The National Register. — London, England, 1821-01-22 00:00:00

1" ..111 1. 4 e ) %1 / 4 - 11111411114: • > b ,‘"4 • Le 4 ll a * ‘ l4 4.1 THE NATIONAL REGISTER Manor, which leases had been renewed f tune to time, On the payment In the militia' rent by the Company (il Free Fishermen tin the Lord ; 31141 no 11340114111 was allowed to rifler and fish until he had sip ted this lease, and paid a certain sum ; the stint so paid formed a tuna out of which the rent to the Lord was paid. On the expiration of the last leas:, however, the Lord b:mig, desirous to raise his rent. the fishermen turned room! and disputed his right to exclude them haul dredging, and the result of that refusal was, proceedings in Chan cery, which have been peudiug for softie yeats. Stnicitur General now conducted the cause on the pail 01 . the Plaintif f , and 'trounced a multi utle of docuurett tary evirlance, from the reign of Edward 111. to the present time, comusiine" of grams by letters patent flout lie different Sovereigits to the Wilily of Herbert Esrl ul Pentbioke and Aloingumerie, through wtiona the present Lord of the Almon clatired. estaislisii mein of the Court of Fire Fishermen ih 170.5, was also proved, and that the Nit:whets of 111 at Loom paid a certain fee on admission, out of which the rent to the land of the Manor was paid—and further, the Learned Counsel called evidence, and put in docuntems to prove quiet cojoyinent of this right on the part U 1 like Lord of the Manor for upwards of 100 years. Mr. Scarlet', on the part of the defendants, went to ,lie July on the genend issue, abandoning the special Ica on behalf ol tile fishermen 01 Al ilton, and Num:mien f l ask tile Lord of the Manor could not, by the law of rile !lin! nave a right, any loretiro the iisiterinet, had, on I lse evidence adilticed, in exclude 'he public. Toe toyster-arils were oteiflowrd by the tide, JIM the Crown itself could not guaitt such a right to iiie - Lord as ;;ate him a right to exclude the piddle. Lrou tins ground he sl Id contend dist a verdict must he enteree, lor the defendants, as part oi the pu'ulic. II e belieted the Court Mitre &berme» and the claim of the 1..01d ul the Manor arose in 1705, out of a colitis:ou between the parties, to which Ole public were to be made a sacrifice. The Chitlitit.lice said, ii the claim of the Lord of the Mater WitS nut tila:,!lAled by the evidence adduced in the present case, lie was at a loss to conceit e what evidence woulii be sufficient to enable a man to retain posse”.tots of his estate or pro"teriy. Sitoultl this property bc thrown open to the mnablie, the result would be, that 111 less titan three years mere would DM be all (i)bter left for any one. The J lily, without hesitation, found a verdict for the Oae Sitilling; the question betty, tried to decide the rigni, and not to it cover damages. Ni. Searlett said, lite deleatilaiiis %sere ly this decision' reduced to a state oi great distress, :old lest woolly at the imicy ante idailtid. The Solicitor General said, he had no doubt the Annuli, Mr. Fairinam, who teas 1101 nl fact the Lord or the Manor, but the lessee under the Loh' of tile East Ground Fishery, would do every tliiitg Malt was ri g ht for these nolo iiiiii ate individuals. FRIDAY, JAN. W. THE KING V. JANE CARLILE. This was a criminal inforitiatiotlledi;the Attorney General against the defendant, for the publication of libtl iti a paper called The Haimllroun. The Solicitor General J.:dressed the Jury on the part of the prosecution. The husband of the defendant, It. Cathie, was at present suffering for his concern in that publication; the husband ben% removed, his woe then took up the ;rade. l'lte libel was contained in a letter dated front I)fir dirtier gaol, signed " Richard Cathie," and addressed to the Bev. %Vei t !,lit, of King Square, Bristol, and purported In beau answer to some questions put by that Rev. Gentleman to the writer of Lite letter. Although the letter bore the signature of