The Sun. — London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

..Iv 4 / 4 .10:v • ~:.\ . i , I,, d f !nil V,i * eel:4r-) ~s‘t, -, - . 1',.. ~ .{, , 7 • *. A'#7 . s; -- Evz 0 ',V....4'. '.• ~.,-: T. , ,1.1 a'2:r - ! li) `l.;'-Y , s :, , , ,,!i L: ''''`B , '? --1,*,5 %. , 4,V,JT -,,_ - =,•-s- ' . . . ! - • , ~ - - - --Atli 4 Ttiq - - '7i.,-- ti;-•• . "1" , .. .- • lA' : ', AAA; ~ , , d •,,i 4e-- -- # 1 •,, .\, '. gi SUN. di .~ Vt-Z o .llo*f neluding to F°r t Ler,. All / z aitt-i te ~nesda9• ing, a nd Ito wh ich his 3 1 v uch occs, pros' by 31161 cara r re c 6 :, P to a cas e t hat to 6' h°nla enter kno ll ebatbc f her )t 6011121 t lke on the 1,3111 , tur f foot ion t.) or s oin ' j.b3r t° 4 ,r ..rt Cab a ot 3 59tH the t ile ken t° brnie r. r e 15 IC° I „ . a1 t(7 l *Jed 0-1 n'ales on, the , I o▪ e v " l e . • Cas t , She 3 '; eCe s S lrd for t tilc e ;oat Ile' the dY 1)1 o 1 '''' 9 Y ----''.'. Ih ilaide vnt, $ f pen• n es? y oeorg e ood'' tree lied I " l°'it: ..---------- Teel rriittYl; 2 e tn o od, jer' is()ril r. the the I. 1 7' NUMBER 9426. This Day was published, price ss. ip boards, Volume the Second, of • VILLAGE 'PREACHER; a Collec -1'41.4 :';'n la Short, ?lain SERMONS, partly original and. 13;; e ,'Ved, and adapted for Villago instruction. , `-',LERGYMAN of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. ' 4 41• a .e „m,for P. C. and J. Rivington, t;2, St. Paul's Church ; Waterloo-place, Pall-malt. - Of whom may be had, Thesecond Edition of Volume First, price ss. E DITION OF BISHOP MANT'S FAMILY COM MON PRAYER BOOK. • • D A. This Day was published, e at ed 1)46,—, by permission, to the Most Rev. the Lord Arch 4iid ,) of Canterbury, 'Mee 11. 16s. in board! on Medium, Ir",,, i ' 12 s. on Royal Paper ; the Second Edition, of P ir - N ., B OOK of COMMON PRAYER, with : 1 13r-/I'Es Explanatory, Practleal, arrd Historical, froni ' F rt i ,, , ; ( t :Writer s of the . Church of England, selected and 33 Y the Right Reverend. RICHARD MANT, D.D. , xf „ Lord Bishop of Rillaloe. 1, s l':d : Pri nte d for .1. Parker and F. C.' and J. Riving. 4 4 s „,'",,' Paul' s Ch urc h Yard, and Waterloo Placa, London ; ‘. , i4b7 all B oo k se ll ers i n ' Town and Country. ▪ tr,. 4 ois W or k m a y st i ll b e h a d i n P ar t s ; f or th e C o nre. a t tts:en°_f. P urchasers; on Medium Paper, at 4s. and Royal, • s " Part, To MESSRS. BROWELL AND CO. London, October 8, 182'2. k i t O CTOBER LAST, I had a Fore Sail, ", "opmast Stay Sail, Maintop-gallant Sail, Jib ? and ,4yl„ Prepared with your Process, for the, Ship Simon p4i' c ' a nliself Master, since which I have been a Voyage . to 1,,,1.,And back, and they are now perfectly free from Mil t,1(11 h have heretofore found so prejudicial to Canvas, gat / 4 . SO Well satisfied with the efficacy of your Process, 'end to have all my i'ew Sails prepared In future. HENRY MEEK. • 1171 1.1 1, 130 W WELCH'S FEMALE PILLS tter, nt ave obtained the sanction and approbation of Gen iedicit,-,,1 the Medical. Profession, saf6 and valuable t r i,''' , lVe r ? removing Obstructions, and relieving other w h .: c oeei to which the female frame is liable, especially c ri , ri t of e el ' at an early period of life frequently arise , f7a, titznxercise; and general debility of 'the system. ! hey t a PPetite, correct indigestion, remove giddiness and t (- 4, ( l . er s, ache, and are eminently tiseftil in windy die ' lok s ` Pa nis in the stomach shortness of breath, and palpi- Piir', ll 4f the heart. t ,bet w , as .ers are requested to remark, that, RS a testimony of „i"tY, each Bill of .Directions is signed with the , t , r. 'tin t! S 'id d Retail, in London, by Wright, , I l i t.)l i: G rlti r' s let- st w ree ' 7 l ; cs l a l l :rc a l n ay and ' Sons, Fleet Market ; New ht v. "s, St. Paul's Churoh Yard Sutton and Co. Bow . San,ger, 350, O L x a ft i ) l its s t ni re i e t t h , fit or a p ; oslt n e h d n : a lit fil . st rtet and Son, Long Cheapsido: Godfrey 4t ho ; Butler and Sons; ,„'• 3d 1,4 u ts hnsgate-street . andhy all CountryVeliders, tit.e°esxs.ary to inform in the pu . blic that KBARSLEY'S Anted cin M, ginal and genue Medicine, and has been pre "W for more than thirty years. SECOND DAY of DAY NEXT, the STATE OF 'I DRAWING, TUES. 12th INSTANT. • , 'HE WHEEL. 3 2 9 8 TICKETS nod SHARES, Watranted Undrawn, continue on Sale by RICHARDSON,• GOOPLUCK, and Co. at their Office, No. 104, BANK BUILDINGS. CORNHILL. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9, . 