The Sun. — London, England, 1807-06-11 00:00:00

LAW REPORT. comur or KJ tit;'s LENCI-1, fuNt to. THE'KING'V. SARAH SEALE. ,The Defendant had 'been convi&ed, before the Magistratesat M.4lbOrough-street Police Office, •of • - insuring the ticket No. 0, in an unlawful lottery, Caned a`Little Co. Mr. - MARE 4T, on the 3d of this month, had argued against this convictionupon, upon, tour distiuot grouncs. - Ist. 1 hat by the statute, it was required that the penalty to be enforced under • it, should be applied, one-third to. the. Crown, one thirdto the informer, and One-third to the persons who should apprehend and secure the offender ; Whereas,: upon the lace of the convielion, the names of the persons did not appear to whom the penalty was to be paid. 2dly. That the Aft required that there should be an immediate apprehension 'of the person -suspected ; but, on the contrary, in this case,- the arrest did het take place till three - weeks after the unlawful insurance was made. 3dly. That it did not appear by the in,tuntent, that, previous to the cominitmentof the Defendant, the penalty was not paid. And, 4thly. That the conviotion stated the offence to have bemproved at the Police Office, without saving that it was before a Police Maaistrate.• To these oblecitions to the convielion the eommOn . Serjeant was instrudled to reply, but he not being then prepared, the discussion was- postponed until this day. ' Mr. litgowLys prefaced his argument to the Court by observing, that the objed, of the Statute in question was to%put an end to a practice which had become too prevalent; by which persons, under the ippeatance of advantage,.plundet:ed the lower classes of the community out of that properly which their industry had .colleCted ; and the Court, therefore, • • would make every possible intendment in support of so salutary a conVi6tion. It wag plain front the words of the instrument, that the first obje - 6.1i0n ofMr.. MARRYAT could not apply in this case; fof, it appear ea, that the Defendimt, Sarah Seale, was brought be, fore the Magistrate by WM. Chadwell and 'Jonathan White, and no difficulty could therefore arise as' to whom the penalty should be paid: Lord Et.t,zNsoaouckt.—" Is it not a better ground for you to .say, that it is not necessary to name the persons to whom the distributiA is to be made, the A4l having stated, that the penalty should be disposed of in three particular ways. The case of The King r. Ballard,' has decided, •that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to state the names of persons to who:n it is: to he paid, for that would be aelant mire." Mr. MALRYA37-argued, on the contrary, that it was absolutely necessary that the names of the-in former, and the person taking the Offe.nder: into custody, should be set forth in the; conviaion other-, wise this inconvenience might'arise, that the Magi strate who convicted alight also be the informer, concealing that fad on the face of the inArunienol, ,liidgment deferred. CERTIORARI. The ATTORNEY-GrSDRAL applied for a rule to shew cause wby a writ of Certiorari should-not be granted to remove art important legal question for decision into thiS'COnrt. The appliCatiOn was made On behalf of Mr. John Crundell, who for upwards of 30 years held the office of Surveyor for - the district of Paddington; St. Pancras,and St. Luke, Chelsea. The affidavit on which the motion was made, stated, that Crundell was appointed to the office he held in the year 1774, and that the Act under which such appointment was made, was - the 14th of Geo. 3. c. 4: On the oth of Febraary, 1,9137., he received, a letter from the Clerk of the Peace for the Coupty of Middlesex, requiring him -to attend before the Ma gistrates in obedience to the Act of Parliament, and .to bring with him an account of all the erections and party Walls built during a certain gumber of years. To this requisition Ali% Crundell replied, in respea= ful terms, in a letter directed to the Magistracy of Middlesex, stating, that,- by the Statute, such an account-as was demanded was not required, and that tliere6Ke it could not be expeaed that he should -supply it. The consequence of fhis answer was, , .teat, on the oth of April following, Mr. Crundell. was required to shew cause why he should - not be. dismissed from, his . situation of Distrid Surveyor. Mr. Crundell attended, according to the summons, and remonstrated with the Sessions; but they thought Sit to dire his name to be struck from the list. Lord ELLENBOROUGH enquired what Was. the form of the appointment of the Distria Surveyor ?