B. Carlile, the Crown had not the means of proving it to be his production, and therefore proceeded against the seller and publisher. Referring to the libel, he would abstain Iron) all argu ut tit shoo , its mischhlvous amid horrid tendency. If the bare perusal d d not satisfy the Jury, nothing that he could say would have etlect. Alter some argument the libd proceeds to speak of the Cato Street conspiracy —that conspiracy' winch had had the seal mil lour jortes set uncut it. 1.1 sneaking of this, titewriter's womb were, " l hold the destruction of tyrants by a sudden and violent death. or (if you think I alit not explicit etiongli) by assaSbillatitill, to be highly just, moral, virtotiti,, legal, awl conformable to the law of nature. whieit is, or otiaht to be, the foundation of all law.'—'flits any one whom the writer it gilt fit to say was a tyrant, he openly contended he s%as justified assassulating ; but thank (Ohl! such doctrines were alien 10 toe breaSiS 01 1'aq:11501M:1h The writer g o es 011 10 say, " with regard to Mose persons wholi you call Cato trisect conspirators, I entirely disappiote. I object to thew, because I think it was cowardly and impolitic to enter Into association inr assassination, whirl) itad ever be better done by any watt's stogie arm untite 1111 l bered and unassisted." The Learned Counsel concluded by observing, that the Jury had heard the libel read, amid he dottined not Mat they would without hesitation give Min their verdict. Richard Samuel Honltincla was then sworn and ex l aniard. He proved that he Mutant the paper put into his hands, No. 8,01 Vol. 111. of The Itepatlican. oh the 17th June, 1820, of the daetulaut, personally, at her hop in Fleet-street. The w ttness was not cross-examined. The judgment of the Court of King's Bench on R. Cathie w 4, put nz iu oin.4.ce. Mrs. Carlile, who was not assisted by any Counsel, was 'lieu call.d on tor her defence. Site put in a lung !toper, whir.ii was read by tiie °dicer of the Court. lu it the defendant justified the original libel by large quotations from bout sacred and proitine iiistoty, and concluded by arprisieig the Jury tabu a verdict 01 guilty lii this case would be a great OA tint phi lot tile Al bil SI, 021 the Other haul , a VeruiLL Of acquittal t%oulu be a (!eatli-blow to their putter. The defendant called Ito witiies.ws. The Sulicitur General in reply said, lie (lid not con sider it necessary to oiler any aiButnents to prose the LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCII. MONDAY, JAN. 13. IDLE AND ANOTHER N. LOLLIS This was an Tit 110; of hover by the assignees of a hunk' up., manta Finch, to recover from the defendant, the hviikrupt's her-in-tau, the value of reitaiii Uuruilwr which she claimed as her prove..), hut uhi. h the plaintiffs sai I Iselonvm to the bankrupt at the lilac alas hanks uptcy. Tar furnitute in question oar to .1 house at Nlarylantl-p • i, o . ensued by the bankrupt's family and the pleseill defen d int conjointly, and the di ft•od.lut contracted I :lal the pro p •rly wa.tssicned to her presto au act of bankruptcy bin euuntutied. 11 appeared ho A eser that tip to the time of Ins hookrupley Ruch was alto% (41 to use the plo tters, as Ili: , urn ; slr. scatlett now (untended that the circumstance, ender the:it:date of James, aas sufficient to entitle till' pla.ulid. 10 a %rril ict. The Statute a /13111(4 Iran) one allotted iitimber to use his prime. ty m sticli a catty as to induce the amid tit believe that person the owner, and thereby give him a false credit with the mold, and lite its. ty become a bankrupt, Iht• properly immediately vest in the assil;act•.s of such bankrupt. •fhe Learned Counsel called Witnesses to lOW these facts, and the Jut y hound a vrt,het fur the plaintith fur 31S1. 110\b0 V. CURTIS AND •lIIERS Mr. Scarlett stat e d at tiro was ;111 action by the plain till a ri specs:lldr sit .'r, to recover l'i um the defendants 4.1601. fur paper sold (loin. Two of the defendants, Mr. st, itt Lulus lord Ali, Nit hardson, had denied their liability.