1822• LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8. THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE. Mr. WETHERELL resumed at ten o'clock, and concluded Rt twelve. Mr. SHAnWELL followed on the rt. nie side, and spoke for two hours. Mr. BEST spoke also on the same side until the rising of the Court, at half-past two. [As the same reason which induced us yesterday to withhold the details of this very delicate case still olienites.with the same force, we continue to suppress statements that are purely ex parte.] VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. G. THE.EARL UOIVE V. BERRI MAN. • SKIRROW, on the part of the plaintiff, moved that th e defendant, Thomas Bert:imp, might be. cOmmitted_So Lhe,Fieet. Prison fora coutempt of Court: The Learned Counsel stated that the defendant haring been . guilty of a contempt by'not., putting hi an answer to the plaintiff's bill, was in consequence arrested by an officer of the Court. He contrived, however, to escape from custody, anti on the frith of October, whilst he was at-liberty, he put inhis answer, which was accepted by the plain tiff. He had subsequently been recaptured by the officer, and was now in his custody. The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that it was a question whether the officer was justified as making a reception of the defendant ; because a defendant in custody was entitled to be discharge as soon as his answer was accepted by the . plaintiff. He was disposed 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 inquire whether a similar case to the present had ever before occurred, and to state what conduct the Court pursued upon such. an occasion. In the mean time the defendant must remain in custody. Ho • 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 for that purpose. This, he advised the defend ant's counsel to make, upon giving notice to the plaintiff... The officer hadheen put to considerable expence by the re-caption, which would not have happened,.. if 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. LATHAM, Counsel fur the defendant, applied for the costs of the application. The VICE-CTIANCELLOR said he wolddrollsider the ques tion. He did not, however, feel disposed to give ..costs to - -the defendant, who had committed so gross a contempt of Court. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, Nov. a. THE KIN() V. THE REV'. W. J. JDLLIFFE. Mr. Serjeant PELL applied for a rule to show cause, why there 'should not be a new trial in this 'case, which was a quo warranto information, calling upon the deferplant, who is the Mayor'of Petersfield, to show by what authority he clainis that . office, the verdict having been for the defendant, or if the Court should think that there ought not to be a new trial, then that judgment might be' entered for the Crown, non &Wank vere dicto, or that the facts proved at the trial might be formed into a special verdict. Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—We cannot, I believe, direct a special verdict. Mr. Serjeant PELL.—The Learned Judge, before whom the case was tried, thought it was a case of that nature that it ought to be reduced into a special verdict, if either party wished it, that they might carry it further. Mr. Justice BaNi,EY.—lf that was agreed to, you may have your special verdict under that agreement. Mr. Serjeant PELL—Yes, my Lord —.Then the principal questions for your Lordship's consideration will be—a new trial—or judgment for the Crown, notwithstanding the verdict. The princil issue in this case related to the mode of consti tuting the beet Jury. The form of the issue was, that the Jury were nominated by the Steward instead of the Bailiff, with a rejoinder that, from time immemorial the Steward has been-used to nominate, and upon that, issue was taken. The finding of the Jury was, that he had. The evidence consisted in substance , in this : that during the last twenty years, the Steward of the Lord of the Manor, Mr. Joliffe, had been in the habit of issuing a precept to the Bailiff of the Borough, directing him to warn all the inhabitants to attend the Court Leet, and of adding at the foot of that summons, the names of such persons as he, the Steward, thought fit to appoint on the Jury. Now, my Lord, in the - course of the evi dence on the part of the defendant, there was not a single witness who spoke to any thing prior to the last twenty years, nor was there a single document, not a present ment, or a single rap of paper,. antecedent to that period, The Steward was in Court, but the defendant did not call him as a witness, nor did he call a single witness to speak even to the reputation in the place as to this supposed custom, lout the case rested altogether upon instance!: of the usage of the Steward within the last 20 years. I contended that such evidence was not sufficient to warrant the Jury in presuming the immemo rial existence of this practise, and that it required no proof from me in answer to it;—that it was wholly insufficient to support. the custom. It was stated by the Learned Judge who tried the cause, tifat slight proof unanswered amounts to cogent proof. Admitting the force of that proposition in many cases, I denied it, or took the liberty of , denying it, in the case then trying, as it appeared to me to involve almost a contradiction, or at least an absurdity in it; for that principle, when carried to the utmost extent, would go . the length of saying that one single instance of usage, even in the year antecedent to that in which the point was tried, would, if it was unanswered, be evidence of a custom. I -thought in a case of this kind, the Steward being in Court, and there being documents, as we must suppose there were, that something beyond the slight