Star. — London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

T... 0 11.^......4r • Vr" • LAWINTILLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER s. stat;7. PORTSSIOUTV CAUSE. SI-PARTS FELLOWES, n 4 THE MATTER 01 LORD PORTS MOUTH, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC. Mr. WETHERELL_ this morning closed his adds • on behalf of the petitioner. The LORD CHANCELL O R.---The duty of the Chan cellor is to consider whether the evidence is sufficiently doubtful as to the sanity of the individual's mind so as to require it to be sent to a Jury to a decide ; and e then it is the Chancellor's e'sty to decide whether it will be necessary for the individual's interest that a commission should issue against him, provided the Jury should find him to be insane; for I have known cases where it was quite unnecessary—for instance, where a woman is insane, she being a wife, and having an affectionate husband, who takes every possiisle care of her ; and so of a son or a child who has• a father, who takes proper parental care of him, in such a case it is quite unnecessary that a commission should issue. Indeed it would be cruel were it not so. The law is to take care of the individual when he is not otherwise taken care of. Lord Hardwieke laid down the law of the case to be, that the Jury shall find die individual to be of an unsound mind, and incapable to manage himself and his own affairs; but the word lunatic is not mentioned. Mr. SHADWELL next addressed the Court on the same side. • Before his Lordship left the Court, he stated that he would inform the Bar, either to-morrow morning or on Monday, on what days he would be prepared to give judgments in cases, in which he has for some time had the papers. VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER S. THE EARL HOWE V. BERRIMAN. Mr. &Intim, on the part of the plaintiff, moved I that the defendant. Thomas Berriman, might be corn- Mitred to the Fleet Prison for a contempt of Court.— The Learned Counsel stated that the defendant hav ing been guilty of a contempt by not putting in an answer to the plaintiff's bill, was in consequence ar rcsied by an officer of the Court. He contrived, how ever, to escape from custody, and on the 15th of Oc tober, whilst he was at liberty, he put in his answer, which was accepted by the plaintiff. He had sub sequently been recaptured by the officer, and was now in his custody. The Vice-Cum:mum observed, that it was a question whether the officer was justified in making' a re•-Caption of the defendant ; because a defendant in custody Was entitled to be discharged as soon as his answer was accepted by the plaintiff. He was dis posed to think that the defendant must be discharged, because the Court would consider him to have been in custody. In order to determine the question of costs, he would request an officer of the Court to in quire whether a similar case to the present had ever before occurred, and to state what canduct the Court pursued upon such an occasion. In the meantime the defendant must remain in custody. He would not hand the defendant over to the Fleet, but at the same time he could not discharge him from custody until a motion should be made fur that purpose. This, he advised the defendant's Counsel to make, upon giving notice to the plaintiff. The officer had been put to considerable expense by the. re-caption, which would not have happened, it' the plaintiff had stated, as he ought to have done, that the defendant was entitled to his discharge upon his answer having been accepted. Mr. Umtata, Counsel for the defendant, applied for the costs of the application. The Vice-CHANCELLOR said he would consider the question. He did not, however, feel dispoied to give costs to the defendant, who had committed so gross a contempt of Court. GooDExoucti AND OTHERS v. JONES AND OTHERS. Mr. AGAR, on the part of the plaintiffs, moved that the defendants, as executers of the late Mr. Jones, might be ordered to pay over to his clients the sum of 1;5000, to be by them held in trust for the purposes designated by the testator. The testator had instructed his executors to assign the above sum to the Officers of an Academical Institution at York, called the Manchester Theological College, with directions that the said officers should hold the fund in trust for the pnrpose of augmenting the salaries of such conscien tious Protestant Dissenting Ministers as should stand