The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-11-13 00:00:00

FORRESI' C. sE Li. E RS.

Mr. HEALD—" I have a motion to make in this
cube, but base been requested by Mr. Roupel to
postpone it until he comes into Court."
The LORD CH ANCELLOR—" Go on, Mr. Heald ;
I will wait for so person."
Mr. ROOPEL then came into Court, and re-
quested that the motion might be postponed for a
week—he undertaking, on the part of his client.,
that the proceedings in the Court below should be
stayed in the mean time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR--" That is an ac-
commodation which must be settled between your.
selves : I can have nothing to do with it."
Motion postponed.
The Earl ff SDATTRIMERT, Lord ROBERT
aPElt-
era, stud omen, v. his Grace Me bake of

MARLBOROUGH.
Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT moved for an injunction
to restrain the Noble Defendant from receiving the
rents of certain estates which were vested in trier-
tees, and from bringing ejectment. against seven of
the tenants ou the estates.
Mr. !halts said, that be had to request of .the
Learned Counsel to postpone his motion.
Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT said, that when he stated
his grounds for the motion, he was certain that the
Learned Counsel would withdraw his request.
There was • decree in the cause, and a receiver
appointed, at which time Mr. Blackstone was in
possession of the estate,, and afterwards became
trustee with the Noble Plaintiff, Lord Robert
Spencer. who was the brother of the late Duke
of Marlborough, and uncle of the present. They
consented that a receiver should he appointed, nod
the Noble Defendant supposed, because • receiver
was appointed. that lie !his Greet-) was entitled to
receive the resits, and actually had received some
of them, which they must get hack as well as they
could. if the Noble Defendant had acted under a
mistake, he aught to he thankful that the motion
w.,s made to set hint right ; for it must be unpleit-
*ant to him to be obliged to undo what he hail done.
Some of the tenants had refused to pay their rents
to the Noble Duke, mod he was proceeding to eject
them out of possession. It was antler those cir-
cumstances that he moved for the injunction.
Mr. BLAKE stated, that he was a stranger to the
merits of the case, as he only held the brief for Mr.
Bell, but he understood that the notice of motion
oat only served yesterday on the Solicitor for the
Defendant, and he wished to coder with his Noble
l'herit before the motion was made.
Sir ARTHUR PIGGore" We can take the or-
der fur the injunction, subject to any opposition that
may be hereafter made."
The Loon CHANCELLOR—" That will Ise the
Iwo way. Let the Defendant be restrained from
receiving the rents, and from proceeding with the
rjectinents.”—lnjunction granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wrrnaturtft,
THURSDAY, NOTEMOEt 12.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The COMNION-SSAJEA NT moved fur • rule to
she» caii.e why • criminal information should not
hr tiled against John Jarrett, William Jariatt,
Thomas Pybns, and Henry Gibbs. He stated that
lie moved this at the instance of Jame. Robert
Berne, and his partner, Nolan, who were pro-
fessional Gentlemen residing in the town of Alaid-
stone. Mr. Bertie's affidavit *et forth, that, nit the
tub of June last, lie was standing in • street in
Al:Mistime, in company with his partner, and se-
veral other person., when si slumber of squibs were
thrown at him, by a sere of John Jarratt, a had about
seventeen years of age, one of which struck him on
the thigh, and burned his small-clothes. Deponent
went over and inquired his name, which hr refused
to state, at the same time treistii.4 him with great
above and insult. Deponent saitl he %%mild cer-
tainly punish him, though, at first, he did not
seriously intend it. He, however, took out a writ,
which was served on the offender. On the sth of
August he went to a hence, the Haunch of Venison,
which was much frequented by the Gentlemen of
Alatdstone, anti which, on that day, appeared to Litt
more fully attended then usual. Ile hail nut
hetio there lotig, alien John Jarrett came
and pulled out a writ, with the copy of which
his sou had been served. He handed it over to au-
other person, of the name of Thomas Pyhar, who
read it in a tauntnig and ridiculous manner. 11' hen
he came to the name of the complainant, James
Hobert Brute, to which the appellation of " lea-
fier/mu" was attached, lie repeated the word seve-
ral tames, ai if by doubted whether it wus correctly

