The Sun. — London, England, 1817-07-19 00:00:00

STEAM BOATS. The folimi.ing is an At Sttnet of the ~mended by 'the 'Committee, for securing the Safety of Passengers in Vessels worked by means if Steam, trhich was postponed . by the House of Commons for six months, in order that it might ove for consideration till tire ntxt Session 'Pint from and after the first day of September no vessel worked by steam shall be em pl,.'ycd in carrying vassenusts for hire, to or from any i!ort or place in Great Britain, unless such ‘ball have been registered, and a certificate tit sue r% registry shall have (teen obtained from the Collector or Comptroller of his Mztjesty's Cus• tows in the port to or from which such vessel tilti•ll proceed, or the Collector or Comptroller of Muje , tY'r,Ctittotus in LOMfon or Edinburgh. ' That no stich certificate a registly shal lie ranted, unless the person or persons requiring vissel.to be registered, shall hive produced petsait or persons heteinbefore empowered to make such registry, such certificate as herein after is 111e:trim - led, under the hand of an en gineer or other person authoeized as hereinafter directed. That t!.‘e prOper officer at every purr and place -where re:,. 4 isterS and'ecrtiticates shall be granted rursitauce . of this Acr,sholl progressively num ber ihe saute as they shall be severally grAntcd, beginning such progressive numeration at the commencemcnt . .of every year,. and 3ball enter/an exact copy of every such certificate, with. the ttomher thereof, in a book to be kept for that - . purp,se ; and shartalBo • %iithinotte year transmit ei.py to tlieCommis.ioners of this Majesty's Gus totrs Londorr and Edit,burgh, or neglecting so' to do, shall forle:t twenty pounds. Ti , at (lon, and after the hest day of September 1817; the boiler or, boilers belonging. to every steam eitgitie, by which. any Vessel employed in' conveying rt , sengcrs for. hire shall be worked, th,ll. he wholly compOsed of wrought iron or fill per. .• That from and after the same day, every boiler' belonging to a steam engine by which any such vessel as a‘oresaid shall be worked, shall'he two vide.d with twosofficient safety-valves; and one of such valves shall be inaccessible' to the Fl sou or persons employed in attending to such en gine, and the other of such valves shall be acces silde to such person or persons, and also to every (miler person on board such vessel. That every vessel worked or propelled by means steatn, and used carrying lisssengers tor' hire, to or front any poll or place in Great Bri tain, and - every boiler belonging to any. engine by whicir such vessel shall lie propelled or w . Crk- . ea, and the safety-valves•attached thereto, shall once at least in every year be strictly and ac curately inspected and examined by a skilful en gineer or engineers, or other person or persons appointed or to h e appointed by the Lord High Admiral, or any three or more of- the Commis sioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral ; which inspector shall carefully exa mine and try the • strength of evety such boiler, and the degree of pressure it ,is- cal ciliated to sustain , -by such !Ilea as as may:effec-. tually prove the same ; provided that in such trial the pressure used shall be one-third less than such calculation requires ; and that such inspector shall - examitte the safety-valve!; attached to such boiler, and certify the weight to be placed on the' ' saute, so that in no case such weight shall ex ceed one-sixth part of. the pressure such boil e r is. calculated 'to sustain as aforesaid ; and such in spector shall after such trial, give • a certificate under his bawl, and such engineer shall be. e . o . titled to receive the sum of five guineas and oti more, for his trouble in making arty such inspec tion and for such certi fi cate, any shali be. made, over anti above his reasonable expenses. 'fhAt from and after the first day of September. 