The Sun. — London, England, 1802-06-28 00:00:00

L AW REPORT. COURT OF CHANCERY, Tura 25. Mr. MANSFIELD applied to the Court, to know when it would be its pleasure that Counsel should be heard on behalf of His Royal Highness the PRINCE of WALES, to prove His Royal Highneirs right to the arrears of the revenues of the Duchy of Corn wall, according to His Royal Highness's Petition of Right, referred to the Court by HIS MAC ESTY in Council. The LORD CammELLor,said, that in a case so' important, as well from the magnitude of the in terest concerned as from the high rank of the parties, and in a course of proceeding so obso lete as a Writ of Right, it became the Court to' proceed with the- greatest ,circumspeaion. He should, therefore, not take any step till he had first consulted with the twelve Judges, as to the mode in which Counsel should be heard on behalf of the Petition referred to the Court by His MAJESTY and from the advanced period of the term, he feared he should not now have an opportunity of consult ing with the other Judges till the Winter Terms. COURT OF kING's BENCH, JuNz 25. THE KING V. DEANE. This was a Rule of Mr. Adam's (enlarged from the last Term by the consent of the Prosecutors, upon conditions) calling upon the Defendant, Joseph Deane; to shew cause why an information, in na ture of a Quo Warianto, should not be filed against him, to shew by what aufhority.he claimed to ex. ercise the office of a capital Burgess of Harwich. In the vacation, Defendant filed magy in long affida vits opposition to the Rule. But this day, when Mr. AnAm-moved to have the Rule made absolute, the Defendant's Counsel,. Mr. -ERSKINE, declined shelving cause. The Court therefore made the Rule absolute against Joseph Deane. JUNE 26. BAIL FOR DEBT. TMLEY w. ELLISON. Tins was a Rule calling on the Plaintiff to shew cause Why the Defendant should not be discharged out of custody on filing. common Bail.- The De fendant was arrested for 3oobl. upon . the Affidasit of the Assignee of the Plaintiff, who had assigtfed all his effeas over 'to his creditors • for the pay ment of his debts. The Affidavit upon which the Defendant was held to bail was to the following effect : " That the Defendant was justly . and truly indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of 30001. and upwards, for the value of certain bars of silver, containing thirteen thousand ounces and upwards, delivered to the Defendant, to be by him carried, on behalf of the Plaintiff,. to Gottenberg, and there delivered to Elias Beckman, alid undertilen to be so delivered by him, but which the Defendant had not so delivered.!' This application was made upon the grOunds that the Affidavit. on which the Defendant was held to bail, was defeaive, and such -as a person ought not to have beep arrested upon, because it did not state.a debt to be due to the Plaintiff from the De. fendant, pr any specific sum of money whatever withheld from 'the .Plaintiff . by the Defendant, but gated' only a breach of promise by the Defendant ; and for which breaCh of promise no damages were IP stated to have accrued to the Plaintiff, &c. , Mr. GARIOW and Mr. Wa.uros she-wed Cause against the Rule, and maintained, first, that this was one of these Cases in which the Court would not interfere in the present stage of the proceeding, on, the general ground that the Court would not try the merits of the Case upon Affidavits of the Parties ; that the Court had laid down this as a rule a great while ago, and adhered to-' it in a series of practice, and confirmed it by many Cases ; that this was a practice founded upon good sense, • and that the contrary pradice would be full of inconveniences, for it would be superseding the • - office of a Jury, by a discretionary power of the Court, and trying the merits of a Case upon the Affidavits of Patties, who, if this Were to become_ a common prat - lice, would have much terriptation to commit perjury, &c.