Star. — London, England, 1811-11-09 00:00:00

RAY.I4 NTILZ,IGENCI, __ FALMOUTH, NOVEMBER 6. Arrived, his Majesty's ship Anutoe, from cif Brest. Sailed, the Princess Charlotte Packet, for Gibraltar; and the Swallow Packet, for Cadiz.-. Wind S.W. PLYMOUTH, NOVEMBER 7. Arrived, the St;YLLA, 18 guns, Capt. ArcittsoN, from a cruize off the French coast.—Thz wind still oon,iuues westerly, veering, at intervals. t• W.S.W. and S.S.W. attended with frequent squalls.—The NIMROD cutter, for off Rechef4t and L'Orient, is •t.ll detained in Cawsand Bay, by contrary winds:— the SAN JOSEF, 112, Sir CHARLES COTTON'S flag ship, is also lying in Cawsand Bay, with the TONNANT, 80 guns, Captain Sir J. GORE. PORTSMOUTH, NON/EMBER 8. Arrived, His Majesty's ship HOPE, from a cruize. Sailed, the KANGAROO, for the coast of AfricA, but is since brought up in Cowes Roads ; alsO his Ma jesty's ships RAPID, HOTbPUR, and CONQUESTADOR, on a Cruize.—The cl:fferent Convoys that have been lying down in Yarmouth and Cowes Roads so long, got under weigh this morning and put to sea, but were obliged to return on account of the wind get ting to its old quarter—Westerly. DEAL, NOVEMBER & • This morning the wind shifted to E.N.E. when, the whole of the outward-bound ships got under weigh, and proceeded, under convoy of his Majesty's ship STRimisoi.o, for Portsmouth. Arriveii in the Downs yesterday evening, the NAIAD, from a cruize off the coast of Fiance, and brought in with her the Require French privateer, of 16 guns and 58 men' Which she captured two days ago off Dieppe. The' privateer was out of Boulogne, and had made. To caFtures. CHATHAM, NOVEMBER 6. His Royal Highness the Duke of c'...tartme s at tended by Colonel D'Aitor, made yesterday a mi na survey of the lines and f Tificatinns in this neigh bourhood—to-mormw he will embark on bard t. 14. 'Commission's% yacht, for Sheerness - Lis arrival in the dock-yard will he about nine o'clock, and will be noticed by hoisting the Royal Standard there and on board the yacht. On his Royal Highness's return, which will be in the evening, he will take up his resi l ' dente at Commissioner Sir Roezirr BARLow's, for' three or four days, and of course will inspect generally, the arsenal and chipping. The closing of a large cable, and working a first rate anchor, will be particularly ordered for the occasion. I SHEERNESS, NOVEMBER 4. Arrived the R►NALDO and Plane from the west. ward. Sailed the CASTILIAN with five tt\umperts on secret service t i the northward; AUDACIOUS to Chat ham to be paid off. Islovemnra 7.—This day his Royal Highness the Duke of CLARENCE arrived in the Chatham yacht, Captain Boucina, at this place to view the Do 4 yardland garrison. The guns were fired from the, Ring's ships and garrison at his arrival, as well as ali his departure. His Royal Highness appeared in per, test health and spirits, and' expressed much satiAg. }ion at the men of the 3d West York militia, and their high state of discipline. General RUDYARD, Vice- Admiral Sir ft E. STANHOPR, Bart. and a number of naval Captain's and Commanders attended his Royal Highness during his stay, which was about four hours, and he then returned to Chatham by the same con veyance to dinner. LAIV INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOV. 7. 'THE BARON DE MONTESQUIEU v. SANDBS. - The circumstances of this cause were as follow : tn the year 1803, the plaintiff being possessed of the fourth part of an advowson of a living, in which the incumbent, Mr. Beckingham, was a man of middle life and hale constitution, and the next presentation being with a Mrs. Tilwell (one of the copartners), sold his right of presentin7, after the death of the next incumbent, so to he appointed by Mrs. Tilwell, to the defendant, his attorney, to whom he owed money, for the sum of £lOO. Mr. Beckingham af terwards fell ill, and died in the beginning of the year 1807. Mrs. Tilwell died in the life-time of Mr, Beckingham, leaving, in her hill, the next presenta tion, in the first place, for a Mr. Gregory (who, from . his youth, was unable to take orders at the time the vacancy mile place), and afterwards, to an infirm, elderly clergyman, who is the present incumbent. In cor.mptence of those contingencies, the interest Y-bich was thus sold in 1803 for £lOO, is now ba s come of the value c f about 81000. In 