most in need of - assistance ; but the preference was always to he given to those persons who had been students in the institution before mentioned. The plaintiffs, who filled the offices of Theological Tutor , Visitor, President, Vice-President, and Treasurer to the College, claimed the bequest, and prayed that the Court would order the defendants to make the necessary assignment. Mr. Itoueccr., for the defendants, suggested that the bequest of the testator constituted a charity, and that.therefore the Attorney-General ought to have been made a party to the suit. The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Agar; whether he would not be compelled to require the presence of the Attorney-General, and to refer it to the Master to approve of a scheme for the security of the fund? Could he, on behalf of the Public, permit the plain -tiffs to possess the property ? Those individuals did not constitute a Corporation. Mr. AGAR believed that the Court had in many cases confirmed the bequests of large sums to Societies not incorporated. The Vice-CitAsera.r.on replied, that in those cases the sums were to be applied to the general charitable purposes of the institutions. Those cases were net analogous to the present, which appeared to him to' embrace the establishment of a permanent and per.' petual charity. Could he leave it to the discretion of the plaintiffs to execute the intention of the testator? Mr. AGAR thought. that if the testator bad thought fit to vest a discretionary power•-in the trustees, the Court ought not to interfere. In support of his argu ment the Learned Counsel cited the case of Waldo and Kaly, in 16 Vesey. In that case Waldo, the tes tator, had bequeathed his property to hii widow, chargeable with the purposes of public and private cha rities, and the Court would not interfere to controul her. The Vitr,CllANCeLlaalt , observed, that the case re fared to by the Learned Counsel was merely a pay sstent nut big .the life of the widow, but that before le l Court was a perpetual and pet manent charity. e duty of the Court was to further the intentions of testator, and it would not perform that duty by permitting the officers of the institution which had been mentioned to obtain uncontrouled possession of . 11 • ". WIA cq.Tit . _ the funds. In the first Awe, however,. it woad he' necessary to have the Attorney-eveneral before' the Chort, without whom the cause could not go on ._ Thir.Attontey-General represented the executive au thorityv and it was the duty Of the Crown, as Farms patriot, to secure the due administration of the trusts Iwhich pious persons devoted to Charitable purposes. Mr. AGAR, under*these circumstances, requested that 4,e cause might stand over until the plaintiffs amended Weir bill, by making the Attorney-General a party to the suit. The Vicx-Cnatrcst.t.oa consented to the proposi tion, and at the same time stated, that he never would permit the money to go into the pockets of the plain tiffs. He did not, however, intend to prevent those Gentlemen from being made the instruments by which the funds should be applied according to the intention of the testator. Mr. Rotreat.t, applied for, and obtained, the costs of the day. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER a. HOFFMAN V. HEYMAN. Mr. MARRTAT moved for a Rule to shew cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. This was an action on a contract for the sale by the plaintiff's to the de fendant of 641 hogsheads of tobacco, the cargo of the ship Ulysses, under the following terms : " Bought of Messrs. Hoffman, the cargo of the ship Ulysses, 641 hogsheads of tobacco, bound for Bre men, payable one-fifth on the sth of October next. 'and for the rest the sellers are to look to their cor respondents, Messrs. Delius, to whom the cargo is consigned; interest at two and three months from final delivery ; the buyers to have the benefit of the seller's policies." The whole price of the tobacco was something more than £18,000; ene-fifth of which, £3,700, was paid according to the contract. The whole of the tobacco arrived in due course at Bremen, but, in consequence of a fall in the price of the commodity, a loss of two-fifths arose on the sti pulated sum. The plaintiffs had received from Messrs. Delius all the proceeds of the cargo, in addition to the E 3,700 paid down ; but they brought their action to recover the balance of the price and interest, amounting to