r 7 • : 110 6 370 TU:.SDAY NIGHT'S LiZETTC. BANKRUPT'S. F. Woodward, I),:by, itin4cencr. Solicitors, Messrs. Few ' Co. Henrietta Sire.,'. Covent Gamlen. kV. S aide s, thituronger. Suds. Messrs. Clarke and citsncery Lane. C.mittrorthy, Bristol, boo:isel:er. Solt. Merin. Poole an.; Cs. tiny'. Ina !goitre. B. Wainwright, Bere.ford, ms ter. Solt Messrs. Dice and Co. GurlitiOrd Street. W. S. Bromp.on, coach master. Sods. Messrs. Rouio.Aut and Co. Currterliimae Square. Nor. 3n, A. Anacreon. Philpot Lime, merchant. -23, W. La'.. Coishall Chambers, Throgmorron Street, merchant—Dec. 14, 'l'. Samson, tynn.stroechmaker— 11. R. Portlock, Andover. coaiiniaker-14, G. I.7?Nrse • Cossunereial Buildings, ll uuing :ow. ne nett WtJK Siren. Llanks i j,7 corn mcrelnant-14, 'l'. li awards, Brii.Porn, 'merchant -14, it. Volsburough, Belgrare Street. P.llllll'o. cookreper--10. .1. Walker, Nicholas Lane, insurance broker-IY, J. and J. Toomprion. Newcastle upon Tyne, merchants-11, W. Sandford and .1. Box, Salford. dyer,-14, It.. T. and P. Farr, Bristol, merchants-10, V. 0:11ey, Terrington,. 'Norfolk, general shop keeper—l t. W. Turner and J. North, Mold Green, Yorkshire, fancy clothiers—ll, T. Hirst. Marsh. Yorkshire, cloth dresser.- 11, O. 'Mormon, Kirkheaton. Yorkshire, vicrualler—ig, W. Kemp, Bath. banker—ll. 1.. Frost, Macclesfield. and J. and N. acmcon, Liverpool. number merchants—!o.: . Nicholls, Holborn Bridge, baker-17, T. Halliday. Old Sou h Sea House, Broad Sweet, mere , ant—lo,.l. Coppard, sen.. Mitcham. drug grinder —lO, T. Minis. Barton upon Ihunber, and R. Nicholson, Gasinford Briggs, bankers—lt. J. Hampshire, Kirkburton, Yorkshire, fulling miller —to, J. W. Sanders, Newcastle upon Tyne. merchant -11% J. B. Player, Bristol, bottle liquor turr et's:lt—lan. tit, T. Cumin& Castle Cou t. Bitchin Lane, mere cl.ant-21, ‘V. G. Harvey, Battle, Sussex, manufactures of gunpowder. CERTIFICATES to be granted Dec. to 11. Bryant. Norwich, leather cutter...W. Tnreddell. Tarraby. Cumberland, common carrier—J. Parr, Stand Lane, 1 aro-satire, check manufsctuter - THE NATIONA I, pip . • it- -v :STE R • Mr. Nikon ordered and paid for the p. ioting-press and typos in question, and they were deposited in Pall-mall-couit.— kterw irda a person named llathwey set up a paper called The Observer of the Times, of which Mr. Scott bi.catne the editor and printer. Tha Jury were aware that the daily 11 •1% 'paper called The Times bad a very extensive circalatiun • and therefore the proprietors of several ether papers had imitated its title in the hope of sharing in its suecess.- -This was the ease of the paper in question whiclt Mr. Scott enoged to print and edit, aid to enable hint to perform the printing, be removed the types of Mr. Nixon from Pall Mall Court to Catherine•strect, where the Warmer of the Tiara was conducted. This, however, was not all ; for he caused an exerntion against himself to be levied on these effects ; and then, when they wereput np to sale by auction. effered to become their purchaser. Notice was given to the ti!serilii not to sell ; but they persevered and sold the property ; and had thus made themselves liable to the present action. To support this case on behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was given tp show that the types and printinglwess were ordered and paid for by Mr. Nixon. M r. Ilettrway stated that be engaged MS:Soott to print and edit the als.erver of the Times at a veiny elf Ifikahreek, but never heard the name of Nixon till after a. The ullicer who took the property in execution obtained rfilmittance in consequence of a servant of Mr. Scott coming and asking some question, which gave him the opportunity to enter. The seinioit, and the offers of Mr. Scott to purchase of the auctioneer, witte also proved. Mr. Gummy, ;Or the defendant, expressed his confidence that lie loeld be able to altos that the property was partner• shiptroperty, and therefore rightly taken by the Sheriff; and that, even gtving credit to Mr. Nixon's share in it, he au in debted to Mr. Scott in upwards of 11.11/L To establish this cue •Ile called Mr. Scott. wee objected to the retnpeteucy of Mr. Scott, that by es tablishing the validity of the execution he would discharge himself from the debt due to the original plaintiffs ; but a re lease from theta was produced, which rendered him a competent witness. Ile mated that the property was part of a premium of 51.11.t0 be advanced by Mr. Nixon, and belonged to the partnership.. The original debt was due to the landlord of the premises where the bushier/ was carried on in Pall-msli-court, which he possessed before the commencement of the partner ship, and continued to possess now. Ile never sent any one to point out the goods to the Sheriff, nor was there any collusion between himself and the plaintiff in the action. Mr. Nixonn was now indebted to him more than 1991.: be bad • share in the profit of printing, though not of editing the Oiserver of the O cross-examination he denied thht he ever said to Mr. Milkr that tha press and types were Nissan's separate propene. Henry Reynolds, the articled clerk of the last witness, stated the types were iutersningled 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 for the plaintiff-- Damages, 2JUI. LA ll' INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY. LIUNSanaY, NOV. 20. THE 9EItMAID.