Star. — London, England, 1801-12-25 00:00:00

L4ll l INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 24. ELOPEMENT. • In obedience to the order of the LORD CHAN iskog, William Woodman appeared in Court, f we e for having eloped with and married pgbeth Bathurft, a ward of the Court. Mr. woo d m an preferred an affidavit in his behalf, in oieb he limed, that he had been apprenticed tr, sfarpeetable tradefman of the name of Walth, at t ith ; that he had duly ferved the period of bi s mo a pprenticefhip , and was now of the age of 23 y e ws; that his father was a man of property, and fad Wired from bufinefs, polkaed of lauds an d icon/tents to a confiderable amount ; that in the l i oah of February laft he became acquainted' . a pitis Mils Bathurft, whole father in his life-time vs an eminent bookfelkr, in the Strand ; that a ristaal attachment was the confequence of their .., 03 i n tance ; that they determined to marry, accomplith their defign went to the laand iGoirtfey,, where they were married by a Cler gloom ot that place. He added, that he had ;ass reafon to believe Mifs Bathurft .aras a young bald property; bnt did not know the was a W a rd of Chancett, or poffefted of the film of pie Cneacsxxot find, 6 underftond Mr. Atialadman's father and brother had afflited his ' ibpadsent with Mifs Bathurft, and accompanied two to Guernfey. This he conceived had the ap ikwanee of a family concern. His Lordfhip or- Mr. Woodman to Rand committed to the iket,till the Mailer fhould report on the fait and d r eamilances of his marriage ; and he aftured Up, if he (Offered . his wife to vilit him it would aiderably protraft the period cf his imprifon , m at. He alfo laid, if his father and brother *odd appear to have been implicated with him, aoald likewife commit them to the Fleet. - Th appearance and manners of the bridegroom joritTome apology for the young Lady's difre• g ird of the reftraints impofed by the circum of p l ies her fortune. With refped to herlif, dough only fixteen years, of age, her figure indi. *cites her arrival at a period of more maturity. Mr. Woodman was conveyed to the Fleet. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. z. ■BVM V. SLAM • This aclion Was brought by the Plaintiff, who math' commander of a Danifh velfel called the i c hleen, igainit the Defendant, who was Captain if the likiable privat:er of Liverpool, to recover damages for an alledged trefpids, ail:melt, and fdk imprifonment. Maria Chriftianfand, a native of Norway; hat ed, that Ile was a paffenger from Carthagena on board the Plaintiff's veird, which fhe undet flood to be boned from MelEna to Altona, in June, 1799. That they were hailed off the toaft of Spain by the Defendant, who ordered the Plaintiff to come od board with his papers. That there was ;very hli fea at the time, and the Plaintiff al, lodged this as an excufe for not complying imme stely with the requeft of the Defendant, who damn his vefrel again(! the Plaintiff's, which tterby received injury; and was ia fome danger. That the Captain and the Witncfs being at length got an board the Defendant's s:effal, were detain al prifoners in the cabin all night, and the neat atornin , ;, were fent back to the velf;l of the Plain itin a boat which was partly filled with water, and from which the f.:: op to bale' otit the Water bad been 'previoufly taken away by the Defen dant; the fea (till continuing rough and temp:f utons. That on their return to the Plaintiff's vef fel, they found it had been plundered of mnft of the valuables and provifions which were or, hoard. Lord At.vAal FY would not permit anycvidence to be gone into relative to the taking away any property on board the Plaintiff's vefTel, obferving that this was only a perronal Mtion for Affiult and falfe imprifonment, and that any queft:on re lative to the property, mug be tried before the Court of Admiralty, or at any rate, come before a Court of Common Law, in the fhape of an adlion spina the owners. The Witnefs being afked by the Jury if the De fendant ftruck the Plaintiff, or laid hands upon