The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-07-17 00:00:00

bat they got supplies from vessels which they met. Ile sli(1
toot think any of the crew bud a good belly •full for • fiat-
night before the 411. of May.
Thomas Walsh, • ward-officer on board the ship, maw the
Plaintal and se-veral of she rues at work unslunting the
guns. They proceeded in a most dilatory manner. Mall-
tiff did not appear to he in a weak state. Witness
W4c pergola!, is hen Rhodes applied ill the doctor, ante
having bra ii punished. lie said lie wastes' medicine
for Isis [sick, or war& to shit effect. 'llse doctor said
he (lid nut ibusk the Punishment he hail received would mishit.
rice hint to place the Plaintiff on Ida list. Rhodes said
he did out care about the 'logging, but he believed he had
strained his hack. by jumping overboard. When, in the
outward voyage a mutinous disposition Cpprared she ship,
the Plaintiff stood between the disaffected and the quiet
people. The former were forward, the latter aft. Rhodes
al first went amongst the vim party, but he afterwards
joined with the disaffected. There was great shortness of
provisions on board, which the Captain endeavoured to
remedy by applying ill dill, rent vessels on his passage. On
the morning of the 411 t of May, the men gut their breaks
fasts f the Captain's private share. A boat was tbs.
patrolled so she shore for lirOvisicius. It was expected to
have returned by one o'clock, but was delayed till funr,
anal the own became angry in ciao (pence.
W. Brunner, the Surgeon of the Orwell, corroborated the
eviili-iire of the last witness, w.lb respect to his interview
anti the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spoke very lightly of the
punishment.
Alelrewa, second mate of the Orwell, was 'present
a taro the Plaintiff was punished. There was nothing in she
ptteillmieist out of the urilimary course. Ile did not 'batik
the health of the Plaintiff, or the crew, generally, was in-
jured by the scarcity of provisions. The Captain dealt out
lit private stock liberally.
Cross 1111Milted—Wlistesn (after creel l refusals to answer
the question), said, iltat the Captain's mess, at which lie
made our, wits on short allowance for two or three days.
He bid been at sea la years, but could not tell whether
keeping men ou short allowance made them work better or
WerPe.
Mr. SCA nt.urr made a very ingenious reply. His
Learned Friend need not, he obseived, be tirwler
asiy apprehension, lest the feelings of the Defend-
ant should be wounded by tiny observation of his.
The individual who could act, at he hail done,
could nut he gifted with very acute
I lie Learned Fttrisd had treated the trosiveiction as
one of no importance. " The Plaintiff," said he,
" only wit a sound box oss the ear ?" But,
could any thing be more degrading than a blow ?
lf the Plaintiff had committed an °Helier, wan
tint that sufficient punishment ? his Learned
Friend hart told them that he had conuexions
in the navy, one of whom sejoiced in having
been flogged. He (Mr. Searlett) was not con-
templating the punishment that might be inflicted
on boys—hut he believed eery person would agree
with him, that nothing could be more disgraceful
to an individual, arrived at manhood, than the in.
thetion of stripes. For his part he should feel
snore respect for the soldier or sailor, who, having
bee" "liillteds ilbandoned himself to despair, than
fur the Commander of whom his Learind Friend
hail spoken, who boasted of the flogging lie had
received.
The CHIEF JUSTICZ, in summing up, said. the
law allowed power to the Captain of a ship to
punish, when necessary. Unless such a power ex.
hued, no order or subordination could he main-
tained on board. But, though the law granted
that power to the Master. yet he must take care
that he did not use it improperly, or wield it as 1111
instrument of oppression. The question fur the
Jury to consider was, whether, on the evidence
laid before them, the conduct of the Plaintiff was
such as justified the Defendant in ordering him to
be punished. _ _ " -

The Jury reiired—and, after consulting for
quarter of au hour, returned a verdict for the
Plaintiff—dainages FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS--
costs 40s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
FRIDAY, JULY IS.

GUISIIARD r. MORGAN.

The Plsintitrs in this case were Messrs. C;tris-
hard, Oudeitard, 3111t1 CO. of Amsterdam, mer-
chants, and the Defendants Morgan and Lock-
wood, brokers, of Loudon.
The present action was brought under the fol-
kwing circumstances :—Messrs. Guishard and Co.
ordered their correspondents, Burniston and lied-
drill, to purchase for them in the market a large
quantity of clover-seeds, and to hold them over for
sale whenever the market price rose. hlessrs. Bur-
nistoir and Peddall, who were factors, complied
with their instruetioos, and made the purchase ac-
cording to order, fur the Plaintiffs in Amsterdam,
from the Defendants, Messrs. Morgan and Lock-
wood, who were brokers, ordering at the same time
that they should hold over the article fur resale, at
the rise of the market. _ _ _

Mr. Pei!dull, of the film of Burniston and
re.:d.lll, psoved the fact of the order hasitig been
re crivta by their house bons the Plaintiff's, and of
their having empqwered the Defendants to make
the varehase 10 quesiion, which they accordingly
flow the firm of Messrs. Ellis anri Co. Witness
requested that the Defendants would hold over the
clover-seeds until tile mai ket got higher, us they
were not to be sold until that CIICUIII6IIIIII7e toil
place. Witness added, that the money winch was
paid for the clover-reeds was furnished by the
Plaintiff's house in Amsterdam. He further said,
that having occasion to go abroad last year for some
time, he did not attend to what passed in the firm
at Mime, hut on his return he found his partner
embarrassed, and he understood that lie had ob.
misled some bills of accominodution Irma the De-
fendants, who charged the same upon the seeds they
had then in their store. Witness, on finding this,
informed the Defendants that his iIOIIM- were merely
factors on the occasion, and that the seeds belonged
to the Amsterdam merchants (the Plaintiff-), %41to
tad nothing to do with the accommodation bills
alluded to. After a variety of negotiations upon
the matter, the Plaintiffs claimed the seeds from
the Defendants, and .disclaimed ally knowledge of,
or connexion with, the bills given by the Defers-.
dants to Messrs. Burniston and Co. sod this action
was brought to recover the property free of thelit:it
on the hills. •
The CHIEF JUSTIcs, in summing up; the evi-
deuce to the Jury, observed, that howevor hard
must be the lot of the party on Admit the loss in
this case must fall, yet the law was clear that a
frmor had lie right to.pledge sr put a lien upon the
goods intrusted -to him b, his principal, and that if
he ventured te do so, is 'was to be lamented bad
been Ode in this we, still the principal who was
.tlif trite owner had •uo right to be precluded from
the recovery of hie property from the 'lesson bold-
ing it, recto though that person was not nut in pre-
vious possession of the minim of the dealings of the