—HELLERY a. DOHERTY. Mr. Hart moved for an injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of, or *coding out of the *wintry, the figure of a mermaid, or 11:e supposed figure of a mermaid, row exhibiting i ; St. James's street, by the defendant, under the following to-cuinstithees :—The plaintiff anal defendant were partners in the ship 1. t,,teriay, trading from the port of London to South America. The defendant sold the ship in South America for S.th.lol. and (ruin theure proceeded to Batavia, and purchased ere figure in question fur 1,2001. out of the proceeds of the sale of the ship. He afterwards went to the Cape of Good Hope, ■nd exhibited the figure to. great profit. from whence h. brought it to this country, and was now exhibiting it in. St. James's street, and refaced to account with the Weimar for the profi:s ; bud threatened, if the plaintiff interfered, that he would dispose of the figure, or take it out of the country. lie (the kilned counsel) therefore contended that lie had stated sufficient to his Lordship fur the purpose of granting the injunction. The Lord Chancellor--.• 1. it positively sworn that the figure was ptircliti,ed out of the proceeds of the sale of the %hip, and taut the plaintiff and defendant were jnintly interested 141 tins proceeds Mr. Hart answered, a was so !MOM. Lord Chaucellor—•' Tale the injunction. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. I.IONDAY, NOV. IS. TIM KING v. CLA The defendant in this cane, who bad been convicted of pub.- roam% an Mkt iatical libel, entitled Queen 31ab," et the sit _ pugs of the last term, Guildhall, London, was this morning Ttou;ht op to receive the judgment el the Coast. Ape Lord Chief Jo .tice read the libel and the evidence of its pugration by the defendant, as adduced on the trial, and men tioned the fact of the Jury haviiis strongly recommended the defendant to the merciful consideration of the Court, on the ground of the state of destitution to which he bad been reduced. The defendant now put in an affidavit, stating that he had diwootinoted the sale of the offensive work, after he had been indicted, sad submitting that be had not, either on his trial or otherwise, aggravated the crime with which he bad been accused. Ile also entreated, as be was completely destitute, that the Court would rather increase his term of imprisonment a than call spun Lim to find sureties for his future good behaviour, as ha should not be able to precede them. lie did out care if it was solitary continemautr, as he had some literary works in baud, to which he wished to apply himself. Mr. Gurney addressed the Court in aggravation, and in for cible terms called their Lordshipe's attention to the benious sharer ter of the libel. The Chief Justice asked the defendant, whether, if the Court were disposed to let him go upon his own recognizance, to rouse up on any future day fur judgment that the Court might *lionise to direct, be was prepared on oath to give up all the copies of the libel which were in his possession ? Thealefendant said he was prepared to give up the only two etVies which were in his possession ; but that all the remaining copies lied been detained by the printer for • debt of SOI. ielsiels !te owed ilia, and were now selling at the machine, of which his Lordship was no doubt aware, fur the benefit of the p. inter, a:sal not fur his benefit. Mr. Gurney said, this was ■n additional aggravation of the primmer's ofience, as lie stated on the Pact of the work that be oats himself the printer. The Chieflostime—Will you give up the name of the printers The defendant replied, that, although be and the printer were at variance, still, miler the agreement lola which they had originally entered, he could nut fairly give him up to pro secution. The Chief Justice observed, that the object of the Court would be to secure the copies of the work which were unsold. The defendant was then permitted to retire, upon an under standing that he should come up again this day fee'nuig lit, and iu the interim !lave such coutiounication with the solicitor of the Koseeutiep u might lead to the object which the Cowl was desirous of effecting—nautely, the entire suppressicu of this most blasphemous publicatiou. AIXON I. GARRArr AND 1 ENABLES. Mr. Platt stated that this was au action of tres,lass fur taking the plaintiff 'a goods. Mr. Saarlett detailed the circumstances under which the plaintiff sought to r , -cover. The action was brought nominally 'gait's( die tale Sheriff of Middlesex for trespass, committed in taking a printing press and types of the plaintiff, under an exe cution against 1 person named Scott• Mr. Scott and Mr. Ninon had entered 1010 psrtuersliip in the publication of a neiis is art celled the .Udeeury ilvishr, it, Pell-well court; but T(ISDAY, Nov. 19. 