—for which reasons the Court had always refused to entertain such motions as these, but left the Parties to try the merits of their Case before a Jury, in the Imean time holding the Defendant to bail. There was indeed a different pradice in the Court of,Common Picas, in which these uestions were considered upon Affidavits of the Plrties. This had occasion'- . cd a great deal of consideration, and the Judges took time to consider of it, and there was a con _ ference between the-Judges of the two Courts, the effed of which was, that of confirming the Judge's of the Court of King's Bench in their former opinion, and Mr. Justice BUI,LER. afterwards observed in that . Court, " That they could not control the Court of Common Pleas : the Judges of that Court were guided by their own wisdom in the rules which they laid down lor the guidance of their own praCtice,, but there was no reason, in the opinion of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, to alter their pradice, and that therefore they would not travel out of their own ruses."---. The rule was this : that in a common course, a De fendant was held to bail!, upon an Affidavit stating that he ,was justly and truly indebted to the Plain tif in a sum of money therein specified. Upon this sort of,Affidavit, the Plaintiff was entitled, by Sta tute, to - hold a Defendant to bail in the ordinary course of proceeding, without any application to the discretion of a Judge. Another species of Arrest was, where there was a breach of contra& op the part of Defendant towards the Plaintiff, by means of which' the Plaintiff had been damnified, and in such a Case the course was. to lay all these circumstances before njudge at Chambers, and that learned person would exercise his discretion whether such Defendant should be held to hail or nor, and would make his order accordingly. The substance of the case here was this—Some years ago, about thirteen thousand ounces of silver were delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, for the purpose, and with ,_ _~ reetion of ifs deing deliVered, by him, to a 'peison 1 of the name of Elias Beckman, at Gottenhesg.— This the Defendant undertook to do, but which lie had not done. The Defendant arrived lately in London, and the Plaintiff's Assignees (for he had assigned his effects to his Assignees,' for the be nefit,of Creditors), determined on putting 'the law in motion against him. They wished to hold him to 'bail, but as this silver was not sold to the Defendant, it was not a common case of a de ' and they , could not arrest him by the ordi- N nary ocess ; they therefore laid all the circum stances of the case before Mr. Justice Gaosi, at Chambers, and that Learned Jtidge, in his discre tion, was satisfied that Justice required, and theses fore ordered, the Defendant to be held to bail ; and the question now was, whether he was justly so held 'to bail ? The Learned Gentlemen, on behalf of the Plaintiff; maintained, that in case of a De fendant being held to bail for any breach_ of contra 1, where specified damages had been sustained, Troyer, Detinue, or other cause of action for da.. mages, the rule was this, that the objeetion to qv. holding MT to bail, or application for his discharge, should arise out of the Affidavit on which he was held to hail, and if that Affidavit was defeaive, lie would be entitled to his liberty' on filing Commis's Bail, but not otherwise. , That the Court of King's- Bench had expressly decided, • over and over again, they would not hear any Affidavits on the merits of the case, because that would be trying the cause, and superceding the province of a Jury.—The Learned Gentlemen submitted also, there would be great evil from entering into the *tits of a case upon the Defendant's being held to bail.—Suppose a. Captain of a ship were arrested upon an ACtion of outrageous Battery, by authority of a Judge before whom the circumstances were stated, and which, ~i i the face of the Plaintiff's Affidavit, .might be of the' most desperate kind ;—suppose the Defendant were to come forward to the Court, and, upon his Affi= davit, to state',that, true, indeed, he did beat the Plaintiff; and put him in irons, but that there was a Mutiny on board, of which the Plaintiff was the Leader ; and, suppose a great number of the Crew were to join the Defendant in this Affidavit ; and, supposing the Court, judging on these faas, were to order-the Defendant to be discharged, and the Defendant were; then, to go on a foreign voyages and never more return within the jurisdiction of the Court—and then, suppose that the whole of the Defendant's case, stated in. these Affidavits, , was a system of Falsehood, supported by perjury, from top to bottom : that the Plaintiff had cause of at - lion for - which a Jury would have given him a thousand pounds in damages; but that the whole of which was lost by the Defendant being allowed to' be dis charged ?