applied—and, when ite came to the name of the
Chief Justice, Sir Vicar), Gibbs, the writ being
sued out its the Common Pleas, -he exclaimeil
" What the devil has Sir Weary Gihhs to du with
it:" Mr. Bertie retained his temper and left the
room peaceably. This was a few days after the
writ issued out. as the 6th of August, the day
after, as lie was going through the town, he ob-
served William, soother son of Julio Jarratt, at-
tended by a considerable number of persons, in the
street. lle did tint suppose they contemplated any
thing against him, hut, when he came up there
were shouting, and groaning, and a cry of " 'Ware
Hawk P' He was joined by his partner, and, as
he passed along, he found all the little passages, in
the High-street. filled with persons shouting
"'Ware hawk I" They followed from the High-
street to his residence, which was iii Stone-atreet,
with the same exclamation. He also swore he was
informed that the father, John jorratt, had caused
the writ to be framed and glazed, and hung ul►
slung with a piece of meat, outside of his house,
which was in a very populous place—and this exhi-
bition, he thought, excited the tumult that took
place in the evening, it happening to be market
day. On the 4th of September, William Jarrett
passed by Complainant's house with a number of
persons. They stopped at his office, and again
used the cry of " 'Ware Hawk!" On the 16th
and 17th of September (the former being market
day, the latter that appropriated to the sale of cat-
tle), a number of persons assailed him with the
same cry. He stated likewise, that on the 13th of
October, Henry Gibbs appeared with a consider-
able mob, and followed him and his partner, still
reiterating the shout of " 'Ware HawkP' which
exposed them to insults, and continued for some
time. Mr. Nolan, the partner of Mr. Bertie, de-
posed, that, since the writ had been framed and
glazed, he had seen it, from day to day, till late
in the month of October, holding Mr. Bertie up
to contempt—he also spoke to the insult offered to
him by the cry of "'Ware Hawk!" which had
given then great nominees, and had, he be-
lieved, hurt them in their business. They had
not resented, or personally repelled those insults,
meaning to rely on the protection of the law, which
they trusted the Court would extend to them. Mr.
Paget. a Gentleman, who resided near them, swore
that he saw the writ framed and glazed, so lately as
the present month, and publicly exposed outside of
..farratt's shop. After the circumstance occurred,
he went to the shop and inquired, what it could be
about—did it relate to Mr. Bertie the Attorney ?
William Jarrett answered, " 0 no! you see it is a
Genf/maw—not an Miami, y! 'Ware Hawk for
that."

The Cuts's. Jurrica-41 I observe by the state•
meat that the parties are not all acting together OR
uue occasion. Therefore take your rule to shew
cause why a criminal information should not be
Pled against one or more of them."
The COMMON SERJEANT" Mr. Bertie states
that he remonstrated with Jarrett, the father, twice
on the subject, who stated that be had full advice
how to act—and would not desist. What made his
conduct still worse was, he mentioned the names
of persons of high respectability in the town, who,
he stated, were his advisers."

The Cnicr JUITICE--" Take your rule—but
let it be drawn
,up in the way I have suggested."
TYRISHITT, Esg. V. WYNN, Bars. and ILLIS
JONES.