- - The ATTORNEY-GENERAL answered, that he was nominated by ate Quarter Sessions, and might be dismissed at the will and pleasure of the Magistracy. Sir V. Gpas hoped that the Court, by graiiting this apphcatiou, would . allow Mr. Crundell an op portunity of justifying himself from the charge of having misconduaed himself in his office, after hav ing flailed the duties of it for upwards of 30 years. '1 Mr. TOPPING, who was instruaed to shew cause agr,ainst -the Rule in ihe first instance, objetSed that the question on the Statute was not such a one as Could be the subje& of a writ of Certiorari. Their Lordships, howeler, granted a Rule to chew cause. THE KING V. BENJAMIN HADDON. •. On the motion of the COMMON SEaJEANT, the Defendant wns brought up to plead to an india , ment charging him, Mr. John King, and Dr. Stephenson, with a conspiracy unlawfully to pro cure the discharge of the Hon. Butler Danvers from the custody of the Sheriff of Middlesex. The De fendant pleaded Not Guilty. SNILTH V. JEFFEREYS. The Plaintiff is a Wyk-broker, and is likewise oncerned'in a banking-house at Milton.. The De fendant is an Attorney. This was au action for Slanderous words spoken by the latter against the iormet% .111 r. GAR now opened the case, on the part of the P.aintiff, and then called the evidence. - . - Mr. Cowley and another Witness deposed, that the Plaintiff and Defendant, with some other persons, tied met 'together at Milton . upoi'i business, when 'the Defendant, addressing himself to the company,. a l.: hiding to the•Plaintitf, said,' " He is a usurer ; he has robbed the Bank'; he has no.credit, and no one will take his drafts."—These slanderous expressions were afterwards repeated at the Guildhall Coffee house, by the Defendant, to his witnesses. - 4,ONDON : Printed At Mr. PAAX, for tile befellAant, insiste t, th - at'the Plaintiff could. hot recover. In all the counts of the declaration, it was tatecb that the expressions 'were nlade wie of to iujiire the Plaintiff in his busiiiess as a Stock , -hrok, , •:.r, , oras a Banker, when npon the evi dence it . turned Out, that they had no' allusion to either of those Occtcoiiotr. EtlNDoliOt:On was of opinion, ttrA l t a yet might be found for the - Plaintiff upon the sth 'Count of the declaration, whel:e 'it was generally atated,' that the PlaintiffAkias an ;Pin rer. Atter Mr. RA had, concluded his address to the Jury, the 041EP lint`ret said, that the wordS upon which. the Plaintiff Could only be entitled to a verdio were vague, and without any particular objeEt to Which they were directed. They were, however, affirmable, because it had been determined that they were indidable. The Jury would assign such damages as they'might think fit, in a case ,Where the party had better have - brought no a6tion at Verdia fir the Plaintiff,- I ol COURT OF COMMON PLEA !UNE 9. BAYLEY V. TUCKER. This was an action brought by Mr. Bayley against a Mr. Tucker, an attorney, the grounds of which were these : a Mr. Richard Hill, an. Attor ney, had an action against a Mr. Parsons, for whom Mr. William)hyley, the present Plaietiff, .becatne bail. Besides which, there were several other ac tions in which this PitiollS had been arrested, and' in some of which, this Mr. Bayley had, along with others, also been bail for him. - The bail becoming anxious for their own salety.and security, a meeting took .place between Parsons, Bayley, and a Mr.- John Hill, one of the other bail, at the chambers of Mr. Tucker, who was ParsOns's Attorney, Upon the. subject of rendering Parsons in discharge of his bail. Tucker said, ie would not stir a peg until he was paid Upoii this, 20-1. were paid by Parsons himself, and 41. tos. was paid by the bail, Mr. Tucker having agreed to accept these two sums; amounting to 241. les. as. the total, charges in ren &ring Parsons in five different aCtions at the same time assuring' the bail that they were perfectly se cure, and might go home afid sleep quietly. It afterwards turned ciut, however, that Mr. Tucker only , surrendered Parsons in four of the ae,Tions which depended in the Court of , King's Bench, leaving the fifth one; Which depended in this Court,- in which he did not surrender him, on account of a writ of error being then. Mr. Hill, the Attorney and original Plaintiff against Parsons, some time afterwards sued out a writ of fieri facias, and an execution followed.,-- Upon this happening, Bayley went to Tucker, and acquainted him of the event, Conceiving that he had employed him as his Attorney ;' anti that it vas, therefore, his duty to free him from any further trouble 9e expence.