, who keeps the family art:omits.. As soon as Sergeant Lens had concluded, the Chief Justice said, "Take gout ride, and, as far as it is proper for me to entertain a wish on the subject, I wish it may he made absolute. It is a most distressing case; if the sent verdict must stand, the innocent plaintiff will he i ruined—amid ruined, too, because he delayed to give n formation to the Bank, which would have certainly led to prosecution of his br other for a capital offence.' A ministerial paper states, that Mr. Baron Gra ham Wood have retired. .