—These were only a few of, the evils that might result from the praCtice of entertaining clues . - tions of merits of a cause, upon the Affidavits ofthe parties. The Court of King's Bench had, 'there fore, wisely-, abstained from that course, and had said, on more occasions than one—" That if the Plaintiff's Affidavit stated, positively, a debt, or that of his Agent, Sce. the Court would not take the Affidavit of - the Defendant to contradia that fad, no? even, although the Defendant might swear that the Plaintiff had declared the Defendant owed him nothing.—That if the Plaintiff took a false: oath, he might beindiCted for perjury:" . This was laid down by Chief Justice LEE, in the case of Emerson v. Hawkins, and it. was Confirmed 'in a case afterwards, in Douglas 32. • . Mr. ERSKINE, in support of this Rule, said, he never meant to contend that the truth of the Affi davit . on which the Defendant was held to bail, could be questioned by an - tither Affidavit being made to deny the fad. He knew that if the Plaintiff swore falsely, he might be indided for perjury, and as he swore at his peril, the Court would not question the oath, in. any manner, except in a pro secution ; 'but. he denied the proposition of Mr. GARRow, that there could be nothing done further than to look into the Affidavit of the Plaintiff, to hold. the Defendant to bail ; and that unless there , was some defeEt in it, the Defendant must continue to be held—That was not so-- 2 for if. any Affidavit were ever so, positive that he owed another man a sum of money, and he was arrested on that Affida vit ; if he could shew s that he had been held to bail before, for the same s‘m of money, could he not come to that Court and 'say so, and would not that Court order him to be discharged in such a case ? Lord ELLENBOROUGH - said, that most unques tionably the Court would, in such a case, interpose, becauSe that would be an abuse of the Process of the Court. Mr. Justice LAWRENCE said, that if it appeared, by Affidavit, that the Defendant was , a married woman, the Court would interfere also. Mr. ERSKINE then proceeded to argue, that 'the Affidavit on which the Defendant in this Case was held to bail, was defelive, inasmuch as it neither stated positively a debt due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff; nor that the Plaintiff had atually sus tained any' damages from the breach of the De fendant's contract with him.—That this silver might have been delivered to the Defendant for the purpose, of being delivered by him to Beckman at Gottenberg—Non tonstat, that it was the property of Beckman, and if so, no damage could arise to the Plaintiff from the nondelivery of it.—He took this to be a Rule—" That no Affidavit could be good for holding any one to bail, unless it was so worded as that an assignment of perjury might be made upon it.—Hert he contended, that if the per son who made this Affidavit, were indicted for per jury, he might say that this property was be tween the Plaintiff and Beckman r although it might be all Beckman's property. The substance of this Case was this—The , Plaintiff was an American he - conveyed this silver from France to Gotten_ berg at a time when it,was death by the law of France; to take any bullion or specie out of France, and he gave it to the Defendant for thispurpose.- - This was a contra void in Law, for which both Plaintiff and Defendant would have been put to death in France, had their anion been diScOvered— and a contrad contrary to the lex loci was no .contract at all; and therefore could not be enforced in England. . , Lord ELLENBOROUGH Said, this a good detente to this ACtion if made out--but merits which the ' Court could not try. Mt. ERSKINE further urged, that 'the Defendant bad !,cen sued for this very debt, before a Tribunal in the' dominions of his Sovereign, the KING of DENMARK : That the Case was stated to some Magistrates there, whom the Defendant accused of aEtiog with great injustice towards him ; that he approaChed his 'Sovereign with a' full statement of Ins case, which that Monarch graciously conde scended to investigate, and afterwards actually ordered these Magistrates to - be dismissed from their offices for their miscondud in this ease.