Mr. PUKE moved fora rule to shew cause why
the verdict for the Plaintiff in this case shonld not
be set aside, and a new trial granted. He stated that
it was an action of trespass brought by the Plain-
tiff owning Sir W. W. Wynn, and was tried before
Mr. Baron Garrow, at the last Shropshire Assizes.
The question at issue was, whether the Plaintiff,
as Proprietor of the enclosed farm of Blanautyre,
had n right to claim • mountain tract, containing
1,000 acres, or whether that right was vested in Sir
%Yadkin, as Lord of the manor of Llangwerst ? The
Learned Counsel stated that the Plaintiff gave no
written evidence, and contented himself with proving
acts of ownership. He certainly could not con-
tend—if those acts were not controverted by other
tvidence—or if the Learned Judge was correct in
refusing the documents offered by the Defendant
—that the verdict was against evidence. The
Plaintiff purchased the farm from • person named
Lewis Jones, some years since, and he did not even
produce at the trial his deed of purchase. The
chief evidence was that of Lewis Jones himself, who,
heieg released, was clearly a competent wastes,.
Jones swore that for many years, in his own and
his father's time, they had exercised right of pro-
perty on those one thousand acres of land, which
lie called their sheep-walk. They grazed their
sheep, he said, all over that land, and the sheep
of other persons that strayed there were driven off.
They also exercised the right of cutting turves for
fuel—and, in a few instances, they had cut down
mountain ash. The witness also stated, that, smite
few years egos when Sir %Vatkisi wished to build a
robin on the ground for the accommodation of him-
*Oland friends, in the grouse-shooting season, his
game-keeper, Ellis Jones, applied to him fur leave
to cut turves and take sedge's for that purpose.
Ile likewise said, that at a certain time, Sir Wel-
kin stated to him, that the building of the cabin
would he of nu prejudice to his right, but was
merell for the use of his (Sir W.'s) friends. He
further stated, that when lie sold the farm to the
Plaintiff, he sent to Ellis Jones for the key of the
cabin, which was Seta to him, and by him given
up to the Plaintiff. The enclosed farm was about
sixty acres, and he had received 2,000/. for it, As
long as he could recollect, a fee farm rent of
Bd. had been paid to Sir Watkin, who, with
the exception or cutting turf, and grazing sheep,
used the tract without molestation, by sporting
over it himself, mid permitting his friends to do
the same. It was contended on the other side, that
the Plaintiff had only the right of past4dre and tar-
/nay. The first evidence put in was a part of
Jerre„ 1., by which the manor was given to Lord
IVotton. It was then endeavoured to be proved,
that the manor was now held front Lord Winton,
and for that purpose a document, dated the 13th
November, 1614, was put in, This document was
an ancient parchment writing, found among the
muni.oeNts at ‘l'yunstay. It did not purport to be
au original deed—end, in fact, from • certificate
at the bottom of it, it appenred to be • copy.
Nwice was given to the Plaintiff to produce u st-
un:Jr drill, «Lich was understood to lie in his pus-

section, and which Lewis Jones had delivered over
to him when he made the purchase. Mr. Jervis
objected, that the instrument produced was ito evi-
dence, as it did not appear that any original deed
had ever been executed. He knew that in the case
of Swinkethman v. the Marquis of Stafford, n
charter, from the Abbot of Stone, which hod been
brought from the British Museum, was not consi-
dered evidence. But in that case, it should be
observed, the Clattery, as it was called, did not
come from any proper custody—the Briti,t, Mu-
seum being a place for keeping curiosities, not do-
cuments of this nature. In the case of Bull v.
Mitchell, 2d Price, 389. it appeared that a Char-
key from the Abbey of Glastonbury was produced
as evidence—but Mr. Justice Chamh►e rejected it.
But, when it came before the Conn of Excheyner,
the Court, with the exception of Mr. Baron Wood,
held, that, as it came from the Marquis of Bath,
who claimed a part of the lands, it was proper to
Lie received, as having been in good custody. Now,
in this case, he contended, that the document re-
jected by Mr. Baron Garrow, having been in the
possession of the individual owing the feefarm rent,
was receivable in evidence. The Plaintiff being
called on to produce any deed under which he held
his title, did give in a document, which was almost,
if not Tide, a fns simile of that found at Wynn-
stay, the seat of Sir Watkin. On the case of Doe
on demise of Brun v. Rawlins (VA East) being
cited, he said, it did not apply to the present ac-
tion, but he would receive the first document as a
paper coming out of the hands of the Defendant,
but not as any evidence of the deed of which it
purported to be a copy.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—" Were the two docu-
ments copies ?"
Mr. PRAMS answered that they were. Now he
submitted, if the case rested here, that this was not
a legal and proper way of receiving this document,
which deserved more weight. There was, however,
a great deal of other evidence offered on the part
of the Defendant, and also rejected, subject to no
condition whatever. The general provision of the
deed produced from W)ntistay, was "op/pleat,
by which Lord Wotton granted to Thomas Ap.Ed-
ward • farm, which was not named, and therefore
the evidence was not decicve, containing 61i
acres"—(and it was remarkable that Lewis Jones
admitted that the farm of Blanaiityre coutamed
about 60 acres)—" with common of pasture mid
common of turhary on the mountains, and all other
waste lands and grounds, belonging to the Monas-
tery of Valk-Crucis." This deed •lso reserved •
fee farm rent of 41. 13s. 4d.—hut it was to be ob-
served that another farm, of about the same dimen-
sions, was granted by the instrument. For each
farm, therefore, the rent war 2L 6s. Bd. agreeing
with that spoken to by Lewis Junes.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—•' Is there now any other
farm which pays 2/. 6s. id. ?"
Mr. Pease answered, that there was—and this
agreed with the sum of 4/. 13s. 4d. mentioned in
the deed, as the rent of two farms. The entire
sum was paid till the year 1686, when, what he
contended to he the second farm was conveyed to
William Williams, Esq. afterwards Sir W. Wil-
liams, and Speaker of the House of Commons, an
ancestor of Sir Watkin, but under whom lie had
not derived the manor. The Defendant could
have proved that, in 1686, one of the farms in the
ffeoffment mentioned, was conveyed to William Wil-
liams, Esq. who was to pay a fee farm rent of
2/. 6s. Bd. but his Counsel was precluded from
producing the necessary document.—(Mr. Peake
here recited the terms of the indenture by which
the farm was conveyed.)—He could not state that
21. 6.. Bd. had been regularly paid. He could,
indeed, produce the rental of the stewards or Wynn..
stay, but they were not properly signed, till the
year 1712—and from that period, down to the pre-
sent, regular entries of a fee farm rent, for two
farms, of 2/. 68.8 d. each, were to be found.

