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

CHILD STEALER DETECTED.

A wow's', of decent appearance was detected yesterday
afternoon in *tripping a chihl in the Gelds, at the back of
Somers Town, which proved to be the sou of Mr. Wilbra-
ham, of Brill street, about five years old. She was lodged
in custody, and the child, which bad been seduced by some
cherries from home, was restored to its disconsolate parents.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

'COURT OF CHANCERY, Esigoocies•lint,
FRIDAY, JUGY IR.

JUDGMENT.
b TASTEt n. LOPEZ.

The circumstances of this case we reported yes.
terday. It will be recollected that it was an tioplio.
cation to reverse an order of his Honour the Vie.
Chancellor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. on coming into Cosies
this 100 * g, said, •' When this ease come' to be
thoroughly worierstood. it will be foiliol that II
spoke uuintellissible yesterday, which thews how new
cessary it is fur a person to hear the whole case best
fore lie comes to a decision ; for a great while 1
thought it war an action which had beets brought
in the Court of Cummins Pleas, mid nothing done
in this Court but the mere filing of the 1011. In
my recollection, no such ca,e a% this ever came be.
lore the Court before. In the year 1816, au action
was itfon!bt by Lopez. and it remained until 1818
wi bout De Testet finding out it was necreasaiy to
apply to this Court or the Court of Common ,
Picea for a commission, It is a roost dishes..
ring cave on Lopez fur De Tastet to file a bill
its this Court for discovery, and for • commis.
111011. after notice of trial was given, fur trying).*
action at law ; and I consider the delay as oppe-17
eive, and as wanton a use of the jurisdiction of this
Court as possibly cats hr. There is no attempt
mole to put of the trial until notice is gives; end
the cause called on. I perfectly agree with what
was most properly Said On that occasion by Mr.
Justice Park, that he would not put off the trial
when the Defendant at law did not apply to the
Court of COMMON Pleas, or the Court of Chancery,
to put it off until notice of trial was given. The
Plaintiff's care was gone into, and the Defendant's
Counsel sat silent, and the Jury gave a verdict fur
the Plaintiff, 37,0001. ; after which the wit ones
on in this Court, and the bill not only asks fair
discovery and a commission but for relief. It
was natural that Lopez could not go to trial before
1818, as he had witnesses to bring from Russia,
Lisbon, and the Brazils. If this Court had grant-
ed a commission for the examination of witnesses,
the Court of Law would have had to see bow the
evidence would apply at A'isi Prays. The Defend-
ant's answer to the Plaintiff's bill in this Court
was referred to the Master for impertinence. The
Master was of opinion that part of it was imperti•
'tent, and ordered it to be expunged ; this in some
measure accounts fur the delay in this Court. Ap-
plication was made by the Defendant at law to
the Court of Common Pleas for a new trial. On
what ground that Court granted it I do not know,
except they got hold of something that was paering
in this Court. It would be useful to know how
they got over the difficulty as a Court of Law, the
bill its this Court not being filed for two months
after the the first trial had taken place. The Court
of Common Pleas granted De Tastet a commis-
sion to examine Lopez. juts. in Russia, this was
done for the purpose of giving hint the advantage of
the best evidence that could be brought in that Court.