1817', no vessel worked or propelled. by or by means of steam, shall be employed in tarrying passengers for hire, to or from any port or place:, in Great Britain, unless the owners thereof, shall have obtained such certificate its aforesaid, within , one year previous to using such vessel. -That ft om and after the.lst day of September ISI7, if .any vessel worked by means of steam, shall carry airy passengers for hire, without bein , , , registered as aforesaid, br without the Owners . the,reof having _obtained such certificate front an engineer, or other person appointed as hereinafter directed, or without having obtained a fresh-certi fieate tront tie engineer, or _ogler person to be so appointed, before, the expiration of owe year, from the date oh any former certificate, ev-ery'suell. vessel., and all tine machinery and tackle thereunto belonging, shall be subject to forfeiture to Iris Alajet , ty, his heirs and successors, and the owner 01-owners thereof shall ,forfeit and pay the soul of one hundred porsods, That if any person or persons anthoriSed tocertify the safety of steam vessels as aforesaid,. shall wil fully give a' false description Of.aoy of the parti culars required to be contained in such certificate; Or any persOn or persons empowered to make such regktry, shall grant any certificate of registry wi , huitt having seen such certificate as herein befure is mentioneJ, of an engineer or other person. authorised as aforesaid, he or they shall respectively forfeit the stun - of one hundred pounds. That in case' any person or persons shall place or eato,c to be placed on any safety-valve belong ing to any boiler, any weight or weights over and ahove the degree of pressore at which it shall be 6ertiried that ,snch safety-Valves belonging to such hni:er ott4lit to b? made to open as aforesaid, 6.c-iy sorb pt•rsoo shall for everY'such offence for-' fcit anti pay the sort' of fifty pounds. . That the Master or other, person having,the charee or command of any vessel required b y this Act to be rvgistered, Upon demand. made before, inv of his Majesty's Justices nf the Peace; pro,t,ce 6e certificate of such engineer or. other reri di.r a,,i hli‘ised as aforesaid,. and also the cer .1..;,;4--lte of registry pf.such vessel,. or, in refusal, J•airittAl oft , / nonnds. relate. to• the recovery 8p:iliC4111111 of the .pelialtie7t, ant! giving .rto 2„ :"fat L') patties co:l%icted L.% 'X' N t.i:j_''.ENC:i;. COURT OF ' , CHAN( EHY, JtiLY 16. SIR MARK %vow) V. etuvrrrii. The - parties in,this case ltA had several trans actions in joint purchases of estate's. They had purchased alt estate, East 11.1 ark, front Mr. Hicks liet.ich, Sir Mark 'Wood having a(Wanced the mo ney, glid it having been agreed . that the . profits should, in the first place, be applied to the repay ment of the purchase-money, and should then be equally divided between them. They afterwavls quarrelled, and each brought his .Action at law, To end these litigations each agreed to withdraw - F. juror, and to referiiie inat.ters in dispute to ar bitration ; bui.not ap,reeing on an arbiter, they appointed two nominees, who chose Mr. Cox arbitrator. lie awarded that the estate should be sold, and - that the money advanced shorild be repaid, to Sir Mark. Wood. Sir Mark Wood, i ii cousertuenee„signe4an order to Messrs, H.oggart and Phillips to sell the estate,.hut Mr. Griffiths refused to concur. The plan till then tiled this hill to compel the specific performance of the award. Sir SAMUEL ROMTLLY, - Mr. LEACH, and Mr. CooKE,.for the plaintiff, argued that the defen dana was bound by the awar d to concur in the sale of the estate. Some question as to the title to the estate had been submitted to the Deputy Remembrancer of the Exchequer, who never re ported upon . it. The aiv.rd ordered that appli cation should be made to the Court of *Exchequer for the sale., notl• if die Court refused, which it did, then they should authorise Messrs. Iloggart and Phillips; auctioneers, to sell their rights a n d Interests in the estate, and they night - become bidders at that sale. The Master of the Rolls had accordingly de.rteed that the defendant should co cur in the specific perfot manceof the award. The defendant had appealed against .this decree, and they therefore applied to hiS.Lordship to en 'force pet Ito nance. Mr. BART, for the deeendant, contended that the Mastc:r of theltolis had taken butt a cursory view of the award, or that the award contained