him, the anfwered in the negative. A legal argument caned between Mr. Serjeant Coteau. and Mr. Serjeant BES a for the Plaintiff, sad Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD and Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN for the Defendant ; it being contended by the latter, that the defendant was jullificd in enteifing the right of fearch, to difeover whether the Plaintiff's veld was proper prize or not, and that the Plaintiff had no right of anion ; and by the former that the Plaintiff had a right of *Flinn for any perfonal injury inflikfted on him by the Defendant. Lord ALVANLEY quoted a Cafe which was de. teneintil after a fo.emn hearing in the Court of King's Bench, where the vetlel taken was deemed no inize, and it was yet deter mined that the parties taking rofreffion of the velfel were not liable to a n/ . AftiMl. It had then been thrown nut, he armed, by Mr. Jultice WII.LES, that if any snalicicus perfnnal injury was olTerr-d to any party in the courfe ref exereifing the right of fearch or of eaptute, an anion might perhaps Ile wither!, therefor e , this aftinn to proceed, that it might he Peen, %flu:tiler any malicious excas of injury was committed by the Defendant AV4:I" and above the neeeffary means of erercifing the right he was in tided to ? Part of the depaitions of two marinerc, one be !ringing to the Rebecca, and the other to tile Nim Mei which had been formerly taken bcf,re Lord Firma, were read, which proved several threats to have been ufiel by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff, but no perfonal violence. The Letter of Marque being produced on the Part of the Defendant, Mr. Serjearet SHEPHERD was proceeding on be half of the Defendant, when the Jury declared ,ernfelves faaisfied that no malicious perfonal `"fence had been ufed by the Defendant towards ntintiff. ! A right of reply, however, being claimed by Mr. Serjeant COCK ELL, it w as agree d to procee d . The Letter ofMarque was proved to be on board the Defendant's veffel, when it left England. Mr. Scrjeant COCKELL contended in reply, that the Defendant had ufed unn-celfary and malirious excefs of violence again fl the Plaintiff, for which he was anfwerable in damages in a Court of Common Law, and that the Plaintiff's Vail not being ac tually captured, there was no remedy in the Court of Admiralty. Lord A LVA,IL EY repeat:A his former obferva tions, and commented upon the evil confequences which would cnfue, if every perfon on board a vef fel made prize of, or fearched, was to have a right of adion againft the Captain of the King's flip, or privateer, by whom the right of capture or fearch was ezercifed. It was a queftion, however, for the Jury to confider, whether, in this cafe, there was any malicious excefs of perfonal violence, on the part of the Defendant towards the Plaintiff?— His Lordthip was proceeding to fum up the evi dence, when the Jury declared themfelves perfeelly fatisfied, and obferved, his Lordfhip need not trouble himfelf farther Upon the fubjeih The Jury then returned a verdia for the De fendant, exprefsly finding, that the Defendant had not malicioufly ufed any perfonal violence towards the Plaintiff. CHRISTIAN O. ISAACS. The Plaintiff, a Pro Flor in Do6lor's Commons, was employed by the Defendant, an attorney of this Court, to take out Letters of Adminiftration to the eftate of Mrs. Judith Barlow,•deceafed.— The Adminiftration, and the Bill, amounting to 61. ts. 4d. was delivered to Ifaacs, and never yet paid. The clerk of the Plaintiff (wore that he had frequently called on Mr. Ifaacs for the payment, who had always requefted further indulgence, and that he had never mentioned that the perfonal re prefentative of Mrs. Barlow fhould pay, until af ter the prclent ;talon was brought. Serjeant VAUGHAN for the Defendant, contend. ed that his client ought not to pay on this aElion. He particularly cited the Statute of Frauds;— where it is maned, " That no perfon (hall from henceforth be charged with any debt, default, or mikarriage of another, unlef, by a written under taking