somewhat more than £4,300, which. the Jury gave them by their verdict. Now he (Mr. Marryat) contended that the true import of the con tract was this—that the buyers were to pay one-fifth for the chance of profit on the goods, and were not to be answerable for any further loss ; that Messrs. Hoff man were to look to the funds in the hands of Messrs. Delius, and to tho s e alone, for further satisfaction of their claim ; and if these sunk below the remaining four-fifths, they must bear the intermediate loss. He submitted that the proviso respecting payment of in terest and the benefit of the policies could not, if fairly considered, alter the meaning of the bargain. The Comm said they must require very strong and clear language to induce them to believe that it was the intention of parties to a contract of sale that the buyer should have all the chance of gain without any risk of lois. Here the reference to Messrs. Delius was evidently designed to do no more than to secure the seller from a demand of the residue of the price before the cargo should be turned into money. As this was their decided opinion, they refused the Rule. STANLEY V. DODD. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a Rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted in this case, or why the judgment should not be arrested. It was an action on 55 Geo. HI. c. 137, sec. 6, which provides that " no churchwarden or overseer of the poor, or other person in whose hands the collection of the rates for the relief of the poor, or the providing for, ordering, management, or direction of the poor of any parish shall or may be placed, shall provide for his own profit any goods, materials, or provisions, for the support and maintenance of the poor ia any parish for which he shall be appointed," under the pe nalty of 1001. Defendant was charged with having in curred the penalty of this clause, because he, being a governor of the poor of the parish of Bethnal-green, supplied the workhouse of that parish with milk. The case has been twice tried, and at the last trial, before the Lord Chief Justice at Westminster, a ver dict was found for the plaintiff. This verdict the So licitor-General now sought to set aside, on the ground that Mr. Dodd was not a governor of the poor un der the fair construction of the local Acts for the di rection of the parish funds, but only a vestryman. He had, indeed, qualified, which he was forced to do in order to be a member of the vestry, but he bad never acted as a governor t at least, the only way in which he had acted was by attending a particular meeting, which was concluded by a dinner, and which was usually attended very numerously, not only by governors of the poor, but by members of the vestry. At all events, the judgment ought to be arrested, because the Act applied only to the provid ing for the maintenance of the poor in the parish, and the workhouse of Bethnal-green was situated without its boundaries. The COURT intimated that the objection to the re cord, arising from the local situation of the work house, was quite untenable; but granted a Rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on the doubt suggested respecting the official character of the defendant. _ THE KING V. JOLLIFFE. Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to spew• cause why the judgment in this case should not be entered for the Crown non obstanle ueridicto, or a new trial granted. This was a quo warranto, calling on the defendant to shew by what authority he exerci,ed the functions of Mayor of Petersfield,and wasltied before Mr. Justice Burrough, at the last Assizes for Harm-. The objection to the defendant was, that the Jury of the Court Leet by whom he was appointed were sum moned,. not by the. Bailiff, but by the Steward of the Court. On his behalf it was alleged that, by imme morial custom, the Steward had authority to summon the Jury, which was the substantial issue at the trial. To support this custom, evidence was given of usage only within 20 years ; and it was Lid down by the Judge, that on the slightest evidence of usage, unre ' butted on the other side, the Jury were bound to find the existence of the custom. On this direction the Jury found a verdict for the defendant, which the Learned Serjeant argued was enti'rely against evi dence, and could only be sustained by a doctrine which was contrary to law.