The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-30 00:00:00

PUNTING APPOINTMENTS FOR NEXT WEEK.

STAG HOUNDS.
~,Theltacre meet on Monday, at Mr. klannineltlenciairigham
n;
Friday, at Sara/Main Town Barn—at
Fox novxos.
11- (.ralum•a on Monday, at Castle HOlt WulnesdaY. at
' ,Nate tomnin ; Friday, at Badger--at eleven.
The l'ile4hire an Moolty, at Kingsley wind-mill; Wednesday,
sliaahullt ThuniLly, at Wannington Mill; Saturday, at Tab-
7 ten.
,31astees on Monday, at Crick ; Tuesday. at Kama:sit
fat Cold Ail 1.. • I.* iday at Dallingtoo—at half-past
ift I• y , f
De Ludlow on Tneaday, at Onibnry Village—at ten.
4,2 r twmbton on Monday, at Setlgeneld--at ten.
67 Elm'' Earev's on Monday, at burton ; Thursday, at lid-
g • ; 'tattlay, at Newmarket Ileath—at ten.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Ten lIIDAY, JAN. 29.

SIR O. P. TURNER.
Mr. HMI T reminded his Lordship that a petition was pending
in the Court, the prayer of which was, that leave migllt be grantee!
to canvass the finding of the Jury in the ease of this lunacy. That
petition was entrusted to his Learned Friend, Mr. Home, whose
ahseace, and the muse of it, he regretted. (Mr. Horne was not in
('nun. His absence, we understonJ, was occasioned by a domestic
calamity.) Before what petition could Lc entertained by his Lord-
ship, it was necessary tutee some person should be appointed
committee of the estates of the lunatic, as legal proceedings had
been instituted against his property on various accounts. He
hoped his Iswelship would therefore permit him to pm sent a peti.
(ion on Saturday, praying thatCaptruiTtliTha should be appointed
as Committee.

The Loan Ckr•NcEvi.on said, that the petition to tea-
-1 verse the finding of the Jury should have pteeedence of hearing.
Mr. HART did not object to the hearing of that petition. The
object of the one which he held was merely to have a well-qualified
person ready to meet the legal proceedings brought against the
estate. He thought that he might submit the prevent, as though
no other petition were presented or pending.
The LORIb CHANCELLOR said, that a circumstance had just
occurred to him; he had received a letter from a person who de.
scribed himself as the ga of the estate of Sir Gregory P.
Turner; he requested that hie might be permitted to lay out
tank soma in the purchase of seeds for the nursery, and other im-
provements which were carrying on in the demesne of Hattlesden.
house. He farther added a peremptory revest that his Lordship
might answer his letter without delay. (a laugh.)
His Lordship appointed Saturday fur the hearing of the petition.