• Mr' Tucker told him to go to a Mr. Morgin; his fermer • Attor ifey, and desire him to apply to the Sheriff, and fo have the money, put into his hands, and upon the matter being determined, the money would be re stored. Bayley, however, instead of .doing- this, went to Hill, the other Attorney, who told him that Tucker was the man who ought to have paid him the morn: y. Hill persuaded. Bayley - to employ him, and to put the money into his hands, and he Would engage to recover it from Tucker, and consequently the present action was'brought under the direCtion-of this Mr. Hill, in the name of 'Mr. Bayley, againSt the present Defendant. • This action was lately tried by a Jury, and a ver dial was given for the Plaintiff for 211. ! The two principal' questions on the merits were, whether Mr. Tucker was employed by Bayley as his Attorney, so as to make him responsible ? And next, whether the condu& • of 13ayley, in not going to Mr. Morgan, or thing according to the directions given him, de prived him (Bayley) of his right of action against Tucker ? Mr. Serjeant BEST argued, that there were two grounds for a nonsuit, it being stated in the decla ration that the Plaintiff' had 'employed the De fendant, had paid him 2:51. for such tendering, and had faithfully promised to pay him such - other tea. , minable demands as might be wade ; while thr Te se c T h e count was at variance w ith su ch sta t emen t. next ground was, that Tucker never was employed by the bail, and therefore Tucker was not guilty of any negligence. The Learned Judges severally gave fheir opiniOns at considerabl e length. It seemed to be 'the sense of- the Court, that the'promise to surrender, in' due time, as contained in the contract, was the sur rendering at a time when, by not doing so, the bail would be liable. In the present instance then:; was a Writ of Error, which suspended all proceedings, and therefore there ought not to have been,-any execution against the bail, unless it appeared that the writ' had been-brought merely for the ptirposes._ of delay. Instead of the bail bringing an -aditin against Tucker for an irregularity, he ought to have brought one against Hill, the Attorney, for his misconduct, and Tucker had a right to eomplain against Bayley for not having followed his advice. The contract was one between Parsons and Tucker, and no t be- , • twist that Attorney and the Bail. This aalien seemed to be one which failed in its foundation; and from the whole. circumstances .of the case there app ear ed to be grounds fie: a nonsuit, the breach of COntrata, on the part of Tucker, not having been sufficiently, proved.—Plaiiztiff nOnsuited. JUNE 10. SIFTON AND - OTHERS, V. LEE AND ()Turns. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD and Mr. Serjeant LAY sTiewed cause on behalf of the Plaintiffs, agairiSt an application forn?erly made by Mr. Serjeant BEST for a new trial in this case. . It was an action - upon a policy of insurance up o g the -Ship Minerva, a Dantzic Ship, bound from that port tO_Dublin.- The question upon the .evidence was, whether or She was proved to be a Dantzic Ship within the meaning of the warranty ? This Ship was taken by the French, ankalt hough q neu tral, carried into a port in France, where she was detained for a considerable time, and the insured Were put to much expence in recoveling. their Ship, and Suffered ''loss by the detention, for which con, sequences this•adion was brougii against the Un derwriters. After hearing Argitinelits "of Cchins:4 on bath sides, at great length, the -Learned Judges severally gave their opinions ; the united result of which was, that . the Underwriters were clearly . liable, .unless they could. shew-that the Plaintiffs were not enti tled to recover; because the loss they had sustained arose from a ,breach of their engagement', or some tnanjfest faplt upon 2 their party iir'rerrard to the Ship'!; docuinents. It, had been' sai r isfa t 'dorily proved that she xitras a 1/intzic Ship, and had all the docnnients on board which a Dantzic Ship . 