under his hand." He preffed this point on the Court, and very ftrongly. Lord ALVANLYY fummed up ihortly, and the Jury in an inftant found a verdid for the Plaintiff. STRONG AND SANDILANDS V. TORSTRR. The Plaintiffs arc liquor Merchants, in Noble flr!et, Fofter-lane, and having an order to fend tims'n fomc I;cinor to a Publican, at Kempton, in liertfordinir:, but up two calks, one of btandy, containing ten gallons and three quarts, and one of rum, of ti.n gallons and two quarts, which they fent by their fervant to thdyard of the Defendants, Meas. Forfters, at the Red Lion, Alderfgate- Itreet, addrcffed to Mr, Ralph Seddons, at Kemp ton, in 1-47:fr.rdetire, by, crexe's cart. The De fendant, William I'm Iter, entered the receipt of the two calks in the book ceriled by the Plaintiffs' porter. The calk of rum came to hand, but that with the brandy was loft ; and by form flrange neglcfl or other the permits for both eafrs were on the one that was 1011, fo that when the rum arriv ed at Kempton, Mr. Seddons could not take it in to flock without a permit. On the Plaintiffs being advifed of the lots of the calk of brandy, they fent their fervant to Meffrs. Forfters to apply for pay ment for it. Mr. Willi.tm Fortier Paid, "If you will take the rum that is in the country, we don't mind paying you for the brandy, as it is of no great confequence." The Plaintiffs refnfed this ; and brought their tallon fdr 91. Fs. 9d. fcr the brandy. This cafe was proved on the part of the Plain tiff, and not rebutted by the Defendants, except by the arguments of Serjeant Sn erne RD, who argued that the Defendants' fervant having pointed out to Crewe, the. Carrier, the two calks, as being for him, it was a good delivery to him, fo as to exone rate them front all refponfihility. Mr. Crewe was examined, and on an objeClion being taken to this teftimony, a releafe was put in, when he de clared that he did not confider himfelf as being in the charge of the goods until they were put in to his cart, which was not the cafe m the prefent inflame. _ _ Lord ALVAMLEY fummed up the evidence to the Jury ; and obletved, that the gneflion in this cafe appcared to him to turn on two points. 111, Whether this was ItlCh a delivery to the Defen dants as to tender them refponlible ? and, 2d, Whether the Defendants having fo received the calks, did, by the ad of their fervant, in pointing out to Crewe the carrier, that the goods were for him, and his condnd in rolling the calks up to the fcale and weighing them, was fuch as would amount to a deliv:ry to him ? The Plry, after a fAv minutes confil.ration, found a verdict for the Defendants. DEC. 19.-00 M AND CO. V. KINC. This was an anion to recover an average upon a Policy of Infitrance on the fhip Ratalies Mag nus, from Archangel to London. The policy was r , :ad, which, in addition to the anal engagement, had thefe words—" including the rilk of liglltcrs over the bar of Archangel." It appeared horn the evidence of the Captain, that the lois alledged took place within the bar, in July hall, when two veffels, called 'vaunts, laden Nr'!ii wheat for the (Hp, were funk alonglide.— Thefc veiLls he defcribed not to be fuch AS Could 1411 over the that putrpofe vcffels called /0rf.7., were employed. The &fence let lip by Mr. Serjcant Bast. was, that the vcffels in which the wheat was loft were not of the dcfcriptinn comprehended in the terms of the policy, and t'aat therefore Ole Underwriter was not liable. Lord ALvantry, in addreffing the Jury, faid, the quellion for them to decide WAS. whether thole traurnt ware to be confidered as lighters ? He withed that Merchants would be mole explicit in the terms of their contrafts, as a good deal of iiti,gation might be avoided. ' Vcrdift fur the iltiutiff--Ditmages 57L 16‘. WADDINGTON AN D CO. Ts. ILVEY. This was an aaion for the non-performance of a contra& The damages were laid at io,oool. The contra t, dated 061ober, 1799, was pro duced, and the fignature of the Defendant proved. It (laced that he engaged to deliver to the Plain tiff zoo bags of hops, at R guineas per