TITES.D.I .viciirs GAZETTE. WHITF.II7II,I„ MAncit 3. Yesterday morning, F.oon after one o'clock, died, at the age of 12 weeks, Her I lighnesi Elizabeth, only daughter of bee Royal igline,s the Duke t , f Clarence, to the great grid - of ilia IHaj:sty anti of all the Royal Family. BANKRITTCNT W. Reid, junior, Neacabile Clam, Clerkenwell Close, watch maker, from I\larch w to April 2s. BANKRUPTS. ...... U. Meson, Barlritmne. Kent, miller. Solicitors, Messrs. Lodington and 114.11. Temple. 11. Aubrey, jun. Munehe•tcr, merchant. Sols. hlessrs. Willis and Co. AVarnthrtl Court. Tnrogttn ton Street. G. E. Aubrey. Alambia,tcr, merchant. Sole. Messrs. Willis and Co. Warnford Court. T. Gibbons, junior, Wells. Norfolk, merchant. Suls. Messrs. Ylexney and Co. Borithrd Bow. J. Troughton. C. A. Newcomb. and J. Troughton, (7urentry, bankers. Sol. Mr. ('carman, Coventry. H. Gibbons, islington, dealer. Sol. Mr. Jones, Temple Chambers, Fleet Strtxt. pwIDENDS. March 22, G. 11 ond, Gloucester, marble mason—V.l. J.Coope, Che,te)field. Derbyshire, tallow chandler-si, J. S. Rains, Wapping Wall, mercha t-10.J. Bentley and J. Beek, Conshill, watch and clock ntaker4-11, T. llughei, Oxford Street, ....SO, B. Cohen, Bishopsgate Street, nterchnnt--Th W. B ooker, Eaton Street, New Cut, Blackfriars Road, timber merchant— :lo, G. Potter, High Street, Poplar, grocer-31, T. Si-ley, Isle of Thanet, Kent, merchant-14, .1. Cuthbert and Al. Clarke. junior, Colchester Sneer, Savage Gardens, wine merchants —27. W. Couch, Axininster, Devonshire, boiYer-27. R. Net ilk, Colchester. dealer-50, J. Grosvenor, Harts Hill, Wor. ante:shire, ropanaker-17, W. Lushington, junior, A lark Lane. merchant-4s. J. Alacinichael, T. Gluon, and W. Alactuichrel, Brid:morth, Salop, bankent-28, J., W., and J. Maemichael, T. Girton, and A. Al•Aluth, Vleet Street, carpet manufacturers - J. Simpson, Stuidi Square, Westminster, coin metchant— SI, 'P. 1. Sui:th. Lawrence Pountney Lane, merchant-51, and J. E. tVaimington, Gmeechurch fitted, elraper.;-28. T. Salter, Ottely St. Mary, Devonshke, currier-28, J. Burke, Etchella, Cheshire, cotton manufacturer--April 4, W. Eccleston, Lancashire, corn, merchant —7, S. - Bothwell, Fenchurch Street, printer-10, J. Thomas and J. Cabell o (WOW Street, linen drper , . CL R'l FICATES to be granted March 27. B. Carter, 'let tford. fat mcr—W. it. Gilbert, Leicester, wool staplers—G. Clarke, KnilltAiridge. carpenter—J. A. Minter, Aston, Wartickahire , dcalcr—J. Sunders, hybridae, Devon, tanner—J. libiley, Birtuingham, grocer—G. Vipood, Ludgate Hill, linen draper. LAIV INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MONDAY, MARCH 5. SLANDER:-BISHCi• V. PRY. This was an action so recover damages for slanderous words spoken by the defendant. Sajcant Pell stated the case for the plaintiff, who is a solicitor. It happened on the 19th of December last, that the detention', who is an eminent banker, attended a bankrupt's meeting at Guildhall, at which the plaintiff was also present. It was the day ou which the assixtrees were to be chosen, and several of the credi ore agreed to appoint the plaintiff ouhicitor to the assionees; upon which the defendain, who was also a creditor to a con siderable amount, said, " I do not think hint sufficiently reputable to be employed in the busiaess) I would not tru,t him wish 201." The defendant the day after, re peated similar expressions while transacting other busi ness it, ►he office of his own solicitors, and to recover a compensation of damages for the injury he had, by the use of such unjustilioble expressions, inflicted on the the present action was brought. Mr. riwainival 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 loud enough to be heard by others. The witness was a creditor. as was also the defendant, to the amount of 11,0001._ r. Wahnsley proved the repetition of the words the next day by the clefetulant, who said he would always do his duty, and would if necessary, say what he had said again, though it should cost hint 5001. Sergeant Vaughan for the defendant, contended that he had only exercised his right as a creditor by giving his opinion of the person h was proposed to appoint solicitor to the assignees. The Chief Justice told the Jury, that as the defend ant had not denied hi. having spoken the words attri buted to him, the simp.e question for them was to decide whether he had spoken them maliT.inusly, and on this point the plaintiff 's own witness h a d d ec l are d, t h at h e considered the words spoken in the way of friendly cau tion. The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the defendant. TUESDAY. MARCH 6. RYMER V. ABACK. F This was an action for libel. The plaintiff, a surgeon by profession, resides at Reigate, in Stirroy, and composes a medicine called, "The cardiac and Nervous Tincture"—sovereign even in the most opl osite cases of human ailment. The defendant is the eili.or of a monthly publication called %he Medical Gazclic—and the libel charged was of a twofold character, consisting, first in re flexions upon Mr. Rymer himself, and next in attacks open the invaluable specific. Dr. Reece, in his ansuer, denied any intent to hn peach the char:.cter of the plaintiff, but justified his strictures urn.: ht Cardiac TitiCtt te." It appv.mtl Imm the tsidelica that Mr. Rymer's pa lent fir the dose in question bad expired ; and 'lie jury, Del4titivit time personal libel, found a verdict for the de frodapt. WRIGHT AND OTHERS, V. TACO. This ass au action ; , plit,St a «tiliioll cinder. The right alit! CO arc Liti,lters at Christ chinch, anti Mersa.. lingers, Towgood, anti Co. tit C!