—The other defendant, Fenner, a bunks. Ile r, pleaded that he had bet is n bankrupt •ince the debt nee, ued, and had obtained his i ert diva te. The ilefendanti load emered into an agree ment, founded on a literary speculation, namely, she pub lication cif a wor k in be call( it the " Encyclopedia Metro. politatii, ' by ii Web agreement it oars settled 'Oat the defendant Cui tis, a clergyman, residing at Canibei %I CH , it :IS to Colioltit t iititi ,IlpCf.ntrittl, or edit the work, for whit li he was to rcci eve LOOl. a year as a remuneration.—Mr. Fenner was to publish it in numbers or parts, and to have 10 per cent above the allowance of the trade as publisher; taut as nit undertaking like this could not he chi-lied on ii illaout en nsidera tile funds, M iss 1i1111.1r11,1111, II relation of Mr. Fernier Ivies invited if/ het 1111 l r a partner, alai she agreed to advance 2,4001. as occasion required, fur which, she was to receive interest nt the late of five per cent.; and ate. all thi se Allowances and di duciiiiii , , the parties wi re to divide the profits of the is cit k. The agreement being entered min, the I.l,ii.iiir wits applieut to, and requested to furnish paper for the work, vs hich liedid to the Jamming of rite sum which lie bow sought to recover from the Jury. 'flue Learned CIIIIIIKA then cubed witnesses to prove this C. se. For Ciao dcfcndanis Mr. Gaselee put in the commission and ceri ilictite of F. newt * ;lb it defence in the action. The Solicitor-tient:Jai, foe the uther two defendants, con tended they Isere not 1141de, they having nothing to do wit 4 the order given to the plaintiff; Mr. ' , dicier being the pub lisher of the ts 01 k and one pa ty dealing n ill) 11,. Bowor. A fit. r gning through the ease on both sides, the Jury found a retitle' for the defendant Fenner, and for the plaudit'', by consent, for 1,4001. against the oilier In 0 defendants. The Chief Justiceultserved, the defendants bud made a prudent adopt in PLOMn v. I.OUSHN•N. This was an action upon the case: the facts lay in a ♦ery narrow. compass. Mr. Longinotti, as owner of a ship called George the laird, by charter-party dated Oct. 30, !till, grained that vessel fur a term to Mr. Fisher: the voyage was Isom London to 31aili as, and Lack, the con sideration paid was I,o'ol. Mr. Fisher, who commanded the George iii pilaw', shipped the plaiiiiiti •s his surgeon and purser; and 5.1 r. Plomb, in the latter capacity, issued stores, and made pecuniary advances hi) the crew dulling the voyage. The question now was, Mr. Fisher having heroine hanks Nit, whether Mr. Longlinan, as owner of the vessel, was not liable to indemnify the plaintif f s A commission having issued to examine witnesses in the depOrilioll of Captain Fisher was put in and read. Captain Fisher declared that lie had engaged the plaintiff, Mr. P1=1.1,111)011 his own personal account ; and also that he had shown I lie chatter party. 'llie char ter party was next produced it emitained • covenant that Capt. Fisher should be liable fur all wages, charges, expenses, during the period for which the vessel was 'bartered to him. Mr. Scarlen, for the defendant, submitted that the plaintiff was out of Court. Mr. 31arlyat contended, that there was no evidence of the time at which Captain Fisher had shown his chatter party to the plaintiff'. It 1146 for the defendant to show that the information had been given before the expenses were incur, ed. Thr Loud Chief Justice, in the absence of proof to the contrary, would presume ihe information in (pie:diner to have been given at the eionnienecn.ent of the plaintiff's engagement. Hi• Lordship was not clear, however, Ibal any such information WOIIIII lie necessary. Mr. Fisher wa., dulling the ti run cf the charter patty, virtual owner of the vessel, and there could or no doubt that the con tract of the plaintiff mould be binding upon Mr. Fisher, and nut upon Mr. Longlinam—Plaintiff