The impertinence in the Defendant's answer being
expunged by the Master, lie put in a complete an-
swer, and no application was made by the Plaintiff
in equity for an injunction to stay the proceedings
at law on the merits, or fur is commission, until the
tame of those late orders of the Vice-Chancellor.
The affidavit of Mr. Lowe, the Solicitor for the
Plaintiff; on the 30th of June, I have sio hesita-
tion in declaring could nut be read its any Court
on such an °cession. The commission having
come to hand on the 94th of June, notice of trial
was given on the 26th. When I recollect that the
application might be made to the Court of Com-
mon Pleas to postpone the trial, or to the Chief
Justice sitting by himself. and that the new trial
was granted by that Court on account of what was
doing here, and that 1 have the authority of the
Chief Justice, that the application wade to the
Court of Common Pleas on the 30th of June, was
an indirect application to put off the trial, and
which was refused, when they could have gone
openly to that Court and asked for what they
wanted ; tool where there has been one trial, and
damages given for 37,0001., and where this Court
had never interfered but in the order I shall here-
after mention. Lord Kenyon used toasty he wished
to look back to his own authorities. I cannot
say I am fond of referring to mine, but here I think
what I have hitherto about is right, where a bill is
filed for a discovery relative to a trial at law, to give
full opportunity to the party seeking relief to see
the books. papers, &c. necessary for hie defence at
low ; but if the expression of Lord Camden was cor-
rect " that quick application was the spirit of a
louse," it is right that the Court should see that no
sante e y delay takes place. The Vice-Chancel-
lor's order of the 30th of June, to in going
.4o trial, professes to be made on Mr. Lowe'e affi-
davit, which is set out in the order ; it is, however,
well known that that is the usual practice. But.
as Mr. Hart has said. that other orders, which had
been produced, weighed the judgment of his Ho-
DOWN and not die offidevit. But al that is not the
case, the other party ought so have had the oppor-
, bendy of answering the affidavit. The first order
made by his Honour was on the 23d of February,
that the Defendant should lodge with the Clerk in
Court, for the inspection of the PI 'ff. on or be-
fore the 24th of May, all books. documents, pa-
pers, &c. which were set forth in the schedule to
the Defendant's answer, and the Plaintiff to be at
liberty to apply to May the trial at law. if they
were not so produced. 1 have no doubt but his
Honour thought this was a prow order, it be-
ing necessary to give the Phrintiff a full discovery.
011 the 24th of May the Defendant applied for
further time to the 94th of Jape, to snake the
production, which time was grouted by hie Honour,
but the order granting the extension does not say
any thing relative to the postponement oldie trial ;
• but 1 am of opinion it was so implied. as it sprung
from the first order. Looking at the affidevite. I
will put this question to myself. if the commission
.-'lusts not brought back all that was expected, whose
'fault was it ? In answer I ay. Mr. Lowe's. for he
Fight have informed himself here of what evidence
'.llO wanted. If he did not.give young •Lopez
nto-
,uce relative to all the papers he wanted, it was his
,fault; why was not 41woconkolimion returned sooner !.
-44 if supposed that I will take the. trifling seseuso
' eauld not be welt* flaiddllS translate.