1807, thlt plaintiff filed his bill for the purpose of setting aside ' the sale, on the ground, that it was a propeitt, which, in complete ignorance of its real value, he had sold to his 4ttorney.greatly under its value : and it appeared, from the evidence of many witnesses ac quainted with the value of properties of this descrip tion, that 4100 was not the real value of it at the time it was so ' sold to the defendant, bat that it was then worth five or six hundred pounds at least. At ' 1 the same time there was no inr,;%ltation against the defendant, Mr. Sandes, for purchasing it knowingly at an undervalue. On this day, Messrs. R:CIMIIDS and Haar were beard on the part c f the defendant. They contended, that when all the circumstances of the case were con sidered, as they stood in 1803,*the then incumbent, Mr. Beckingham, being only forty-eight years of age, and in good health, any person disposed to put. chase such property, must calculate, that he should allow, in the first place, fifteen years for the life of Mt. leckingham, and then about twenty-five or thirty yetis for the life of a young incumbent, to be presented by Mts. Tilwell, before his reversionary f ight of presevt,tion became available. The fair chance then at the time of purchasing was, that for , harp or fifty years the defendant wou ld not have the iglit of presenting, which would reduce the value of Lyle properly to a mere trifle. Under those eircum- Itanco they conmaded, that the sum cf 4100 was - not a groa t un d erva l ue. o t h er ra “. E A pirde i d at i r tvh;eh he 'resides is not In a Rate of hostility With the Lord of the Manor, had refued to give 4100 foi this , '" • a property so circumstanced ; but the plaintiff hay. Mr. Justice Le 11 heawc-ht , You are to shy w him a ing, of his own accord, Offered it at that rate to the neutral, by shewing that he Is not an enemy." defendant, he, having a taro family (to some one Mr. Serjeant Biter." My Lords, it appears by of whom it might be available at a future day), con- the Gazette, of the 18th of December,lol7, that sented to accept it for £lOO. Although accountants his Majesty, by his declaration, declare*, that there and calculators might,. by consulting their tables, are causes of complaint avian the sdbjects of the and the value of lives and annuities, lay down, that Emperor of all the Russian, and by * Order in a property so circumstanced was worth sor 8600, Council of the same date, reprisals Me granted yet if such a property were to be brought into the against the ships, goods, and subjects of the Empe market, could they find any body that would give rur of all the Russias, in the common and ordinary any thing like that sum ? The plaintiff was never way by capture, &c." known to make the least objection to the sale he had Lord Eeteeisanoucu—" Give me the weeds of so made, until the contingencies had happened which the Order." altered materially the value of the property. If Mr. Serjeant Beer—" That causes of complaint exist- Bec kingram had still been alive and healthy, and the ed against the subjects of the Emperor of all the next ptesentation still remained in the heirs of Mrs. Russtas, by which the connexion between Russia Tilwill, his Lordship would never have heard of the and this country are at anent," and then it goes on present bill. to order reprisals, &c. The Loan CHANCELLOR put off the farther hearing Lord ELLF.NBOROUGH—" But there may be a of the cause until the next day. ' state in which there may be an end to the con- NOVEMBER 8. flexion between two countries, and yet no acts of Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY replied, on the part of the reprisal." plaintiff. He allowed that it was very probable that Serjeant BEST—" The Order is, that general re the present bill would never have been tiled if those prhals be granted against the ships, goods, and sub contingencies had not happened which so materially jects of the Emperor of all the Russets; and if this altered the value of the property. if that which had is not being in a state ef warfare, I am at a loss to been sold for £lOO turned out to be worth no more sty what is. I know it is a part of the prerogative than four or five hundred pounds, perhaps the plain. of the King to place this country in a state of war tiff might not have thought it worth