was going to sup with several friends at Willis's. Alarm of Bonnett's fire a little before eleven; witness ran to Bonnett's rooms, saw prisoner there, his dress was changed; saw him distinctly; he wore a blue uniform coat in the former part of the evening, had on now a loose drab great coat, and his head uncovered; saw him after both the fires, walking in the Court with Willis. William Parkinson, the watch man. Has been watchman since last May; kept the gate on the 23d of January; knows the prisoner, let him out a little before ten o'clock, let him in at half-past ten; prisoner came into the Porter's lodge, and said "Am I a 'devil?" Witness answered," I hope not." Prisoner replied "then I am the son of a devil." Prisoner gave him a shilling, and told him to go and get damn'd drunk; witness thanked him for the shilling, but said he must mind his duty; prisoner replied "Duty be damn'd! this is a holiday-night, you must not mind duty to-night." Witness did not leave the porter's lodge till the alarm of Bonnett's fire, a quarter of an hour afterwards; ran to his rooms; returned to Porter's lodge to fetch key of stable-yard; no light in Mr. Gee's windows; if there had been one, could not help seeing in; shut the gate hard in order to lock it; it made a noise; heard a person rush out of Mr. Gee's room, and come violently down stairs; is sure it was out of Mr. Gee's room; saw the prisoner within a few steps of the bottom; saw him slip and fall against opposite wall; was within two yards of him; prisoner ran to the next staircase as quick as possible; there are two lamps, one behind, in Mr. Gee's staircase, one before him in the Court; saw very plainly indeed that it was the prisoner, dressed in a loose drab great coat, and uncovered; ran after him; slipped on the snow; prisoner ran to his own staircase: witness was not more than three or four yards behind him; called out" I have found the man! here is Mr. Kendall!" Peck came out to prisoner's staircase, where he stood all the time; Peck went with witness to Gee's staircase; witness left Peck at the bottom of the stairs, and went into Stableyard, saw the blaze at Gee's windows; about five minutes had passed since he was first in Stableyard; went with Peck into Gee's rooms; gave the alarm; windowcurtain had fallen and was burning on the floor; the lamp in Gee's staircase hangs close by the door; it is a glass lamp, which may be easily opened, it was alight; after giving the alarm, returned to assist in extinguishing the fire, which was nearly out; came into the Court; saw prisoner walking with Willis in the same dress in which he ran down Gee's staircase; would have taken hold of him, but Palmer said he had better not till after the examination. This witnesss cross-examined by the Solicitor-General (Sir Wm. Garrow) with all the acuteness and dexterity for which that eminent lawyer is so much distinguished; when he contradicted himself with regard to the deposition he had. formerly made, and swore that certain circumstances were contained in it which did not there ap pear. pear. The Solicitor-General thereupon submitted that the witness had been guilty of gross prevarication; and in consequence it was decided by Mr. Serjeant Marshall that his evidence could not be received; and as Mr. Serjeant Blosset declined calling any more witnesses, the Jury was directed to acquit the prisoner. It is proper to add that the Master and Fellows of Sydney College have expressed their approbation of Parkinson's general conduct and character; and in order to make their sentiments on this particular occasion more public, they wish it to be known that he is retained in their confidential service.. Mr. Kendall's name was imme diately erased from the College boards, by order of the Master and Fellows, and a memorandum to that effect entered on the College books. Wood v. Groom.-This was a motion for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial. The circumstances of the case were as follow:--Wood, who is a carpenter,gave public notice that be would preach at a certain time and place; and of this a clergyman of the name of Rakeshaw gave information to Sir R. Corbett, who thereupon issued his warrant to the defendant and others, appointing them special constables to disperse the conventicle, to certify the names of the persons present, and if there should be any disposition to riot, to arrest Wood and those who might riot. The defendant went to the meeting, and when he came in, some person said, let us mob him;" on which he immediately went to Wood, without shewing his warrant, who was kneeling at his prayers, seized him, and dragged him some paces on his knees, but being then alarmed, he left him. For this assault the action was brought. It was tried at Chester, and the Chief Justice told the Jury, that the questions for them to consider were, whether the plaintiff knew that defendant was a special constable, and if they found that he did not know it, then they were to consider what should be the amount of the damages. The Jury, without the least hesitation, found a verdict for the plaintiff,-damages. 