The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-19 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

CAUSES TO HE TRIED RE SPECIAL JURIES IN LONDON
TUIS DAY.
Wyatt v Cocks Yrissarri • Clement

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
SITTING AT GRAY'S INN HALL THIS DAY.
Batham v litarison, flogitton v. Minders Bale v IValters
Report Bamford v Archer Tarr.ley v Linnell
Procter v Procter, iVade v Stubington Reid • Robinson
ditto

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CIIANCEFti, SATURDAY, Dcc. 17.

It was not known till the usual time of the Court's sitting, that
the Lord Chancellor would not attend. At that time a notice was
posted on the door, that the Court would not Nit to-day. His Lord.
ship's attendant, we understand, intimated to Counsel, that an ex-
press had ben received by his Lordship immediately to attend the
King at Windsor.

VICE-CIiANCF:LLOR'S COURT, SATURDAY, DEC. 17.

WILFORD V. BULK CLEF.
This was a bill filed by the widow and sole devisee of the late
General Wilford, against the defendant, who was the General's
heir-at-law.

It appeared that the General, after making his will, by which lie
devised his real property to his wife, sold a piece of land to Chelsea
Hospital ; and in order to complete the title, levied a fine of the
property. It was alleged in the bill that the defendant was the pro-
fessional person employed on that occasion, who being the heir.at..
law, fraudulently included the whole of the General's property in
the fine, which operated as a revocation of his sill, and thereby
caused the property to descend to him self on the General's decease,
instead of limiting the fine to the piece of land sold to the Hospital.
The defendant had brought an ejectment to recover the property
from the widow, in the Court of Cominon Pleas, and obtained a
verdict in his favour as to the whole of the Itanelagh estate, of
which the parcel sold formed a parr, hut not as to any other of the
General's property. The widow filed her bill, contending that, if
at law the defendant, by virtue of the fine, was entitled, yet in
equity, upon the ground of fraud, he was not. The defendant, on
hts part, being disaatisried with the qualified verdict of the Court
of Common Pleas, brought another ejectment in the King's Bench
for the residue of the property, which is now pending.
When this cause was called on—_

TheSonictrow-CilEaren-aCand Mr. HORNE, for the plain-
tiff', said it was premature to dramas the equity until the legal title
of the defendant had been established, and wished the bearing to be
postponed till the ejectment cause was tried.
Mr. Ilatur and AIr.SUGOEN, en the other side, contended that
the question of equity had already arisen, and they were anxious
that the cause should be heard.

After full an hour had been spent in the discussion of this point,
The VicE-Ctrarrcet.cok said, that he thought the question
was quite ripe for a hearing, but as it was the wish of the plaintiff
to have the heariug deterred, he should not like to press the cause ;
it, therefore, might he postponed till the ejectment, which it sp.
peered was ready for trial the tint day of next term, should have
been decided.

CAPEL v. BUTLER.
This was a bill tiled by the plaintiff, praying for relief under the
following circumstances :
A Mr. White granted an annuity of 150/. to the defendant, se-
cured on certain leasehold property, and two trows or vessels nal i.
sated on the Severn. 13/ way of further security, Sir. Capel was
induced to enter into a bond as a surety for the due payment of the
annuity. The Act of 28 Oeo. 111 required all vessels navigating
the seas to be registered at the Customhouse of the ports to which
they respectively belonged, and that the captains should have a
certificate of the registry. Upon the sale of any vessel, the owner
was directed to make an indorsement thereof upon the certificate,
and deliver it to the purchaser, who was then to make oath of the
purchase, copy the endorsement. upon the affidavit, and have the
same entered upon the books at the Custom-house; and such entry
was delared to be the only legal notice to all persons of the transfer
of the vessel. It so happened that Mr. White did not comply with
the Act of Parliament, by making the necessary endorsement on the
certificate, and that necessarily the defendant did not himself do
that which the Act prescribed to be done by the purchaser. Sir.
White afterward, sold the vessels to a Sir. Jones for 11001., whose
title was not disputed. In April 11121 White became a bankrupt,
and the plaintiff was called upon to pay the annuity. Ile paid
two quarters of it, and then discovered that the security given by
White was diminished by the defect in the transfer of the vessels,
and consequently his own securhy wax so far deteriorated. Con.
calving this to be owing to the gross negligence and omission of
the defendant, he filed the present bill, praying, in the alterna-
tive, either to have the bond cancelled and to be discharged alto.
prettier from his liability as surety, or else to be allowed to redeem
the annuity, and to have the securities assigned to him, deducting
from the consideration money the sum of 8001., being the amount
tgr which the vessels were sold.