entering into a fare, and to restore it again." litigation about it ; whereas it is worth now about LcrJ ELLENBOROUGH — " In the absence of that £4OOO, the matter may be consideted of sufficient document, it not being before the Court, the Court importance to litigate. He did not mean to throw and Jury have a right to assume that war did not .4ny imputation on the defendant, for having know. exist; under the present impression, however, I I ingly purchased the property at an undervalue ; but think you are entitled to a Rule." it did appear by the evidence of all the witnesses, Serkrant Beer said, that besides this evidence, he that the real value of the property, at the time of the had the affidavit of Mr. Tho:nton, who intended sale, was much greater than the price paid for it.— upon the trial, to prove acts of actual hostility and It did not signify whether it was seven time s the va . reprisal. 1 lue of what was paid for it (as some witnesses con. Lord Eeereannoucx—ii There is no reflection ceived it), or whether it was only four or five times upon the Judge in such a case ; where there is the more. • In any case, it had been proved that the de- absence of such a document, he mutt proceed te , fendant, being an attorney, had purchased from the cuniwa alfrgatunt d perfsetues. The evidence may in plaintiff, who was his client, a property at much le s s duce a contrary conclusian, but it may be one way than its real value. The general rule in such cases or the other, without any reflection upon the Judge was, that the sale should be set aside ; and he saw no or Jury who u-y the cause. As to Hamburgh, lam reason to take this case nut of the general rule. Ic not aware that there exists any proclamation to the appeared that the plaintiff was not in any want of same effect. However, rake your Rule to elle* - money at the time he made this. sale, .but knew that cause."—Rule ssiri granted. he owed money to the defendant. If, then, conceiv- BROWN 1,. MATIIY. ing that he owed the defendant at least £lOO, when Mr. Setjeant Pete. moved foe a rule to s'tew cense, in point of tact he did not owe him three-fourths of why the nonsuit which had been entered in this case that sum, he offered this property in payment, the should not be set aside, and a vtrdict for thesplaintiE defendant should have rather dissuaded him from entered for £5OO. The action was upon a bill of ex .parting with a property, which might become very change for that sum ; and the question was, whether valuable, for a consideration so trifling. He would it was necessary to give notice of the non-payment of not admit, that the chance at the time of the pur- the bill by the acceptor, to the defendant 1 weo was an chase was, that Mr. Sandes must wait forty or fifty indorsee. The hill was drawn by W'hitmarth ou years before he could make this property available; Ntves, to the order of the drawer; and was first in for at any period of this time he might have brought doped by Piander, and then by the defendant, nett it into the market ; and although it was not eve: y by Cosier, and then by Woods, from whom it p: ss d b , •dy who would buy it, yet sane rersont would into the hands of the plaintiff, the holder of it. Toe be always found to purchase. He then defended defendant's was merely an accommodation ind res. the calculations of the value which had been made ment ; and was originally made upon a blank accep by the accountants ; and relied upon it that this case tance by Neves, solely for the purpose of assisting would fall within the general rule of setting aside Woods. There was no consideration given for tht Gales made to attornies by cheats, who are ignorant bill by any of the parties, till it came into the' plain ege) . *.real value of the thing they are selling. tiff's hands, who discounted it. 'Upon these facts The LORD CHANCELLOR said, th a t i n giving his the Learned Serjeant submitted at the trial, and upon judgment, it would be necessary to go a little into the the autherhy of a case in 2 Henry •Bleckstone, 336 .particular circumstances of the present case. He said, and a subsequent case ruled by I.