2001. It was contended, that there should be a new trial, on the ground that the damages were excessive, and that the learned Judge had misdirected the Jury, as it was not necessary that the plaintiff should know that the defendant was a special constable: the warrant, which he had from a Magistrate, being a complete justification, and under the statute of 24 Geo. II. chapter 44, a copy of the warrant ought to have been demanded, in order to make the Magistrate a party, Lord Ellenborough said, that the question was, whether the warrant, not being shewn, was a justification, as it was directed to a special constable, and not to a regular con-table or headborough: it was not within the 24 Geo. II; As to the amount of the damages, he could not say that if the defendant was not justified in point of law they were excessive, consi dering the time at which the assault had taken place; but it was material to consider whether the warrant warrant was a justification: but his Lordship wishing the warrant to be read, and it appearing that it only authorized defendant to require the plaintiff to desist, and notify the names of those who attended, and if any person rioted, or manifested a disposition to riot, to arrest Wood, and the persons so rioting, or manifesting a disposition to riot: his Lordship remarked, that it merely authorized defendant to require plaintiff to desist, which had not been done, and that it did not appear that the plaintiff was rioting. It was then contended, that as it was an illegal assembly, all those of whom it had consisted having been since convicted, every person in it was answerable for the acts of the rest. Lord Ellenborough.-God forbid that a man who performs his devotion erroneously, whether in the ignorance of the law, or even with knowledge, should be liable to such severe penalties. It was the duty of the defendant to have notified his warrant to the plaintiff, and to have required him to desist. It was true that the damages were high, but he recollected a case in which a person had recovered the same amount, because defendant had struck him a blow on the head in a play house with a cane, thinking him to be a servant, and out of his place, and the Court refused a rule nisi to Mr. Justice Wilson, then at the bar, for a new trial: that on the whole, the damages were not so evidently too large as to induce the Court to exercise their discretion in granting a new trial and there was nothing else to induce the Court to grant the rule.-Rule refused. Game Case.-Earl of Aboyne v. Innes. The following singular game case was lately decided in the second division of the Edin-' burgh Court of Session : Mr. Innes, of Balnacraig, holds an estate of Ballogie, in Aberdeenshire, with the liberty and privi lege of fowling in the forest of Birse, which had been conferred on his predecessors by the Bishop of Aberdeen, to whom the property of the forest anciently belonged. This forest is now the property of the Earl of Aboyne, and as the game which it contains is an object of considerable importance, his Lordship had recourse to legal proceedings, for the purpose of putting a stop to certain encroachments in the way of sporting, which had been made by neigbouring heritors: and with respect to Mr. Inues's privilege, he contended, that it was of a personal nature, and could not be communicated to friend, and gamekeepers, or at least that it could not be communicated unless Mr. Innes was himself or the party. That gentleman, on the other hand, maintained that his right was entitled to a liberal interpretation, and that he was entitled to communicate it to any friends whom he might choose, as well as to his gamekeepers, and such had been the manner in which it had been exercised by his predecessors from time immemorial, and he referred to the ancient forest laws in support of his plea. Lord Meadowbank, betore whom the cause originally came, considered Mr. Innes's right as one of a very unusual nature; but, as it was admitted by the Earl that this gentleman bed had such a right, his Lordship proceeded to give judgment on its import, sustaining Mr Innes's defences," in respect that this privilege implies, from the very nature of it, a right to communicate the same to friends, gamekeepers, and assistants, when conferred without an express restriction in that respect." The cause having been carried to the Inner-house, a remit was made to the Lord Ordinary, to consider whether the right of franchise in question is communicable as the ordinary franchise of hunting and fowling, when his Lordship found "that the said privilege may law fully be exercised by the defender personally, or by his gamekeeper, duly authorised for that purpose, or by any qualified friends whom he may permit, whether his tenants on Ballogie or not, or whether the defender be personally present or not; but always in such way and manner as not to be abusively exercised or encroach unreasonably on, or absorb the general right of fowling as well as hunting, belonging to the pursuer over the said forest." This judgment was afterwards adhered to by the Court. Court of King's Bench, Thurs day, June 10.