'usually had. It had been stated, on the part of the Under Writers, that they were not liable, because,. although the Court . of France finally decided that the capture Was unlawfdl, they did not subject - the captors to damages and costs, On accountof.the in formality of the musterLroll and pasSpork . . kap peared, that by an ordinance of the French Ad miralty Court, all neutral vessels were required to specify, in their muster-rolls, the place of nativity of eaCh of the crew on board ; and on this account, although the Minerva was:dechtte'd to "be' regUlarly docim eoitedl according to the Law of Nations, they refused to allow the owners damages:or costs from the captors. AnOther reason , assigned.- by the Frond' Court; wa s , tl ia t th e slip's passport had been used in a former voyage:. If the French' Court had persisted in condemning the ship as a just prize, that might have been conclusive evidence ,in-favour of the Underwriters. The,consideration of darhages and costs depended upon the discretionary, judg ment of, the Court,..before whom such .questioni Might chancel° come, but afforded no reason why the Underwriters should not he Halle to the OWners to make good the damages,•arishig froni,the liregn lardetentiOn of the ship in , a ret:ifdh The' original grounds upon which daMaget and costs had been refused - by the French COUrt, Were not on account of any ads done by the Plaintiffs, - contrary to the known Law - of Nations„,but solely on account of an at done of omitted, contrary to the regula: - tions of a French Ordintance, which they were not bound to know; and therefore the Underwriters ought to indemnify the Plaintiffs for the damages they .had 'sustained by- the irregular detention.— Rule discharged. COURT OF CHANCERY, trikl6 ID. CITY OP LONDON against MITFORD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF NICIIOLAS TURNER, A BANKRUPT. In this case, whiclt the CIiAt4cELLOR stated to be quite new, there - being no case, citect.at the bar; riot_ withia his Lordship's -knowledge, exaaly in point; nor even -like it, he gave judgment elabdrately, this day, against the City of.loirclon, .as we yesterday anticipated would be tlie result, -from the points .sug-; gested during the long arguments by the Cuttrt: . He grounded his judgment not 'merely on'tlie.latise of time, in not renewing or tendering - a lease fqr a renewal to the lessors, on the .termination 'of- the original lease.-of „.1736, but s also . an the ,tirctina stance . of the City having sold. the fireiniges demised to them by the first lease, and. along *ith them other premises, the property of Mr. Lennon, the lessor, not included in such original deMise,Ao the. Committee of Blackfriars' Bridge, in the'year 1760; in violation of their covenant with Mr. Lennon, Without calling upon Mr. Turner to consent. .It appeared that the City had passed a- Bond of In , demnity to the , Bridge CoMmittee for the sum of 60001. to secure the Committee against the claim of Turner; and that the City had, in 1775, upon filing their bill against - the moldier of Turner, for a spe cific execution Of the original covenant, instead of following up the-sarrie, abandoned it, and accepted a lease from het, Who had 'only a life estate in the whole, and a reversionary right to the heirs of One moiety only, withont any regard to the present Mr. Turner's right to the other moiety, upon his step mother's decease (he - being a soar by a former mar ' riage). This 'lease, from Mrs. Turner, in •1775 i .was in the same words, and with the Same cove nants, as that of 1736, notwithstanding the total change of the state of the premises, fifteen years pre vious tb the latter lease, and the sale of them under the At of Parliament, in 1760, to the Bridge Com mittee.. This latter lease, said his 'Lordship, was utterly impossible to be, executed, or acted under, and it was made so by the City themselves, whose . acts in this case were irreaoncileable with law - or. reason, nor did the acceptance of rent cure it. -They came here, praying an impossibility, by their pre-' sent Bill, for a -specific execution of 'a Contra&; which,they themselves