( ri,etit',..latie, are their London culies• pnidents. It is tht cusiclit ut Al, sw. and Cc. tin the fiat tloy Oi es% k 11,collt, to return to Mt . ,:srS. Wright and Co, the notes tt Inch have hu en paid on their account; and on the it of Dreernher, 1818, a parcel containing notes of the Christchurch haul, fives and ttus, to the aatoont of 1,4HZ,1. was ddistred 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 bring exclusively his own ; and the package in question was addressed, as MalIV others for the same conveyance had been before it. The rreel was booked, on tile let of December, at the Bell and Gown; it was di rected " per mai l ; " parcels of a similar description had been sent monthly fur some time, and had gone by the Pool mail. It hippened, however, that besides the Poole mail, there teas a vehicle called " the Southamp ton light Mich," w hich started from the Bell and Crown at half-past four in the afternoon, and which travelled in the way of Christchurch; and by that coach, front whatever cause, the defendant thought fit to send the parcel directed to the plaintith. The parcel was lost— on the next day, the 2d of December notes to the amount of 1,0561. 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, iu bringing the action for 1,3651. con tended that the carrier, having undertaken In carry by the mail, was guilty of breach of contract when he sent the progeny by any other and less secure conveyance. The Lord Chief-Justice told the jury that, unless they thought that the plaitaillS 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 imad been increased by that measure, they Would-find a verdict for the plaintiffs. The jury after a few minutes consideration, found for the plaintiff's—Damages 1,0301. the moonlit of the notes which were proved to have come in. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. JOS LS, V. LEWl£l._ This action was brought by Mr. Jones against Mr. Lewis the elder, by which he sought to recover a con siderable sum of money he had applied to the use of the son of the.dedendant. The money which aniountellto 7881. was expended by Mr. Jouea in the discharge of certain annuities and claims upon reversionary interest which Mr. Lewis, jun. had in au estate. Mr. Jones also had a reversionary interest in the same property,— The sum claimed was not precisely a debt, but the defendant was said to be liable to pay the demand by virtue of an engagement, which, it was allr6ed, he entered Into for the 'benefit of his son. Mr. Mainline, solicitor for the plaintiff, was called as a witness. He mated that he was applied to by Lewis the younger and Jones, for the purpose of accomplish ing the business. The object was to pay the cmili ICUS of Mr. 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. he de fendant came to town, - and having consented ►o the statement in a paper produced by Mr. Visitor, his own attorney, he said to Jones, " Yuu pay the expenses out of the purchase money of the reversion, and I will repay you." The amount of the debts was known at ►hat time, but not the amount of the expellees. There was an excess paid upon the expellees equal to the sum the plaintiff tought to recover. Mr. Scarlet,, fur the defendant contended, that Mr. Lewis had never made hinifelf answerable for more than 632'1. which he had discharged by paying 7001. • Mr. Vapor been called, stated, that in 1818, he was attorney for Mr. Lewis, the defendant. He was em ployed to settle the chairs of that •gentleinan's son. Mr. Junes and Mr. Lass 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 ennui ies and make a clear title. Is was consequently prolKned to Mr. Lewis, senior, to advance money for the purpose. A meeting took place at Munday'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 tiuel. to pay off the annnities. Ile at first expressed his dissatisfaction at being called on to pay so large a sntu, but finally agreed to pay it. Mr. Denman, after the above evidence, admitted that ne could not 'mover the whole sum of 7881. but con tended that the plaintiff upon the face of the trstisaction was at least entitled to 2001. more than the defendant nad paid. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. FRIDAY. MARCH 9. MEL—. 110136110P1 O. WALTER. . . This actiori;hrohgiti4tiveidaltiiii, a newsman and publisher in Wimpole-street, against the proprietor of the Times, fo recnver 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 Times of the 22d of June last, stating 'bat repeated complaints had been made of the plaintiff's irregularity in delivery of the T imes, and that they refused to let him hare papers. It also stated that other newrevenders would supply the public with the Times mote regularly. The defendants put in several pleas of justification.— The most material pita was, that they found 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 en impression nu m) those who receited it unfavourable to the pro prietors. They were, tilt:tame, under the uecessil of explaitiina the calm. of late delivery, and poir Ling out how it might be avoided. .1 he Solicitor General, as counsel for the plaintiff, addressed the July. Ile describtil the circumstances of the ease to be shortly as fuliow :—.Mr. Ilodoon WaS a respectable news vendor at the west end of the town. and from the distance of his connexions from the T imer ollice,was some time in June last induced in remonstrate with the publisher of the 7 . 