a' principle of great injustice ; and that there was another objection, on the ground of the award' implying the offence at common law called main tenance. If the rights and interests of the parties were to he Jet to sale, while a good title could not be made oat, with allowance to the parties to bid, it was Oleo Only an option in favour of the plain- n tiff, as he alone had money to advance. But the award distinctly expressed' that, in either ease of sale of tlie estate by order of the Exchequer, or of the interests of the parties by Hoggart and Phil lips. it no title could he made out, then Mr. Cox knew not what to award, The master theretore never contemulated any sale without a title, and be defendant was justified in refusing his concur retire, as the title was not yet made good: Tile altervative of giving authority to the auctioneers to advertise for six months was only pre,s•ciihed as a means of making a title. In the case of, Waters v. Taylor. which could not he mentioned without exciting a lau g h, the Master had ordered a sale of an interest in the Opera House ; . but his Lordship haul refused to sanction that decree, be cause the extent of the property was not de-, fined. The same principle was applicable here, it th e . e state were to be set to sale wi.hout a title. Mr. Gritlith,tor bitti;ell, argued that the Court bad no jurisdiction, because -a rule at Sisi Plias had been obtained in the King's Bench for con tempt of the award, and he had been acquitted : but the main gromol of objection was, that if the award wera, obeyed, the oti,:oce of maintenance and.champerty %you'd be committVd. in proof of this he referred to several Statutes. Many Ilk putes and, litigations were 'conitected with this estate. The sale of it, therefore, was Mantle n'atice, and illr. Farquhar, who lately bought the estate, was guilty of that otftnce. Mr. LEACH observed, in reply, that Grif fit,h„ o9t. being,acquainted with the practice in a Court of Equity (he is a Barrister in lit istol), had not known that the sale that took place on the Master's Decree, or the attii:les of it, was 'not before his Lordship. The only question waP, whether the Decree itself was right. Although the Court might refuse assistance in carrying an unconscientions- agreement into effect, it could not refuse effect to the 'avarit of an arbitrator, acting honevly. But the award was not liable to the objections stated by Mr. Grit'nth ; besides, Mr,Griffith-had netcd upon vrt of ihe award with respect to ati9thi'Testate (ltumneY), and the pay ment of 1,250/. as to this estate. The answer as to maitztenance wets,. in one word, ae iion themselves assignable, much mote pro perty on which they werv . I,, u nd t d, LoRD CuANCELLOII said lie would tell on AJonday morningWitendle would give judgment. Mr. Griffith prayed the protection of the Court, in the mean time, against a threatened attach ment for the expenses of preparing, the very deed in question. The LORD CHANCELLOR ;(1, notning of that kind would be done till Monday. In answer to a motion for an catty clay upon another ease,• his Lordship observed, that there were yet upwards of 700 bankrupt Petitions to be heard. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 3mA' IL .146 . ndat Sittings after Trinity Term, before Mr. Justice ABBOTT (who •scrt Pr Lord ELLENBO ROUGH), and Special. Juries. • naßßlsoti V. TODD AND Moititt3oll• • Tbis•was-an action of trover to recover the stun. of 3111. 4s. 2d. the amount of a quantity of rib boils 'told and delivered to the detendant3, who are wholesale haberdashers in- fore-street, Critt lilef;ate, by the plaintiff, who is a ribbon-manu facturer, and for-which the former refused to. pay or return the. goods.