7$ LAIV INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY, MARCH 5. SLANDER:BISHCP V. FRY. P' TUESDAY, MARCH 6. RYMER V. RERCB. FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WHITEHALL, Mancn S. Yesterday morning, soon after one o'clock, died, at the age of 22 weeks, Her Highness Elizabeth, only daughter of his Royal Highness the Dukc of Clarence, to the great grief of His Majesty and of all the Royal Family. BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. W. Reid, junior, Newcastle Place, Clerkenwcll Close, watch Maker, front March 10 to April RANK it urrs. R. Mason, Barfristone, Kent, miller. Solicitors, Messrs. Lodington and Hall, Temple. R. Aubrey. jun. Manchester, merchant. Sols. Messrs. Willis and Co. Warnford Court, Throginotton Street. G. E. Aubrey, 'Manchester, merchant. Sols. Messrs. Willis and Co. Warnfonl Court. T. Gibbons, junior, Wells, Norfolk, merchant. Sots. Messrs. Flexncy and Co. &Alba! Row. J. Troughton, C. A, Newcomb, and J. Troughton, Coventry, bankers. Sol. Mr. Peanuan, Coventry. H. Gibbons, Islington, dada. Sol. Mr. Junes, Temple Chambers, Fleet Street. DIVIDENCS. March 22, G. Wood, Gloucester, marble mason -29, J.POOPe. Chesterfield. Derbyshire, tallow chandler -31, J. S. HaMs, Wapping Wall, merchant-10,J. Bentley and J. Beck, Cornhill, watch and clock makers-17, T. Hughes, Oxford Street. hosier —TO, B. Cohen, Bishopsgate Street, merchant -21, W. Brooker, Eaton Street, New Cut, Blackfriars Hood, timber merchant -20, G. Putter, High Street, Poplar, grocer-31, T. Sisley, Isle of Thanet, Kent, merchant --14, J. Cuthbert and M. Clarke, junior, Colchester Street, Savage Gardens, wine merchants —27, W. Couch, Axminster, Devonshire, builder-27, 11. Neville, Colchester, dealer-30, J. G. osvenor, Harts II ill, Wor cestershire, ropernaker-17, W. Luv.hington, junior, Mark Lane, merchant -28, J. Macmichael, T. Gitton, and W. Macmichael, Bridgnortli, Salop, bankers-2S, J., W., and J. Macmichael, Gitton, and A. M.Math, Fleet Street, carpet manufacttuers —3l, J. Simpson, Smith square, Westminster, corn merchant -31, T. 1. Smith, Lawrence Puuntney Lane, merchant -31, J. and J. E Wannington, Gracechttrch Street, drapers-28, T. Salter, Ottery St. Mary, Devonshire, currier-28, .1. Burke, Stockport Etchelh, Cheshire, cotton manufacturer—April 4, W. l latch, Eccleston, Lancashire, corn merchant -7, S. Bothwell, Fenchurch Street, printer-10, J. Thomas and J. Cabell, Oxford !Street. linen drapers. CEIII IFICATES to be granted March 27. B. Carter, Hertford, famotr—lV. IL Gilbert, Leicester, wool staplers—G. Clarke, Knightsbridge, carpenter--J. A. Hunter, Aston, Wan , ickshire, d e al er —J. S an d ers , Ivybridge, Devon, tanner—,l. Bailey, Birmingham, grocer—G. 'pout!, Ludgate Hill, linen draper. This was an action to recover damages for slanderous words spoken by the defendant. Serjeant Pell stated the case for the plaintiff, who is a solicitor. It happened on the 19th of December last, that the defendant, who is an eminent banker, attended a batik mitt's meeting at Guildhall, at which the plaintiff was also present. It was the day on which the assignees were to be chosen, and several of the creditors agreed to appoint the plaintill solicitor to the assignees; upon which the defendant, who was also a creditor to a con siderable amoutk, Said, " 1 do not think hint sufficiently reputable to be emplo•;ed in the business; I would not trust him with :Ad.' The defendant the day after, re rated similar expressions while transacting other busi lICSS iu the office of Iris own solicitors, and to recover a Compensation of damages fur the injury lie had, by the use of such unjustifiable expressions, inflicted on the plaintiff, the present action was brought. 111 r. Sevainford proved his having heard the words already mentioned used by the defendant, who addressed them to the witness in the way of friendly caution, but hood enough to be heard by others. The witness was a creditor. as was also the defendant, to the amount of 1,0001„ Mr. %Valoisley proved the repetition of the words the next day by the delentlant, who said he would always • uo his duty, and would if necessary, say what he had said again, though it should cost him tool. Sergeant Vaughan for the defendant, contended that he had only exercised his right as a creditor by giving his opinion or the person it was proposed to appoint solicitor to the assignees. The Chief Justice told the Jury, that as the defend ant had not dented his hating spoken the words attri buted to bitty, the sinlp.e question for them was to decide whether he had .poker them niali:iously, and on this point the plaintill 's own witness had declared, that he considered the words t.poken in the way of friendly cau ti,ri. The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the defendant. This was an action for Ithel. The plaintiff, a surgeon by profession, re-ides ai heigate, iu Starry, and composes a medicine called, " 1 he cardiac and Nervous Tnicture"—sovereign even in the most oi.posite cases of human ailment. The detendJut is the cdtior of a monthly ruhlication called Ihe Medical Cuzetie—and the libel charged was of a twofold character, consisting, first in re flexions upon Mr. Rymer himself, and next in attacks upon the ine a luable specific. 