11/1"4 plper, upon wins.[ he cow:l6'w an unfair priori:y kil dwrif,i4iion of that jour iial—ota cf this muonstialiec solute unpleasant I, ding arose against Mr. flongson, and the proprietor of the paper thought proper to insert a roost otleitstve paragraph in hit journal, not only react:nog on the character of the plaintiff, but indirectly Ittlsising his customers to obtain their papers of some other person, as the pro prietor of the Times stated he was determined not to let the plaintiff huve any from his nilice. lle contended that the motives under which the defeinlanis 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 NM in consequence of the offensive paragraph. Mr. ticarlett for the defendant, called several witnesses in support of the pleas of justification. Mr. Watkins, pnblisher of the Times, proved that the plaintiff's servant came frequently for the papers, when he knew he could not receive them. Ile would then go away and come again late. an that he could not deliver them in proper time. Ile generally conducted himself in a disorderly manner. The clerk to Mr. Booth, keeper of a circulating. library iii Duke -street. Manchester-square. proved that the plaintiff furnished the Timms 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 that day, did not publish until a late hoar. Mr. 13ooth 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 up, and the jury, after a little consideration, gave a verdict fur the plaintiff 501. damages, and 40s. costs. COURT OF CHANCERY, THURSDAY, MARCH 8. TEAR DIRECTORS OF TII6 N ATIONAL UNION FIRE SOCIETY V. TIJOS. BIGNOLD ililt. 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 the affairs, of the National Union Fire Society. lie 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 public 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 principleVttsuratice. The society went on pros. perously fo Bate under the auipicea of M r Bignold, until some 'slimes arose between that gentleman and the directors, consequence of which the latter took possession of 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 iojune tionwhieli 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 allegation, or miscon duct on the part of the defendant were true ; but, allow. ing them to he true, the plaintith 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 misco n duct OR the p;•rt 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 thoneirt that the defendant was in possession of any balances, due to the society, they ought to nave appointed an auditor to examine his accounts. After having acted in this way the plaintiffs, had they found 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, nod call upon the court to interfere. If this principle were adopted, every private dispute which might arise ill in neckties or this nature would be removed from the private forum by . which it ought to be determined, and referred for decision to this court. The learned grit. tletnan concluded by praying the Court to dissulve the injunction. Mr. Fonblanque, for the plaintiffs, opposed Mr, Wetherell's application. He contended that the in junction was granted on full and sufficient grounds The Court, when it made the order in this case, was natilified. that Mr. Bignold had been guilty of acts of biro liation by destroying certain receipts belonging to the society ; that he had omitted to pay duties on insurance at the Stamp-cake, although he knew that the society was liable to certain penalties for neglecting to do no, and that. im fact, he had omitted to do every thing which he had stipulated to do, and had dune every thing which lie ought not to have ne.—Judgment deferrea HYDROPAOBIA.—A report lately made by tin Russian Councillor of Stale Levaishein states, that an old soldier, living in a village in the circle of Belewsky, had frequently cured 1114:11 and brutes who had been bitten by mad dogs. He reduced into powder the IVaser Maintain (41/sma 1 3 lantaga) and having strewed it on a alive of bread mid butter, gave it to the patients to eat. The Coutleilloe observes, '• I cave little credit to it, until accident fur. niched me with a proof' of its efficacy. One of my bro. theta lionntis went wad and hit the hunt wan; the ordinary operation was performed, to prevent the ;quell+ ;pities' of the virus, and the wound healed; but in a new weeks all the symptoms of hydrophobia appeared. The huntsman was taken to the old soldier, who administered o doses of his remedy, one in the evening, the other in the non Mil, and then said this man might be unbound+ and tukeu home without danger. Thu Longman wine+ rienced great weakness, but bad no fits either of delirium or hydrophobia. In a few days he Num/ himself perfectly cured, and he has row lived 18 years without leaving any I elapse:L-41w Water Plantain growl in worst's-6 ; the root test whim au onion, with thick fibres. It reniaihs miller water till the latter end of May, or tile beginning of June; it dowers all the summer, anJ may he gathered at any time; but the best is at the end et' August. the roots are well washed and cleansed, and deed in the shade; when diy, it is pulverized and athuilaitered as alum. (1