The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-13 00:00:00

tIIGII COURT OF ADMIRALTY, FAIDAT, N0v.12.

THE APOLLO.
Dr. LI:ail:V(1TO% was heard this day in support of the petition
of Wm. 'lament and John Nesbitt, that the Court would order an
account to be taken by the register and merchants of what losses
and damage,' had accrued to them as co-owners of the vessel, by the
conduct of the other owner, Charles Bryant Tarbert, and deduct
the same front a turn of 11,0001., the amount of bail lodged iu the
Court by them, a security to him for the safe return of the ship
from a voyage to India and back. (The particulars of this ease
have been already reported.) The riedavits were extremely edit-
, minims, and stated in substance dint on one occasion Mr. Tarbert
said (when told the vessel was chartered tier the India voyage) he
would let the ship lie in the dock to rot before she should proceed
co it. On seethes he told Mr. Horsley, an eminent ship-broker,
that he was determined to oppose the owners in every possible way,
and put them to every expense in his power. These facts, the
Learned Counsel said, were vaguely denied by Mr. Tarbert in his
affidavit, and showed the spirit by which he was actuated to them.
Another atldavit stated, that though hail had been given, when he
arrested the ship lie refused to give an order for the sails, though It
was directed by the Court he should do so; and to this Mr. Tar.
bert's answer was, lie wee so advised;—and that they were after-
wards given up when a motion was made in the Court. On the
very day the mails were given up, viz. the 12th of November last,
Mr. Tarbert tiled a bill in Chancery, and obtained an in function to
stop the sailing of the vessel. Mr. Tarbert said in his affidavit that
the purport of the bill was. "that an aricotent might be taken, so as
to protect him from liability to losses," though he stated that the
ship was not seaworthy at the time, and upon which alone the Lord
Chancellor ranted the injunction. Mr. farbert knew the vessel
was undergoing repairs in the yard of Sir Robert Wigram and Co.,
for he I mee the formal notice on the Ist of October previous—that
he disapproved of alterations in the poop and wattles; yet he care.
fully suppressed his knowledge of the repairs when he applied for
the injunction.
Lord :Ton ELL—Does it appear on the face of the preceedings
in Chancery, that he suppressed that fact?
Dr. Lynne:Geo:: —The Lord Chancellor, on the motion for
dissolving the injuneeion, when giving his judgment, expressly
said, u The irjuuction was granted on the ground that the ship
unseaworthy if the: had not been stated., he would hot have
granted it on the other ground of the liability of losses, that
being a circumstance to which all owners, similarly situated, are
exposed.'
Dr. Jeexr a said, that the introduction of extraneous matter
in the bill tiled for the injunction would have been eunxideeed (in
tie language of that Court) impertinent ; but it was subsequently
admitted.
Lard Se ow EEL—When the whole of the mischief was done.
Dr. I.t.7:IIINGTON said, in support of his argument, if the
fact were true that the vessel was ueseaworthy, there might have
been some grounds for his proceeding; but the evidence of .Mr.
Preen, sir Boner' Wigram'e partner, fully refuted this, and the
petitioners' rod complaint was, that Tarberes.stating se was a
misrepres.erstion. The Lamed Counsel having stated the evi-
dence on this head, said ha would proceed to state the cotiseeueoces
that hail arisen from this cot duct. The vessel was to have sailed
on the 17th Nov:-inlet ; she was prevented sailing till the 231 De-
cember. &raid persons alio had engaged their passages, left her
to go in other vessels; goods were withdrawn by the shippers ; she
went to ladle, and was lost near the Cape of Good Hope. Alto.
Nhe:, the loseee incurred by his conduct had been sworn, by Mr.
esbitt, to exceed thOten. He trusted, therefore, the Court would
grant the reference to the register and merchants, to ascertain the
dinner-me Meurer!, and deduct the memo from the recognizance;
or if it felt it could not do that, that it would not premed to enforce
the rccegnirance at all, as the only course by which the equity of
the case could be met.
Dr. Donsote followed on the same Fide.

Dr. JEN tea opposid the reference, and contended that Mr. Tar-
bert could not be called on in that Court to defend the charges
brought against him ; and an to the power reseed in the Court,
alluded to by the opposite Counsel. there were many other powers
vested in it; but ancient practice had reduced them to V 7 Ty narrow
limits, and there was little doubt if the Court should pracced to
exercise them, they would be soon met by a
.prohibition front the
Court of Chancery. The present motion was inconsistent with the
practice of the Court, and if a precedent to that effect was esta-
blished, it would be attended with consi lerahle inconveniences ;
one of which at present 3lr. 'farbert now felt, which was, he could
not enforce evidence to rebut the charges of malice brought against
him ; and it was a consequence arising from all cases where volun-
tary affidavits were produce., In evidence. The learned Counsel
enlarged on the difficulties arising from motion.' of this nature.

1.07 d STOWELL mid, it was not competent to him to pronounce
a sentence upon voluntary affidavits made in an affair of this com-
plicated nature; and he had not heard any case cited to support the
motion. There IMS no similar motion ever trade.

_ _ ......
LUSIIINCTON—No case ever occurred in which, eller a
•hip 1113 arrested, and bail given, the party applied to the Loot
of t:hat.cery and obtained an injunction to stop the bailing of the
vessel.

Dr. JEYNCR said, that the petitioner might have proczeded by
roes and proof, or the party might have h.fd an actiun un the ca-e
fur special danmges. The Leaned Counsel concluded by denying
that the proceedings of Mr. Tarbert were actuated by malice, and
cans.; the attention of the Court to two letters written by Mr.
Nevhitt, in which he said that, as soon as the underwriters hod sti-
fled the loss, Mr. Tarlicrt's claim should be taken into considers-
don. The parties had since received the amount of the insurance
from the yr.& rwriters, including the three thousand pounds, the
:slue of ?Ir. Tarbcres 'harm.

The l tiu et ad jouriedtOlnesday, when judgment wit! be given.

POLICE.