1)r. Reece, ill his answer, denied any intent to im p:Jell the character of the visitant, but justified his strictures upon the 'Ca unite Duettist.," Jt appe , ited trim the el idrtice that Mr. Rymer's pa tent hit the dose in question had tai.ired ; and the jury, :legato Mg the personal libel, found a verdict for the de frildsot. WRIGHT AND OTHERS, V. !ACC. This «as an action against a coalition carrier. The plaintiffs, Mess's. 11 right and Co arc hankers at Christ chineh, in Hampshire, and Alessrs. Rogers, Towgood, an Co. of CI( nient's-Idne, are their London corres pondents. It is the cusicru of Messrs. lingers and Co. on the first day of ever) month, to return to Nlessrs. Wright and Co. tl.e notes loch hate been paid ou their account ; and on the Ist of December, 1819, a parcel containing notes of the Christchurch buil, fires gird tens; to the amot at of 43051. was delivered at the THE NATIONAL REGISTER coach office of Mr. Fagg, the defendant. Mr. Fagg, whose premises are the Bell and Crown, Holborn, is proprietor of the Poole mail, and has shares in several other coaches—the booking office at the Bell and Crown being exclusively his own ; and the package in question was addressed, as many others Inr the same conveyance haul been before it. The p ireel was booked, on the Ist of December, at the Bell and Crown ; it was di rected " per wail ;" parcels of a similar description had been sem monthly fur seine time, and had gone by the Pt'oi mail. It 13.ppetted, however, that besides the Poole mail, there was a vehicle called " the Southamp ton light coach," which started from the Bell and Crown at half.past tour in the afternoon, and which travelled in the way of Christchurch; and by that coach, fronts whatever cause, the defendant thought fit to send the parcel directed to the plaintiffs. The parcel was lost— ma the next day, the 2d of December notes to the amount of 1,0501. were paid by Messrs. Rogers and Towgood ; the fraud was not discovered until the even ing of that day ; even then it was impossible to prevent the circulation of the remaining unpaid notes ; and the plaintiffs now, in bringiog the action for 1,361. con tended that the carrier, having undertaken to carry by the mail, was guilty of breach of contract when he sent the property by any other and less secure conveyance. The Lord Chief-Justice told the jury that, unless they thought that the plaintiffs had been put to addi tional hazard by the change of each, the defendant would be entitled to a verdict. If they thought the risk had been increased by that measure, they would find a verdict for the plaintith. The Jury after a few minutes consideration, found for the plaintiffs--Damages 1,0501. the amount of the notes which were proved to have come in. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. JONES, O. LLWIS. This action was brought by Mr. Jones against Mr. Lewis the ehkr, by which he sought to recover a con siderable sum of money he had applied to the use of the son of the defend nit. The money which amounted to 7881. was expended by Mr. Jones in the discharge of certain annuities and clan us upon reversionary interest which Mr. Lewis, jun. had in an estate. Mr. Jones also had a reversionary interest in the same property, — The sum claimed was not precisely a debt, but tile defendant was said to be liable to pay the denrnd by virtue of an engagement, which, it was alleged, he entered into for the benefit of his sou. Mr. Manning, solicitor for tile plaintiff, was called as a witness. Ile stated that he was applied to by Lewis the younger and Jones, fur the purpose of accomplish ing the business. The object was to py the creditors of tlr. Lewis, jun. ten shillings in the pound by the sale of his reversion. In order to make a good title, it was necessary to clear away a number of claims. The de fendant came to town, and hating consented to the statement in a paper produced by Mr. Vanor, his own attorney, he said to Jones, " You pay the expenses out of the purchase money of the reversion, and I will repay you." The ainoun: of the debts was knowu at that time, but not the amount of the