AI r. Fo IBI.AN uE whom was Mr. L NCH ) appeared
for the plaintiff, and contended, that the deficiency in the security
was justly attributable to the want of due diligence on the part
of the defendant.

Mr. SUODEN (with whom was Mr. Rostrr.r.v) contended on
behalf of the defendant, that nobody before had ever heard of a
bill lile this having been tiled.
The Vicc•ClAxcet.coa said the surety must be intended in
a Court of Justice to have joined in the security, relying upon
the representations of the collateral securities taken by the grantee
of the amnity, for all those collateral securities went to protect
the surety, who could never be damnified till they had been dis-
posed of. It must be taken also (for it was not a fact to be proved,
but to be Inferred as incident to the dealings of mankind) that the
plaintiff entered into the bond upon the faith that these securities
were given. But that was not the ease, owing to the omission of
the grantee: and the question was, whether this omission was is
operate to his prejudice, who was guilty of it. or to the prejudice
of the surety, who had no power to prevent it ? Ili' Honour was
of opinion, that the security failed upon the personal omission of,
the grantee. and that the loss which followed upon that omission,
must, therefore, fall upon him, and not upon the surety who had a
right to suppose the assignment to have been complete. As to
the question of the sort of relier to which the plaintiff' was entitled,
his Honour deferred giving judgment till a future day ; only
observing, that he was of opinion the surety had a right to re-
deem.

Mr. St-GOEw said Mr. Capel was the assignee of White.
The Vtce•CtlAxcat.t.oa-I'his is an embarrassing circum-
stance, and alters the case very materially as to the nature of the
relief to be graniet Why did you not mention that before, Mr.
Stirlen ? It might have changed the terms or the decree.
Mr. Sunkitx said, he had SUCti confidence in the other points
of his rase, that he did not think it worth while troubling his
Honour upon that.
The Court eat till italf.past•ere o'clock.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. GUILDHALL,
SATURDAY, DEL. 17.

This Court wss occupied the whole tiny in trying two Special
Jury causes, each of which involved a long Inquiry into the vali-
dity of a contested Commission of Bankrupt, and one Common
Jury cause of a similar nature. Neither of them possessed the
slightest degree of public interest.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. GulLottALL,
ATURD/01. Dzc. 17.

THORNTON V. HUNTER AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for the use of a ship front this country to
Rotterdam, and afterwards to' Singapore in India. The defence
was that the charter party was under a contract, which was ahan.
stoned by the captain, by his deviation front the prescribed course of
voyage ; and that therefore the plaintiff was not the proper person
to bring the action.
The Lou ID CHIT,' JOSTICE left it to the Jury to say whether
the charter-party had been abandoned or cot, and when a new
voyage had began, and to find accordingis.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—the amount of dama-
ges to be referred. But on the question when the contract had been
abandoned, they retired to consulr, as there was some difference of
opinion. The Jury returned in half an hour, finding that the
charter-party had been abandoned on the 14th of hepten)ber,lB23,
and finding for the plaintiff after that time.
LURE ♦ND ANOTHER t. NARROW ♦ND ANOTIIEtt.
This was an action to recover the balance of a shipwright's at-
count. The defendant hail been advised by his broker to pay it
rather than go into Court, as all shipwrights' bills were unreason-
able. (Laughter.)
The LORD Cater JUSTICE applauded this advice, end the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for die balance.

POLICE.