ewe. ; and 200 bags at 9 guineas per cwt. of the growth of 1800, which he declined. The aelion therefore was brought to recover the difference between thefe prices and the average prices in the months of OCtober, November, and December me), which were from 151. to i 61. per cwt. but no time being fpecified in the contra& for the delivery of the hops, the plaintiff not being able to prove any demand on the Defendant for the execution of his bargain, and it not appearing from the e v id ence examined that there was, according to the cuaom of the Hop-planters, any fixed time for the delivery of hops fo contraCted for, Lord ALyANLEY Was of opinion that the aCtion could not be fuliained.— The Plaintiff was accordingly nonfuited. WADDINGTON V. UPTON. In this cafe the defendant contratted, in Novem ber 1799, to deliver to the plaintiff, before the r It of November, 1800, the whole produce of 90 acres of hop-land, he had then planted, at the rate of tot. per ewe. or to forfeit sootl. For this fum the action was brought, the defenda4 having refined to execute his contrad. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHEND rpoke at confiderable length on behalf of the plaintiff, sand requelled the Jury todiveft their minds of thole prejudices whi,h, from certain unfortunate tranfaetior s,had been ex cited againft him; and to judge of this contrail upon its own merits. He entered into a defence of fore-hand bargains, infifting they were perfally legal and nece.ffary in commercial fpeculations. John Smyth was called to prove the contraet.--- He hated that he was a fubfcribing witnefs to it ; hut that he did not fign it in the pretence, nor by the direCtion of Mr. Upton ; he was ordered to do fo by Upton's Clerk, by whom the body of the contrad was written. Here Lord ALVANLE v took oecafion to obferve on the flovenly manner in which the moft folemn deeds were often executed in this country. He in ftanced a cafe which lately came before him, of a Mr. Cole, who had executed a bond for spool. and after figning the names of two of his clerks, lent it into the country, with no fraudulent intention, it appeared, for he afterwards paid 5001. of the bond; but, fiabfequent to his death, the holders of the bond brought an aCticn againft his heirs, for the gook remaining due, and on the exanii nation of one of the clerks before alluded to, this fait came out. His Lordfhip added, that he un derftood it frequently occurred, that Waiters of Inns, and other fuch perfons, were called upon to witnefs the contraCts of perfons with whom they were. utterly unacquainted. That he conlidered a high mifdemeanor ; for, in cafe of the death of the principal in Inch a contraft, how was it poffible for the attending witneffes to prove the identity ? The witnefs added, that from the time Mr. Wad dington came to Maidflone, the price of hops was riling. Mr. Randall proved the average price of hops in November, tBOO, at from r5l. to r6l. per cwt. and on re-examination, he ftated that the growth of hops in the years 1798, i 799, and iBOO, was not equal to the produce of one good year, namely, that of 1794, or the prefent year,and that 60,000 acres of land were devoted to the cul tivation of hops in this kingdom, of which 22,000 were in the county of Kent. Mr. Sprang proved, that he fold the hops of the Defendant, of the growth of 1800, at fittecn gui. neas per cwt. Mr. Serjeant BEST appeared on the part of the Defendant. He explained the nature and tendency of monopoly, and exhorted the Jury to confider the queftion fully. It was manifcft the intention of the Plaintiff was to defraud the Defendant, and to exad an exorbitant price from the Public—to purfue a kind of (peculation which was not con fiftent with morality or fair commercial praClice. He trufted they would examine cautioufly the claim of a man who appeared before the Court as a convitted criminal, to leek the performance of a contra& entered into for illegal purpofes. The record of the conviCtion of Mr. Wadding ton, at Hereford, for foreflalling, was proved by the Clerk of the Crown