• The circumstances on the p ar t tithe •as stated by Mr. GURNRY, were these:—Theplaiii tiffis a ribbon-manufacturer. -employing 100 men and.6o, women (as. is eiLstontarv.in his trade). in going his rounds to different haberdashery ware_ houses to dispose of hk goods. Ule-came to the house of the defendants, b hewed his s.pecirens, and agreed to sv l 0 q m ol itity. a r vett price.s• stated. and prices were approved by p: 4 , 00 vi.hom agrve on, in, a.l,rk in tim e fionse of I detkilf!ant, usually employed in buying, who told the plaint iff he should shew the goods,and state the pi ices to Mr. Morrison, and if be approved of them the bargain was settled, and the plaintiff might call in a day Or two for his money, and he was to allow 71- per cent. off time invoice charge, in consideration of prompt pay ment. The plaintiff accordingly called again as desired, butt was informed that he could neither have money nor goods, for that the goods had been seized on by the assign-es aids father, who had been a bankrupt, and whose goods they were ged to be, and that they were taken away by a messenger front the Commissioners of Bankrupts. The plaintiff, conscious that this allbgitioo was wholly unfounded, and the goods were really his own, and never had belonged to his father, brotight the. present action.: The Clerk in the house of Todd and Morrison, who had made the bargain and received the got.uls, was •examilted MA witness. lie admitted the fact of the bargain, and promise . to pay the money in - a day of I'NO, if Mr. Morrison should approve the goods and teeters ; but he - stated that there Was one of the Assignees to the Bankruptcy of the eider H a r r ison in the house at the time the goods were left.; that lie was informed of the circum stance, saw the goods, and concluded they be longed to the estate of the bankrupt, and the next day there came to the house a messenger accom panied by another person, and carried the goods away, but that they gave an indemnity to Todd and .Mortison. , Mr. Justice ABBOTT, in stating the evidence to, the Jury, observed, that the tlefendauts had no right whatever to change the possession of the property, On the grmind of any conversation they migl►t have with the Assignees of the elder Har rison. They had received the goods from the plaintiff by their accredited clerk, on the specific promise.of paying. the money for them in a day or two, if Mr. Morrison approved the articles and the price. It was therefore their duty to pay the money or return th'e goods ; any question touch- Mg the property in the goods lay between the AsSignees of the' eider Harrison and the plaintiff, and therefore the proper course for the As,ignees to pursue, would be to file .a bill in the Court of Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor would have directed an issue to try the question in a regular way before an inferior Court, and . to decide the question of property' in the artieleS ; but the de fendants had no right whatever to transfer the property to any other hands than those of the plAn tiff, and he must be answerable to 103 in this ection. Verdict for the plaintiff ; but referred out of Court to decide whether the defenihatit was en . titled to deduct the discount. LIGHTFOOT V. GORDON; • This was an action to recover the pensity of 'LOW. under the Act of the 7th Gen. 2, for having Wig:tined - to deliver to the phintitt a - certain quan tity of stock in the funds, - nndef certain considera tions, on a particahir day, whereas in fact he had no such stock to deliver, and refused to perform his contract. Th e Act in.questi o -n was passed for the potting an curl to theTractice of gmnbling in the stocks bv.pers.ntis,whOreally - tneant to transfer no stock, nor had -anyto transfer, but was merely a pre tence for laying %ragers respecting the eventual price of stocks-. on a specific ►lay, and paying to or receiving tram each other the difference, accord ing•to the sums of the %vager. Mr. GEMNEY, for the plaintiff, stated. that.bis client, Mr. Lightfoot, was a real dealer in the funds, and did not act for the sake of mere,gam bling, but with an intent really to receive the stock agreed for on the given day, and to pay the price agreed on. Mr. Gordon, however, was in the lmnbit of .making such bargains with quite different views. F9t when he, made those bargains he did it with fain intention, if stocks should fall in the interim from the price agreed on ; he would be very ready to make good his bargain, because he miLlit put handsome gains into 1118 pocket r but it stocks should rise, and it might cost him a good Sun) to make g‘usd his agreement, then,he had no stock to deliver and would pay ; no difference. He had agreed • with a Mr. T. Lightfoot, the plaintiff, on the Nth of Jan. last, to deliver to him at a given price, on the 27th Feb. Consols to the amount of 50 . 