The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLC,IS, MONDAY, MAT 22.

The Court was occupied the whole of the clay in hearing a
number of cases, none of which had any public inteteat.

(HURT OF EXCII EgiTr. R. MONDAY, MAY 21

THE NINO V. NATHAN.
Thls was an action on a bond given by the defendant totheTrea-
surer of the Navy, for the due discharge of his conduct as a Navy
Agent.
Mr. H. Tictss and Mr. ltisti.E conducted the case for the
Crown, and Mr. F. Pol.Loc and 11r. ALEXANDER appetred for
the defendant.

The action was instituted by the !Ards Commissioners of the
Admiralty, in consequence of its being charged that the defendant
had received sums of prize-money on behalf of two marines named
Daniels and oouk, to whom lie had not rendered the bslunces dut
when it was demanded. The defendant alleged they had teccived
the amount in goods and cash._

Mr. POLLOZIC called the following witnesses, to prove that the
goods sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs were of the value
charged by him, and which he charged as amounting to more than
the prize-money he had received.
Thomas Russel lives at Statehouse near Plymouth. Is a vic-
tualler and coal.megchant. Krows David Gook. and has known
him for fifteen or twenty years ; knew him nn hoard the totifiance.
Knows the defendant, and has heard Gouk speak of advances to
him by ihe defendant.
Mr. Twigs objected, that the particulars of the conversation
could not be received in eviderce.

The COURT decided, that if Gouk should be called for the
Crown, the conversation might he gone into.
henry Nathan was then called and examined.-1-le was clerk to
his brother, the defendant, in 101(1. His brother had dealings
with Gouk, who was then at head quarters, having belonged-to
the Conti-ince. During the time he •a• clerk, he supplied Gouk
with various articles. Witness was present in 1810, when the de-
fendant advanced Gouk 4/. in cash ; a Over watch, value 91. 19s.

61.; • gold chain, value 45 164.; gold seal, value 21. 6.. ; a gn1:1
key. value 7.. 61. ; three pair of atockinas, vahie lila. : two pair
of shoes. valve 191. ; and a handkerchief, value Bt. 8,1. These
were delivered some day in Alareh, 1810. Witness knew • mar.
of the wane of Daniels. and the first trantartion he had with him
was in [din. Thin individual was also a marine, and belonged to
the fiontiance. Witneas advanced to iihn 7s. in cash, and sundry
articles enumerated and valued as follows •—two shirts, 124.; two
pair of stockings. 94. ; and two pair of sh4cti, 111.. 8.1. In slay,
he had—cash, 5!. 104. ; a silver watch, 91. 19.. 61. ; a gold chain,
6!. 154. lid. ; a gold seal, li. 144. did ; a gold key. 164. ; twenty.
four yards of gown cotton, W. 12s. ; a shawl, I/. 104. ; six shirts,
2!. 24. ; six pair of working*. I!. 7.. ; two silk handkerchiefs. 7..
a pair of panialoons, 2/. 0.. ; four cotton handkerehiefa, 10s. ; and
a hat, 12s. Witness had been a navy agent, and the charges were
lair.

Cross-examined—Re had been out of his brother's employ some
time: is now a dealer in math e stores. IVhen be was clerk to his
brother he dig' not do any business on his own account. Ile made
an affidavit in his own hand.wriiing. Ile did not make any of-
fidavit as to Onuk. because witness was not then in England. He
had several times made affidavits in matters of this sort.
Restaamined—lle has not been on good terms with his brother
of late; had not spoken to him since July, 1823.
Henry Ralph wits next examined—Witness in a navy agent. re.
siding in Litve.court, Whitechapel ; he was agent at Plymouth
Dock in VI I. He was agent for the ship's company of the Piercer
Fun-brig; David Daniels was on board, and corporal of marines.
Ile applied to witness to bemme his agent, and receive the prize.
money of the Cuntiance. Witne.4 collect in consequence on the de-
renilant. and got an account from him. Witness spoke to Daniels
mimic the account, and he did not object to it. The account Wall
not balanced, but amounted to 111. Ithi. fid. Daniels said, as wit-
ness was agent for all the men of the Piercer, he wished witness to
become his ngent also.