The CIIIEF Juserca-41 Did you prove, nega•
tively, that there was no other rent of 41. 131. 4d.
paid to the Lord of the Manor, for two farms ?"
Mr. PEARS said, he had—and he then offered evf•
dence, which, he humbly conceived, the Learned
Judge was not correct in rejecting. The tract of
land was all mountain, and, by the documents pro-
daced, a reservation of rights of mine to the Lord
of the Manor, was quite evident. He wished to
put in leases or grants of mine upon the waste, with-
in the same manor, but not within the same town-
ship, that had been made to different persons. He
contended, that, Sir %akin being Lord of the
Manor, possessed all the manorial rights—auct, as
it was one long mountain tract, quite undivided,
he was justified in producing grants or deeds re-
lative to any matters connected with the manor.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—" You offered evidence
where your right was indisputed."
Mr. PEARS then proceeded to read several leases
of coal and iron-stone, granted on different parts of
the manor (excepting that immediately in dispute)
by the Wynn family.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—. 'to have introduced
this in evidence, ought you not to have alleged that
the locus is quo was part of the general minor—.
and that the right to the *hole possession was in
him? If you do not, you come by surprise on the
other party."
Mr. PEALE said, the whole question here wu,
whether this tract was the possession and freehold
of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, or of the Plaintiff
—and he submitted, that if those leases went to
prove that the place in question was the possession
and freehold of the Defendant, which he conceived
it did, as strewing a right in various parts of the
tract, they were clearly evidence in this part of the
case. In Stanley v. White, 14th East, 932, this
doctrine was laid down. There a belt of trees,
it appeared, surrounded a district of considerable
extent, and containing the lands of A. B. and C. It
was there held, that the right of cutting down
trees, in one part of that belt, was evidence of a
right to cut down timber in another. He con-
ceived, under all the circumstances, it was a case
worthy of further consideration.
Rule granted.
At two o'clock their Lordships proceeded to the
Court of Exchequer, to prick for Sheriffs.

COVRT OF COMMON PIRA& Wernstorrti,
TIIIIJIIIDAY, NOVEDIIIIIIII 12.