-- That this suit is now depending in a Court of Justice in Denmatk : for these reasons Mr. ER- E submitted that this Defendant ought not to be held to bail in this cause in this country. Lord ELL E NIfOROLIGH sari, that this was an application to the. dicretion of the Court, to diS charge the Defendant upon filing common bail, and certainly it was an important question, 'but it was impossible for that Court, consistently with its own Rules, to question any fads - that were extrinsic ' of the circumstances stated in the Affidavit made to hold the party to bail. If it had appeared that the Defendant had- been already held to bail _in this country, for this demand, the Court would order him to be discharged, because !to person can, by Law, he held twice to bail, in this country, for . one and the same debt but the question was here"- : did it, with sufficient distindness, appear to the i Court, that the Defendant stood in the same situa tion, in point of la w, in the Court iti Norway, as 'he did in this Court ? and that the Plaintiff had the same benefit by, ptirsuipg his Adion• there, as-he May have by pursuing it here'? If it did not appear that the Plaintiff would have the same advantage by pursuing his Adion there, as he may have by pur suing his Action here, it would_ -be unjust to him of the means of it according to the rules &f law' here, made for the - purpose of enabling Plaintiffs to, pursue Defendants with effea f part of kawhich was to hold the Defendant in the• first in stance to- bail. His Lordship said, the Court had no means of knowing what were the Laws of Nor way in this particular. Then the question was re. duced to a question of construaction upon the avord ing.of the Affidavit made to hold a person to bail in ; that Court. And then the point .became a plain one, and :within the Rule which was laid down in the Cases which had been alluded to by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. The Case of ,Smith and Fraser, in BlaCk.stone's Reports; was an authority also in this resped ; where the De. fendant was held to bail by order of,Mr. Justice FosTER, and which came afterwards before the Court; when it Was saidi"." that the fads of the Plaintiff's Affidavit for holding the Defendant to bail, could not be controverted by another Affidavit ; and that if the Plaintiff swore that which was false, he might be inalided for perjury ; for which reason the Court had laid down a rule that they would not travel into the merits. of a cause upon. Affidavits in this way."—So much for decision; but his Lord ship aalded, that if this rule had not been already laid down in this case as a firm rule of the CO'ift, for the purpose of excluding from its consideration, circumstances that were extrinsic of the Affidavit to hold to . ,bail, or of imposition upon the Court by , abuse of its process of Tort or Coverture of the,Dea fendant, or. some' such matter; it would, in his opinion, be matter of convenience to lay down that rule now, apd abide by it in future ; for a contrary course was full of evils—it invited the party to commit perjury its order to come out of prison.—lt would impose upon .the Court tasks which it could never perform, that of sifting by Affidavits, through ,the merits of every case wherein- a Defendant was held' to bail, in every case in which the discretion of a Judge had ordered it to be so, upon complicat ed circumstances,. so that if the rule had not been already laid down, - it would be matter of conveni ence, as well as for the furtherance of-justice, to lay it down now.—Why then, the question here was reduced this—was there, in this ease, in the Affidavit upon which the Defendant. was held to bail -by the order of a Learned Judge, such a degree of certainty, as that the person who made that Affidavit might, be convicted of perjury, if what he stated in it was false ? No man should be held to bail unless the-Affidavit contained that certainty and subjected the deponent to that penalty if he swore falsely.