001;-- . -but when the day arrived, Storks had eon siderahly, risen, andit wwild have'cost the defendant a considerable sum to make good his bargain ; but he found it more convenient to say he hail no stock, and worthd pay no difference, and told the plaintiff he might take 'his remedy at law. Mr. Lightfoot finding lie had no redress in that way, was. advised to, resort for reparation to this action, on the 7th of Geolge 11. against a ruin Nvho was•certainly a proper object _lor the severities of that Act ; and the result would teach Mr, Gordon in future never to make such engagemerits but upon much larger slims, the profits on veliich would better enable hint to parthe penalty. Joseph Lightfoot was sworn as a witness, a n d corroborated the facts stated by Mr. Gurnev—...bot It appeared on his cross=examioation by Mr. Topping, that- he was himself the principal in this a ction, and had instructor' the Attorney to sue, !and not his brother, Thomas, in whose name the action was brought, consequently lie was, tinder the direction of ihe Learned Judge, Nonsui;cd.. BURK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE' ASSURANCR COMPNNY. This was an action brought by•the plaintiff as owner of the ship Carolina, which was insured by the•detendants fin her voyage front Amsterdwn t o Petersborgh. in her passage site was detained' hv the ice at Biorko Sound, and cinnpelled to wiitter there. Front the intensity Of the cold, the crew were landed, and a house provided fott theM on shore, while the ship .was left to the care of . the mate. This person, in the month of January, had made A fire in the cabin of-t - he ship, and slit)• t ; equ e n tly. went on board another vessel, for the purposQ of procuring a greater degree of Warmth. At twelve o'cloels ;t at uight, the mate looked Co wards his ship, and saw that she was perfectly safe, but at four o'clock in the morning, when . he ug „i n lonked, tie vessel was in flames, anti was nearly destroyed.. Witnesses wei . e. called, on the. part of the plain-, tiff,fitO'provc That it was the custom in Russia for the' sailors to leave their ships in winter. In Cronstadt, no out Vida sacred to * be oil board, nor was and• fire permitted, but the vessel was placed tinder the superintendame of the Police: At Riga and Biorlio tires were permitted, and it was usual to have a watchman on•board. Mr. SCAIIf.P.TT cOntended, on the part of the defendanti, that the accident had happened frcoi the culpable negligence of the Mate, an d that the plainfiff" was therefore not entitled to recover.-- The ship conid nQt have been destroyed in the_ , A'ay it was, if the Mate lool . taken due care to ex tiugaish-the fire in'the cabin. Mr. Justice ABBOT, in his charge to the Jury, :observed, that fire was one or the things which the insuratkce — covered, but it was the duty of the' party insuring- to take care that his vessel was seaworthy, and that she was placed under the di rection of competent persons ; whether the latter has been the case in this instance it was for the v determine. Verdict for the defendants. LORD MAYOR'S COURT, GUILDIIAL4 THE NEW POST-OFFICE: THE CORPORATION OF LoNDON V MARY HOOD. . . This was an . inquiry to ascertain the amount of compensation due to the tfefendant, who was' claimant in the case, for a compulsory removal, : tinder the Act of Parliament for the erection of a New POst-Office, from a,house occupied by her in St. Martin's.le-Grand, and which was situated on the scite of the intended erection. The-Commos SERJ.EANT stated the case to the- Jury on the pait of the Corporation, end ob served; that the stmrof 2001. bad been offered 5y I Irett body to - the claimant as a fair remuneration fof her losS and damages. He should prove that tire snin tendered to the defendant was fully ade. (plate to the loss sustained by hvr. The sum claimed by- the defendant was 15701. which he was' confident the Jury would consider most enormous,,, and totally wide of that to which she was fairly . entitled. Mr. Montagne, the City Surveyor, proved