—Rule granted. HEMMING V. HALSEY. Mr.CHITTY moved for a Rule to . shew cause why the verdict for the defendant in this case should not be set aside and anew trial granted. It was an action IRPF,,w''R , Ts • • - for penalties on the statute of Ann, respecting the I preserealion of game, coataining two-counts for using engines, and one count (or **posing a bare to sale. — It appeared in evidence that the defendant, who was . watched by two gamekeepers,was repeatedly seen to stoop down to the ground where the snares were placed, and at, last, when a hare was caught in one of them, to wrap it up in his great coat, and carry it away. The defendant was the servant of the farmer on whose land the snares were placed, bat it was dis tinctlf shewn that his master had no qualification to kill game. The Learned Judge before whom the case was tried (Mr. Justice Park) told the Jury that, if they believed the defendant t-ok the game to carry it home ro his master, they should find their verdict in his favour, and referred to the case of " Warne.. ford v. Kendall," 10 East, 19, in support of his doc trine. Now that case decided, that where a person employed to detect poachers took game from a snare and carried it to the Lord of the Manor, he had not such an illegal possession as would bring him within the legal construction of the words "exposing to sale," because, he derives his authority from a qualified person;-but here the master himself was not quali fied, and could bestow no power which he did not possess. The cases, therefore, were essentially differ - ent, and the direction of the Learned Judge erro , neous.—Kule granted. FRY V. JACKSON. As the Judges were about to rise the defendant in the case of " Fry r. Jackson," appeared in person to move for a new trial. In his affidavit he stated that the plaintiff had recovered £22 for goods sold, which his particulars of demand did not justify ; but he shew•ed no caose on which the Court could open the inquiry into a sum of 1.:130, included in the verdict. The COURT said, that lie might have a Rule to sliew cause why the damages should not be reduced by deducting the 1.: 1 X2 ; but they could not enter into the merits ot the rest of the case which were laid be fore the Jury. ACTION FOR BRIBERY. Mr. Plat, who has appeared as plaintiff in two ac tions for bribery, rose and begged the Judges, who were retiring, to listen to an application for giving up the bail bond en which he had been arrested, to be cancelled, on the ground that the plaintiff had declared he would not pursue him, but seek his re medy against another. The CounT informed him, that they could not hear the subject of his defence discussed on motion. They - never received affidavits in answer to an affi davit to hold to bail; and must deal with his case as with all others. Mr. Pitt urged with vehemence that the liberty of the subject required the interference of the Court. The LORD CUM JUSTICE then repeated, that the Court could not interfere. WADDINGTON. His LORDSHIP was again attempting to retire, when Waddington rose, and begged to be heard. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—You wish to move for a new trial ; we will hear you another day. Waddington.—l understood this was the last day on which I could move. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.—No; give in the name of the case to the officer, and we will hear you ano ther ddy. We will not prevent you from making your motion. Waddington then spoke to the officer, and the Judges retired without any further interruption. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 8. USURIOUS WARRANT OF ATTORNEY. Mr. Serjeant LENS applied to the Court for a Rule to have a warrant of attorney set aside, and the exe cution entered upon it revoked, on the ground of usu rious extortion. The facts were these :-.--The party' granting the warrant of. attorney had applied to a person for a loan of- money, and was told by him, that as he had a large family, he could not lend his money without good interest, and he then received the warrant of attorney in question from the plain tiff for a sum of 5001. although he advanced for that security no greater sum than 4001.—Rule granted. PALMER V. ANOTHER.