(The account between the defendant and Daniels, as given by
the former to the last witness, was then put in and read. It cor-
responded with the articles deposed to by a former witness).
The last witness was then cross-examined by Al r, 111stt I.E.—lle
WAS employed by Daniels as agent to go to defendant, lie saw the
latter make nut the account. Henry Nathan, his brother, was
there. Re was not in Court when the cause was to conic on during
the lost sittings. There was no credit given in the acconnt, be-
cause there had been no money received. The account was made
out in 1811. The advances were made on the credit of the order.
Ile could not remember the items without refining to the paper.
Re•e,ramined—Daniels said. when witness took him the account,
" read it over to me." Witness did so. when Daniels expressed
himself satisfied with it, saying he believed it was all right; he
knew nothing to the contrary.
Aaron Nathan was next exiled—Jai brother to the defendant, and
lived with him In 11116. Remembered dealings with David Gouk
in that year, when lie had a gold chain, three gold seals. and a key.
In 1812 Daniels had a gold brooch, value 3/. 18.., and 1/ in cash.
The prices charged were fate. Witness was present when the goods
were delivered.

Mr. 11. Twiss then stated, that Daniels had died since the in-
stitution of the suit; and he should therefore proceed to call Gouk
as the witness for the prosecution.
David Gook was then called and sworn. In answer to a ques-
tion put by Mr. Pollock, he said the suit was brought for his
benefit. His examination then proceeded. He is a sergeant of
marines, and was at the taking of Cayenne, in 1809. In 11110,
about the month of March, be made a prize order, by his own de-
sire, in favour of the defendant. Witness received neither cash nor
goods till April 11112. What he then received was on another
account. He was certain he did not receive a gold brooch in April
1812. In 1815 he received a gold watch, chain, seals, and key.
These were all he ever received. There was a value put on the
brooch of IL Is. by the defendant's father, and not 3/. 165., as was
charged. The chain was to he 5/. fie. ; tie three peals were to be
13/ Its., and the key was to be 21. This was all he ever received.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pot.coca—The signature to the affi-
davit was in his handwriting. He was embarked and disembarked
as sergeant of marines; he was broke in the mean time. Ile was
broke tilt striking the Captain's steward when drunk. He was not
punished on the charge of drunkenness. He knew a person named
Russell, but did not recollect strewing him a silver watch. The
chain he then wore was not the one he received from the defendant.
He never told Russell he got the watch or chain from the defend-
ant, or that he owed the defendant from thirty to forty pounds.
Between April 1812 and 181 b, he never received anything from the
defendant, nor had lie at airy period received more titan he had
already admitted.

Re.examined.—He went into the marines as private, and was
again raised to the rank of sergeant by the Lords of the Admiralty
fur his conduct At Cayenne. Prize-orders were signed by the com-
manding officer. lie acknowledged in his affidavit the value of
goods received from defendant to be as he stated, in order to get
him to pay the balance.
By a Juryman—He did not know the exact time when Cayenne
was declared to be a lawful prize.
The witness Russel was then recalled—He kept a slop.shop at
I'ilyrnhuth, and Was • navy agent. He knew Gouk. In 1812
Gouk showed witness a watch, chain, and vials, which he said he
had received from the defendant. Ile then iidd witheas he had re-
ceited from the defendant 401. on account of the Cayenne prize.
money, and defendant would advance him MI. if he wished it.
Cross-examined.—He had obtained a license as navy ag-nt some
few months before this. Claims had been made against him for
not having accounted properly to seamen tor their wages. Three
such claims were made against him at the same time : he settled
them. Aaron Nathan, the defendant's brother, was his witness on
that occasion.