, ..,,„ ,

Lowe's client, said he would not take tone ate
until be heard from :England. Looking at the
and all the pruceediugs, I in decidedly sor
opinion that it Is not a case fwr4he corrshietation of
this Court. but for that of a Court ol• Law. This
Cows is not only asked to do what is nousualbbUt to
vet aside all that this been done in the Court bleu t
if it was to accede to such • proposition, it would
be furthering delay. I therefore reverse Ins MI.
noor's order of the 30th of June. I swish it to -be
understood. that if this had come before one so the
some way is it dirt before Lis Honour, that I sisigitt
have acted as lie did. The Plaintift way amity hi
the Lord Chief Ju►tice of the Common Nieces to
postpone the trial if Ise thinUs proper, and- any
thing that has passed here will have no influence oil
the decision of drat Learned )isdge--.he is a bigtee
judge or the subject than the Chancellor and the
Vice-Chancellor put together. I cannot forgetthat
a certain gentleinnh connected with this case, said
lie would keep this suit here tees years."
The Vice-Chancellor's order reversed. •
WOODOATE IN TIRE MATTER OF witooniotTx.
The Count was occupied the rent:Ouster of the
slay iss bearing Counsel in this case, of tio toyercat
except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF I:ING'S BENCIi, Gun-Doom,
FRIDAY, JULY 16.
.
Sillier after Trieity Tenn, before Chief Autry*
ABBOTT wad Common Juries'.
ASSAULT.
RHODLS V. LEECH.
Mr. SCAULETT stated that the Plaintiff in this
case brought his action against the Defendant, who
was Commander of the East India Company's ship
Orwell, for a gross and cruel assault. Ilia object
was not to extract from the Defendant heavy 4-
wages, but to timtiage the wound which his feelnigi
as a gentleman bail received, and, at the came time,
to prevent the Defendant from pursuing the same
conduct toennls others, who might hereafter
tooter his command, with which he had thought
proper, ut provocation having been gives', to deal
,out to tioe Plaintiff. Ile was ready to admit, that
the Captain of a vessel had a right, for the preserve.
Lion of order on board his ship, to exercise a cotes
sidereble degree of authority—but lie wonlil always
censure and oppose the unnecessary exercise of such
authority, or the pushing it beyond its just and
praiser bounds, the instance which he was about
to lay before the Jury, he would prove, beyond the
iunser of contradiction, that the Phlint:ff had been
most barbarously treated by the Defendant, with-
oat any justifiable cause. He hail been struck
by him, and, by his command, he had nisei.:
swards been flogged. What must be the agony
of mind, which a man of spirit must experience,
when traded in this ignominious manner ? But
there were circumstances in cases of this kind, that
would check the spirit which boiled with indigna-
tion to revenge the insult. One of these was, the
recollection, that a British Jury, in the exercise of
its valuable, nay, its inestimable powers, would,
when appealed to, teach an oppressor, that he dare
not, with impunity, trample on the sacred rights of
• British freeman ! The Plaintiff was an individual
of most respectable connexions, and had receised a
gentleman's education. He had served as a mid-
shipman in the British navy—and, on the conclu-
sion of peace, being unwilling to remain idle and
inactive at home, accepted the situation of gait-
ner's-mate on board the Orwell. He would say
nothing of what occurred on the outward voyage—
but lie believed the Plaintiff's conduct was per-
fectly correct. When the ship was about to leave
China on her return, provisimis were sold at a very
high price—and there bring a very large stock uw
board the Orwell, a considerable quantity of the
ship's beef sod pork was disposed of on shore,
under the supposition that the voyage would be a
short one. When the Orwell arrived at St. Helena
a portion of the ship's previsions was also sent on
shore there. It happened. however. that Captain
Leech overshot the mark. The voyage was un-
usually long—provisions became scaree—the crew
were, for several weeks, placed on short al-
lowance—and, some days before the Orwell arrived
on the English coast, the stock of wimple:is was
very ',early exhausted. The vessel reached Mar-
gate roads on the 4th of May last—but the Captain
did not appear very anxious to recruit live ship's
stores. on the contrary. he rejected the offers of se-
vend boats, when propositions were made to bring
provisions OM board for his starving crew. Ou the
morning of the 4th of May, the first officer of the
Orwell directed the Plaintiff, with the assistance of
some of the crew, to unshot the gun*. When the
wen proceeded to the work. they complained of
weakness, in consequence of want of food. The
Plaintiff himself endeavoured to go on with the
stork, bat was unable to accomplish it. The first
mate demanded. in the afternoon. why it was pot
finished? aid the Plaintiff, without inexoing to
, offend him, complained of his inability to perform
Sit, in consequence of the quantity and quality of
the food on which he had subsisted for some time.
This was reported to the Defendant. by whose or-
der the Plaintiff appeared on deck--siel the first
notice which Captain Lerch took of his supposed
offence, was by striking him a very severe blow on
• the face—the greatest indignity which man could
offer to man. He directed the Plaintiff to go on
the poop —had- the crew immediately summoned
ton deck—and told them diptile would puoish what
he called the Plaintitt!ii mutinous conduct, by
flogging him. PrepaiMions were made for that
purpose—and, 'Often the' threet was about to
carried into execution, the Plaintiff, who, thut!gtm
exhausted is strength. bad toot lost the trelio kl
• spirit of a gentleman, jumped overboard. lie
preferred a watery grave to ignominious a,
end leaped into the sea. Sucli an act as this, one
might suppose. would have cooled the passious of
the Defendaut; and brought him to his menses—en
act which, though he did ant meson to di-fend.
in his opine did honour to the frelnigs.4 the
Plaintiff. But. indeed of experienciog any re-
morse for the conduct which. might bore caused
-this young Ittou's destroctiosi, be ropressid a a.-
visage pleasure et the eircwissalance--and-.. when
woe of the arouses proposed, that-o boot should be
let down-Se the.Plessellrilmesisiariar.„ his• olsorrer-
tie* yes go No, Isidi4• let. him .god" A
a.- .a.cevetisiftik red by de waa

lothil

^11'"

end, end by et eut wee
imeo• instruction* weie
sped, «•I 'maid rive
. .AA