evidence, which the defendant thought proper to lay before the Court, should have been adduced, but for some reason or other he chose to content himself with it. My Lords, I - apprehend that this was not sufficient to authorise such a direction. as there was to the Jury ; and it was upon that direction that they found their verdict. It was distinctly stated by the Learned Judge, ".1 recommend you to hnd this verdict, because there being such evidence as this,: and this not being answered, it must be taken as full proof of the fact ;" but it appeared to me that the nature of the custom is such, it is so ,unreasonable andso monstrous, that it would require something more than one or two instances to make it out. Therefore, the first point is, that there was not evidence sufficient to support the cus tom set out upon the record. Then comes the legal question, which is this, whether there can be such a custom ? That is a ques tion upon which the opinion of your Lordships would be taken with reference to the other form in which I make this motion— that judgment should be entered for the Crown, notwithstand ing the verdict for the defendant. It appears to me a monstrous proposition to contend, that in a place like this one individual, the Lord of the Manor, possessing considerable property, as it was - stated on the trial that he does, should through the me dium of his Steward have the power of nominating those very persons. Mr. JuStice BAYLEY.—Who should do it ? Mr. Serjeant PELL.,L-The ' Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The Bailiff is a man of less relon sibility, because if the Steward is guilty of mal-practices—if he corruptly and partially nominates a Jury, he is liable to a criminal information. Mr. Serjeant PELL.—Undoubtedly he is ; but the way in which it struck me on the trial, .and.the way in which it strikes me now is this—that the Bailiff is the proper authority, through whose medium the Jury ought to be returned; that independ ently of any custom or usage, the 13ailiff would be the person, uninfluenced by any party, to make that return. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—IS it genera ll y so? In the case of a county, the Sheriff nominates the Grand Jury,—he issues his precept to the Bailiff directing him to summon such and s u ch persons upon the Grand Jury. Mr. Serjeant PELL.—Yes, my Lord, but the Sheriff is not the Judge of the Court in which the Grand The Jury serve. The .Steward is the Judge of the Court Led. point, I appre hend, is of such a description Isdeserves consideration—whether such a custom can legally exist. Th is election is an election of a peculiar description, and it must be vi ewed with reference to the supposed right to be derived under it, and that right ALL THE CAPITALS IN THE WHEEL! . . T and ESIITEWRIGHT inform their Friends . and the Public, that NONE of the. GREAT CAPI - WERE DRAWN the FIRST DAY, and that the Wheel is now Very Rich, as it contains One Hundred and Fourteen Capitals, as under; the whole are Floating, and -may be Drawn on TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER; • - THREE PRIZES . of £20,000! 2. . o f:... £lO,OOO I Tof 4:500 9 . 5,000 119 3OO 3 ...... 1,000 1 Tickets and -SilftiCs 01'w - tit 3. and 3. SIVEWRIGIITS' 0 S 7, Cornbill ; , 1-I.,lbukn ; mted indrawn) are 'Selling at fliers, 1313, Haymarket, . Corner of Coventry-street. PERUVIAN.-PRIZE LAW. The following Decree relative to vessels cap tured or detained has been published by the Go vernment of Peru :-- • 1. All cases of judicature respecting prizes, will be decided definitively in three appeals. 2. Causes of this nature will - take place" in the following cases : If any vessel is found navigating in the seas comprehended within the limits' of the state, without the necessary licenses or documents, or with false ones: If neutral or friendly vessels should be found conveying to the territory occupied by the enemy warlike stores : If they should force the blockade declared by the decree - of the 15th of Octobei, 1821, ,and others that may be published subsequently to it If they would convey to the enemy any property that may be long to them : under all these cases they will certainly be de- tained. 3. FrieridlT or neutral vessels found with illegal merchan . dize on board will be detained, or should they be surprised transacting business in prohibited ports ; but those cases relat ing to smuggling will be adjudged by the President of the de partment. . 4. Reipecting . prize judgments, the Director of Marine will first give his opinion, consulting at the same time his auditor. 5. All vessels detained Must be carried to the port of Callao, where the cause why they are-detained will be Shown. - 6. As soon as the detained vessel arrives at Callao, the captor will present to the Director of Marine the papers he may have . found on board, or those which the captain or supercargo may have presented him, with to account of all that may haVe taken place, and a list of the persons on board. . 