expences. There was an excess paid upon the expences equal to the suns the plaintiff sought to recover. Mr. Scarlet', for the defendant contended, that Mr. Lewis had Deter made himself answerable for more than 6321. which he had discharged by paying 7001. Mr. Vapor been called, stated, that in 1818, he was attorney for Mr. Lewis, the defendant. Ile was em ployed to settle the affairs of that gentleman's son. Mr. Jones and Mr. Lewis, jun. required him to make out a satisfactory paper of the charges attending the sale of reversion. tie accordingly made out the paper. The share of young Lewis was not enough to discharge the annui.ies and make a clear title. I was consequently proposed to Mr. Lewis, senior, to advance money for the purpose. A 'sleeting took place at Monday's cof fee-house for the purpose. The parties were all present. Mr. Lewis was told the sale could not be made good, unless he advanced 6021. to pay off the annuities. He at first expressed his dissatisfaction at being called on to pay so large a stint, but finally agreed to pay it. Mr. De 11111431, alter the above evidence, admitted that' tie could not recover the whole stun of 7881. but eon it:mled that the plaintiff upon the face of the transaction was at least entitled to 9001. more than the defendant nail ',lid. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. FRIDAY, MARCH 9. LIDEL.—HOURSON U. WALTER. This action was brought 4theidalntiii, a newsman and publisher in Wimp°le-sncet, against the proprietor o f th e Itmrs , to recover a compensation in damages for a libel calculated to injure him in his business. The libel complained of was a paragraph, which appeared in the Twits of the 22d of June last, stating that repeated complaints had been made of the plaintiff's 'rreor Laity in delivery of the Timis, and that they refused to let him have papers. It a ho stated tha other news•venders %could supply the putalic with the nuts mole regularly. The defendants put in sev,:ral pleas of justification.— The most material plea was, that they Mund themselves obliged, in the support of the interest of their journal, to insert the paragraph. The plaintiff, by late and ir regular delivery of their papers, had made an impression upon those who receised it unfavourable to the pro. prictors. They were, therefore, under the necessity of explaining the cause of late delivery, and pointing out how it might he avoiued. The Solicitor-General. as counsel for she plaintiff, addressed the Jury. lie described the cireumnatices of the ease to be shortly all follow :—Mr. Hodgson was a respectable news vendor at the west end of the town, and from the distancr of his connexions from the imus oflice,was some time in June last induced to renionsi rate ith the publisher of the Times paper, upon what he considered an unfair priority of distribution of that join. nal—out of this remonstrance some unpleasant feclind arose against Mr. H. dgson, the proprietor of the paper thought proper to insert a most oflensive paragraph in his joirrnal, not only n fleeting on the character of the plaintiff, but ind.r , ctly adenine; his customers to obtain their papers of some other person, as the pro. victor of the Times stated he was determined not to let the plaintiff have any from his office. He contended that the motives under which the defendants acted, gave the plaintiff a claim to considerable damages. The plaintiff's case was proved, but it did not appear that any damage was sustained by him in consequence of the offensive paragraph. Mr. Scarlett for the defendant, called several witnesses in support of the pleas of justification. Mr. Watkins, publisher of the Times, proved that the plaintiff's servant came frequently lin the papers, when he knew lie could not receive them. lie would then go away and come again late, so that be could not deliver theni in proper time. Ile generally conducted himself in a disorderly manner. The clerk to Mr. Booth, keeper of a circulating. library in Duke -street, Manchester-square, proved tha t the I,laintiff furnished the Times at a very late hour. It was on the occasion of the publication of the Queen's letter. Upon cross examination, it appeared that the Timesoffice, on thatiday, did nut publish until a late boor. NI r. Booth confirmed the testimony, and added, that after the Times refused to let Hodgson have papers, he had received them sooner. The Solicitor-General made a very brilliant reply. The Chief Justice summed lip, and the jury, after a little consideration, gave a verdict fur the plaintiff 501. darna , 4es, and 40s. costs. COURT OF CIL THURSDAY, MARCH 8. THE DIRECTORS OF TUE NATIONAL UNION FIRE SOCIETY V. TIIO3. BIGNOI.D SIN. Mr. Wetherell stated that the