numnited. N1f1101.1.5 v. sires. his was an action upon a pr;cto; ; ;; bill. Mr. Ey res, who is a pi ize• agent, was interested in the condemnation cl a vessel tailed the Mat pinta, and the proceedings in ehc Count Admiralty wile conducted try the plaintiff. The clown, as well as the captors, being inset ested in all such causes, it ix the custom to retain toe Attorney Ge neral; such setainer, however, is little else than matter et 113 iloni learned officer seldom finds it nee y to attend. Mr. Nicholls, pursuing the ordinary retained the Attorney General; but Mr. Eyre, after the was over, contended that the leaned counsel had dole nothing iu the cause, and refused to allow the tees which load been paid to limo. The Lord Chief Justice held that the objection, if taken at nil, should have taken place cash; r. Verdie.t fur the plaintiti—Dainages 521, los, WkDNESDAY, JAN. 111. /RAHMAN V. KING AND OTHFRS. This was au issue from me Court of Chancery, di rt c:cti to try the question of exclusive right, on the part of Maims, in Kent, the present pl. iiniff, to the oyster lb•ds and lisheries situated in that part of the hundred of Almon, called the fast 'Vise defendants were ua• tree fishermen of Milton, and the facts of the case were as follow :—The free fishermen of Alikon had held the firth:nes sauce 170.5, by lease front the Loud of the malignity and dangerous character of the libel. If th Jury, upon reading the wink in question, were not sa tistied of its being imelloni, lie did not ask them to find Lite drielltialit ;411111. Ile co.icluded by requesting the Jury to lay aside all prtjutlicvs, and &cult: tairly fron► the work. The Lord Chicf Justice briefly summed up, a n d after alimling to site nature of the delence, which, he con. teliticd, rather aggravated the libel, told the Jury that if tile) , were sanstiLd that the libel wan directed against hi• Al.uesty's Ministers, thq would find the defendant bratty. Tile Jury retired fur about tweaty minutes, and on their return, brought a verdict of Guilty.—Mrs. Cat lisle left the Court belore the verdict was 61%431. HUNTER V. kOTHWELL AND OTHERS. 'fins was an action Motion hy the awl: ores of MI. lingswordi ' a bankrupt, against the late Siierith of the city of Lotion and the conoty of Middlesex, for the improper sale of a quatiiity of wine, and other properly, belonging to the bankrupt, which had been seised in ex.:minim An appiaiser valued toe property and wines at 3,2441. deducting all expenses. It was sold by auc tion tor 2,13001. and, deducting the expenses, the nett proceeds amounted only to 94631. This was represented to be greatly under the value, and the Jury were called upon to give the oifference. Mr. Scat lett, for the Siieriffs, stated, that he should be Ale to prove a I:cruet:tied banitroptey, also that am act of wok rupiey was co iiiiii Learned Counsel veiled WIIIICSSCs, bin laden in waking out his statement. The Jury Mond a social for the plamult—Datuages 3,0001. COURT OF ciIANCERY, J•r. This was iht alai aril hrlu.r le•in. Tar Lord (lsacellu., bil1)111) WI hr had taken his seat 011 the beach, 111 fill Oiled the hail real all the loll* peril al the thltei eat Cli,s home he is ou.d let thew ‘6IIUW t4.1.1111/11114 %lien he would give each lit SLAIGIaON V. SERGISON. -• ---"4-"are...r......,........... ~ .. . ."- • - - e- ,_ . - . -1141ra ' • - 'A..L.. - . ).-- -r - .- : r "-•-- Mr. Hart askid tile Lo.ll Lhasa raw-, if the Learned Judge nau hit ti the issue had sett is copy ol los notes. It.s t.oitiship said, lost he lad out eeceived Wein, uut that he expected thew at au earl) pi tied. 'Fite reinaluder of the tumuli% was occupied in a t) I lie case of Ito inlet e►i except to the luu ties. COURI' Of COMMON I'LLAS,, JAN. 16. SPECIAL JUNY.—HUU.