7. In order that the papers found on board may be duly le.; galized, the captor, in the act of detaining the vessel, will take an account of them himself, or by the person he may appoint, accompanied by the captain or supercargo, who ought to sign the statement made out by them,. in order that by those docu ments only, and without admitting others afterwards, the ves sel shall be adjudged, and an authorized copy of those proceed •ings will be given them. 3. If the captor should suspect that the papers presented by, the captain or supercmo of the vessel that he intends detaining are false, he will compare theM by those given by the different' states to their subjects, of which lie ought to have a copy,given_ him by the Director-General of Marine. . 9. These paperS being received, as well as all relating to • them, by the Director General, he will then order the plead- lugs to commence, • 10. Having•summoned the captain or supercargo of the yes- . sel detained, , the examination of the paperi:will Commence with their declarations, as' well as those of the 'captors, and likewise the examination of all those whose testimony may be thought necessary, or who may be able to throw any light on the subject. 11. No other papers but those designated in 6th and 7th article will be admitted. If the captain or supercargo of the detained vessel should offer to prove, either that they would not receive them from him or that they were lost •by unavoid able accident, the justification will be admitted within a short and fixed term, 12. The cause being ended., the Director-General or Marine will declare, if there are sufficient grounds for the detention of the vessel or not, according to justice and the ,pleadings. 13. This Act leaves both parties at liberty to appeal. 14. An appeal from the captor, without first giving securities for the damages and expences, will not be attended to. 15. The detained vessel will be set at liberty, without ex pence, if her detention be declared unjust, and if the captor should not appeal. 16. In a contrary case, the vessel will continue until the determination of the High Court of Justice. The same will be done when, there may be an appeal on the part of the detained. 17, If, whilst the pleading should be going on, it may be thought or feared that the goods or merchandise in the detained vessel might suffer a total loss, or great detriment, the Director General will resolve whether it be proper or not to proceed to discharge the vessel. .18. Should it be deemed necessary to discharge the vessel detained, the hatches will be opened in the presence of a com missioner appointed by the Director-General, and the captain or supercargo, an exact inventory of the goods discharged, will be taken, they ,will be depOsited in warehouses, and a key given to the said captain or supercargo. 19. If the sale of part of the goods should be thought neces shry, it will be effected by public auction, or by means of Com missioners, according as the Captain or Supercargo of the de tained vessels may determine. 20. The pleadings from the High Court of Justiciary having been returned, the Director-General will execute its resolution to liberate or to detain the vessel. _ 21,. When detained, a' copy of the proceedings will be given to the captor, the party detained, and the Fiscal of Marine; the same shall then he received, the decision for justification being suspended for the express term of fifteen days, and with all charges. 22. At the expiration of this term, the Director-General will declare the detained vessel a good or an unlawful prize. 23. This sentence will - be, in both instances, subject to appeal. 24. The appeal being presented, it will be substantiated and resolved, in the second prosecution, by a memorial from both parties. 25. The same order will be observed in the substantiation, and termination in the third, if judgment upon the sentence pronounced should be prayed for. • 26. These prosecutions being finished, the process will be re turned to the Director-Genejal of Marine, for him to execute what is already decreed. 27. The vessel being declared a lawful prize, the discharging of her will commence, comparing the goods landed with the bills of lading, invoice, and the inventory 'taken when the vessel was detained, to prevent the least irregularity or disorder. 28. The cargo will be disposed of as the Supreme Authority may order. ' 29. If the vessel should be declared free, she will be deli vered immediately to her, Captain, or owners, with her officers and crew, and whatever there may be belonging to them ; they will be exempted from all duties, and will be furnished with the necessary license to continue their voyage without any other detention. 30. The captor will have to pay the expences in cases of no: tarious injustice in the detention. • t Given at the Palace of the Supreme Government. (Signed) TORRE TA.GLE. By order of the Minister of State, B. MONTEAGLTDO. Lima, 29th April, ,1822. is, the right of nominating and appointing a Returning Of ficer. Lord Justice ABBOTT.—The election of a Mayor. There was a Leet Jury in former times. • When called together; they are called together to discharge all the functions of a LeetJury, • whether by.law or custom whatever they maybe. Mr. Justice Bayt.Ey.