( r.l Ellenborough. gu Monday he would give his judgment. that no notice was necessary to the indorser. Th case in Henry Blackstone was quoted by Mr. Sel , i,. .. e s COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. P. wyn, in his Nisi Pr;us, 357, and was that of De Bert REPRISALS AGAINST RUSSIA. v. Atkinson, an action against the payee of a note, RUCKERS TY. AINSLIE. Our Readers will recollect that this case of insu- which it appeared was no t p res ent e d f or p a ym en t t ill , the day after it became due, and no notice was given ' ranee was tried at Guildhall last week, where it be- till five days after such presentment ; but it also ari -1 came a question, whether this Country was or was peering that the defendant gave no value far i i he not at actual hostilities with Russia ? and that, in note, that he lent his name merely to give it credit, the ab se nce of all evidence that could be received and that he knew at the time teat the maker was as legal evidence, the Jury came to a determination, insolvent, it was held that the plaintiff was en finding that Great Britain was not at war with titled to recover. So in Sisson v. Thomlinson, Lsn- Russia. don Sitting, 17th December, 1805, MS. t ener Mr. Mr. Serjeant BEST applied to set aside the verdict Selwyn, Lord Ellenb. rough C. J. ruled on the au obtained by the plaintiff in this case. This was en thorny of the preceding case, that where the indorser action upon a policy of insurance on goods by the has not given any consideration for a bill, and knows ship Fortuna, from Riga to this country. A licence at the same time that the drawer has not any effect, . was put in on the part of the plaintiff, granted to in the hands of the drawee, he, the indorser, is nut Messrs. Carligan, British merchants, and others. entitled to notice of the non-payment, as a bonafide The assured- were Messrs. Smith and Company, of holder for a valuable consideration would be. The Riga, who, being domiciled in Russia, . could not Learned Serjeant also cited the case of Come v. Da come under the denomination of British subjects and costa, Espinasse's Ni-i Prius Rep , rts, 302, in which others, others, and he contended upon the trial, that Russia the same doctrine was held by Buller, J . being at war with England, they did not c o me w i t hi n Lord Eeeeezeoanueu would look into . the cases, the meaning of the licence. The Attorney-General, an d granted a rule n i s i. Wh e n the m a tt er was oe e however, for the defendant, cont e nded t h at we were of accommodation between all the parties, it would not at war with Russia, because there was no decla- eeemehat the defendant must have anticipated the bill ration of reprisals, nor any declaration cf war against would not be paid. Russia. The Arroiterev-GINIMAL..- di My Lords, the affir. SHIP-WRECKED GOODS. mative was not upon me; it was for the Learned Ser- Mr. TRAP mov e d f or a W ri t o f H a b eas Corpus t o jeant to prove the affirmative." bring tip the bodies of three men who had been at for t h e • Barrow, in Sornersetshire, charged under the Act of herjeant Ben contended, that, it was the 26th Geo. 11. c. 19, a ith stealing or detaining torney-General to prove the a ffi rmative, he (Serjeant ship-wrecked goods. The pueiehment, if the offence Best) was taken by surprise, because it had been in was of an aggr a v a t e d nature , WAS Capital ; but, if the ' the course of his duty to attend m an y causes o f t hi s !description, and he never before he a rd it disputed, ! goods stolen we re o f t r ifli ng va l ue , an d no crue l t y was used, then the crime amounted only to petty larceos, that since the year 1807, this country and Rus- 1 i sia were not in a state of hostility against each other. and was to be punished accordingly. Ties motion He really thought he had been mistaken ; but if he ! was grounded first on an imperfection in the v.-errant of commitment, A nd g oods being laid as the property recollected rightly, he thought that certain acts of , : hostility had taken place hetveen the subjects of both of all his M a j est y' s su bj ec t s — an d secon dly, cn th e 1 merits, Cr. which the Learned Counsel principally te countries, which Weed them in a state of wan are. Russian ships had been Oren, Russian property bad lied. ffi on the merits stated, that a person ; of the name of Crandon had picked up oar the sea-shore been confiscated, and a Russien island bad been in vaded ; not, therefore, expecting to he called upon , a quantity of turn, of which he had invited the De fendants an d ot h ers to parta k e , an d th e y h a d m i s for any proof of the fact, he was not in a cordite n t .to prove it; but even it he was, he contended it wasakenly do ne so , su pp ss i ng t h e y had a rig ht, t h e p er . son who invit e d th em having foutid it. 