•vN ♦NU CO. V. ALEictIoLIE. This action wat. brought to recover a loss sust.oned by it miniver or oil the part of the drtuwiaot. Au agrecineist w win o% had been made beiareo the delen. dant on our part, and tile plaintiffs on the other. The M elaratims staicU, tisat the said agree meat oils entered tutu loch tile defendant unites took to convey in the brig Hope a cargo of whir , tit the salon of blJv,l. to Ittu de Ja twuro; that the ship siolcti from LIVIIIII/U1 iuJ.maary, 11614, and at Fay el took uu iruard tile wine o Inch was to be earl led by the detendant fleet,' ding to &gem-mem, tar cargo sold, and lam ea., I emitted 1.0111 Iti . J mach o ti the plaint its.— The hist breach was that the Captain, on ills arrival at Rio de Jam leo did not deliver any ;null)! the . argu, hut after sailing limn fay al landed port oh it at Pernambur u, where it will sold The next breach was that the vevsel was fiat lit for the voyage, but. was without bouts and rigging, and iullcted to be lea ei, damaged, and out of repair. 'file crew was also dest• Med to he unskilful, and incapable of managing the Ics el. _ _ Setts. ut tile witnesses for the plaintillS, particularly Capt. Robertson, of the l't iud> Mese, Captain Ilellis, of the lio)al Navy, awl Captain Falu aid', gave their 01/1111 ~,, of the log ut the //sii c, that the Cuptuia had steered ail im propercnatse which biouAlit i4llll 11110 ditilculties, and led to toe aloha (UUCP 01 the vi, age. On the pact of the defendant several Clll/1.1 • 111,0 slated, 111111 the course steered b) the Captain was a proper course. Is was alto given in evidence, that the Csiptiiin applied to the British Consul at Pernambuco to raise stones before lie disposed of Ihe a sue, and was told that the Coosal never eu gii,ed in mercantile trails:sellout. Toe Captain was refer red to the house of Lindsay and Co. but failed in his appli cation to those parties. Ile uas then compelled to sell pail of the cargo to pay fur repairs. V 1 hen he curried the rest of tiie wisie to Rio de Janeiro, it proved to be such as the Portuguese would not di ink, and he could find no sale Inc It. 'rue Jury found tr veithet tur the plasutill3—lluusages 8,1581. This cause occupied the whole of the day. FiIIDAI3, JAN. 19. INJUNCTION.—THE FINE ARTS. MUDIE'S NATIONAL MEDALS. JAMEE IiCUIE C, EDWARD TIIUMASUNI3 C. JONES. Mr.llart stated, this was a motion for an nijunction to restrain the deletidants front using the dies or the and from disposing and exhidiiing medals struck hum the by them, without the permission of the plaintiff. 11: tinned this under an Act of Parlia ment passed in the reign 0; the late King, for the better protection m the hoe arts. It appeared that the platntill some time protons to the year 1616, Maki wok to tuna all additional stlies of uodals, to record the principal events 01 the late war, soil to contain the bUstw cite hrst tpperson seanitictiee. Tile plaintiff employed tite.de .ol(l.mb, %%Ito ale medal inanutacturers at B 0 IliJllULlCttlfe the medals, and the platmlll delivered t hem set eral dies, fro.n which they were to be struclt„ which were deposited in a box secured by a lock and key, with an understanding that the dies should be kept locked up. except whilst to use for striking elf medals ibr the platthiti when ordered by him. In 1820 the defendants caused a large ornamental shield to be exe cuted, and had 21 hall medals struck from the plaintiff's dies, and decorated the shield mood the bunter with diem without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff ; the defendants advertised the bhield in the Braish Press oil Inc 10th and 13th November, 1820, and in other newspapers, setting forth that it was designed by the de;enuant Thomason; that the border was composed of 21 stellatcd compliments, and contained the cele- Orated victories in histortcal sliccession. 110111 the land ing of the British army in Portugal 10 tare capture of Pant., and the Btionaparie at SI. /JANIS, wIIICII ,tie pl.lllltlil Cildftl,cti to Ur amuck fr his dies. Tile Lord Citaticedur ouseaved, as we defendants were einploycd by the platutd to itiatitnacture the me dals for hint alone, and the fact of their having menu- - :8