—Had you an inspection of all the Court Rolls and Documents before the trial ? Serjeant PELL.—No, my Lord. • Lord Chief-Justice ABBOTT.—The Court-roll will n ot shew you how the Jury were got together. Mr. Serjeant Ptu..—There seemed to be' in Court a very great magazine of documents of some kind or other. Lord Chief-Justice ABBOTT.—AII of which you might have had an inspection of. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Mightopot you have applied for that before the trial ? Mr. Serjeant PE I. r...—Undoubtedly, my Lord ' • but the point, as it strikes me, is this—is that a principle to be brought into action generally which was brought into, action on this occa sion ; that slight evidence unanswered, is such cogent proof, as that the Learned Judge would feel hirnself.authorised to say to the Jury—Upon that species of evidence unanswered, you ought to find such a verdict. . - Lord Chief—Tustice ABBOTT.—"Ought"—you said before he recommended'them r.The alteration of a word makes_ a great difference. . Mr. Scrjeant PEr.L.—" I recommend you." It appears to be a very strong propoiition. What is it the parties, are con testing !—a custom—of which there mast be much better evi. deuce beyond all gue§tion,•if ever such a custom existed. I am told .that the words were still stronger than that " I am of opi nion you ought to find." It disarms one of addressing argu ments, because juries will always pay attention to the direc tions of the Judge, particularly in a case of this description, which is a mixed case of law and fact. Evidence of this singu-. lar description, if_pushed to the utmost extremity— . Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—You may push it to 'the ut , most extremity on the other side, and say, if tiventy years will not do, wily will forty ? Mr. Serjeant PELL.,--But supposing there is only one in stance, and that, the antecedent year.—Common sense revolts at it. Lord Chief Justice ABBOT T.—We must not take extremes on.either side.' • Serjeent PEtt.—ln a possessory action twenty years would have done very well; but the Rule is very did'erent in a case of custom. No old person was called to speak to the cus tom which is the first thing - one expects. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—[lave you looktd.into Greenwood on Courts beet as to who in general nominates the Jury ? ' Mr. Serjeant PELL.—The Bailiff generally. Mr. Justice BAILEY.--He summons ; but who nominates.? Mr. Serjeant PE L L.---YThat . does not appear. - Mr. Justice BAYLEy.—You would see whether it was part of the language_ of the precept. If it be his duty to nominate, it would be part of the precept Mr.GASELEC,---It is part of the precept. • Your Lordships had a great many authorities frOm Mr. Warren when this quo warrant° was moved fbr : There is the Ring v. Bingham, where a rule was granted. In that case, the Office of the bailiff . of a Court-leet was thought a fit subject for a quo ecarranto in forniation, because he was a prescriptive officer, and authorised to nominate and select the Jury. 31r. Justice BEST.—In many places there are bailiffs who nominate Juries. - Mr. Serjeant PELT.--I will not undertake to say how that is : I rest upon eneral authority and principle- Here is— Lord Chief Justice A nnoTT.—The effect of the evidence will always be considered. As to the queStion, Whether it is the Bailiff or the Steward, prima facie, -spars to be a matter of indifference, and you have now the fact that for twenty years the Steward has done it. • Mr. Serjeant PELL.—In this place, it is a question of very great importance. •• Mr, Justice BAY LEY.—If the Steward is the Judge of the • Court, that may be a reason why ue should not be the. person to nominate the Jury. Mr. Serjeant PE LL.—At this Court there is little or nothing done but this election. Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.—tot now, but a Court Loot once did, and still may ilo, a great deal more. Mr. Serjeant •YELL.—And therefore„ I thought the case opened a fair mode of proof, for that there must have been re cords over and over again to show the authority of the person who presided at this Court Lect, but nothing I.y.it modern in. stances were produced. Lord Chief Justice ApnoTT.-.:-Well, take the rule both ways. I think they had better come on together—that will give an opportunity of seeing the pleadings, anl discussing the prin. cipal question. The pleadings may have, some weight as to the sufficiency of the evidence.