— Now this Affidavit was the Affidavit of the Assignee of Imley' the Plaintiff—it stated,- " that the De fendant was .justly and ttuly indebted to the. Plain-, tiff Imley in the sum of 30001. for silver deli vered to the Defendant, for the purpose of his • carrying, and which he undertook to carry, to Gottenherg, and to deliver it there to a certain - person," whiCh the Affidavit averred he had not H thine. Certainly the Affidavit might have been better worded, but if .it conveyed certainty enough to subject to the penalties of perjury the person ' who made it, that should be sufficient. His Lord ship thought such was the case here, and that the party might be indiCted for perjury if the Affidavit was false. Here was stated a contract between the parties, in which one of them was stated to have misconduded himself, and had thereby damnified the other. The amount of that datnnification - was' stated to be 30001. This, his Lordship said, was, in his opinion, stating an injury with sufficient dis tindness to entitle the party suffering it, to hold the party - causing it to bail. His Lordship said also, that, in his opinion, .the Court could not look into any of the extrinsic circumstances of the Case, they must he reserved for trial before the proper Tri bunal ; for these reasons, he was clearly of opinion that this Rule ,ought to be discharged. • The other Judges were of the same opinion, and therefore the Rule was discharged. • Mr. ERSK INE said, it was stated to hirtuhat the Plaintiff in this Adtion was dead. The Court said, that if so, there could be no -doubt the party who made the Affidavit on which the, Defendant was held to"bail, might be indided for perjury. application made on behalf of Mr. Hunter, one of the Chief Clerks in the Navy Office. It was stated that the. Defendant had had access to the books in the Office,' and that he had availedhirn. self of the opportunity which he had, by such ac - .. cess, to - make out,a false Muster, in consequence of which, a representation was made by Mr. Hunter. to the . Board ; upon which the Defendant Wrote' a letter to Mr., Hunter,- complaining of his con• duel. in the representation he made, of which Mr. Hunter took no notice ; in consequence of which . the Defendant sent to him another letter, in which,: among_Other things, he called him a Liar, a - Rascal, and a,CoWard, and ,that. he would post him up as such , among his friends.—Rule to. shew Cause granted. A person was charged with a Criminal Informal. tion for assaulting an Officer of the Revenue in the due execution of his duty, and rescuing a quantity of Spirits, - &c. To be tried at the next Assizes for the countY.of 'Kent. • DIED. • In Dublin, Hamilton Gorges, Esq. Representative in Par. liament for the County of Meath. PRICE O, sATU Bank Stock Navy sper Cent. shut ; per Cent. 1797, t050,- I rish 5 per Cent. 4 per Cent. Con. 94 89i 90 per Cent. Red. 74; 3 per Cent. Con. shut Ditto Scrip Bank L. Inn. 4t I-16 3-16 Ditto Short Ann. 5 Ditto Scrip ' N' STOCKS, RDA Y. India Stock ExCiteq. l3ifls Ts. 2S. prat). Fundable ditto prem. '3d Exchequer Bills prem. New S. S. Stock Oinnittin Qk Imper.- 3 per Ccnt. Ditto AIM. 12 3-16 Y i3ank for opening India for opening Consols for opening 75111 To THOMAS TA (I,OR,'Esq. • Dear Sir, . No. 9, New Bridge- . Street, London , I FEEL it a Duty incumbent upon me, to inforri l l you of the very great and extraordinary Cure 1 have re ceived from your invaluable Medicine, LE AK E 's PATEN , - P I L LS. • About two years ago, I was attacked with a VENEREAL ,DISORDER, whichl treated rattier slightly for some tittle , but the Disease at length spreading all over toy body, I was obliged to apply to the most eminent of the Faculty, 6° e : their assistance afforded only temporary relief : I wen; through various Courses of Salivation, and from being rattle' of a,corpulent habit, was reduced to a mere skelet on . Th ° • Ulcers that speead all over My Limbs rendered me a Coln" Wete•Object, so that my Friends. despaired o f my rec ; o verY . • hen brought to this situation, I considered death as inev i ; table, hut a relation of mine commenting upon the many Cases in which your Pills had succeeded, I ,was induced t°, try a'Box of theist, which I thought rather relieved me, a 7. by persevering for two or three months, and tbl lowing Y°"" direetions, I experienced the most unaccountable relaxation from - pain, the sores gradually subsiding ; I am now, 0;0 126 God, perfeCtly recovered, and walking out daily: I doubt not, but one more box, which I think cautious to take, o." establish my health in its original- state— It is with the most heart-felt gratitude,. that I subscrib e myself; Sir, your - Much obliged'humble Servant,' Deansgate, ' Manchester, July r, 'Sot. W. PEA RSti" P. S. For the public benefit, I do not object to "the abo v,., ,being published, but leave you to act:as your own bett e ' judgment shall-di date. Prepared and Sold by the sole Proprietor, • Tl.lO S TAYLOR, Member of the Royal College of Surgootts, London, at his