Court had formerly granted an injunction to restrain the defendant front receiving any money on account, or interfering in any way with toe affairs, of the National Union Fire Society. Ile now moved that the injunction should be dissolved, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction in this case. The defendant had filed an affidavit, in which he stated that he was the principal founder of the National Union Society, which had obtained a large share of pnblic confidence. The defendant was appointed Secre tary of the Society, and was to manage the whole of its affairs, as the other directors were wholly ignorant of the principles of insurance. Tile society went on pros peruusly fur some time under the auspices of fir Bignold. until some disputes arose between that gentleman and the directors, in consequence of which the latter took possession la the books and papers belonging to the society, and carried them to the house of one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Driver. The directors, who are the plaintiffs, then applied to the court for the injunc tionwhich had been granted against the defendant.— The alleged grounds on which they made their application were, that the defendant had destroyed certain receipts belonging to the society. The learned counsel denied that their allegations of nii,con duct on the part of the defendant were true; but, allow. log them to be true, the plaintiff's had no right to bring them tinder the consideration of the Court. According to the deed by which the society was established, the directors were empowered to correct any misconduct on the part of their officers. If the directors found that the defendant had been guilty of any misconduct, they might have framed some by-laws to remedy it : if they thought that the defendant was in possession of any balances due to the society, ihvy ought in nave appointed an auditor to examine his accounts. After having acted in this way the plaintiff's, had they funnel it necessary, would then have been authorised to come into court to claim relief. The plaintiffs, however, had assumed, that where a particular mode of proceeding is prescribed by the laws of the society they may repudiate it, and call upon the court to interfere. If this principle were adopted, every private dispute which might arise in in societies of this nature would be removed from the private forum by which it ought to be determined, and referred fur decision to this court. The !corned gen tleman concluded by praying the Court to dissolve the injunction. Mr. Fonblanque, for the plaintiffs, opposed Mr. Wetherell's application. lie contended that the M. junction was granted 411 full and atillielelit grOillidS -- The Court, when it made the order in this case, was satisfied that Mr. Hignold had been guilty of acts of apo hation by destioying Certain receipts belonging to the society; that he had omitted to pay duties on insurance at the Stamp-oflice, although he knew that the society was liable to certain penalties for neglecting to do so, and that, in fact, he had omitted to do every thing which he had stipulated to do, and had done every thing which he ought not to have done.--iudgment deterred if vunoetiontA.—A repay lately made by the Russian Councillor of stair Leunsliein states, that an old soldier, living in a village in the circle of Belewsky, had ft equently cured nun and brutes who had been bitten by mad dogs. He reduced into powder the Water Maintain (Minna Montagu) and having strewed it un a slice of bread and bonier, gave it to the patients to rat. The Councillor observes, 4 • i RAVe little credit to it, until accident fur nished me with a pouf of its efficacy. One of my bro ther's hounds went mad and hit the Inuit:mien ; the ordinary operation was peat:wined, to pi the propa gation of the virus, and the wauud healed; but in a few weeks all the symptoms of hydrophobia appeared. The huntsman was taken to the old soldier, who administered two doses of his remedy, une in the evening, the other in the morning, and then said this Mall might Le unbound.' and taken home w illiatit dancer. The huntsman emit:- t kneed great weakaess, but bad no tits either of dclit . Bllll Or hydrophobia. In a few days he f I himself pee feetly Clired, and he has now lived 18 years without having any telapse."—The Water Plantain grows in marshy,; the rout resembles an onion, with thick lilies. It remains tinder water till the latter end of May, or the beginning of Jour; it flowers all the r, and may be gathered at any time; but the best is at the end of August. The roots are well washed and cleansed, and (hied in the shade; when dry, it is pulveilzud and etliiiiitistried as above