-INSURANCE CASE. Mr. Serjeant Bosatwurr moved for a Rule to set aside the verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this cause at the last Sittings in Guildhall, upon a point reserved, which affected the admissibility of particu lar evidence. The real question in the cause was this—Where a total loss of ship and cargo had oc curred, was the assured, upon an open policy on freight, entitled to recover for the gross freight, with out any deduction for those charges to which the ship would have been necessarily subject had she duly arrived in port ? or, whether he was only to re cover for the net freight ? Defendant contended for the latter, while the plaintiff maintained the former, and obtained a verdict subject to reduction in that Court. The case was defided upon admissions. It was admitted that there was a total loss, and that the gross freight was 0068, clearly receivable had the ship arrived ; but then there would be, in that case, payable fur the ship (the Juliana) three hundred pounds seamen's wages beyond what had been actually paid in the case ; pilotage £4O ; light dues £2O. 1 ls. 6d. tonnage dues,. 492. I 7s. 6d. dock dues, £246. making a total of nearly £7OO. Why, then, should not that sum be deducted from the gross freight of £3068 ? Evidence was admitted to prove that the practice at Lloyd's• Was, in an open policy on freight, to make up the gerieral average without con sidering these contir?ent charges upon the arrival of the ship ; but he (the Learned Serjeant) contended, that such evidence of usage was inadmissible—for it would clearly contravene the law of tht land. A po licy of insurance was by law a contract to indemnify the assured for a particular loss, not to exceed a loss and give him, as in this case, £7OO beyond what his loss really appeared. If that construction were per mitted, a great inducement for the loss of ships would be held out : this never could be the meaning of the law. It was true that all the witnesses con curred in stating the rare occurrence of an open policy upon freight : still justice required that the deduc tion of expenditure contingent upon the arrival of the ship should be made frog► the claim of freightage. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that the uniform evidence of experienced members at Lloyd's for the plaintiff was, that such a policy was uncommon, but that they never knew of inch a deduction as that con tended for in the case—they .believed the average to have been properly taken. There were, on the otter side, witnessesequally experienced, who,could merely *say that they had no recollection of this particular form of policy, and were them efure unable to I:peak of • the usage in such a case. There was only, therefore, on the Part . of The usage the former evidence, an that w,as decidedly in favour of the plaintiff There was no reason . for supposing the usage to be cone trary to law.. Mr. Justice PARE was of opinion that the dridente respecting the usage had been properly sfdmitted for the plaintiff, and it was certainly open 'to the de• fendant to have rebutted. that evidence, if it were practicable to do so. Mr. Justice BURROVON concurred with the other Judges, and the Rule was refused. BA RRERIL PIGKWORTH. • Mr. Serjeant Vatkinkr stated the plaintiff's cases The action, he said, was brought to recover compen• cation in damages for an unprovoked and violent as. sank committed by the defendant, who was a young athletiecoal-merchant, on'the plaintiff, who was an elderly Gentleman of high respectability, who, during the war, had been the confidential Secretary and chosen companion in arms of the Wrist' ions Sir Sid , ney Smith. On the evening of the 27th of August last year, this Gentleman, accompanied by a fi ienrl of his (the Rev. Mr. Radford) went into Sawyer's Rooms, in St. Martin's-lane, to take some oysters, and had not been long in the room, when they heard a person in an adjoining box repeating their conversa tion aloud. Mr. Radford observed there was some low person in the room repeating what they said ; the plaintiff replied, it was better to take no notice of him. The defendant immediately came out of his box, and asked whether they meant him ? 