for that county. Stephen Amherft depofed, that he had fre quently heard the Plaintiff fay, that he had made large purchafes of hops, and that his objee was to raife the price of that article. He was prefent at a dinner at Woreefter, when the health of the Plaintiff was wafted, as the " Saviour of the Hop Planters." The Plaintiff was prefent.' Jofeph Jackfon, formerly Clerk to the Plantiff, Rated the converfations he had had with him re fpeCting the prirchafe of hops. He gencrolly heard him fay, that he expeCted to mile the price of hops, and for that purpofe made large put-- chafes—endeavoured to diffuade the Planters from bringing their hops to market, and gave them dinners every market-day to conciliate their at tachment. He alto crated a bank, called " The Hop Planters' Bank ;" and upon a particular oc- Ication, when it was reported that a quantity of Fltmifh hops was imported, the Plaintiff bought up 20,0001. wo• .h of hops at Maisleione, left the panic of the Planters thould induce them to bring their hops to market, and produce a deprefron in the price, to the prejudice of his fpeculations.— This Wands denied, on his crofs-examination, that lie was dinnifkei by the Plaintiff for embez- ' zling money. He admitted the charge had been made, but the real carafe of his delimit(' was his having engaged in tome (peculations for the pur chafe of hops. The Defendant'. Cafe being here doted, Mr. Serjeant Ss F ?NIRO fpoke at fome length in reply. The derenee, be laid, was highly dilhonour able to the Defendant, a , there was no doubt be had made the Contrail with his eyes open. and as he had taken advantage of the enhanced pree to carry his Hops to market, and pen :he rioney into his pocket. Had Hops fallen below i cl. ins in price, there was every reafon to believe that the Defendant would bate compellek: Mr.Waddington to make good the Conti acct. He contended that the record of Mr. Waddington's conv:aiun ought not to prevent the Pl.tintiffs from gaining a ver dia, it - tar/Audi as Mr. Waddington had already fuffered the punifhment of the Law for his offence, and th it punifbmcnt could not, and ought not to be carried any farther; added to which, the prcfcnt Contra& was no past of the tranfaaion for wlti, ii Mr. Waddington was conviaed, not being men tioned in the Record. The Contrail was on the face of it legal—it was merely between Mr. W:lct dington and the Defendant, and had nothing to do with any other cireumflancc ; and, therefore, ht.- contended the former ought td4recover. Lord ALVANLEY agreed wi t h the Plaintlffs' Counfel, that the Defence set up was by no means honourable to the Defendant. After Isayr.g, ith his eyes open, bound bin:kW by the prefent Con. tract, he tholi&ht it highly probable, that if the market price of Hops had Fallen below ten guineas, that tlsePefenthnt in this Adinn might then have been a Plaintiff, compelling Mr.Waddington to pay for the Hops according to the price cant:faded for. In fumming up the Evidence he ohicrec that the Jury mull decide as to the dca-rce of credit which was due to Mr. Jackfon, between whom an.l Mr. Waddington there appeared to have been a quarrel, and who had been difrriiired by the latter. There could be no doubt, his Lordfhip obferved, that the Contract was perfealy legal upon the free of it, and it had been admitted to he fo by the Defendant. The only qucflion for the confidera- Lion of the Jury was; whether the Contrad was me of that fort of bargains, for mukin:g of which Mr. NVaddingron had been conviaed of a Niildemeanor, in illegany endeavostring, by thefe bargains, to enhance the price of Hops? And whether it wits made within the time, within which it appeared by the Record of conviaion, the offence of Mt. Wad dington had been committed ? If the Jury were of opinion, that the prefent Contract was thus ren dered a part of that tranfaCtion,theContraa would necetrarily be illegal, and they mull find a verdict for the Defendant, as the Plaintiff could not leap the fruits of his offence. If they were not of that opinion, they would then find a verdict