Star. — London, England, 1822-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER r. THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSR. The ATTORNIT•GINERAL opened the CaSe Of the petitioner. Henry Wallop Fellows, nephew of the Earl of Portsmouth. The prayer of the petition was, that a Commission of Inquiry should be issued, to as certain whether his Lordship was of sound mind and capable of managing his own person and property. The Leirned Gentleman detailed at great length the affidavits which- were filed in support of the prayer of , the petition. Mr. Wirrntant.t. followed on the same side, until be was interrupted by his Lordship at half-past two. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that this was a case which so urgently required the earliest possible de cision, that he would proceed with it again to-mor row morning. At the same time he wished to sug gest that in a case of such great delicacy there ought to be no publication of the proceedings until the case should be fully heard. COURT OF ItINCFR BENCH. NOVEMBER 7. THE KING v. MESSITER, GENT. Mr. SCARLETT moved for a Rule to shew cause why judgment in this case should not he arrested, or why a new trial should not be granted. He would apply himself Qrst to those grounds of objection which appeared on the face of the record, because, though he was confident that he had abundant grounds for a new trial, he thought the Court would not send so defective a record to a second inquiry.— The indictment against Mr. George Messiter, an at• torney at Ftome, was tried at the last Assizes for the county of Somerset, before Mr. Justice Richardson, when the defendant was found guilty. It purported to charge him with an endeavour at the subornation of four witnesses, on the trial of an issue pending be tween Sir Thomas Swymmer Champneys and him self, to give false evidence that the plaintiff had at tempted to commit an atrocious clime. The indict ment did not shew what the matter in issue was, or set forth how such evidence could affect the case, or even be produced at the trial. Suppose the action were for goods sold and delivered, it would he ab surd to contend that any witnesses could be called to prove such an imputation, on such an issue, or that an indictment could be good, charging a solicitation so to swear falsely. Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that in cases of per jury, it was always necessary to shew the materiality of the matter charged as false to the question in issue ; but asked if it was so also in subornation of perjury ? Mr. SCARLETT submitted that the present indict• mem did not Thew any connection between the matter to which the subornation was directed and the question to be tried, so as to point out any intelligible charge. Mr. Justice BA YLEY.—Supposea man were charged with suborning a person to swear that John Thomas was not to be believed on his oath, in expectation that John Thomas would be called an a particular trial : if John Thomas is not called, the matter to which the subornation was directed does not arise ; but would not the party be guilty of a misdemeanour? Mr. SCARLETT assented to this; but observed, that in such case it should appear that the party had some reason to expect that John Thomas would be called, and that his evidence would be material. The LORD CHIEF Jos-mt.—lf he suborns a wit ness, does not that shew that lie at least believes the testimony he can thus procure would be material ? Mr. SCARLETT said he felt how naturally indig. nation must be excited at the idea of the crime charged on the defendant : but he was sure the Court would not suffer their feelings to influence the decision. The Loan CHIRIP JUSTICE. —Certainly we shall not permit them to influence our judgment : we must de cide according to law. Mr. SCARLETT proceeded. In point of fact, had the indictment stated the natured the issue, it would have been seen at once that the evidence which Mr. Messiter was charged with endeavouring to procure could not have been produced at the trill. It was an action for words, to which Mr. Nlessiter pleaded, not a justification, but the general issue. He could not, therefore, give the truth of these words in evi• dente ; and yet the indictment charges him with at tempting to suborn these persons to prove that the imputation was true. He might stippose from some decisions, to which more particular allusion was needless, that for the purpose of mitigating the da- , mages, he might shew that reports against the plain tiff were current previous to the time when he used the expressions; and on an examination of the evi dence, it would appear clearly that, even if believed, it applied not to the truth of facts, but the existence of rumours. To that evidence he would now advert, with a view to shew, on the second pan of his mo tion, that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. There were charges of attempting to suborn four per sons; and the Jury found a general verdict of guilty, but only one of these proved anything at all import ant to the case, and this was a witness named Knighton. This man deposed, that Mr. Messiter had discounted a bill of £l5 for him, and that he came afterwards to speak to him. The witness said—" I suppose you are come about the £l5 bill that you discounted for me?" Mr. Messiter replied, " Yes; bqt not altogether about that, but respecting a dirty report, and a ditty action about Champneys g" and added, in the course of conversation, " if I would come forward and sear against Champneys, he would forgive me, and make a Gentleman of me all the days of my life." In a subsequent part of his examination, the witness being asked if he knew what Mr. Messiter alluded to by "a dirty report or =dour said,-" Yes; because I had heard reports." Now if this story was believed, to what did it amount ? The witness had heard reports, and the existence of those reports was the only fact he would have been admit ted to prove. There was nothing, then, which im plied a desire to persuade the witness to swear falsely, but merely an endeavour to induce a reluctant wit ness to come forward and state the truth. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—It may be so; but it is not a very proper way for an attorney to collect evidence, Mr. SCA RLRTT.—Certainly not, my Lord, if it were true: and this feeling might induce the Jury, and: probably did induce them, to find their verdict with.' lfficiently adverting to the precise nature of the Even this case rested merely on the evidence ighton, who was asked on cross-examination. tuestions fur the purpose of contradiction, but t enstradicted because. the Learned Coined. defendant, Aii. Gaselee, did net think, niter the otter failure of 4411 the rest of the case, and tfie entire want of all proof fairly applicable to the charge, that he should be justified in occupying the time of the Court by calling witnesses. Under these circum stances, the defendant con fi ded in the justice of the Court to grant a second trial in case the judgment should not be arrested. The LORD CHIRP JUITICR.—Take a rule to sbew cause on both points. Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS said, that he had been in structed to move that the defendant should stand committed, but be would not, after what had passed in Court, make the motion. The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE said, that Mr. Williams acted very correctly ; Mr. Mzssiter should enter into his own recognizance to appear and receive judg ment when called on. Mr. Messiter's recognizance was then taken by the proper officer. BALDRY D. PARKER. Mr. COMMON SnaJEANT moved for a rule to shenv eau* why the nonsuit in this case should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff with £7O damages. ' It was an action for goods bargained and sold, which was recently tried before the Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall. It appeared that the defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff, who is a draper, in Russell-street, Covent-garden, and looked at a num ber of articles, which he proposed to pUrchase. 'ltem was some chaffering as to prices, but at last many articles were fixed on ; some pieces were severed, the defendant lending his assistance ; and on others he pnt his mark in pencil, that he might know them again. The whole amounted in price to more than £7O, but no article singly came to so much as £lO, and the entire quantity was set aside in a parcel for the defendant. On the next day a person called on him with a bill of parcels; he inquired what credit his master gave? and was informed he never gave credit at all, unless he was acquainted with his cus tomer. He then asked what discount would be al lowed for ready money ? Ile was informed only £5 per cent. which he declared very inadequate, and in ferior to that which he had been accustomed to receive. The goods were subsequently tendered and rejected. On this evidence, the Lord Chief Justice thought that there was no acceptance of the goods to satisfy the provision in the Statute of Frauds; and he ac cordingly directed a nonsuit, with liberty to move. Mr. Common Serjeant now contended that the Sta tute of Frauds did not apply to the case so as to preclude the plaintiff from his right of action. He argued this on two grounds—first, that the setting apart of the goods an the shop was a complete ac ceptance of the whole ; and secondly, that as the S:a tute applies only to purchases beyond £lO, and no one article reached that sum, the contract for each was a distinct contract, and the Statute did not apply. The Cot,RT said, that it was now settled that the Statute applied to every contract above £lO, except where there had been such an acceptance as would enable the purchaser to sustain trover for the goods withont a tender of their value; but under ail the circumstance; of the case, they granted a rule to chew cause. THE ICING V. SMITH. Mr. BnovonaNt moved for a Rule, calling on Wil• liam Smith, of Kirkby Stephen, in the county of Cumberland, to shew cause why a criminal informa tion should not be filed against him. He made this application on behalf of Mr. Thomas Briggs,* who had long exercised the functions of Steward of the Court Leet at Appleby. In that Ccurt, a plaint, in which a person named Hodgson was plaintiff, and Smith was defendant, came on for trial ; when Smith had not only full justice, but considerable favour and indulgence sheen him. The case was conducted on each side by the Attornies, and after the Attorney for Hodgson had replied, and the Attorney fo: Smith had given up his case, Smith s; as himself per mitred to examine another witness before the case went to the Jury, so that he had not the least colour of complaint against the Judge, mho, if partial at all,' was so