The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-20 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S

LAW NOTICES.

BENCH—Twin DAY, A
London Common Juries.
Smith v. Testes Vicky v. Towne
lAtehtield v. smith Ireland T. Esquibank
Brown v. same Adams v. Morrison
Haworth v. Palrelough Carpenter v. Sillcock
Posterns v. Newman Bramwell v. Clarke
Taylor v. Wood Bell v. Noel
Haycock v. Clark Robin, v. Meaml
Pigskin v. Tilllard Adams v. Machin
Howse v. Jarman Ward v. Mann
Harding v. Bevan Gownr v. Stevens
Hood v. Illehardson Lloyd r. Fresheeld
handers v. Wyatt caw v. Hell
Hula v. Fergtrison Travers v. Torrell
Wood v. Holbeck Dynmore v. ntynn
larrls v. Eveleigh WelelPman v. Sellers
Towle V. Acton
On* of the Judges of this Court attends at
the forenoon.

HALF-PAST NINII.

Thorpe v. Booth
Houghton v. Brian
Ferguson v. Rule
llouer e. Rothwell
Wolfe v. H.J.B. Hinds
Same V. }Mle
Edmonds v. J. Wilde
Same v. Gordon
Johns v. Ebsworth
Hill v. Rogers
Lake v. Haider
Partington v. Sir Peter
Pole, Bart.
Goodman v. Hutchison
Noble v. Tllity

'Chambers at eleven In

COURT OF EXCHEQVF.R.—Tnis DAy, AT Tax.
Excise Can*'.

Attorney-General v. Marsden.

I-TheKing v. Nathan

TRINITY TERM, 1820.
APPOINTID SITTINGS SOS TRINITY TIMM, 1826.
ASSNS...
Before Sir John Nicholls
Ist Session ...... Monday, May 22. 4th Session Saturday, June 10.
24 Session Sat/inlay, 27. By-Day . ....... Saturday, 17.
3d Session...... Saturday, June 3.
ADV.SALTY.
Befure Lnrd Stowell.
1w Session Tuesday, hay 23. 4th Session Tuesday, June 13.
24 SC V4Oll ......... Tuesday. 30. By-Day ....... Tuesday, 20.
3d Sesslun ...... Tuesday, June 6.

PAICROOATIVIII.
Before Sir John Nichol!.
Seasion.... Wednesday, 3lay 24. 4th Session ..Wednesday, Inn. 14.
211 Session . . Wednesday, 31. By-Day Wednesday, 21.
3d Belisha' .... Wednesday, June 7.

DeI.IDATIe.
Before the burroptes.
Ist Sesslon Thursday, May 25. 4th Se+son...... Thursday, June lb.
24 Session Thursday, June I. ByDay Thursduy, 22.
Sd Session Thursday, S.

COWSIITORY.
Before Sir Christopher Robinson.
Ist Session Ftidny, May 211. 4th Session.. ..... .Friday. June 18.
2d Friday. June 2. 8y.11ay..... ......... Friday, 23.
3d Session Friday, 9.
To sit each day, at 10 o'clock
. _

Caveat Days—Prerogative, Wedne'sday, August 2; Wednesday, Septem-
ber 6 ; Wednesday, October 4.
Default Days—Admiralty, Thursday, Augusta; Thursday, September
7 , Thursday, October 5.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, MAY 19.

[Deforc the LORD CITIET JIISTICE and London Cornmon Jurics.'

DICK AND ANOTLIER V. COLLINS,
This was an action brought against the defendant, to recover
1751. had and received to the defendant's use.

Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. PATTERSOW were for the plaintiff,
Mr: Glv R XVI and Mr. CHITTY were for the defendant.

On the part of the plaintiffs, it appeared that they were respect.
able merchants in the South American trade, and having branches
of their house at Vera Cruz and Alvarado, they entered into an
agreement with the defendant, who was a person of considerable
mercantile experience, to go out to their houses at the above.
mentioned places, and there assist in the management of their bud.
nets for three years. For this service to be rendered he was to recei,ett
350!. per annum, to be found a passage out, and to be at no expense
for board and lodging after his arrival abroad. Accordingly a
passage was 'provided for him in the ship Hopewell, chartered 1171
the plaintiffs to go to Vera Cruz, and the defendant was to have
joined her at Gravesend on the sth November, 1025. Preparatoey
to his departure he requested that he might receive 1751. as half
year's salary, which was accordingly paid to him. The ship was
detained over the sth of November, waiting for the defendant, who
had put his baggage on board. On the fith, however, he went
down to Gravesend, told the Captain he was unable to go with
him, and took his baggage on shore, promising, however, to pro-
ceed in the Atlantic, a ship chartered by the plaintiffs, to sail on a
similar voyage from Liverpool, in the course of a few days after.
wards. The Atlantic, however, sailed, and Mr. Collins did not
choose to go in her. He wholly refused to proceed to Vera Cruz,
and thought fit to retain the 1751. for the recovery of which the
present action was brought.
In the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff's' witnesses,
It was elicited that the Hopewell was laden with muskets and
bayonets for the use of the Mexican Government, anti a dispute
was raised among the crew as to whether the ship and cargo were
not liable to seizure. In reexamination, however, it was proved
that the defendant knew perfectly well what the cargo of the Hope.
well consisted of when he agreed to go in her, and put his baggage
oo board.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, insisted that the Hopewell
being laden with arms for the use of the Mexican Government,
contrary to an Order in Council bearing date in September, 1825,
her destined voyage was illegal, and as Mr. Collins could not be com-
pelled to perform an illegal voyage, he was not liable to refund the
175/. in question for not fulfilling an illegal contract.
The Learned Counsel then put in the Order In Council above
alluded to, but on its being read it appeared that the only articles
which were prohibited from being exported to Mexico in British
bottoms, and by British subjects, were, shot, shells, gunpowder,
saltpetre, cannon, mortars, and other ordnance stores, omitting
altogether any mention of muskcie and bayonets, of which the cargo
of the Hopewell consisted.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE was therefore of opinion, that if
the defence set up could have been available to the defendant, it had
failed. His Lordship however uld such a defence could not be set
up to the present action. Although the defendant might have been
justified in objecting to go in the Hopewell on the ground now
alleged, it was his duty to have assigned that objection at the time,
and to have proceeded in another ship. Not having done so, there
was no pretence whatever for retaining the 175/. His Lordship
said thus much, lest it might be supposed that he gave the counte.
nance of his opinion in favour of a defence which was not very 'ere.
ditable.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages
HEFTER V. TTRRELT.

1751.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a coach.
maker, to recover 1111. for repairs done to a van belonging to the
Steam Washing Company.
It apperred on the part of the plaintif, that the van in question
having broken down on Clapham Common, In consequence, as it
was alleged, of having been previously driven against 51erton turn-
pike gate, the driver was killed, and the machine was so injured
as to require the repairs for which the present action was brought.
On the part of the defendant, it was proved that the plaintiff had
undertaken, when lie first built the van, that It should last two
years. After the accident, the hinder axle-tree was examined, and
a was discovered that it had never been sound, having a flaw in
the centre which ran nearly through it. The plaintiff, after lament.
ing the accident, specifically undertook to do all necessary malts
at his own expense.
Upon this proof, 51r. GuRNEY submitted to a nonsuit.