11)0 plaintiff replied they could not mean him, as they did not know he was in the room, nor had they the honour of knowing who he was. The defendant said that would not satisfy hin2, and the plaintiff replied, if he wished for further explanation, and would call on him in the morning, he should be happy to give it. The defendant last:int:ly struck him violently, and not content with striking him with his fist, threw a decanter at him, by which his hand was so much •, cut, that he had lost the use of his thumb. The plaintiff's case was proved exactly as stale,', by tke Rev. Mr. ltadford, and by Mc. Willis, the surgeon who attended him.. Serjeant PEAKE addressed the Jury for the dc;crid ant, and called the landlord of the house and the waiter, neither of whom saw the origin of the quar rel, but did not calla female who was in the box with the defendant from the beginning. Mr. Justice BURROUGH, in charging she Jury,ob served, that the defendant, in not calling the female witness, shewed that she could not contradict the plaintiff's witness.. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mages £7O. NEW6ATE *No LE. 1 DEN HA LL MAUI( ETS, Nt.v. 8. (By the (Locase.) Beef Is 41 to ‘2% 8J 1 Veal oi Od to 4 s Cd Mutton.. ls 8d to 2s 44 I Pork "s Od to 3s tid Lamb 2s Od to Zs 01 . PRLCES or HAY •rzu STRAW YESTERDAY. ST. J A ES S. lIITWA:M Hay 31 is Gd to 41 4c Od I Hay... 31 13s to 41 4s 011 Straw 11 5: 6d to 11 16s Od I Straw 11 lOs to 11 16 i Od Clover 3110* ()d to 41 41 od Clover :51 104 to -11 104 la PRICE 0 HOPS. NeW ►OCKRTS. I Kent Sussex 2l Os to 21 18s F..ssex Farnham 6l Os to 71 7s NEW MACS. Kent 2l 8s to 41 Ins Sussex 2l Os to 21 10d Essex Foreign . PRICE OF LEATHER Butt', 50 to 561hs each -,:a to '24d ver IS Ditto, 56 to 661bs each Dressing Hides 18d to z Fine Coach Hides .i9l to 21d Crop Hides, n 5 to 401bs for cittting ...... ...1011 to 20(1 Ditto 43 to 501bs , q 4 to ‘.1:1 Calf Skins, 30 to 401bs 22d to 21a Ditto 50 to 701bs •Niti to s:td Ditto 70 to 801bs osd to 27d Small Seals (Greenland) • lgti to 20d Large ditto 17d to 19d Tanned horse hides 164 to /11i Spanish Rune Hide 5.... RAW HIDES. Best Heifers and Steers (per Ordinary... 2s 8d to 2s 1O stone) 3s 4d to 3:, 6d Market Calf 10‘ od to Os Od Middlings 3s ad to .1s 2.1 Eng. Horse 04 od to os Od PRICE or TALLOW, 50.11 ) , &c. per 112/6. .Tows Tallow 474 Od Yellow Russia 48% Od Ditto rough ...... 9.5 s Yellow Soap _ _ _ . White ditto Mottled : Soap ditto Nicking Stun' • 373 Otl ntini . PRICE OF CAN DI.ES--From Tallow Chandlers' Flail. Candles, per duz. 9s Od—Moulds, 103 6d; 6d. per dozen allowed for ready money. COAL-NIARKET, NOVEMBER. 8. Burdon 42s—Dean's Primrose 42s 54:1—Elli-on Low Nl:dn 3s 9d—Howard Main 401—Heaton Main 42s 9d—liebhurn Main 435—Killingreorth 42s 6d to 42s 9d—Percy East 40s— Pelaw Main 41s 6d—Walisend Bell and Co.'s 43s to 47. s Wallsend Brown's 42s 6d—Wallsend Green 41s.—Wdlisend Northunierland 42s to 42 6d—Wallsend Riddell's 43$ 6d to 43s 91—Wallsend Russell 44s to 44s 6d—Old Walker 40s :o 40s. 3d—Vt'ilington 42s 61 to 42s 9d—Tanfield Trader 50s— Usworth Trader 40s—Astley Wallsend 41—Cowpon 381-- Hartley 395—Whitelee slain 41s—Eden Main 42s—Fawct t Main 41s—Hedworth Main 41s—Lumley Main 39s Lamb: , n Primrose 42s—Nesham Main 42s—Morton Main 40s—Walls end Lambton 45s 4d—Wal:send Liddells 40s.—Wallsend Spriag well4os 6d—Wallsend Stewart 45s 3d. 96 Ships at Market; 88 Ships sold; 8 Unsold. COUNTRY MAKKErs. Ozroao, Nov. 2.—Wheat 4s. ed. a bushel. The price of a half-peck loaf (household) is. . Ito:suse, Nov. 7.—Wheat, Vs. 61. to ss. ed—}trans to 3s 6cl.—Vetcheq, Os od per bushel.—liarley, lits to 88r— Oats, 16s Od to 28s Od per quarter—llreasl, Is Od half peck ; and smaller in proportion. Flour 20s. to 445. per s4zic. Usssince, Nov. 7.—New Wheat per boat!, ./.'1;10 , e. t0.+:13 101. Wheat, Al to Jet 1 10s-13:tricy, rcr T.:at - ter. 34s to 31s- —o,ts, 18s to 306—Beans, 27A to 50:. ...Ss to 334. NEwsuav, BERIO, NOV. 7.—Wheat, 3tli to 49s VarleT, els to :.Os--Oats. 15; to £Bs.—Beans, 28 to 34,1-11eas,:!.7s to 31s.—Rye, Os to Os—Bread, 100 to 1s rer . Callous 1)11..0. --- Oct. 31, At Bath, aged 59, Major-General Ifenry Procter.. Saturday, at Tethury, W. Wood, Esq. banker, of that plaret aged 65. Lately, at the Vicarage Must., /Ted C 8 (Om* weeks . f a the birth of a. Son), Elizabeth A:rl, the wife (4 the itrv. Thent.s Preen, Vicar of Badhy with Newilliain Northamptonshire.Oct. 26, at Belper, Dail:Mß., in her 36 h Jane, wife of the Rev. Thos. Garbutt, Preacher in the ‘l4alityan connAion. .11.41 Lb.:. nv Dublin • I trance Nl"aidrford . 1 0 Guernsey Asia Jersey 0 0 I Asbon 0 0 Harnlstargh U 1 11.mders U U Hca.mti 0 0 I Leeward 0 0 Malta 0 0 Gottentuargh 0 . 1 1 0 •America dlan-* A 1 absx %IV v • . • -0. . • - - 2T -notioft. tiler II ftern.vm - 42 rnirtste* •Ifto• _ _ *7-77::=1 •.... LON 4,1L1N : rriut..........t 1 , •,•ectA ..y 1•....... 11111.6. .•.... ,6- - 'Wet, l'csuplea.a. •