on his side. The verdict, as it must of neces sity be, was given for the plaintiff, which excited the rage of Mr. Smith so far that he broke through all decorum, He assembled a multitude in the street at a little distance, and began to make a kind of pro. clamation, crying out " County Court! County! Court!" am; then exclaimed, 4 6 The Grand She-, riff of the county of Cumberland tries causes un-' justly in his Court. I have not had a fair trial. Ile , is a damned rogue, a swindler, 'and a thief." These ex pre .sions he repeated several times, with others equally offensive. There was the affidavit of Mr. Margisson, an Attorney, who happened to be present in Court, engaged on neither side, who swore that nothing could he more liberal and indulgent than the conduct of Mr. Briggs to the defendant in the trial of the cause. That Gentleman, therefore, as a public officer, felt it necessary to appeal to the Court for protection against insults so gratuitously heaped on him while in the discharge of his important duties. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Take a Rule to shew cause hut perhaps, before it comes on to be argued, some arrangement may be made between the parties. I see enough to lead the to suspect that some other feeling than that which is avowed may operate in these dissensions. Mr. BROCKMAN said that it was not the first time Mi. Briggs had been thus insulted. He trusted the Rule to she* cause might produce the effect sus- . gested by the Court. The Loan Cam Jusytea.—Yes ; it will probably, bring the defendant to his senses. IN THE NATTER 01 GEORGE JAQUES. The consideratiod bf this case, postponed yester day, was to•day resumed, after the motions were dis 'posed of. The book referred to was produced, and found to contain a number of entries by Jaques, of ' 'payments to Thackeray, of El, and El. Is. each, for successive weeks, as well as entries for other advances. The defendant being called on to explain these entries, said that he had acted as clerk to Thackeray, at a salary of £l5O per annum. Thackeray was a man immoderately addicted to liquor, and he was ' forced to take care of his monies, and to make him these advances. He solemnly disclaimed having re ceived any share of the prOfits of the concern. At his desire the affidavit of one of the clerks was read.. declaring that he considered Thackeray 'as his Mas ter, and that all proceedings were taken in his name. He then requested that his own affidavit might be read. Tha pfficer accordingly w o n to sited it, but as it appeared to - be of greatlength l issd the time for the rising of the. Court had arqvesl, the . Further M ts . cussitin of the - ease wit postponed till to-morrow. COURT OR COMP4ON . ELBA& NOVEMBER 7. OARDNIIR V. &LAM Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to shew cause why the verdict obtained in this cause for the de-• fendant should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. It was an action which had been tried be fore Mr. Justice Burrough, at the last Bristol Assizes, to recover the title deeds of various estates which were in the possession of Slack, as assignee to Mr.' Jarman, an attorney at Bristol. On the security of these estates an annuity of £560 a-year had been granted, and there was besides a rent charge of £l2O a year. The Jury, on the trial, found the annual value of the property to be £660 a year,- including the £l2O annual rent charge: they calculated, in fact, as if the property were freehold, whereas a great part was leasehold, and the real annual value ought to have been £560 a year.— The Rule to shew cause was granted. BARLOW U. HORNE. Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to shew cause why the defendant should not be allowed his costs, under the following circumstances :—The defendant had been on a visit with the plaintiff, who was styled J. Barlow, Esq.' at Newport, in the Isle of Wight ; and at parting; the plaintiff requested the defendant would take an old mare, and endeavour to sell her to the highest bidder. Defendant subsequently ob., tained five pounds for the mare, but that amount had been expended in keeping :ier while in his pos session. The Learned Serjeant further said, that the plaintiff had arrested the defendant for an alleged' debt of £4O, which he made out in the following manner, viz.—for the mare £1 2, for a greyhound £:5, for a silver-mounted whip £5, and the remainder in ' other items upon the most extraordinary scale of charge, for buckles, a shooting-jacket (an old fustian coat), tanned leather gaiters, thick shoes, .in fact, a few articles of the refuse of the plaintiff's wardrobe, which the defendant merely wore when cast away upon Mr. Barlow's place of residence ; but the Jury found a verdict for £l2, there appearing to have been a sort of promise for that sum given for . the old mare. The present application was, why the plain tiff should not be compelled to pay the defendant's costs, under the Act of the 43d of the late King, to prevent oppi.essive arrests, he having recovered but £l2, while he arrested and held to bail for 1:40. Ruse nisi granted. DETENTION OF A DUTCH sitIP.—CROOKED.I I OTAVI:iIt. Mr. Serjeant TADDY moved to have the nonsuit obtained in this cause set aside, and a new trial granted, upon several grftunds of law and of fact.