AD. POLLOCK then addressed the Jury at great length, on the
part of the defendant. Ile objected to not having an opportunity
of replying to the Counsel for the Crown, and begged the Jury to
ditcard any arguments that might he used against the defendant, if
they were of ■ novel mature, such as he could not anticipate. A
questian had been put to one of the witnesses, with s view to show
that Ralph was not present at a previous sitting of the Court, before
the death of Daniels; but the inference they wished to draw from
this fact was groundless, because it was not known to his side until
stated by the Learned Counsel. He was sure the Jury would at.
tach credit to the witnesses he had brought forward, and if so, their
verdict must be for the eefendant, it being proved that the two
marines had received more than the amount they sought to recover.
The evidence of the witness Houk. who was the sole support of the
prosecution, must he looked at with jealousy. the prosecution being
for his benefit. Ile trusted the Jury would not allow either the
peculiar culling or religion of his client to operate prejudicially
against him.

Alr. Twist] followed, on the part of the Crown. The advantage
he possessed in the way of reply was atihrded him by the law, and
the Jury had nothing to do with an inquiry as to whether that law
were wise or not. He contended that the evidence on the part of the
defendant was most unsatisfactory. If the transaction had been
honest, why were there not proper receipts for the various goods
and sum of money said to be advanced. Instead of these, witnesses
were called to speak generally. The Jury would consider what
credit was to be given to the testimony of Ralph. when they recol-
lected that he was not brought forward till after the death of
Daniels. While the latter lived and could contradict the witness
Ralph, he was kept back, notwithstanding that he swore to such,
important facts. If Gouk were setting up 3 false claim, what was
to hinder him from coming forward and claiming the whole ? But
he did not do this: he came forward honestly, and admitted having
received a part. clahning that °lily to which he was fully entitled.
The Donn etitEr Itaitorr then charged the Jury. If they
believed the witnesses thr the defendant they must find a verdict in
his favour; but if they thought that he owed Daniels or Gouk only
51. their verdict must be against him.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict
for the Crown.

ARCHES COURT, MONDAY. MAY 22.
[Before Sir J. NicnoL.l
This being the first day of Term in the Civil Law Courts, the
Civilians and Proctors met in the dining-room, where prayers were
read, and the Term opened with the usual formalities.
Some business of course having been disposed of, the Com t then
adjourned.
PREROGATIVE COURT.
After a short retirement Sir J. Nicifor. resumed his seat, and
business commenced in the Prerogative Court.

HUNTER, BY HIS ATTORNEY, Y. JOHNSON.
This was a suit promoted by Thomas Hunter, to try the validity
or a document left by John Hunter, late of King-street, /Haute-
bone, deceased. The testator died on the 26th of December, 1813,
having left a will dated 111th June, 1812, by which he left his whole
property to his widow during her life, and to be divided equally
between three daughters after the widow's death. On the same day
on which the will was dated the deceased passed a promissory
note for 1001., payable after twelve months, to his son (Thomas
Hunter).
Dr. LUSAINOTON, for the promotant, now argued that the pro-
missory note should be considered as a codicil to the will, having
been executed on the same day, and handed to the executors of the
will, with :he understanding that it should be paid after the team-
tor's death.

Dr. Dcnso iv, for the executors. contended that there was nothing
in the language of the instrument to prove that the testator meant
to dispose of any part of his property atter his death. The docu-
ment was a simple promissory note, running thus :
" 12 months after date I promise to pay Thomas Hunter 100/.,
value received, 18th June, 1812.
":100• "JOAN H UN T ER."
The matter rested far thirteen years after the testator's death, and
was now brought forward, not by the party, but by his attorney.
Under theta circumstances. he submitted that the Court could not
pronounce the promissory note to be a testamentary paper.
Sir JOHN Nicttor. said it appeared clearly, by the allegations,
that the document in question was intended as a codicil to the tea.
tator's will. It had probably taken the form of a note to avoid the
legacy duty: but, if the allegations were true, there could be no
doubt that the document was intended as a testamentary paper. He
should therefore pronounce for the admission of the allegations.
The other cases brought before the Court in the course of the day
were of no public interest. _