—Rules granted accordingly. HOFFMAN V. HEYMAN. Mr. 3IARRYAT moved for a rule to show cause why the ver dictior the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. This was an action on a contract for the sale by the plaintiffs to the defendant of 641 hogsheads of tobacco, the cargo of the ship Ulysses, under the foliowing terms :—" Bought of Messrs. Hoffman, the cargo of the ship Ulysses, 641 hogs heads of tobacco, bound fgr Bremen, payable one-fifth on the sth of October next, and for the rest the sellers are to look to their correspondents, tl :.ssrs. Delius, to whom the cargo is consigned ; interest at two and three months from final de livery ; the buyeirs to have the benefit of the seller's policies." The whole price of the tobacco was something more than 13,0001. ; one-fifth of which, :1,7001., was paid according . to the contract. The whole of the tobacco arrived in due course at 13remen, but, in consequence of a fall in the price of the coin- Modity, a loss of two-fifths arose on the stipulated sum. The plabstiffs had received from Messrs. Delius all the proceeds of the cargo, in addition to the 3,7001. paid down ; but they broughtfleir action torecover the balance e, the price and inte rest, amounting to somewhat more than 4,3001., which the Jury gave them by their verdict. Now lie (Mr. Marryat) contended, that the true import of the contract 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 tbe funds in the hands of Messrs. Delius, and to those alone, for further satisfaction of their claim ; and • if these sunk below the remaining four.fifths, they must bear the intermediate loss. lie submitted that the proviso respect. ing payment of interest and the benefit of the policies could not, if fairly considered, alter the meaning of the bargain. The Co tun , 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 loss. 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 be fore 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 show 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 5.5 Geo. lir. c. 137, sec. 8, which provides that " no churchwaiden or overseer of the poor, or other person in whose hands the collec tion of the rates for the relief of the poor, or till) 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 in any parish for which he shall he appointed" under the penalty of lOW. The 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 the7Solicitor-General nqw sought to set aside, on the ground that Mr. Dodd was not a governor of the moor under the fair construction of the local Acts for the direction of the paris4 funds, but only a vestry man, lie had, ,indeed, qualified, which he was forced to do, in order to be - a member of the vestry; lint he had never acted as a governor ; 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 i)y governors of the poor, but by members of the vestry. At all events, the judgment ought to be arrested, be cause the Act applied only to the providing for the maintenance of the poor in the-parish, and the workhouse of Bethnal-green was situated without its boundaries. " • T.he c.otixT iotimated that the objection to the record, aris ing from-the local situation of the workhouse, was quite unten able ; but granted .a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial, on the doubt suggested respecting the official character of the defendant. HEMMING Y. iinLstY. _ _ Mr. CHITTY moved fora rule to show cause why the ver dict for the defcndantin this case should not be- set aside and a new trial granted. It was an action for penalties, on the sta. PRICE SEVEN rEkz. tute of Anne, respecting the preservation. of f •gaine, containing: two counts fox using engines, and one count for eiposing.a hare to sale. It appeared in evidence, that the' defendant, who was watched by two gamekeepers, was repeatedly &len 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, but it was distinctly shown that his master had no qualification ..to kill game. The Learned Judge before whom the case was tried (Mr., Justice I'ar4 told the Jury, that if they believed - the defendant took the pine to carry it home to his master, they -should find. their verdict in his favour ' and referred .to the , case of.. " Warneford . 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 possgssion-as would bring him within the - legal construction of the "words " exposing' to sale," becauie he 'derived his authority from" ,a qualified person ;. hut here tii4 Master himself was not qua lified, and could bestow no power which lie did, not possess.— The cases, therefore, were essentially different, and .the . direc tion of the Learned Judge erroneous.—The Court granted * rule to spew cause. 'THE KING V. WADDINGTON. The defendant, who wal lately convicted of :put:Eat:ay; a blasvhemous libel, presentee himself at the rising of the „Court, to address: the Judges. The LORD Catur Jus,TtcE—We cannOthear you•now. • Waddington--Another time won't do; be wo- late. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—What do you move for ? Waddington—A new trial. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—YOU, will not be too late; you must move another day.. • - The Judges thou lett the laench, and Waddington assuming airs of high importance, walked off with his brief under his arm. COURT OF COMMON .PLEAS, Nov. B. i HOGGART V. VERI;ER AND CRAWFORD, ESQ. • This was an action to recover. the amount of an auctioneer's bill, for endeavouring to effect a sale of an estate of which 'the defendants were trustees. The estate was not actually sold by the plaintif, and it was therefore contended he was not entitled to a demand excwding one-half per .cent,_ the plaintiff's claim being 11 per cent. The Jury had given a verdict for the tiff for the smaller sum only. Mr. .Serjeast PELL..now moved to set it aside, 'as being against the weight of evidence ; •but The CO URT thought ita fit question fOr the decision of. Jury, and therefore refused the rule." • - " • . • PAL MEI:. V; BLACKBURN AND OTHERS, This was an action on a policy of • insurance, 'end was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury at the London Sittings after Last Trinity Term.. The Jury had given a ver dict-for theplaintif'as for a total loss, 'subject toe motion fo duce it to general average only. Mr. &want 'BOaIe•XQUET now moved, according to the re servation at the trial, that this verdict should be set aside and a nonsuit entered or the verdict redaced, or a'tieW trial granted, as the Court should think fit. . This- was an open po' . .i.ey of. inner , ance, and the shiphad been lost whileon her homeward voyage. The defendant contended, that on iliendjitstment of an open po hey, the pilotage, light dueS, See. - 'should be deducted from the demand of the assured, for otherwise a door would be opened to fraud, by giving the assured a greathr benefit by the loss 'than by the safe arrival of his vessel The policy was a mere con tract of indeninitr under. which the assured was to be plated in the same situation as lie would have been had the ship arrived safely ; but - this mode would - put him in a better situation than if he had received the freight insured from the consignees. Lord Chief Justice Dar,Lts-,1 have no hesitation in saying that the preponderating weight of evidence was decidedly in favour of the plaintiff, by sliming the mode of, adjustment in this case was that generally adopted', I requested the Jury, (composed.of Gentlemen of great experience as merchants-and underwriters) to. say whether they thought the usage Wtry by the' plaintiff was 'so general that - the parties contracting roust be taken to have-had fall knowledge of:if ? On this they had no doubt whatever ; and therefore, if i this.verclici is .attgrapted fo be set aside as agaihst evidence, I certainly must say there is no foundation for such a motion. As to the legality Or the custom, the defendant 'has .not produced any evidence or-au thority to impugn it. 1 shall not, however, express any opi nion on that point, as I reserved it that the judgment of my brothers on the Bench might be taken upon it. Mr. Justicb pAnK and Mr. Justice Bohnouoii concurred in opinion with the Chief Justice as to the weight of evidence, and the latter observed that'a case had formerly been argued (Pelly v. Royal - Exchange Assurance, J. Burrow's Reports, 341) in the Court of King's Bench, in order to deprive the as sured of the benefit of the insurance for S total loss, on the ground that the goods insured had been burnt on a bank where they had beeh placed after being taken out of the ship; but the Court there had (after mature deliberation) maintained' the verdict for the plaintiff,hicadse it had been proved at the trial • that it was the geheral usagti of the trade toput' the feciOds on.the bank previous to warehousing them, and they : therefore considered them in the same situation and under the-iaute protection as if actually onboard the Vessel,--Rule refused. CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 8. TIIURLQW V. THURLOW. This, which was a suit calling on the husband for a restora tion of conjugal rights to his wife Maria Thurlow, and had stood over from the last term, in. consequence-of an allegation propouuded by her, in which exceptions were offered to the tq timony on,the other side, and the question now was.whether such exceptions could be admitted after publication P ' After hearing Counsel at great letigthohe Judge (Sir C. Ro pprsorii) then observed, that the Court was here applied to, to call on the husband for a restoration of conjugal rights, and.a re turn to cohabitation with his wife.. NoW in answer to, the Chafges against ber, she had at first confined herself to recrimination. It was a sufficient reason for guarding the husband against any vexatious or dilatory proceedings, that the expences fell wholly upon him. With regard to the proffered alibi, if evidence were to be admitted, it would afford no very satisfactory prospect of coming .to a termination of the cause. It must. however be de cided by the rules observed. in similar instances, and to which he had every disposition to adhere'. The 3th article involved .various particulars as to the lady and her paramour stated as dis tinctly as possible, and which it wasfair to expect would have been met in the counter-plea. If the whole had not been dis-, proved, it might have been partially controverted, taking in; asit necessarily did, a wide series of circumstances. Unless, there fore, it was asserted, that the whole was a fabrication, the party had deserted her own case in not bringing forward the before, nor propounding any interrogatory with relation to it. The difference between the testimony of Lucy Anderson and Elizabeth White seemed to be immaterial, the words on or about falling within the ufurllatitude