— lie said that this was an action tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the last Kent Assizes, in which Crooke, the Master of a Dutch ship, was plaintiff, and Mr. Mel'avish, a King's Officer on board the'Severn Re venue cruizer, was defendant; and it was for the re covery of the amount of damages sustained by the Dutch ship while improperly detained by the de fendant. The Court knew, that by a particular Act of Parliament, all actions of this description must be brought within three months after "the matter or thing cfr.r.:-.* Lord Chief Justice DA LLAs.,—The meaning of that mat:er or thing done has been often before ns. • . Mr. Serjeant Tatinv said that the Lord Chief Baron had held at the trial, that the matter of thing done must be deemed to be the first entrance of the King's Officer on board the Dutch ship, and from that must be dated the time of the action. Mr. Serjeant Onslow had in the case, according to that construction, ob tained a nonsuit, subject to an application to the Court. The facts of the case were these :—On the 23d of August, the Dutch ship being then off Dover, bearing up Channel, was boarded by the defendant, who, after examining the cargo and crew, went away without avowing any intention of detaining the vessel, but left ttiree of his men from the Severn on board. On the 25th he returned on board, then formally put the vessel under seizure, and on the following day brought her into the port of Dover, at which place she was put under quarantine—an operation which she would not have had otherwise to undergo, not being de,tined for any British port. A long corres pondence inirediately took place upon the subject on the part of the representative of the King of the Netherlands and the Board of Customs, which even tually, on the 20tii September, led to the restoration of the vessel to the Dutch owners, and an order from the Board of Customs that care should be taken by the officers in possession, to restore her and her cargo exactly in the state in which she was before their de tention. The action was afterwards brought for the damages sustained during the quarantine to which the ship.was forcibly consigned. One cause of coca plaint was the Mention of the vessel in the first in stance ; next, her detention until the 20th of Septens• ber ; and then the recovery of damages - thereby sus tained. The writ of action was sued out on the 17th of November; and if the three months content" plated by the Act meant three calendar months, then the action was in time—not so, however, if they were lunar months. The COURT inquired what were the words of the statute ? Mr. Serjeant TADDY replied, “months," generally; but that in the 25th and 25th sections,which referred to the time of notice and tender of amendments, the words for such were, 4' within one calendar month:" from these words the plaintiff's Counsel inferred that calendar months must have been generally what the framers of the statute intended, for otherwise the sec tions would establish an advantage in favour of the wrong-doer over the sufferer, which never could have been contemplated. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—Suppose that the i word "months" ran generally throughout the sta tute, without the partial insertion of "calendar" 19 one or two specific clauses, what then would be tha construction of the law? , Serjeant TADDY admitted, that in such a case ..the 4 . • law would construe the meaning to be lunar monthi.' Several cases, he knew, hid been qUoted against hie proposition on Circuit; but that of" Godding D. Fer ris, in 2d Henry Blackstone, 14," was most relied on, for there the seizure was complete in the first in stance, and the action was not brought for three years afterwards. But in the present cam the first poirl to consider was, when the " matter or thing" wxs done—whether it - was to hold with the Lord - Chic! Baron, that it was done on the 23d of August, the moment the . deferidant'entered the ship ; or whether it was to 'be held (toe the 25th, when the actual 7 - 7.. -7. seizure took,-place: it, was. clear,titzt au the 22J the officer himself did not think the thing done, or else he would not have withheld the actual seizure until the 25th. There was also another point to he consi dered—namely, how. far the Act of the 24th c, bore Gteo.ll. c. 44, commonly called the Magistrates' Act, upon this•question. • By that Act, no action was sus. ' tamable against a Magistrate for oppressive conduct, unless it were brought within six months after the occurrence complained of; and in case of false im. I prisonment, it was there held that siz Month; may be dated from the last, as •well as the first hour of the party's imprisonment, each additional day forming, in fact, a distinct offence. .If this construction were ' applied to the present case, then the date of thy; pro ceeding need not be had from the first, but from die Ilast day of the detention of the ship. There WAS also another consideration. How could the Captain bti.:; his action earlier than he had brought it ?. The qu.t. rantine law made it felony for him to communicate with the shine. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said , that the very ci - - cumstance of the o ffi cer having left d -. oee men o board from the first moment he entered the ship wa s to be considered as detention ; but the Court granted a Rule Niii to have the subject more fully argued. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, NOVEMBER 7. ARSON. Anne Osbaldeston, a young woman of intetesting appearance, was indicted for wilfully and malicious) , setting fire to the house kept by her. Mr. Amiantus, on the part of the prosectition, stated the facts olthe.case to the Jury, and they weie corroborated •by the witnesses subsequently called. The defendant rented the house in question, No. 4Q, Chapel -street, Grosvenor.place, of Messrs. Glenton and Mayden. On the 28th of September last, about eight o'clock in the evening, the defendant went to Mr. Glenton, and told him there was a thief in the house, who looked sometimes like a soldier, and sometimes like an apparition. Mr. Glenton ssert to the house, and assistance was procured. On entering. the attic back room, it was found to be all in fl Cie bed was on fife, and some far,,iture. le one drawer were found some rags steeped in oil, and in another a candle apparently just put out, anh bottle of oil. The candle was warm, and quite s,ft-. As soon as the fire was discovered, the defendant ran over to a neighbour of the name of Whiting. and asked him to help to putt out the tire. She &elated she had been robbed of two E 5 notes, two sovereigns, and some clothes. In a sho; t time w..ter was ia-n -cured, and the fire was extinguished. It v. as not found that the fire had burnt any part of the e ainscot r floor of the room, and the defendant was theiefnre merely indicted for a misdemeanour. The principal witnesses for the prosecution were Mr. Glenton, the landlord, and Mr. WhUng, the neighbour. Thcir examinations were long, but the facts ate comprised in a very short compass. Mr. ALLEY, for the defendant, thought so weak a case had been made out by the witnesses for the pro secution, that there sea-. no necessity for him to call any witnesses to contradict the facts. It was so probable that the defendant should set file to 11:e house without hope of gain, and with a certainly the loss of all her property, that the Jury could ee terLain but one opinion upon the case. A number of most re!pectahle witnesses, who had known the defendant for many year:, spoke moa :a vourably of her character. The Jury immediately pronounced her:'t ot CORONER'S INQUEST —Yeierday a Coroner's quisition was held before THOMAS STIRLING, at the Marlborough ATMs, Thornhaugh-stt ce:, Tot tenham-court•road, on the body of Rouirrt li.► hoist, who was found dead in the stables of --G:een, Esq. Upper Chenies Mews, with two large coach- heels on his breast. It appeared from the evidence, that the deceased was put into the stables by Mr. Greer, to take care of them during the family's absence, and on Tuesday, on some persons going into them they found the deceased lying dead on his back, at the foot of the stairs, with the wheels on his breast, as if they had fallen on him; he had the appearance of having struggled to extricate himself, and al•o as ii he had died limn suffocation. Some of the witnesses, from supposition, assigned as a cause for the wheels being on him, that he nad got intoxicated, and in at tempting to get up stairs had caught hold of 0:e wheels which fell with him, and being in liquor :le was suffocated by the immense weight, and the other causts attending his unfortunate situation. The Jury, after viewing the body, by direction of the Coroner, returned a verdict of—Accidental Death. . BIRTH• Oct. 30, the wife of Lieutenant T. D. Steward, Coninian.'..r of his Majesty's sloop Swan, of a son. M•RRIED. Oct. 30, Charles Frederick de Rutaen, to Mary D:lrc..ht.z, daughter of the late N. Phillips, Esq. of Slebech Hall, Pe..2- brokeshire. Oct. 26, at Nairn, Lieut. Lewis D. Mitchell, R.N. to eldest daughter of the late Robert Falconer, Esq. SheritY-Subs:i tute of Nairnshire. DIED. November 3, at Clifton, Bristol, in his 35th year, Jahn Ormsby Vandeleur, of the county of Limerick, late Colonel is the Army, and Lieutenant-Colonel of the sth Dragoon tiaardr. He was nephew of the late Earl of Longford, and of the prescle Admiral, the Hon. Sir Thomas Pakenham, Bart. Oct. 14, at Culblair, Colin Shaw, Esq. an acting Deputy Lieu tenant, and-one of the oldest Magistrates of Inverness-shire. Monday se'rinight, Captain Richard Bell, of the Hope, Maryport he was knocked overboard by the main-boors, unfortunately drowned. Oct. 2s, at Ayr, Mrs. Jean Orr, widow of the late Capt:A James Ross. At Aonachan, Lochaber, Mr. William 31acintyre, late tack-- man of Druimfour, aged 101 years. He exhibited, in man:.-t• and language, a striking specimen of the patriarchal dig..ity the Highlanders of the preceding age ; he always wore thv taut garb, and was a living history of the feuds of the last co:- tory. He Was a superior deer stalker, and killed his ro: at the age of 90. His mind retained its vigour to the last. His rein ups were conveyed to the grave by a number of his clan, of Ns hi:h there was present of his own descendants a number more act sufficient for that purpose. -- MAILS. . ARR. nr is. ARR. DU& Dublin 1 0 France 0 0 Waterford 1 0 lianiburgh 0 1 Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Flanders 1 0 Lisbon 0 0 Malta 0 0 ito/land 1 0 Gortenburgh 0 1 Leeward Islands 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 •• A I ILK at LUh LAIN WA 1 lied. 1 tl- Alt/jilt , . ••• Mcrnmg - 7 minutet after 10 Aften.win • 47 minutes after 10 LONDON; Yrintol stid pu'llisbed by Lava. Vt;ata plact, rcalp!e.BAr. oat suKci chartg E ofh asiany lt siue was 'Kit 4 for the de