had rendered utterly impos sible ever to be acted Upon. He Ordered the in jun6tion, obtained by the Plaintiffs, to be dissolved, and that they should pay all costs: bur)Ll - N, 3UNE G. Thursktay being the Anniversary or .that ,D a y . which blessed these ,Flealms by,, the Birth 4)f our good aiid gracious King, the -heloved Fath6 of hi; Pep Ole, and -fiiithlnl •Deiender of the CO1131404)0 iu Church and State, every loyal breast throbbed with eniplation manifest the most, ard.pt, and dutiful etreaion, by . inarkitig with respect, as an high-holi day, that day on which our Monarch entered on his 70th year; In the.morning the Garrison of Dublin, together -with the Yeomanry of the City and its vicinage, marched to the Phoenix Park, •and there remained drawn up in two lines till his Grace appeared in the field, when the Review proeeede . d according to the following, order-: Twenty-one-guns--announcing the approach of his Grace. One gtn=when bis-Grace arrived apposite the dentre, being the signal for a general salute ; arat4 pregente4 coloUrslowered,,&c. His Grace haiiing passed the two lines, and moved from the. right of the Second to takeliis Station, t.b.6 ,whole primed and loaded. - T,wpnty- - one guns wet e -then fired :.-43pOn ;t4p nineteenth the Whole presented; and'on the twen-. ty-first a running fire began on the right, and was most expertly continued along to the left. This w'as thrice, pertbrined ; after which, on the signal of one gun, the whole gave three cheers, sar loud and heirty as made •the welkin ring part of the,exerciSe the spectators, whose numbers . were immense; joined most cordially. A signalwa - S then Made to wheel into open columa of half squadrons and companies; and in this order the whole, marched past his Grace,; then returning to their :first position„ 'Wheeled into line,- opened, ranks and gave a general salute. His Grace the Lord Lieutenant was attended by Generals Fr.pvn, MANLY, Sir A.WELLESLEY, MAC WLANE, and a numerous Staff ;..and folloved bi her Oracethe Duchess of RICHMOND, in au open barouche, , drawn by six beautiful blood horses ; Ladies 'of her sdite in a coach drawn by sii very handwrite chesnuf horses ; all.the out-riders and vatit . s in splendid liveries.. The whole S:o64ticle was uncommonly splendid; and we were happy to ohi'erve- marl more persons of distlnelipn than for; some years have appeared in the train' .of -Lord Lieutenant. The Yeomanry mustered stronger than they have "been seen sincet • Lard.l - lALowtoxf.'s terrors began to s ubs ide • aud was Impossible to contemplate their martial appear, • ante without entertaining a gratelui recolleaion of that excellent Nobleman, Lord CAMDEF, under whose . 'auspices they were formed :*.it is to him we are inj . debted for tAisgallant force, who saved - their • Coun,. -try in the most ittitninent-dang - er.' Upon-returning floin:- the Yield to the Castle, his 'Grace held a Levee, which was most numerously at.; tended :. there were presetiti . the .Lord Chahcellori. the Judges, Great' Officers of the State and,..a.the law, several Bishops Ind Dignitaries of the Church; the' Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, - Aldermen, and a great many persons of distin6tion.' An Ode was then performed; after which tho . sacred song of God . save the King Was sand, his Grace rising frorn the Throne, and all tie Aiiserribly standing. At the conclusion .of the Ode and Song, upon Et signal by rocket from Dublin Castle, the PArk guns fired sixty-nine' rounds, -corresponding in number with the sixty-nine years which ,his Majesty has so happily completed, • The Curragh- Races commence next Monday, and will be honoured with the presence of the Duke and Duchess of RICHMOND. .B I R THS . On Tuesday last, at Homerton, Mrs. !awes Luglam, of a Son: Yesterday morning, at his•house in Manchester-street, t Lady of Major-General Sir George Brathwaite B.ouginou b .of a Daughter. Lateiy, the Lady of William Barr, Esq. of Syroosts's Wharf, Southwark, (AA ailighter. MARRIED. On Tuesdaj' the 2d u►st. David Hinckley. Esq. of Boston, in An►erica, Merchant, to Miss Outran, et Alireton, Der byShi re. Last week, at Bristol. John Thornton, ESQ. of. Huh, to .Miss M. Clarke, daughter of john Clarke, Esq. of Aunt Green, Yorkshire. YeSterday, at St. George's Church, Queen-square, Mr. Samuel Large, .of