-Stroehling v. Sir G. P. Turner.-The AttorneyGeneral stated, that this was an action brought to recover the sum of 1,5001. being the amount for which plaintiff sold to defendant a painting, executed by plaintiff, representing Daniel in the Lions' Den. The picture had been publicly exhibited, and the price asked for it at the Exhibition was 2,000 guineas; but in consequence of the importunity of defendant, and his promising to be a large purchaser of plaintiff's pictures, he agreed to sell it for 1,500l. The defendant, anxious to tell the world that he was the possessor of such an invaluable treasure, (and, indeed, the greatest pleasure that many persons had in possessing such valuable pictures, was, that the world should know it), prepared, and had inserted in the public prints, a paragraph, stating, that Sir G. P. Turner was the purchaser of Mr. Stroehling's valuable picture of Daniel in the Lions' Den, for the sum of 2,000 guineas. After plaintiff had made several fruitless applications for payment, defendant promised that if plaintiff would make a farther deduction of 751. he would pay him immediately: to this plaintiff agreed, but the payment was not made. Defendant, on plaintiff's pressing him for payment, threatened to put the picture up to auction, when it would sell but for a very small price, which would not increase plaintiff's reputation as an artist. Mr. Westcote was then called, who swore that defendant called on him on the 13th of December, 1812; that he shewed him the paragraph in the newspaper, which he allowed to be perfectly correct. He allowed that he had made the bargain, but said it was at that time inconvenient to pay plaintiff, unless he would allow defendant what it would cost him (witness supposed) to raise the money.. Witness agreed on the part of the plaintiff to allow seventy-five pounds, on condition that the money should be paid the same day. He then asked asked defendant for a check on his banker, but defendant said his hand shook, as he had not breakfasted. Witness offered to give him breakfast, but he said he would prefer going home; but told witness he might tell plaintiff that he should that day have a check on defendant's bankers, but the check never came. Mr. Lawes, for defendant said, that his brief was only at the beginning of the trial put into his hand; that he could not resist plaintiff's case. He was instructed that the picture was not worth any thing like 1,5001. Lord Ellenborough, in his charge to the Jury, said, that persons making a bargain must abide by it, unless it were fraudulent. He, as being an illiterate man on such subjects, might think that no picture was worth 1,5001. but that had nothing to do with the case before the Jury. It had been proved that the defendant had agreed to give 1,5001. and he must abide by it. Verdict for plaintiff-Damages 1,5001. : Court of Chancery, Tuesday, Dec. 14. Before the Lord Chancellor.-Picture Dealing. G. P. Turner v. Beazly.-This litigation arose from certain dealings in pictures between the plaintiff and defendant. Sir Gregory Page Turner, a young man of great fortune, being desirous of acquiring a character for taste in painting, purchased the pictures in question for about 12,000l. Having discovered that the defendant had purchased these pictures, but a short time before, for less than half the above sum, Sir Gregory refused to was com pay; and an action at law wa menced, to restrain the proceedings in which action, Sir Gregory filed his injunction bill in Chancery. To this bill there was a demurier, which was over-ruled, and the defendant was ordered to answer. The answer being put in, a motion was made for leave to amend the bill, but without success. The cause now came on to be beard upon motion, for dissolving the injunction upon the merits disclosed in the answer. Mr. Richards and Sir S. Romilly for plaintiff, Messrs. Hart and Wyatt for defendant. Judgment. The Lord Chancellor observed that this case did not come before him upon any of the grounds of hardship and inequality, which, in some instances, came under the jurisdiction of the Court to relieve. It was not the case of an heir dealing with his expectations; it was not the case of a man in distress purchasing goods at any price which the vender chose to put upon them, and then selling them in another part of the town for half the money, in order to procure a supply to meet an existing pressure: it was the case of a young man of twentyfive or thirty years of age, contracting to buy pictures at a certain price, and coming before the Court to claim its assistance against payment, upon the ground of direct fraudulent circumvention in the transaction. To support this allegation of fraud, it was stated, that the defendant was a clergyman; that be had heard, that Sir G. P. Turner had a desire to become a purchaser of pictures, and had offered him the |