of expression. Referring to the general practice of that Court, and to the probableissue of the inquiry, if gone into, he felt no hesitation in saying, that the first excepticin was brought forward too late. The sennd, as to the evidence of Carr, he thought likewise fell -within tNe same rule so frequently laid down by his Learned Predeeessar. The witness was, no doubt, liable ,to some suspicion, but Iris 'testimony was consistent with the other parts of the husband's case, and it would be going too great a length to inquire, jute his general character, on the ground of the expressions im puted to him. The same observation applied to the third ex ception, as to the party's residence at Walworth. Her defence was simply an alibi, and under all these circumstances, he felt himself bound to reject the allegation. FONTBLANC V. FONTBL'ANC. On the application of Mrs. Fontblanc's Proctor, who stated that this was a suit of divorce that had been promoted by the lady against her husband, and in which a citation had issued against Mr. Fontblanc, the Court directed the certificate to he continued. The Proctot said, that he believed, in consequence of the interference of, the friends of these parties, thCre was , no present necessity for enforcing Mr. FOntblant's •appearaAiee ; but as the Court seemed disposed to enforce it, his prayer would be, that the certificate might be continued.—Ordered. RINGWOOD, Nov. s.—His Royal Highness.the Duke of GLOUCESTER arrived on Monday even bag at Somerly House, the residetrce of lIENRX BARING, Esq. The Duke, with several dis tinguished sportsmen, has formed. an extensive shooting party, and the abundance of gante on Mr. BA RING'S estate affords them excellent sport. P i.CTUALL/NG-OFFICE, Oct. 31, 1822.. T R 4 CO iiiMISSIO NERS 7'. VICTUAL. LI NG His MAJESTY'S NAVY, 4-e. do hereby give On Friday, the 15th of November next, they re .: re ady to receive Tenders in.writing:(seakd up), and ' ?i ftee n T ons of BUTTER; Thirty Tons of CHEESE; and 4 ? Hundred T ons of MUSCOVADO SUGAR; to be g-"werable to samples (oho: less than two poundeweight . (°4 -) 1 to be produced with the Tenders • hz, be d elivered into his Majesty's Victualling Stores at ` l4- Pl.f or d , 4 % 4i 418 a, for the supply of certain quantities of COO TRAGE • S FORES, . and Toutn-made COOPERS :, ()L S, for Om Service of His Majesty's Cooperage at ,'"t Place. 2. 4° C onditions of the Contracts, which exhibit the quanti ty 6/: k i r " dyTerent articles of Cooperage 'Stores, re. Qr, t e' ' 4741 specify the several periods within which the whole ° b e delivered, 'May be seen at this Office. ,nylchTeMler must specify the Price in Irords at length, 6c delivered before One o'Clock on the day appoi t 4 4,1 6 h 1 17 l' erSon who makes the Tender, or some Person on his 47; Mast attend to answer:when called for. • II TILLER CLIFTON. biAZr,TO' BE SOLD BY,AUCTION at his House, WELLINGTON -STREET, N o 11, LOO BRIDGE, SIItAND, on WEDNESDAY , %her 13, and Nine following Days (Sunday excepted) • A 4l Twelve o'Clock, • .MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTION of BOOKS; rot 6 Among which are bie r --Calmet Dictionnaire de la Bible, 4 torn.; Marti- D• ie t m Dic tiounaire, 9 to.; Moroi Dictionpaire,, 8 tom.; ;°"" Wesselingius, vol.; Herodotns, Wesse .Strgt i ts ; Nlaitland's Scotland, 2 vol.; Stowe's London, by. 2,. Vol.; Rycaut's Turks, 3 vol. ; Kennett:s England , `qtti ' .„,"ondon Gazettes, 24 ;De Bry Nayigatrones, 5 n everidge's Works, 2 vol.; I'ocock's IA 9r155, , 210 1 .; tty i rbera Prot ean] palonornm, 7 val.; Arnald the .' po- It ltlet, a ; 2 "1.; Du Pin's Ecclesiastical Writers, 17 vol.; 4 tts. Gmci, 3 vol. Aldus ; Ciceronis Opera, 4 vol. A - 4 y o l Ln onstrelet Chroniques, 2 vol. ; Topograpbia RAT AR ro.—/Eschylis, a De "Pauw, 2 vol.; Euripides, a 13 4;', r ,, av e, ' 4 v&l. ; T ac it us by Murphy, 4 vol.; Virgilius i a Q!t4: n ni, 4 vol. •, CahnetDissertatiories, 4 vol.; Biblia Pte. 4 v ol.; Fiihlia Laponice, .3 vol. ; stoles 1 3 rol.; De Th ou Hi s t o ire tThiverselle, 16 torn.; Literaire de la France, 12 tout. ; Mallet Danncotarc, i % t li o L Encyclopaedia Britannica, 20 vol.; Lodge's British 2 ro i t Y;, 3 Vol.; Life of Lord Nelson, 2 volt; Coxe's Travels, 4 ton; ; "'On Quixotte (Sp an i s h), 4 vol. ; Obras de Quevedo, tI t. ; Obras de Lope de Vega, 19 tom. ; Obras de,Fejoo, kre l , liej,.•`AVO.—Annual Register, 42 vol.; Annalytical Re. vol. ; B r i t i s h Critic, 45 vol.; Antijacohin, Rev i ew, thi e e it . ; Universal Magazine, .36 vol.; Annales de 1 Acade de (. °Yid, 100 torn.; lEuvres de Voltaire, J 0 tom.; (Eurres de h :1)ill on , 14 torn. ; uvres de Florian, 14 tow.; (Euvres 0;11-4 1 ."e l 8 torn. ; Wat son ' s Th e ological Tract, G vol-. lB Fge t ▪ , 9 i fford% Life of Pitt 6 vol.; Godwin's Life of Chau '`'exl4, Cannleni Annals's a Hearne, 3 vol.; Schleusner t k n 'ith ' s ) ,. 4 of. ; and the Works .r of Addison, Johnson,' Gold -se' &C - 4ock Chandler, Spenser, Shakspeare, Lardner, ' 4 "G . ' f a Lar r Collcction.of ARGiirrEcTuttAl. DRAW- Ve brated Architect. ' l ace we d c , e a e nd Catalogues (price Is.) to be had at the Sle.