itt the waiter of BURGIIII.
This was a question of law, referred by the Chan-
cellor to this Court, to hare a certificate of its opi-

nien. The question arose under the following cir•
cuinvtatices

Burgess had drawn an inland fill of exchange
for 981. I la. on Butterworth anti Evans, payable
at three mouths after date. After passing through
varioua hands, the bill fell item the Po.setision of
Cropley, who endorsed it to another. 'Ole
bill was pretested for tom-payrnent, and returned
to Cropley, who paid the amount or it. Some linse
after, Burgess, the drawer, being supposed to have
committed an eta of bankruptcy, Cropley peti-
tioned the Lord Chancellor to imitir a commission,
including in the debt sworn to, aloof; with time value
of the bill, the cost of the protest awl other charges,
a atom of I/. 17s. for iliac-rest from time protest, in
order to make his debt amount to ton/. without
which he could not he a properly qualified peti-
tioning creditor. The point for consideration was,
'whether the interest on the hill was a debt of such
a nature as could be sworn to by, a creditor, to
enable him to petition for a communion.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK stated and argued the
case for Cropley. He observed, that of late
.ycera
there was a considerable change introduced into the
law respecting the interest on debts of the presmt
deacription, due by a bankrupt. The rale origi-
nally was, that the Commissioners never allowed
the creditors to prove interest on hills of exchange
or promissory notes, because they held it to be
merely recoverable as damages from a Jury, and
that as they were not competent to assess damages,
they could not allow the interest to form part of
the debts. But a considerable relaxation had lat-
terly been made in this rule, as he was prepared to
'sinew by various cases. In 3d Brae. n's Chan-try
Cases, 436, the question being whether, where
there was an original express contract, that a
debt should bear interest, the interest should be
allowed with the debt by the Cotnininiioners. Lord
Thurlow declared that he was quite clear it should.
Now the law must be the same where there was an
implied contract to the same effect as here, for it was
quite clear that when a bill of exchange, payable at a
certain day, was passed, the parties intruded that it
should be liable to interest after that day, and in
an action brought on u bill the Jury always allowed
interest as a thingof course. And in 3d Vesey, 133,
in the matter of Hutchinson, the Master of the
Rolls says, that on consulting Lord Kenyon as to
the practice of his Court in such cases, Lcird
Kenyon answered, that in case of notes payable at
day certain, he had no hesitation in directing the
Jury to find a verdict for the interest—interest
could be recovered for a number of years on a bill
by an iadebitatus assurpsit, or All action of debt.
it was true, that in the case, Ist Vextris. 198, it had
been held, that debt did not lie for interest, but
assumpsit; but Lord Kenyon strongly expressed his
disapprobation of that opinion. The Learned
Counsel then referred to Dow's Parliamentary
C'eses, vol. i, 133—that was au action of debt
brought on a foreign judgment in the Court of
King's Bench, thence removed to the Exchequer
Chamber, and finally brought before the House of
Lords, where it was argued—the result was
• decision, that an action of assumpsit or of debt
would lie for interest on a bill of exchange; if so,
it was a debt provable under a commistion of bank-
ruptcy, and consequently could form a part of the
petitioning creditor's debt.—But in addition to
this argument, drawn from rules of law and analogy,
the statutes 9 and 10 William 111. c. 17, sect. 1.
made the drawer liable for interest and other costs
and damages, on inland bills of exchattge, if pro-
tested. The Court observed, that to he entitled
to the remedy given by this statute, the forms and
terms of the statute must be observed.

Serjeant HULLOCK resumed—The remedy was
extended by the Sd and 4th Anne, and in the pre-
sent case the terms of the former statutes had been
strictly complied with, and notice of the protest
given to the drawer in due time. What would be
the consequence if the interest was not thus
lowed? It could not be proved before the Commis-
sioners: when the certificate was obtained, it would
protect against all debts doe mtAlie time of issuing
the commission—no action could be maintained

for it—end the decision would therefore operate as
a partial repeal of the statute.
Mr. Justice Yeas inquired, whether the argu-
ment applied to all creditors of this description, or
only to petitioning ones?
The Counsel replied in the idlirmative—he was
unable to draw a line of distinction.