'e hese Defer not necessary ter him to prove it ; it any proof was wanting, it was for the Attorney-General to produce dents, wh o b ore e xc ell ent c h aracte r s , w e r e now i n cu -- it. He produced a licence to two persons, bearing a . tody on the °ens of two persons, one of whom bore 'particular character ; it was for him to chew that this the very name of their inviter, eharged with the offence character applied. Smith and Company were ad- •in question. mitted not to be British subjects, but domiciled in ' Lord ELLENBOROUGH—"You may take the Habeas Russia • if they were net British sulsiscts, or neutrals, Corpus and Certior a ri." they ha d ' no character, and it was for the Attoruey- 1 GRAY V. GOOKSON AND ANOTHER. General to prove them neutrals. 1 Mr. TOPPING moved for a rule to sliew cause why Lord Etetesentouoti...•" I think the Mil lies on the verdict for .4107 damages which had been ob you upon the first point, to show that he is en ellen tented in this case should not be set aside, and a non. enemy, the contrary may be proved by shewing that suit entered. This was en action of trespass and the country in which he resides is not at war with false imprisonment at the last Assizes at Nowcastlt. England." , upon-Tyne, before Mr. Justice Chambre. The de- Mr. Justice BAILEY--" I - Tow are you to stew him .fondants were Aldermen and Justices of the Peace to be a neutral, but by raevriug that the country in for that town ; and the plaintiff had, in June, 18CS, • entered into an indenture of stpprenticed , ;o Ala Spencer, for three years and nine month-. On the 17th of April, 1809, an agreement was eudorsed up. on the back of the indenture to cancel the deed, pro. vided the apprentice did not follow the busiaess of his master in the town of Newcastle. This itt,ree• ntent was unstamped and usistaled. In Decent.. , of the same year, however, the apprentice began to follow the trade of his master in Newcastle ; and in January the master gave him notice of recallrnetlt into his service, the agreement being forfeited on part. Upon the plaintiff's refusing to return, inft r mation was laid before the defendants, and 4 warrant was issued to apprehend him. Upon his still refusal to return to his master, a warrin-it issued for his con - mitment to gaol. In the first vi arrant there %A as 411 informality, inasmuch as it did Hot rate that the (charges against the defeadalt were made upon oath; 'and coasequently, upon his being brought into this Court by his Ha eas C irens, he wascli.eha , ged, up on the Keeper cf the House of Correction producin{ only the first warrant, although he had the second in his pocket. The present action was then brcugl t against the Magistrates ; and Mr. Topping, for the defendants, quoted the case of Massy v. Johnson, 12 East. 67. and contended, t.' at if that authority failed him, he fold a complete answer to the case ti ler the statute for the protection of Magistrates, of the 43d Ceo. In. c. 141, which directed that all ac ions against them should be special on the case, and malice provedt Mr. Justice Chambre was however fopinion that this statute did not apply to the pre. sent case. In the case of Massey v. Johnson, it fell to Mr. Topping's lot to contend that the conviction existed unquashed; and therefore this act did not ap. ply ; but it was expressly decided there, that whether quashed or not, the Magistrates were protected under the statute. Mr. Justice Chambre admitted, at -his trial, that it was not necessary that the conviction should be drawn up at the time : it was quite enough if the conviction was produced for the defence of thp Magistrates. Then it was sa'd that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction, because the statute ol the sth of Elizabeth avoided all indentures for less time than seven years ; and therefore, the Magistrates having no jurisdiction, trespass would lie. Still, Mr. Top. ping contended, it 'oust be rare: and it was decided ay the Court of King's Bench, composed of Lord Elardwicke, C. J. Proby, Page, and Lee, J. J. (great tames) that an indenture orapprenfceship for seven years was voidable, but no: void. So, in the King a. .Evans, Ashton, J. was of the same opiaion.