°ARMCO V. EARL OF CHATHAM.
Mr. PErs-s was heard for a re-transfer into Court of a certain I
sum which it was alleged that Mr. ['idly had transferred into his •
possession by a surreptitious order of the Master of the Rolls int
July last. This case had been heard in part before. It appeared
that David Garrick had bnaeatheil to his brother. Peter Garnck,
-1,7001., which was divisible into tins: qutintites. Of these quan-
tities Mrs. Payne was entitled to one moiety of the p:operty. .Mr. I
Rally, as executor of the will of Peter Garrick, was entitled to
another. A decree, however, was obtained, transferring the whole '
of the property to Sir. !laity. The Learned Gentleman coo-1
tended, that this transfer was tootle and sought for by Mr. Bally, as
the executor, merely with a view of sevurin; to the incumbents
for ileitis on the share of Mr. Payne, the payment of their respec-
tive dividends. Besides, it should be considered, that hits. Payne
Was at present out of the jurisdiction of the Court, ancj she might
exempt herself from any responsibility at to a.. V tom of money she
might receive. thi the. grounds he hoped his Lordship would
not disturb the t'ecree of the Master of the Rolls, and permit the
transfer to remain as it at present stood, in the name of Mr. Rally.
Mr. Agar replied, and submitted to his Lordship the injustice'
and inconvenience olaced on his client, Mrs. Payne, who is, In con-
sequence
of her deceased husband's debts, residing at present in a
foreign country, in most straitened circumstances, and dependent
almost solely on this remnant of the legacy bequeathed many years
since to her by her deceased relative. The Learned Gentleman ex-
pressed his expectai on of his Lordship's order for the transfer of
the sum in question, and trusted that, from the reprehensible con-
duct of the parties en the other side, they might be compelled to pay
the rests. In truth, the proceedings taken by the opposite side,
were maniftaly taken for the purposes of vexation and annoyance,
and of defeating the claim of the lady, who was entitled to her pro- i
portion of the property as residuary legatee. The other parties had
ttieir several claims answered ; their legacies were paid ; but this
lady had been set up an an object of invidious exception. It was
said, indeed, that there were incumbents on her property ; but
these were secondary claimants on her shre of the legacy bequeath.
ed to her, and she should be handed over her own portion of the
property, to deal with them as she miyht think proper. Theeon- I
duct of Mr. Maly was highly censurable, for having opposed
such obstacles to a lady in pursuit of her own just rights.
The decree for the transfer of the money to Mr. Bail,
was obtained by surreptitious means ; it was affirmed on affidavit
that no notice had been received on the other side of an intention
to make such an application, and if such intimation had been fairly
given, he would venture to say that such application would have
been successfully resisted. Th. lady, on whose behalf he appear-
ed, was reduced to great difficulties. She had paid her husband's
debts—debts which she was not bound to pay, and she now only I
sought to recover the fair proportion of the property to which, as
residuary legatee, she was est:tied. He (Mr. 11.) could see no ob.
lctioa to her claim being adjusted ; she only sought the fair al-
lovrance which the bequest conveyed to her, and he hopes' that his
Lordship would not permit a decree obtained In the manner in
which he had stated to his Lordship to preclude his client from
the advantages to which she was legally entitled. The Learned
Gentleman proceeded to detail the facts of the case, which have al-
ready appeared in the British Press of Saturday, and ingeniously
commented upon them as he proceeded.
The Loan CHANCE( ton wished to read the affidavits in this
ease before he gave judgment. The conduct of the parties required
that he should do so. As to the petition of Bally, it appeared
to him that it should have been so far acceded to, as that a pert of
the sum should be awarded to indemnify him. But he saw DO
reason for the whole sum passing into his hands. Ile had only a.
claim to an aliquot pan of it. Fur what purpose was it transferred
to hint ? Suppose even that it was necessary some person *boom
hold it until some suits instituted respecting it were disposed of, op
the distributive claims adjusted, would it not have been as secure,
or rather more secure, being paid into Court than by being in his
possession ? This was h:s presert impression; but he would read
the whole of the affidavits, and give judgment on Saturday.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THVIADAT, JAN. 29.
(Siftings In Banco.]

This being the first dat• of the fifth year of his Majesty' reign,
the Judges appeared in their robes.

MAUSJI HORNE.

This was an action by a silk-nee:cer, in Bath, against a coach.
proprietor, in London, for compensation for damage done to silk in
its carriage from London to Bath.
slr. SCAHL ET T moved for a new trial, on the grounds that the
damage arose from no neglect, and that the value was above M.
without paying carriage in proportion.
The COURT granted the rule, and directed Mr. Scarlett to
come prepared to argue that the defendant's knowledge that the
goods were of graver value than bL did not deprive him of the
benefit of Ws notice.

EVAN S V. ASHTON.