House, No. 9, New 13ridge-street ; • 'Where, after a 'constant 'residence of more than Thirty- 5 1 Years,, in. a "praCtice particularly directed to the Cure O f Venereal Complaints, and'those incidental to the Parrs ° • Generation in both Sexes, with that inviolable secr ecy o which Men . of his Professiou should always observe , flatters himself, the advice and assistance he gratuitot!r e ly admifiisters to Persons taking this Medjoine, • esteemed by. a-discerning Public, as an advantage to be obtained, and voiltolzinbiguity. Also sold, by his Appointment, for the convenience ° J ! those living at a distance; at the Perfumer's, No. 35-, St• . A ban's-street, Pall Mall; the Toyshop, No. 103, Oxt`„ )r ,` : street ; Mr. Disborough's, No. 7, Fish-street-hill; Steel's, BoOkseller, No. 1, Union-row, Little T o wer-hi"; Mr. 'Baxter's South-bridge, Edinburgh ; M r . Callwell'bs, Dublin; Mr!Billingets, Liverpool ; pit; Atkinson's,,M a % Chester ; and by one Person-in every considerable ,To‘v°. l ,, Great Britain and Ireland, in, Boxes of only 23, 9d. ea'" o i sealed .up with full and plain directions, whereby person s _ j either sex may cure themselves with ease, speed, secrecY, safety. N. B. Every BOx sold in.Great'Britain 'is sealed up a stamp, on which, by favour of the Counni#soners, is P. ed, at the Stamp-office, " T. Taylor,. No, 9, Ne‘y B rim street," to imitate which is Felony,. and a Bothers are coun terfeit. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. Mr. J A R vls moved for leave to file a Criminal Information against a person whose mime, as we heard it, was William Hay don. This was an • LONDON : Printed by 1311CIIANAN Wi4111.1.,AN, (of liow-Street, Covent-Garden); and Published by WILL: Am Aam ;c tit Sea ri , rs, (of Horse-ferry-road, Wust - .llinstpr); At the'SuN.O - FFicz, No. 1 12, Strand ; where Advertisements, Orders for th 6 Paper, Letters for ,the Editor, &c. (post-paid), must be addressed, STATE LOTTERY OFFICE, No. 16, CORNHILL. , The very extraordinary success that the Public met with by purchasing their Tickets and Shares at, the above Office, was of that _magnitude in the last English Lottery, that upwards of One Hundred and. Fifty different persons in Clubs gna Individuals re. 'ceived shares of Capital Prizes,, from 20,0001. to zoool. The particulars are insert?d in the Schemes, At Iarge.—TICKETS and SHARES for the present Lottery that begins drawing the zd of August,'(ia 'which are only 2+,000 Tickets) are selling on the• lowest terms. All Shares sold at this Office are stamp' pursuant. to Aa, of Parliament, :,nd are signed by the Public's mos; obedient humble Servant, , WM. NICHOLSON. Nothing can be more gratifying to the crierotis' mind, than-. to. sec merit distinguished af.d e ;Con raged.—The New -Panorama, in the Haymarkgr) : seems to gain the admiration of all -ranks of sieeta tors ; it 'exhibits a strntly correa view of the City of Paris and Environs, taken from the North Tower of the Church of Notre Dame,, a buildi ng o f . great . height,, commanding an extensive and beaniititl prosped. . The Painting is executed in' a very masterly style, and is, confessedly, a great chef d'oeuvre of art and ingenuity. Oil ascending the platform,, the coup d'cuil is forcibly grand and striking, and -the beauty of the perspective arrests. the eve-in every direftion. The View of a Me tropolis of a Country 'which haS unkrgone so tre mendous a revolution, and witnessed the most hor rid scenes of anarchy and bloodshed; during so long a „period, render it attraaive to an extent which few entertainments can boast. SHIP NEWS. .YARMOUTH, JUNE 25. Arrived—the Tames, Carter, from Rotterdam ; Commerce, Mansfield ; Dove, Horn, and Charlotte, Y ox l ey , f rom Lon don ; and General Hutchinson, Thopas, from Cork. Sailed—.the Isabella, Stoker; Ann, Carson, and Hannah, ivlarshall, for London ; Joseph, Boulter, for Chistiana Betsy,' ;Capp, • for Archangel.; William, Crimes, and Tiber, Willcock, tor Pillau and ylary, Hurdle, for Cadiz. GRAVESEND,„ JUNE 25. - Passed by—the Ann, Stewart, from, 13engal ; .Cygneto Jones, from Cork ; Fame, Conway, from Belfast ; 142.40-4- Watts, from' Dantzic ; Diana, Purcell,- from Dublin ; Iu f,om Memel; Susaa and Pail from Havre ; Vrow Harmony; from Dori • Brunswic k, Shaw ; 'Nord, Creig; 'lora, Ritchie, and Alonzo, Ford' front Jamaica. c Sailed—the Calypso, Stockman, for Rotterdam ; and jonge Engelina, Vile, ,for St. Vallery.