Mr. Justice PA RK -" This then is the difficulty ;
that all the creditors may require to prove for in-
terest, and thus contradict all that has keen said
by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Kenyon, as well us
the constant and uniform course of practice."
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK begged leave to say, he
was warranted in hid argument by the words of
Lord Kenyon, and all legal analogy, and concluded
by referring to another confirmatory case, 2d
Albin, 548.
The CHIRP JUSTICE desired to know what had
passed in the other Court at the time this case bad
been sent down.
Mr. Serjeant LENS. for. Burgess, stated, that the
Lord Chancellor had sent it down against his own
opinion; that lie had had no doubt on the saliject
himself; and had, beside., consulted Lord Etien-
borough, who concurred in opinion, and said
that damages to he ascertained by a Jury were not
debts till they had been so ascertained ; but from
the earnestness of the party, and ability with which
the arguments had been urged on the other side, he
had reluctantly consented to the case going down.
He (Serjemit I.rn•j apprehended that the position
laid down by his Learned Friend would contradict
the principle of all the cases he had procired—
which wit., that where nothing like a contract be-
tween the parties appeared, there interest was not a
legal debt. He was not aware of any relaxation in
the rule, and he did not believe there was any ; that
where it is necessary to go before a Jury to obtain
interest on a debt, the Commissioners never allow
it. All castes shrew, that, in order to render interest
provable before them, there must either be a special
contract contained in the instrument ; or, in ac-
counts between bankers or traders, something oa
their books to chew that interest had been carnally
paid. It was perfectly clear that the original sum
was the only legal debt, and that the remainder
was merely damages. It was by no means law that
Interest was due on every debt ; it had been (1.1.-r-
-mined by the Court of King's Bench, that it did
not lie on money lent. lie apprehended it was not
at this day law, that interest wise due of course on

1•• 10.4. - •
it
t
' • r
a promi,Erry note, f4tstitcatise the day or pay.
wentl.4a passed.
Mr. Jtpoice l'Aute--:""there IS w lrory Strong
ca.e to that purpose, that of Lee find Lingard.
rl
.fpft. There it was held, that execution could
mit te..tHken nut for intiq..est of d to lit dne on u
certmin dm!. icstoo-d. butt lit MOM VO to a Jiffy:.
In bile RlnoristAry ortl.d (Setjeitta LFNS
proceeded), triad been Ilfercrly deternfinrd that
debt fay for interest clue but litre the question
wag. whether itoere.t was doe ?

sji

The CHIEF JUSTICF:—•6 We Are in consider
whether listvurst went tver sllowr4l a such It es;se
Lt• the Conlin...inners—and tf lot, whether we ntt•
to overturn lie invsri4ble bite of pineLler."

Me. Jwaice l'Aet%—" I wak u Coontnioioner s.
Bankrupt for nine year*, and I lit-Ver knew it to be
allowed ; my Mother Burrough wa. one fur a longer
time, lie 1.1411 p.tate 4•Xprrleil:•r."

Mr. Justice Iluuttovintt—" l nas q Commis-
stoner from the year 1785 till 1 wa... tundra Judge;
hundreds of similar applications n'evr spark to us.
hut I never kievta interest to be proved. except on
fort-ign

Mr. .4 t•titre PART(—" The shourdity is that
we would uut tilluw the full debt, but leave the
Cumin: .s.uouera of:envoi& to cut it down."

Mr. Serjeant Liars omit iiiii ed—lf it was a legal
debt here, it must be so fitfore the Commissionels;
but the whole course of pryetice teat to slier/. that
it was not a legal debt. The Commas inners hatl
tau riglit to consider it or such; it was not legal till
assessed by a Joey. Neither was the law on this
head altered by the Statute D and 10 William 111.
That Statute applied only to cases where interest
was already tine by law. For a blintlred years
had never hetire been cited, to she w that interest
was a legal debt on till hills of exchange and pro-
missory notes; the Statute Made no alteration in
the law, but only gave u remedy where there was
stone before. It Vas not its intent 19 give interest
where it was not before due. The Learned Conn'.
eel lastly cited Ist Rose's likttkruprry Coves, 317,
wherein it was said, 'hit the d• Courts of Law gave
interest, not as debt, but us datuagt-s."
Mr. Serjeatit Lt.ocit, in reply, sail% that his
Learned hieetl's argument seemed pvincip illy to
rely on what had been the practice, lint the ques-
tion here was, whether that practice had hero cor-
rect. He had heard nothing alleged against the
principle, which was, that the interest was a legal
debt, the criterion of which was the anode in which
it wiis recoverable. Ills Learned Friend had not
attempted to hew that he would be obliged to have
recourse to an actioa On the cave. It could cera.
thinly be recovered by debt, or indebitatill atrump.
tit, which established his principle. There was no
stronger contract in the law than a promissory note
or bill of exchange, to whew that the itarties intend-
ed interest should he payable when the day of pay-
ment was past. l'he present law of the latol intuit
be derived front the Statute, whatever bay have
been the practice. The Leartivil Seijelint here
quoted the words of the Statute at lengtie, and coil-
tended that it was incapable of the coitstrtsction ;tot
upon it by his Learned Friend. If its application
was confined to cases where interest was due before,
its operation, so far from.being remedial, would be
onerous, itiustuutli as it imposed a owe and trouble-
some process.

