The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-02-01 00:00:00

BLAND V. DRAB'S.

Mr. CHITTY moved for O flair to she.. (-time why
thr 111r1riirfiiiit iii this case Annld not hr th.chorged
mit tly•ttrly nn filing cognition hid, owl why the
Nitoriery ThOtill not pity thr cost% of the
Iptuldble pruCr.o., •iiat al,. my lltr .41T.t.. of this
elf cultist duces iltstittord itt the
allitlovitt. wrrr t..e,e:—

lu the year 1817, the Defendant, a master ma-
riner, WWI will Ina ship, the C'hapaims, tot tillhol
Corr, in New South Wales, where the Plaintiff.
surgeon by profesaion, was :1• eollvielrtl
Mo.), woke rearm.r or ti•dw•putt.stioli fur srero
year.. During the tune the D. felidant was there,
the Plamiitt's wife was frefpitailly iii the habit of
coming on brood, maid sleeping openly sow! wall.-
guisedly with a iihim who Ik-1411'44rd to the .hiu, not
leer ; hut the Deletidmit's affidavit did not
swear that he himself had had no criminal conver-
sation with the lady, but he swore *1 that Deisouent
hail been informed by several persons, vorily
believed, the said supposed wife of the Mamma', for
prone years post, to Ilia (Plaintiff's) knowledge; 1.11.1
Will/Out ilia lln •ferener, had illir tt intercourse with
several persons, and that the gelieral character of
the raid Plaiiitifrs wife was abaiiiliiiied;
soul loose." Its the month of December, lAI7, the
Deleufluid sailed for England, and arrived in July,
1818. On the list of January instosit, he wax ar-
rested noon a special eupiu, issued out of this
Color, at the suit of the Honda, for the sum of
2,137/. 13s. upon affidavit of debt, on a joilg-
nieot supposed to hive been recovered in the Su-
preme Cool t of Juilicatuie in New South %V:1
ill an Helton for critintial conversation with the
Plaintiff's wife. The affidavit of the Defendant
further stated, that until the time of his arrioal in
El/gland, he had never beard of, tier did lie know
that any judgment had been obtained against him
at the suit of the Plaintiff, for ail cause or causes
of methyl ahatsoever ; and that if any such jotlg-
'tient had been obtained, it was obtained unfairlY,
irregularly, and without notice. as lie never hail,
'luring his residence is New South Wales, been
arreed with soy kind of process at the suit of the
Pl,sintiff; 'bur did lie ever, either directly or indi-
rectly, give any written or other authority to :ivy
person or 1114 ato uppeur for, or otherwise do oily
Iltei whatxn.err for In no 111 the .4.1111 11C11011, on Ills lit -
count ; and that lie was urver indebted to the Plain-
tiff in any sum of money upon er for any debt or
contract whomever. . _ .

Mr. CHITTY stow grounded his motion, as above
wieldiest's!, upon two objections to die affidavit to
held t 0 bail; Istt That it was sworn by on agent of
the Pi:diming, who only deposed as to his belief
that the money was due ; anal, 2tl. That it was not
entitled in Court, nor swims before a Judge of the
Court. As to the first objection, the affidavit to
1101,1 to bait stated, that the Deponent was the at-
tori.ey specially appointed by an agent of William
Itl mil, now residong in the territory of New South
Wales, stirgron, smith, that Richard Drake is justly
1,01 rtisly nalebted tiatin tile said William Blatol
in liar sum of $2,0371. upoti suit by virlue of
u judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature
in and for the territory of New Smith %Vales
aforesaid, recovered by the said IVlllisitt Bland
against the said Richard Drake, in the .11h Term,
Al). 1817. which said judgment is still in force,
unpaid, saial Utisatl!,fit'd, as this Deponent verily
turves." The affidavit then went on to negative
any tender in Batik of England notes. according to
the belief of the Deponent. Tbr Learned Counsel
submitted, that swearing by an agent, as to the
elelt, by belief, was distsfficient ; and cited Rios
v. Bellaatle, 2 Strange, 1209 ; Van Morsel! v.
Juliet', 1 Wilson, 231 ; and --- v. Bowman,
2 Stronge, 12.26. As to the second point, it ap-
peared that the affidavit was not entitled in soy
Court, but at ►he foot of it, it purported to be
4$ Sworn at the Filacer's office, P p-couit, Tem-
ple, this 9th day of December, 1818, before John
Yates, Deputy placer." He subsumed that Slits
was Irregular, and cited Alorley v. Pollard, 3 Hanle
and Seltrym, 157, 1 Bos. and Pul. 271, and
Tidd, 183.
Mr. Justice BEST over-ruled the 6rst
that the affidavit could no otherwise he sworn
under the circumstances of the case; and added,
that the case cited from 1 Watson was nut law.
The others were not in point. Upon the other ob-
jection, lie was informed by one of the Officers of
the Could, that this case had been before Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley, at Chambers, who held that there was
no irregularity in the affidavit, as his Lordship
would take judicial notice that the Filacer was an
Officer of the Court. He would, therefore, men-
tion the subject to his Brother Bayley, and if he
concerted in thinking that the affidavit was had for
this objection, a rule to Otte cause should be drawn
up on this point only.