the value of the prettiises, loss of y trade, &r. and he considered that 200/. was a very liberal cont.. pensation for the removal. Air. Kaye, Surveyor to the Post-Office, deposed to the same effect. Berjeant C)PLE•i" briefly addressed the Jury in support of the claim set up by the defendant, which he should prove was by no means so ettor tuous-,"and " %vide of the mark . ," as the Lear )ed Common Serjeant had wished to sheer., Mr. Bevan, a'surveyor, and several other per sons, were then called to prove the value of the premises, the profits of the trade carried on h%; Mrs. Hood, which was that of 'a tailor, and the Toss and inconvenience sustained by thee removal of that bUsines's to another neighbourhood. The ,COMMONT SiqUEANT‘ having commented upon the evidence on both sides, left it to the jury to give such damage as the justice of the case scented to demand. The Jury consulted a few moment's, and re= turned a vt!rfliet, awarding to the claimint the sion of 4001. being 2001. over and above the offer wade by the City of LLo►:don. THE SAME V. rovvgLL. The claimant in this case also occupied a house in Itannd-court, St. Martin's-le-Grand, where he carried on the business of a painter•and Ile ha►l been offered 2001.. by the Corporation. The sum claimed by him was 130.01. Mr. MoNTAGur was again called, and . deposed to tie value of the unexpired term of the lease held by the defendant, as also to the losses in trade, and otherwise, which he would suffer by the removal. In his opinion the sum offered by" the City was an adequate remuneration. Mr. Bevan was then called by Mr. Serjeant • COPLEY, for the defendant. lie had valued the premises, and also made an estimation of the damage and loss of trade attendant on the re moval of the defendant, and.he was of opinion that 1300/. was the compensation to which the latter was fairly entitled for such a removal. To a question put to , this witness (who is a member of the Society of Friends) by the Common Ser jeant„ whether, independent of charges for the: survey, he, was not. to receive a sum of money for his attendance at that Court 1 He replied,`` Cer• tainly, and it is but fair. I fancy none of you. Gentle Men would come here without refreshers,"' This reply excited much mirth in Court. Other witnesses were called to prove the re ceipts. of time trade, Bcc.-- . -The Jury returned a verdict.—Damoges, 550 E - • COAL MAItKET,"Jui.y 18. ,Shipsat.Market. Ships sea.. . Price. -, 47 Newcastle • 8 Soriiierlarki - - .S. 3ss. 6d: to 38s. OtL . I Welsh, Coal.. G. .. .... —6. Oti. to —I. od,. DIRT HS. On the Ist inst. at Shenstone-Hunse, Staffordshire, the of Henry Case, Esq. of a daughter. On Tuesday last, at Wouton-bill-,_near Northampton, the Lady of the lionyand Rev. T. L. Dundv., of a daughter. At. Streatham Park, the Lady of NV. T.Mun.ey, Esq. M.P. • a son. • •On the 29th May at Madeit a, Harry Young, Esq. to Miss Mary Anna Rickets Anderson. On the lath inst. at St.• Ann's, Soho, William Henry Vidal, r2 - ci. of the Island of Jamaica, to Elizabeth Forrester Foot; niece of Jesse Font, Esq. of Dean-street, S o h o . Same day, at Feotington Church, John Dou_l3s, Esq. of Lockerhy, second son of the kite Sir William Douglas, of Kil bead, Bart. to Sarah, youngest daughter of James Siitic, Douglas, Esq. of Deneworth, Sussex. DIED. On the Btli init. at Cheltenham, in the 59th year of his age, Thomas Dent, Esq. formerly of Petersburgh, Virginia. On S.tturtlay last, at Kensington, Henry Keusiiigtun, Esq. late'of New Bridge-street. . _ _ . On Monday lag, at Shetfield-Honse, Kensington, Mrs.Ro-* -binson, widow of the late Thomas Robinson, Esq. , game morning, at Chiswick, Middlesex, aged 34, Mrs. Lee, Ss-Wow of the late Captain Lee. of the 17th Regiment of Foot, On Thursday, at her house. Palmer's Green, Southgate,, Mrs. Hotham, ‘tidow of the late General H.thFun. on the 18th inst. at Hampton Court, Mrs. Smith, the Lady of Joshua Smith Siamions Smith, Esq. LONDON: Printed by J. B. CARSTAIRS, of No. 21 . 4 Great Ormond-street, t-been-sloal'e; and published by ;%'::A. SCRIPPS, of ,No. 7, South Nlotton-strut, at Tire SUN Office, No. 119., Strand ; where AdvAtisements, °viers, Lettera, (post-yaid). must be addressed.