for the Plaintiff's, either for the amount of the forfeiture, or fpecific damages, reserving for the decision of the Court the quetfion, whether the bargain being a fore-hand bargain, was in itfelf legal or illegal ? The Jury retired for about half an hour—when they returned their places they returned a V eltilit fur the Defendant, Rating at the fame time, that having, in purfuance of the direction of his Lord 'hip, taken the Record of Conviaion into confide. ration, they were of opinion that the prefent con. tract was rendered a part of the tranfaaion for which the Plaintiff was convicted, and was there fore illegal. Being of this opinion, they relue'lantly contented to violate a contract which was ;serially legal in itfelf, and to find a verdift• for the De fendant. DEC. 23......MATTHLINSON V. lIIINNETT. This aelion, the trial of which confumcd a large portion of the time of the Court, was brought againtl the owner of a veffel called the Hillibo rough, employed in the Southern Whale Filhery, to recover a fix hundreth !hare of the net proceeds of the cargo, which was claimed by the Plaintiff as a feaman on board the laid veffel. It appeared that the Plaintif had been ta!zen on hoard at Port Jacklbn, in New Sonth Wales, and had figned certain articles, to which the reft of the crew had agrecd,by which each pet-1(414m boa) d as to receive a certain &ire of the net proceeds of the cargo, according as the fame Nadi he fold by the owners. The plaintiff; not bring a Laman, was to have a third of a feaman's p.fy, as it was called, being a fix hundredth (hate, which, after the net proceeds of the cargo had been proved, was admitted to be 121. 9s. Bd. A ftt-off was given in evidence on the•part of the defend:int, confiffing of flops furnifhed to the plaintiff, lick quarters, hofpital money, and other articles, amounting to upwards of IQ, which be ing proved to the fatisfaaion of the Jury, they found a verdia for the defendant. NOUN AND OINERS V. AR 1.. This was an anion to r ecover tool. the amount t.f a Policy of Inforance on the cargo of the flap Juliana Maria, fi om Bengal, by the Cape of Good Hope, to Copenhagen, the velfel and goods being warranted Danifli property. The veffel was cap tured loy a French privateer in OCtober, 1797, car• tied into Mintz, and there condemned by the Tri bunal of Commerce. It was admitted that the valet took in its lad ing at Calcutta, as appeat cd by tlic bill of lading, and failed from thence, and that the goods remain. ed on board until the vecel was captured by the enemy. Mr. Serjeant Vationast, on behalf of th: De fendant, took an objection to the aCtion, contend ing, that the voyage was illegal. By the Nasiga tion Afl of the lath Charles 11. it was ptovided, that no goods fhotild be imported to, or carol tcd from any Port in his Majedy's dominions, unlefs in inch vetfels as were t."inned by lit itith Seamen, or were Britifli built. The v,:ffel in quell:on was Danifh,manned by foreign feamen, and Can.: cl Calcutta, a Britilh Port. The voyage, therefore, i being illegal, the Policy was cfcruirli: void. Lord ALVA4LE v being of opinion that the ob i jeftion precluded the Plaintiffs from recovering en the Policy, Mr. Serjeant SH PHPRD, on behalf of the Plain tiff contended, that they were entitled to recover the premium, being ztl. no fraud IA hatev::r peat ing in the voyage, or in their conaini. A. verdiCt was taken for 2I i. fubjen t the opi• nion of the Court, %ski:thee lu.:11 a vet diCt was le gal !' if not, A nonfuit to be entered initsatt. In another lnfurance cattle, where the vetiel was infitred as neutral, bot captated by a French pri vateer, and condemned by the Tribunal of Com : merce at Wantz, as laslA prize, atr condo nation was afterwards confirmed by tl.c of Calfist.4rt at Pat is, a cue WV• r..ferved fur the opinion of the C..so I, ‘Vitethet e-nd, notation of a foreign Cont t was In itfCliCOneolliSe cvedtece that the veffel lags net neutral r , yln(!er tte. u l ► o k . l Lnliy W r ays, 7n a ar.d :yen ?arl rem 'JM• nett their ring 50 of ty . in gal' . L~_l ; .r pl. ,