This was an action onapoliviiifinstirance, effected upon the
ship Sea Nymph. trading to the coast of Africa. It was tried at
the Ime `:iitingt at tluildhall, before the Lord Chid Justice, and a
verdict given for the defendant.
N v moved for a rule to shew cause why the verdict
sheuld not be act aside, and a new trial granted. It appeared on
the trial that the ship was sold at Cape Coast Cantle, and the gun.
tiun for the Jury was, whether she was capable of repair when
sold. The underwrh.i had obtained a verdict, in consequence of
evidence that the ship had been seen a few weeks after the sale, at
a considerable distance from Cape Coast Castle, taking on board a
cargo of slaves. 'file plaintiff was prepared to prove that the wit-
ness to the identity of the vesael was mistaken.
Rule to shew cause granted.
g !! V. NEXNETT.

This was an action of trover, tried at the late Sittings at Guild-
hall, before the lawd Chief Justice, to recover the sum of :01. paid
to the defendant for a bay mare. alleged to have been purchased of
hint by the plaintiff, a native of Russia, under a warranty. The
mare turned out to be labouring under the incurable defect of a bog
spasin, from which she died in about six weeks, having been
wholly unserviceable while in the plaintiff's possession. The plain.
tiff wax unsuited. Thee colt M -Sr c; tanT rum ed for • new
trial, not Co the ground of the warranty, but because the horse wax
suffering from de:',ets not visible to every observer. There were ■
bug-spavin and a thorough-pin. A learned person had at the trial
aslysi whether the bog-imam was in the fore leg o► hinder leg.
The LOND CII ICF JUST lc s.—The question implies ignorance,
I suppos?.
The e o MOW STMSEANT Willed assent.

_ .....
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE.-1 asked the question, of
course.

The COMXOX SEROTANT..—it only shows that the most
learned in the land may be ignorant of horses.
Mr. Justice 11Avi.61-.—What is a thorough-pin ?
The Comfort Szacrsver.—l have an affidavit which will
answer that question. lit was mill. The bog-spnvin was a
visihle seedling; the thorough-pin an invisible affection of the
joint.
The Cottav, after consulting the rotes of the trial, were of
opinion that the plaintiff had not used due caution in making his
I purchase ; the defects were sufficiently obvious to each party.
Rule refused.
DYER AND OTTIT.RE v. es eaves AXD 9TITyFA.

This was an action of trove hrrought by the plaintiff., who are
extensive clothiers in ll'orkshire, against the defendants, who are
respectable merchants in the city of London, to recover the value
of 311 packs of wool, imported by the plaintiff's from Germany.
The case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice, at the late
sittings at Guildhall, and a venliet obtained by the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for • rule to ACV cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The
facts of the case were, that the plaintiffs had employed a person I
named Smith to import the wool on their account. The bill of '
lading was indorsed by them, and sent to Smith, together with an
invoice and letter of adriN. Ile landed the wool on producing
the bill of ledlig, and sent twenty packs to the plaintiffs, together
with the invoice and letter of advice. The remaining ten packs were
warehoused in London by Smith, who bring pressed for money,
plzelged them to the defendants, in security for a loan of 2011.
the increased necessities of smith afterwards induced him to em-
Vioy a person named Pippett, to raise some more money for hint.
ppett took the only course thst remained for him, and sold the
wad for 1004 The plaintiffs having written several letters to
Smith without receiving any answer, and finding all applications
in that mode ineffectual, one of the partners came to town and as.
:retained how their property had been disposed of. The action was
then brought, and the .ittorney-livneral contended that, adn ii tt ing
the sale was brow "dr. as Smith wax only the agent of the plain-
tiffs to Import the wool, and not the factor, and as no negitgence'
had bean proved against them in any part of the transaaion, the
MT! possession of the bill of hailing, unaccompanied by the in-
voice or letter of isilvice, could not base given Smith any right to
' sell the wool.

Rule to sheer eaure granted.
MASTERMAY At AVOTHER T.