— At the tri J of the present cause, the Learned Judge ex pressly told the Jury, that the Ma4istiates had mere ly erred in judgment ; and yet their vet-. ict was of 31 iarge an amount in damages. On the other side, Ir. Park had quoted the case of Guppy v. Jennings, Anstruther, 256, which was an action of covenant agai at the father of an apprentice for five years, with everal breaches assigned: The plea w a s perform ince to a certain day ; and therefore is c auld not be untended Volt this deci.ion was the authority of the of Exchequer f sayiug that the apprentiee liip itself was void.—kule Nisi gratord. mita-mous. O. BttisToteDuCK COMPANY. Mr. DAVNCEY moved for a Mandamus aea'nst the lefendants to compel the payment of ‘2,411i 4es, assessed to the Proprietors f the Li mita-cf. ck, for injuries cont.mplated to be done by the defer. tants to the plaintiff in their Act of Parliament..+ l'he motion was made precistoy upon the same grounds upon which a Mandamus was granted to the strand Bridge Company, in the case ef Beau oy v. James ; and Mr. Dauncey was not aware that he had Any other remedy. He had an affidavit if r. peat.o.4 demands for a year and a half, and answers that the Company meant to pay, bat could not fix when. .1. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV.& UUllt V. KAVE AND FRESHFIES.b. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHYRD applied far a rule to she', cause why the verdict for the plaintiff in this case should not be set aside. Plaintiff had brought an ac tion for false imprisonment io , ainst the def e nd ants ;and obtained a v er di ct , with damages to the amount of £145, under the following circumstances :—The defendants, who are Solicitors to the Bank, entertai. ned a suspicion of forgery against the plaintiff ; and conceived that they were authorized,. by the nature of their suspicions, to have trim apprehended. They accordingly wrote .t letter to the Provost of Dumfries desiring him to make enquiries after the plaintiff in .iis neighbourhood, and if fount, to arrest him 6 they said farther, that on his arrestation they would sand 'a warrant for his removal from Sci.tiand. This let• ter, which went by post to the Plovo4 of Dimities, tound its way into the h.mtla the ProtUrAtte Fiscal of the Stewarty of Kircudhright, wh had the plain. tiff apprehended and lodged in gaol. He was at. terwards liberated by the Lord Chief Justice Clerk of Scotland, and recovered damages, as above-men tioned, for false imprisonment. The application to set aside the verdict rested on these grounds : via the letterof the Solicitors to the Pio , ost► f L'iumfries was not an official instrument, directed to alt wntnn it may coacera, but merely a private direction, to make inquiry for the plaintiff, and to enforce an ar rest, subject, however, by implication to the conside rations of die evidence that might appear before him ; and also, that it did w.t appear how the letter came into the pos,ession of the Procurator Fiscal of the Stewarty of Kircutibright : it might, for instance, be lost, and picked up by him; and in such a c. se, it was evident that he alone was respoesibte for the ar rest, it being impossible to trace the liability to the defendants. Sir JAMBS MAYSFIELD said, that he did not blame the defendants to make ,ast as good a case as it w. s possible for them ; as he remembered that there :tele some very odd cir,:unistances connected with this af fair, which very fairly warranted the suspcit ns of ' the plaintiff: the verdict, however, he was afraid, could not be set aside. The supposition that the let ter mig:t be lost, and picked up by the Procurator Fiscal, was contrary to common sense: and it was clear on the face of the letter to the Provost id Dum fries; that lie could not enter into examination Cie evidence against the plaintiff ; and that, therefore, lie not having any discretion but a positive direction to make di,: arrest, he ought nut to be liable for us con sequences. Mr. Justice HEATU expressed himself of the same opinion, and the rule was refused. At one o'clock their Lortiships sa. at N;si Prius, whim several audefendcd cases were disposed et. ..r