11.LIS V. ARMviRONO. This was a question under the Enclosure Act, and the point to he decided was, whether • ditch was to be considered a fence. The Lord Chief Justice referred to the pleadings and evi dence in the cause, which was tried before him at Guildhall.— His directive, to the Jury sts, , , he thought that a fence ender the The Solicitor General chewed cause against the rule. The act set forth that a good and sufficient quiclset was to be planted. Johnson's Dictionary gate this definition of a fence—% boun dary, a dyke, or wall. He(the Solicitor General) contended that a river was a sufficient boundary, but not falling within the term fence. Chief Justice Best—A ditch is a very sutlicieut boundary in for.ilication. Solicitor General—A Bence, brook, or rivulet f.dls under certain distinctions. He apprehended a fence, according to the terms of the act, did not mean a ditch or a d)le, but • 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 might Lave been saved under .he enclosure act. The Court, however, refused to disturb th• verdict. The Solicitor Gettersl intimated bi* iut•ntioo of bri•ging • Writ of Error. BUTT V. WISFMAN. This was ao action to recover tithes, tried before the Chief Baron at the Spring Assize. fur Suffolk. The plaintiff 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 fanner, was a copyholder, 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 west also prove, that when the abbey held them they were discharged from tithes. The Jury found for the plaintiff. Mr. Eagles moved for a new trial on several points. First, on the ground of variance hetweeu the description of the parish, as net out in the declaration, and the evidence.—Secondly, that evidence was. rejected by the Chief Baron which ought to have been received. Another objection was, a misdirection to the Jurv. Mr. Scarlett sliewed cause against the rah obtained by Mr. Eagles. Ile contended, first, that the evidence rejected by the Chief Baron was inadmissible, and that by all the doeumeutary evidence the land held by the defendant, as a copyholder, was liable to tithes. The Jury having found a right verdict, there was no ground for a new trial. Mr. Stocks, on the same aide, said, the Chief Baron had left two points for the consideration of the Jury. First, to what extent was the Vicar endowed. The next question was, whether there was evidence to show this laud was exempt from tithes whilst in the cultivation of the Dean and Chapter of Ely. 'I he argument on the part of the defendant at the trial, went to prove that the Dean aid Chapter of Ely were Lords of the Manor, and that the defendant had been time immemorial dis. charged from tithes. Mr. Robinson was also proceeding with his argument against a new trial, when the Lard Chief Justice rose to decide with the Lo r d Chancellor upon errors, and the cause was ordered to stand over to another day. CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE KING o. NOEL. Mr.l4;riettnioved for leave to tile a criminal information against • military officer, named Neel, residing in the West Riding of the county of York, for sending • threatening Letter, with • view to provoke Mr. Wilson, a gentiewa• of the same district, to fight • duel. It appeared, by the affidavit of Mr. Wilson, that some roe raspondence had taken plane between himself and Mr. Noel, o• the subject of sporting on a manor and certain inclosures.— Io of having beep w;roed off the manor by Mr, oe" . _ Wilson's sorvuot, .Ir. Noel wrote to Mr. Wilson, threaten. lug to insult him wherever they 'MAU meet. • Time Court granted mrule to stew e3uic. DOP, DEMISE OF HOWARD, V. TAILOR. Mr. Stocks said this case had been before Ihe Court en a former to:coition. when the parties were in sited to come to so agreement. All eu.leavours to bring thrum to on agreement had ' , noted useless, and the Court was again c%lied Non' to decide. Justice Be t read the report. The cause was tried at the spring assizes, Cambridge, before the Chief Baron. It was an actidex of ejectment, to obtain posses.don of premises held by the defendant in the county of Cambridge. 't he Jury found Verdict fur tile plainiill. The L ssor of the plaintiff claimed session, as shaignee of a mortgage deed executed in 1747. ine . . 