This was an action of tower, to recf.rer the sum of 1,0151., paid
and secured to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, the late
contractor for the mail between Derby and Leicester, in considera-
tion of the transfer of his rod sr;11 in the contract, and the pro-

Pert, employed in it. The oat there'd to be paid by the pisintirs
was 1,0141., of which SIM, wore to bn paid down, and the re-
mainder secured on • bond. It was agreAl between the parties
that the transfer wan to be made on the 16:h of .May hint, provided
the consent of the Postmaster-General could be obtained. If that
condition could not be complied with, the agreement was to be void.
On the 16th of May the money was paid, and the bond given by
the el.:intifs and the property tranalerred by the defendant, with-
out either party taking any notice of the consent of the Peon:lister-
General, which was subsequently refused. The defendant then re-
fused to pay back the money, or give up the bond, and the plain_
till: were compelled to sell the horses and other property purchased
under thin agreement. The whole produced only the sum of lA.:
They then commenced the action against the defendant, who on the
Trial obtained a verdict.

TheATTOIII;;;:I7:6ENERAL moved for a rule to shew cause
why this verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
Ile contet,ded that the payment by the plaintiffs mulct only have
been wade ou the mutual understanding of the parties. that the
consent of the Postmaster-General had been obtained ; and in sup.
port of this argument he referred to the evidence of the defend-
ant's clerk, who admitted that on the day before the payment he
heard one of the plaintiffs make such an allusion to the consent as
could only have ptoceeded front his having understood that it was
then obtained. Under these circumstances the payment could not
be considered a waiver of the condition.

The l'ovat held that the condition only rendered the agreement
avoidable previous to its being earned into effect.
Itole refused.

KING'S BENCH PRISON.

A rule was obtained last term, calling upon William Jones. Esq.
the Marshal of the 31arshalsea of this Cowl, to answer the misfires
alleged in the petition of a person named John Elder Outfield,
lately a prisoner for debt in the Marshal's custody. The petition
stated on oath, that on the Bth of October last, John Jacobs, •
debtor confined in the King's Bench prison, was committed by the
Marshal to the county gaol, in Hatemonger-lane, for some acts of
misconduct, or alleged misconduct 4 that in consequence of his in.
slant removal to that gaol, his property being in danger of being
left unprotected, he requested the petitioner to enter his room sad
take charge of it, until 4 was removed by his wife or friends the
next morning ; that the petitioner having acconlingly taken pos-
session of Jacob's room, shout half-Past seven in the evening, tour
of the Marshal's officals carte and demanded admission into it
that the petitioner replied through the door that he was left in
charge of it, and wouldwot rectal, possession of it until ftta next
morning, when Jacob's friends ahouki have removed his property ;
that the officers then broke open the door, and refused to allow the
petitioner even to make an inveinoype the goods in the MID
that in consequence of thik visilettee many of the articles were da-
maged and spoiled ; that the officers koquired the petitioner to go
with them to the lobby, but it then bang a late hour, and as he
knew the Marshal usually left the prison at five o'clock, he refused
to go to the lobby ; that three of the officerathen came and assaulted
him, and without producing any authority, forced him into the
where, to his great surprise, hs /Quad the Marshal sitting,
by whom he was immediately eommitWl to the strong room t that
the following twilling he was committed to the county gaol, in
iforsessonger lane, to solitary confinement for one 'moth, and im-
mediately conveyed there, and put into a damp stone cell, without
any lire or candle ; that at five o'clock in the afternoon he was re-
moved to another cell, usually occupied by condemned criminal*,
in which he remained 16 days, unable for several nights to sleep, by
reason of the gnawing pains in his limbs, arising Irons the coldness
and dampness of the cells; that on his complaint to the medical
attendant of the gaol he was ordered into the infirmary, where he
, remained until the of November; and that during his confine-
ment he several times applied to the Marshal for copies of the de-
Positions on which he was caninitted, but which were peremptorily
refused. The petitioner submitted that he bad been wrongfully
punished, and that die Marshal was without any cause that could
justify the quantum of punishment he had suffered. Ile therefore
prayed to be heard, and that the Marshal might be compelled to
answer the natters alleged against him, and pay the coats of the
application.
The petitioner appeared on the Boot of the Court in support of
the rule.