The COURT intimated it would certify on anothet
day.
The Judges proceeded to the Court of Eachiei
quer at two o'clock.

iNSO LT' ENT DEBTORS' coma; :77,
P •
NOVICIIISCR 14.

This day the Court met ; twelve rases stood for
this ilmy's hearing. twenty-one siis..d for Friday, ai.d
thirty-one for t3aturday.
Wm. Holcombe Scett was opposed on the ground
of his not having *mart-tett in his schedule the parti-
culars of a mortgage of certain hostiles of which lie
was possessed in Devon. This otnisenne was ad.
mitred by the insolvent, but lie explained that it vo,s
became the ailment or the eimitgsge greatly ex-
ceeded the value of the property, which, in cause-
sitience, hail totally devolved upon the mortgagee.
Rubes' Pryng contradicted the Insolvent's' eras
deuce respecting the disposal of the property.
The Counr remanded the Insolvent for a con-
cealment of property, in his not inserting in has
schedule the particulars of this mortgage.
'Thos. Giffin was opposed ty Joseph Stumpy, a
tailor, for a debt of 11/. Us. The opposing creditor
complained, that last March the insolvent came to
I • and got clothes to the at:lomat mentioned, and
in two or three days after went to minstlire tailor and
got credit to the same amount. He never paid
either, and offered bills which were not honoured.
The COURT said, that the opposing creditor had
to blame himself for giving credit iii the loose
manner he had done. The Insolvent was do.-
char•ed.
111 r. Noants said, he had to apply to the Court
that the case of John Cuizer, which nom on this
day's list, might be postponed until to-morrow,-
He made the application on the part of Liesstenitst
Hickman. who claimed to be a creditor to the
amount of 12/. although the Insolvent had insetted
his name in his sclieduk, as a debtor to Min in the
sum of IG/. Liententait irlickman bad hail no
notice of the Insolvent's application, and lie now
sought that the case should stand over until te-
morrow, to allow liiM to prepare the grounds of iio•
oppositson.
The COURT-01 As your client has had no tiotic»
from the Insolvent, the discharge of the luster can
have no effect upon Lieutenant Hickmiiii's debt."

Nneats---" But the discharge front the op-
posing creditor is already lodged 1..4 the Iminlerlit—
and we 6111111 not know where to find hum to-twit-low
to tiii,ert our claim. unless the Court postpones
hearing for PO short a perio&—aud the HMI it ton
small to obtain a detainer."

Lieutenant Hickman here addressed the Court
he said that the Insolvent was master of hi. Mujest
ship Redwing. and he (Lieutenant H.) stmt
Lieutenant. tie was then about to state come vt-
'uvular* reppreting their mess occOunt, wiwo 11,
CoURT interposed, and permitted the case to stand
over till to-morrow„ „.
Hobert Hall applied for his discharge.
Mr. 111-.ATH opposed the nppliextion, and .1441
that the Insolvent had been frlll.4lltit it a VOOl r
fur a concralment of property, and hll,l, ifit•(• 16.1
period, made two inclfestoal attriapts to sbto,J, a

•

k

6111

rule for t- re-hearing. His creditors were resident
• ut Masselfibter, and hod no right, unless the lust&
vent could •hew specal circumstances to justify a
re-hearing, to be put to the expense of a second
journey to London, fur the purpose of opposing
him.
The Insolvent said his case had not hero fully
heard. He was now !prepared to blsew by affidavit.,
that there was no grouud for refusing him the be-
nefit of the Act.
The Couirr at length consented to let the cue
stand for the <,..5"4. 0,, to eimble the creditors at
Manchester to answer the tsfE lints now tiled in
Court by the 1ue.10,e,,1.
Several Iworimis were made, hut they were p!ovitd
of interest, except to the putties concerned.

