The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-02-04 00:00:00

LAZY INTILLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Fes 3.
The judgment of the Court was moved for,
against Lieutenant Henry Rice, for sending a Chal-
lenge to Captain Thomas Francis Freemantle, of
the Royal Navy.
The affidavit of the Prosecutor stated, that he
had been Captain of the Ganges, and that the De-
fendant was his First Lieutenant ; that he had ap-
plied to Earl St. Vincent to remove Lieutenant
Rice, for certain reasons which he mentioned in his
letter, and that he accordingly was suspended.
That on the 16th July last, he had received a letter
from Lieutenant Rice, saying, he had mentioned to
his friends his conduct to him when he was First
Lieutenant of the Ganges, who were of opinion,
it had been unlike that of a gentleman, and that he
ought to meet hint and give him the satisfaction
which he had a right to, expect.
This letter the Prosecutor sent to the Admiralty,
and soon after he received another from the De-
fendant, stating, that his appeal to the protection of
the Admiralty reminded him of a little, dirty,
snivelling school-boy running to his master, when
threatened to be chastised for Isis low conduct. 'lle
same letter contained various observations, tending
to provoke the Prosecutor to fight the Defendant.
The Prosecutor's affidavit further stated, that at
different periods, recently, since this prosecution had
been commenced, the Defendant had met him in
the stmet, and publicly insulted him ; that he was
obliged to take refuge in a friend's house, but that
the Defendant waited an boor for him, collected a
crowd round him, and used language to him of the
most insulting nature.
Mr. EasetNL, for the Defendant, put in his affi-
davit, and the affidavits of a iturniier of persons on
his behalf.
The result of them was, that Capt. Freemantle
had behaved with extreme tyranny towards the De-
fendant, and had taken every opportunity of insult-
ing and degrading him ; he had denied him the
privilege of entertaining his meanest relations on
board the ship ; he had damned him, and told him
he deserted to be hanged, for a trifling mistake in
the execution of his orders ; he had forced him to
do duty below his rank and situation in the ship, and
upon the whole, had conducted himself towards him
in a manner calculated to wound his feelings in the
tenderest point. The testimony of several Captains
eminent in the service, described the Defendant as
a meritorious officer, and a young man of the most
amiable disposition.
When all the affidavits were gone through,
Lord Et.tENBOROVGii desired that they might be
shewn to the Officers at the -heart of the Admiralty
Board, in order that their might use their discre-
tion as to the propriety of 'demanding any judgment
against Cie Defendant. His Lordship observed,
that some circumstances had occurred since the in-
formation had been filed, which, if repeated, would
be visited with the utmost severity.
The Defendant was allowed to depart.
From the whole of what occurred, it must be
rather a subject of regret to the friends of both par-
ties that the prosecution should ever have been in-
stituted. From the general tenor of the affidavits,
it is impossible for the character of any Naval Of-
ficer in the British Service, to stand higher than the
Defendant's.

VIE KUNG N. HAV;EN.

- - -
The Defendant was summoned into Court to
answer to an affidavit, wherein he was charged with
falsely signing two muster-books belonging to his
Majesty's ship the Brunswick.
l'he affidavit of the Defendant was read, which
stated, that the Prosecutor had injured his'character,
and that he. was innocent of The crime of which he
was, accused.
Mr. Rascals &Served, that 'the Defendant had
been guilty of the charge contained in the affidavit,
as he would make it appear from evidence.
Lord Et LENZ° ROU Gif demanded of the Defend-
ant if he was prepared to answer the chates ex-
hibited against him in the affidavit, or if he would
chose another day for that pUrpose.
The Defendant accepted his Lordship's pro ls
in consequence of which he was rem into
custody.

COMMON PLEAS, FEB• 3

tOLLARD V. HARRIS.
Mr. Serjeatlt MARSHALL moved for the judgment
of the Court in this cause, to determine whether the
Plaintiff was net intitled to a greater demand than
that which a Jury had given him by their verdict.
It was an action to recover the sum specified in a
promissory note given by the Defendant at Paris,
in 1791_—The note was in these Words At seven
days after date I promise to pay the stun of 1200
livres, either at Paris, Dover, or London, according
to the present rate of interest now existing in this
country." The bill was not taken the least notice of
until 1799, when the Defendant refused to pay the
interest originally stipulated for, on pretence that the
War which had taken place between France and
England had cut off all communication between the
two countries, consequently he had not an oppor-
tunity to pay the note in question. The Plaintiff,on
his refusal, immediately brought the present action,
which terminated in his favour, so far as the De-
fendant was to pay the 1200 livres with the interest,
as it then stood upon the course of the exchange.
The Learned Counsel contended, that the Plaintiff
had a claim founded on justice for the stipulated in-
terest, and that the Jury had not precisely under-
stood the nature of the note as it was otiginally
tranacted.
Mr. Serjeant WILLI...Ns. as Counsel tor the De-
fendant, stated, that the fault of the non-payment
of the note was attached to the Plaintiff, who should
have presented it before the commencement of hos-
tilities betwoen the two countries ; it was eight years
after the note was drawn when application was
made for payment • the whole course of exchange
was then altered, and the Defendant was acting with
honesty when he proposed to pay the note agreeable
to the interest then existing for the benefit of the
commerce between France and England—more par-
ticularly so, as no course of exchange was established
in France at the time the note was given.
Lord ALVANLpY was of opinion that when a note
was drawn, it was the will of the parties that the
terms should be binding, and it should be paid ac-
cording to the interest then agreed upon ; no other
sense could be entertained ; he therefore thought the
terms of the note ought to be strictly complied with.
The Court was generally of the same opinion.—