AIL CAMPBELL rose to thew cause why the rale should be dia.
charged. The petition contained a very grave charge against the
Marshal, and imputed to him a serious abuse of his power. As
the petitioner was -.-rated by Counsel, be ((Mr C.) would
read his petition through, and afterwards the affidavits by which
it was contradicted. The Learned Gentleman thou read tae pati-
don, which he remarked, on concluding it, was not corroborated
by the affidavit of any other person. He then referred to the or-
ders and regulations for the government of the mime, on which
the authority of the Marshal rested. By an odor made an thole&
of May, 1749, and, owned by Lord Mansflaid mid. the ether
Judges, the disposal of the rooms was vested i• the hilarabal *sly.
By • further rule, dated May 19, 1760, and signed by the same
Jadges, it was provided that if any prisoner *aid escape, or -at-
tempt to escape, or injure, assault, or abuse any other prioseseet
any other person caning into the prison on lawful omatdoas, ar
blaspheme the name of God, or swear or behave in a tiptoes
and disorderly mouser, or conduct himself in . any other Impose
contrary to the rules and orders alreedy made for the good govern-
ment of the prison, that It should be lawful for the Marshal to re-
move the party °Weeding to the gaol for the county of Surrey, of
to the prison of the Marshalaea, or to the Bridewell within the be,
laugh of Southwark, and there confthe him according to the as-
lant of his offence, not exceeding has calendar month, fur the first
aim By a rule made by the ' rt Us Itinity 'foris,4n the
1111th Cleo. 114. (1817), it was prow' , that if any prisoner should,
the
without leave, keep or have any a • tuous liquors in hiapoesessios,
It should be lawful far the Mars to remove him to etchers( thet
beforementiooed gaols, for mai time as the Marshal should la his
discretion direct. This was the power vested in the MarshaL Whoa,
ther he had ill discharged his duty or abused his power, would be beet
shewn by reading the affidavits to answer to that of the petitioner.
First came the affidavit of Mr. Junes himself. It stated that on
the Bth of October, he committed Jacobs for a &apron riot, if
which he had been guilty within the walls Of the prison; that is
pursuance of the deponent's orders, Jacobs was r that day
to the county gaol in Ilormemonger.lane ; that his r thereby
ally,
became vacant, and deponent had therefore directed bert Wald.
and some other officers of the prison, to enter the room end take
possession of it for and in the name of the Marshal ; that having
understood that some goods and chattels of Jacobs were there, de-
ponent directed the officers to take an inventory of them, in order
to deliver it to Jacobs ; that the officers soon returned and informed
the deponent that they had found the door of the room fastened in.
that several persons were within ; that they had quietly de-
manded admittance in the Marshal's name, and were denial the
same by Duffield, the petitioner, who also with threats refused to
allow any other person withinside to do so ; that deponent thee di-
rected the officers to go back and force open the door ; that he was
soon after informed by Ward that they had done so, and that they
had found Duffield in the room, togs her with divers others who
had been playing at cards, while the door was locked, and that spi-
rits were also found in the room ; that deponent considering this
conduct as highly subversive of, and wholly incompatible with that
order and discipline of the prison, directed Putii,l4l to be sent to
hint in the lobby, that he might inquire into the circumstances
that had occurred ; that soon afterwards Duffield was brought by
three, when deponent having made inquiry into the circumstances
of his obtaining possession of the room, ordered him into the strong
room ; that on the next morning deponent again inquired into the
facts ; and heard what Duffield suggested in his defence ; that
Duffield demeaned himself very contumeliously, and expressed
himself loudly and vehemently ; that deponent, considering that