Orange-street, iiiumnsbury-squae draper, to Miss Sarah Tebbutt, second d aug h ter or INdr.,Thu.. Inas Tebbutt, of Devonshire. Street, Queen square. °. POLICE. MAN s o N-Ho SE . ,—Yes terday Hitching and Still, the two prisoners who stood committed after their second examination, yesterday fortnight; on,a charge of forgery, for issuing certain notes, purporting to be the notes of a banking-house at Ipswich, were again brought up before the Lapp-MA-x(3a, upon some further charges of a similar nature ; aid, after an examination, which continued nearly two hourS, were fully committed to• Newgate for •trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions. Mr. ALLEY, Mr. CU/1- WOOD, and Mr., KNAIT, attended as. Counsel. , Had the prisoners been discharged from the .cri, mina' commitment, and adMitted to bail, as was their confident expeelation, there were Sheriffs' Of ficers in waiting, with writs against thern . to a very considerable amount, in order to arrest them on civil process. . Still was some time since declared insolvent, and' compounded to pay his creditors 95.. in the pound, but never paid a shilling. It is confidently expected that. from the evidence which has come forward in this affair, plan's will be developed, to a most formi dable extent, .for entrapping the . public credulity; by the circulation of.fictitious &nit paper. , The summertottery comes exceedingly opportune for rendering summer excursio i ns more convenient and agreeable. The DraWing commencing SP soon as the 14th of next month, will speedily afterwards put so many Shares of Capital Prizes into the pos sessiOn of Adventurer, as' to qualify them to take an annual trip-to , any place. of summer recreation throughout the Xmgdom. RICHARD HARR ts, of No. 4, hjartlett.coert, Bov , i-street ; and published by WILLI A M AR MI C r.R Sc R IP? s, of South Mol r .• Lon-street,.C.rosvenol-squorei DIED. On Tuesday the zd inst., at Lynn, Mr. Daniel Brown, of that Town. He was a Lieutenant in the Lynn Volunteers, who are on permanent•duty, ahrl'while on guard at the Mar— ket Cross on the Monday preceding•theday of his death, he suddenly tell down in an apoplectic fit, and remained in that state fill his death, Which took place at three o'clock on the following morning. -He has left tour children to lament his loss, the oldest of whom is'but fourteen years old ; and what renders their situation still more distressing is, that their mo• ther died. about a fortnight before this melancholy event. . Mr. Brown was a respettable man, in good circumstances, and much esteemed by hisifiends and acquaintance. ,• On the 28th of. NOveinher last, at Bill - Odle, of which Dis• tridlie was Chief Judge and Magistrate; John Spencer, Esq. On-Monday last, Lieutenant Alexander Wistilighausen, of ' the Russian Navy. Ou• Tuesday.morning, 7.4 Chislehurst, 'after a long and painful illnesq, Mrs. )ally, wite - of William Oakley. The same morning, at Ins father's ,house, Camberwell G rove-, :Mr.. Wm Coilinson,. of Queen's College, oxfore, in the 22d year of his age. Lately, at Stradbally, Queen's County, Ireland, in the 61st year of he? age, Of a Caneer _in, the breast, Mrs. Donne, •mother to Mr. W. 1. Donne; • fe•:v,days ago, at • Waterford,. Captain' lames Hamilton, of the 31-Garrisoniiattal ion; eldest son of the late James• Ha. milton,.. Esq. of Stevenston. • . Lately, at Londonderry, North of Ireland, William Pat. teson, Esq. M.D. • " . -- ;On the 3d of April, at Kingston, Jamaica, Captain [chit Nicol, late Corninander of the ship Lucia, ot London,. winch vessel Ivas,captured in the Paeitic (Jew, when he was taken a-prisoner a Panama, art from thence to Carrhagena i where he was exchanged a short time since, and arrived at jam:tn.:s in La :Piipte•trigate. death was occasioned by the bar' barons treatment he experienced from the Spaniards after - he Thad suri'endered, having 11,.:6 wantonly man : ;led in different parts of his= body. .I-'4' ICE 0 Y ESTE Hank Stock; a 34 Navy S per Cent. shut per Cent. 1797, frith 5 per Cent. • per Cali. 8t i -3 per Cent. Red.. 631 3 per ;:err. Con. 51114 Bank 1.. Ann. t7i t5-t6ths Ditto Short Ann. STOCKS RDA Y. llndia Stock, shut . - India Bonds, .as. pr. South Sea Stock, sh It 1 New Ann. shut • Exchequer Bills, par, 4s. Pr' 0 =him,- I i Imperial 3 per Cent. 62i I Ditto Ann. Cons. for Opening, 64*