101111 of 1201. was paid for the - property mortgaged. Mr. Wel. hinson had moved for • rule to shew cause why the verdict should not he confined to premises only situate in Milton. The spplicatinn was made upon the ground that the lessor of the plaiatili had taken more land under his mortgage tha• he was• entitled to stains. It was urged as a very bard case, inasmuch as the defendant's fancily, who 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 au oversight in that respect, and the Court was mused either to storied the verdict or grant a new trial. Mr. Stocks, this day, opposed the application, and an affidavit made by the Rev. Mr. ' , Web, a trustee, under the plaintiff's 0, deed, was put in. The a ffi davit p r ed the payment of interest, ' under the deed, by the detention' - Hy. • The Court, coder all the circuits§ .es, refused to grant a new trial. _ _ WEDNESDAY. Noe. 19. k... ti ts The Court was engaged till near one o' clock ' hearing Mr. Robinson and Mr. Marryatt on the notion for • trial in the lithe cause of Butt •. Wiseman. Before one, tit JAM Chief Justice left the court to sit at Guildhall, and the othar Judge* took only orditeasy motions,and shortly rose. Nothiogbeaurred of any interest to the public. It is still quite uncertain *ben the case of the King a. Williams will be heard. COL/Rl' OF COMMON PLEAS. TUESDAY, NOV. 19. ST. JOHN Y. SIR THOMAS CHAMUMETS, AND COVENTRY tr. TUE SAME. These important cases were this seaming decided. ► rule was obtained some time back by Mr. Sergeant Lewes, to chew 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 suite cancelled, part of the consideration money having been repaid—the address of the witnesses ut the memmial not having been described—and the names of all the parties beneficially interested not baying been named therein. Mr. Ser_tant Peek followed on the same side. Messrs. Sergeants Pell and Vaughan spoke against the rule at some length, and The Lord Chief Justice, in a luminous speech recapitulated the whole of the ease. His Lordship concluded by sJying, that neither justice nor law required the interference of this Court tai set the annuity aside , and I suggest. said his Lordship, for the consideration of Sir T. Champneys, whether it might not he better to take until the nest Term to consider as to the other case of Gordon, the third annuitant, is which Sir 'rimmed, who wan present, seemed to acquiesce. WELNIESDAY, NOV. 20. 4 10 POST-lIORSE DUTY.-ROWS{ g. GA RR CIT. The Court was occupied for some time this morning in hearing 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 • stage coach up a kill, rendered the coachina,ter liable to the duty as for post horses, under the provi,ions of the posh-horse duty act. Mr. Sergeant Lena obtained the affirmative of the question. Mr. Sergeant Lewes supported the negative. The Court deferred its judgment to a future day. The Court rose at a quarter past two o'clock. THURSDAY, N. 21. TDB KING V. BRIDLE. LATE GAOLER 011.ILCIIIESTER: This was an information tried at the last Summer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Richardson, on which the defendant was found guilty. Mr. Justice Beat 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 his charge. He was recommended to mercy ou account of his good clots racier. The defendants affidaviCstated, thatithe act of which he was convicted, was totally unpremeditated. That his father 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 tenciblee, afterwards mate of a prison-ship. That during • period of six yeari b a conduct was nes er made the sohject of complaint. The affidavit farther set forth the defer • tive regulations of Ilchester Gaol, which rendered it difficult for him to act. That the prisoner Gardner war a violent and outrageous character, end the other a female guilty of picking pockets. That the sugsestion of the punishment of a bli.ter originated with Mr. Dryer, 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 bail printed and circulated malignant libels to the prejudice of his character. An affidavit was put in of Sir John Ackland, chairmen of the Quarter Sessions, in support of the defendant's good cha racter. Mr. T. Smith, captain of one of the' balks at Woolwich, • gave the defendaut a high diameter. Affidavit of Anderson, who cauiritanded the 2il regiment of the Somerset Fencihles, likewise spoke to his good conduct as a soldier. Affidavits rat V. Starkey, Esq. and another, High Sheriffs of the count., likewise giving a high character of the defendant—of Edward Coles, Esq. Clerk of the Peace of said county, all excellent character—of Richard I'tke, principal turnkey at lichester Gaol, that the said R. Bridle was a niost humane unit tender hearted man —corroborating the defendant's affidavit to tae violence of Thomas Gardner's conduct, ari justifying the pu nishment inflicted. S•indry affidavits of prisoners tinder his charge, being employed as his Resistants, likewise spoke as to the good conduct of the defendant, and to the outrageous and even blasphemous conduct of Thomas Gardner. These affidavits took upwards of an hour's reading. Mr. Williams for the defendant stated, that he bad a great many more affidavits to the dike sect, but whieh, 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 bad any thing to any in aggravation. Mr. Williams then proceeded to observe, that the only offence that the prisoner bad committed was ioflictiug an un authorised punishment. He conteudeed the punishment bad been [revoked by the prissier, but admitted the defeidaat was