his conduct altogether tended to compromise the peace and safety
of the prison, and with a view to deter others from following his
example, committed him for riotous and disorderly behaviour to
the county gaol in Iforsemonger.larte; that although on a former
occasion, when deponent, by order of the Court, was proceeding
to inspect the weights and measures of the prison, he was followed
by Duffield who used much slanderous and contumelious language,
which deponent felt himself called on to animadvert upon; he
would not have committed him to the county gaol,if he had not ap-
prehended dangerous consequences from Outfield's inflammatory
anguage and refractory demeanour ; that he was not directly nor
indirectly swayed by any motive of ill-will, but solely by his sense
of duty, as an of: cer of the Court; and that he had no power to
give directions as to the treatment of Duflichl.in the county gaol,
which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrates. The
next document read by the Learned Counsel was the commitment
of Duffield. Ile then read the joint affidavit of James Blsden
Ruspini, and Thomas Bright. The deponents stated that they
were invited into the room of Jacobs, where they found Duffield ;
that afterwards other prisoners came and played at cards; that'
Ward, the officer, kneeled at ths,dcor sod demanded admission ;
that Duffield answered, " The door Abell not be opened till to-
morrow ;" that Ittnapini said, " For Ode( sake, open the door t"
that Duffield replied, "No ; it shall not be opened ; let them
break it open if they like and take the consequences ;" that another
demand for admission was made, and then the door was forced
open ; that before it W 35 forced, Duffield locked the door, and
fastened down the window with the poker; and that he swore ve-
heniently the room should net be opened. The affidavit of Weil-
liam Waring Perry, stated that on the evening of the Bth of Oct.
he happened to be near the room, but not within it ; that
there appeared to have been a party smoking anti drinking; that
he saw some spiritous liquor, whim he believed to be gin, found
on the room being searched by the officers ; and that Duffield not
only refused to open the door, but abused the Marshal in very gross
and violent language, and swore he would not go to the lobby unless
he was forced. The affidavits of Robert Ward, and Samuel Davis,
the :timbal's officers were next read. They fully corroborated the
statements in the prerslingC affidavits. Having read these affidavits
carefully through, Mr. Campbell said he should conceive it a
waste of the time of the Court if he made any comments. lie was
with him that the Marshal had
satisfied the Court would agree
only acted in the faithful discharge of his duty, and done what
justice and humanity equally required.
The petitioner, in support of the rule, then addressed the Court
in a long and desultory speech, in which he was several times in-
terrupted for his irregular and unfounded attacks on the character
of the Marshal, and the deponent who had joined in the affidavits
in vindicating the Marshal. Ile contended that they were all un-
f lie ought to have been committed, it
worthy of belief, and that i
was not to a condemned cell that a prisoner in a civil action should
be consigned.
The LoanentEr JUVrICE said, that if a person lawfully
as the manntrrheor'tounty Magistrates. The
not responsible for tt,
ethorneremtiresttedtedbyiirth;o3rerlairsyhft
arttas)titioebtmoreigrfintttrdll7bern4t
tonhegelvviLaneal,
wwasee
be lultloner's treatment
there depended not on him but on _
...„ , _ h h
cemwluentloailt. eneachby the
that the Marshal would not have discharged) his d
uty if he had not
judgmeat of the Court. formed 0 tne 1114 a .btne t eth was,
committed this person (Duffield).
custedy of the Marshal should be
w at
justicecomp amts could be
CouMrtr .
that Justice
th
el Igsotneenv
i the Crown Office and h torn,
proYerly treated, and therefore at
h I' ' ot er
officers, visited the prison t" . bet
aal strut ween the Mar-
"inidthethattheev-c:n-c:
urged against their treatment
and from time to time, the 11l is...trrho

Ishii and tbe prisoner, required that if goy of them wished to dm*
the facts of which they complained Into a proper form of investigav
Lion vivo etkr, they should avail themselves of the .visits of the
Master of the Crown 011ke. who, he was suit, would listen to
whatever they alight have to advance with the most rigid im-
partiality.
Mr. Justice Brsr mid, that the assertions, of the petitioner were
tat only all unsupported by evidence, but completely rebutted.
Rule discharged.

---
IN TILE MATTES OE WaLIAM MAKIN, THE YOUNGER.
This was an application to compel the assignee of William Ma-
kin, the younger, an insolvent, discharged on the 20th of June
last, under the Lords' Act, to attend the Court for the purpose of
shewing why lie had neglected to perform the duties that devolved
on him an assignee of the insolvent's effects.
Mr. IlicHAlins stated, that he made the application on the part
of William Makin the elder, the insolvent's father. On the dis-
charge of the insolvent, his detaining creditor, a Mr. flitliird, was
of course appointed assignee. The insolvent wan possessed of a
freehold estate, on which there were two mortgages. The assignee
had been requested to sell the insolvent's interest, but he declined
to take any proceedings for that purpose.
Mr. Justice B —Ought you not to move for a rule to thew
cause why he should not be removed as assignee ?
Mr. Illctrallnii--The Act says, that where the assignee shall be
guilty of any fraud, mismanagement, or other misbehaviour, he
should be ordered to attend the Court ue Judge by whom be was
appointed.
The Loan CHIEF Jorricc—The contest implies misbe-
haviour of some kind. Here you complain of his doing nothing
at all.

Mr. Justice BarLEY—The purpose of his attendance on
the Court in the other awn might be that he should be pu-
nished.

The holm Cwisr birSTlCE—Gifford is appointed slalom
and refuses to act. That is your complaint. What titter remedy
can you have than that he should be removed ?
Rule granted to shcw cause why the assignee should not be re-
moved.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WIATHINITZI,
Thutemir, J*x. 29.

(Sittings in Basco.]

The Judges having been oreupied in the Court of Exchequer,
did not take their seats until one o'clock.

BEALEY V. BAXTER.

Mr. Sergeant VATTOll;;;piiiceiiiainst the rule which Mr.
Sregeant Teddy had obtained, on a fanner day, to show cause why
the sum of 1,9001. should not be added to the damages awarded by
the arbitrator in this case. It appeared that the ship, the Lady
Banks, sailed from Calcutta on the let December, Vett, having
on bond a cargo of sugar, indigo, &c. Some time after her de..
pasture she encountered a violent storm, and put into Trin-
comalee, when the captain was obliged to sell part of the
serge ; the sum he received fur it he applied to repairing his
vessel, and the remainder he transmitted to the owners of the
goods sold. The ship. in prosecuting her voyage, wet with
other difficulties, and was obliged to tl•row a part of the sugar
overhead. The ship afterwards put into the Mauritius, and the
captain landed his cargo there, when a fire took place, and thus de-
stroyed a considerable portion of the remainder of it. The captain
then determined to proceed with his vessel no further ; and, con-
formably to the usual regulations, disposed of the ship, and the re.
siduea-the cargo, by public auction. The plaintiff had brought
an action against the defendant, to recover the value of the ship,
and also the freight of the cargo. It was contended, on the trial,
that the captain had acted tortuously, in disposing of it without the
authority of the defendant. A verdict had been given for the
plaintiff. It was left to arbitration, and the arbitrator, Mr. Bane-
wall, decided that the sum of 110 L should be paid for freight,
being the amount of the freight at the time the vessel was lost,
with a proviso that 1,9001. should be added to the award, if the ar-
bitrator was legally wrong inhis estimate.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY replied at some length to the arguments
of 111 r. Sergeant Vaughan,and contended that the value of the freight
should have been taken at the time the vessel sailed from port,
and not after the losses had ken sustained.
Judgement deferred.

SECONDARY'S OFFICE, BEDrOtD-ROV, THURSDAY.
JAULARY V.
[Before theSzcoxpAir Ovid a Special Ary.]