POLICE.

VAGRANT SEAMEN.

Two sailors, in Mien, were brought before the new LOUD
Maven, charged by Mr. Flodyer, of " The Committee for
Distressed Seamen," with bring irminstiire, and making had
nee of the indulgence extended towards them by the AblO.
ciatinn.

l'he Complaisant raid. that the Prisoners were not only
incurrigib,e, bat that they were poiguning the minds of all
the idle seamen atilt wandering abont town...

The facts having been proved, the Lord Mayor said, he
should have a watchful eye, during his Mayoralty, beards
characters of this description, by endvavoniiiie to discrimi-
nate between the mafiosi:mak and the deprored. The
punishment he should inflict, in the present in.tanee, would
not be comm.-figurate to the offence, List it might have as

exemplary effect.
The Prisoners were ordered to be sent to Bridewrll fur oar
mouth each, and to be kept to bard labour.

ADVENTURERS TO SOUTH AMERICA.

A ward beadle, uansed Davis, waited upon the lord
Mayor yesterday, to stale a CiECUMPIMACC that had just ecc-
c art eol, of rather a singular nature.
A dispute, it appeared, had liken place at a poililic•lumpor
in the City, between three persons, about a reckoning which
had been nunrred its consequence of an enlistment. The
embodying of soldiers struck the !author I as ass extraor-
dinary thing at suck n 11111", snot he scut for the ward
whnospon !scathe: the word.dcsirrd an ootliccr infollow
the disp sit ants. One of these persons conducted she other two
to the ship perseverance, ION: ill she river, near Elephant-
street, Rootherlsithe, and hound for South America. The
meat the lieu, who nettled to he in u. sue sura-aire snider the
authority of the third, Ent on board. their attendant skewed
n tit bet to a at uhu marched up and thou to the sleeks,
and tiny were sent down " below." The inonnent they dis-
appeared she hatches ws-re thrown over theist, and there they
rein...toed without she chance of returnosoz, if appearances
a. it: 111 he credited. 'flue officer allO a :itched this soncoine.
mon proceedin imino &lamely demanded the reason such a
wide of security was adopted, and was answered by the
tined, that the two meta had enlisted vuluutaitly, and weir
going to Senile America.
Ihe Curd Mayor—" Did the men complain of the re-
sit ?'

Otfieer—" No, my Lord. thry hail no opportunity.—the
tatthiii *ere 08;rd enJdrnly oil diem. I oloorryed a prrson
from banw raise ep los brad and ask the scistinel for a ladle
lo Fri some water."
This was refused by the sentiorl. oho !aid, he omit attend
lo his orders, and stopped all expostulation by putting
dim 's the hatches. _ . .

Thr Mayor—" Were many un boars' in a similar

Oflicer—" That I cannot boll, but I have reason to fop.
rep sn "
The Lord Mayor—" I should be extremely glad to du every
tliiiig in my power on such an occasion, hat cannot pre in
ahst manner I eau act, except the patties were prtseist. By
whom were the men enlisted?"
OlEeer—" By some Colonel or Captain it was said, but
I c ~not tell his nauic."
The N'ard.Bcadle—`/ I merely applied 111 your Lord.hip,
fur I thought it a very strange case that men should he taken
VW of the kingdom iu this manner."
The Lord Mayor—" Visa were perfectly right in stating
In nir any thing that had the appeasance of unfairness ex-
eseipril within my jurisdiction. There npprars, however,
to be no compulsion in this cape, and if my unfortunate
cuientryinen all allow themselves to be trepanned, I cannot
Isi Ip it. iVe all know, that numbers of men are every day
going to South America upon this military sprculat' Hot
tel me in what state the men were, as to their command
user ihenisclves." . .

(/flirir—" The two soldiers were •ery much intoxicated
indeed," . .

. .....
The Loyd Mayor—'4 Oh, that in a point indeed, and will
furnish as with an oppio Inuit), of the cow.
shall not 1w wanting in lily duty."
Officer-6s One of the awn said, that if he did not go out
•f the emintty of his own accord, he certainly should be
11311 V .1 or tiansported."
The Lord Mayor immediately directed Mr. ITontner, 11w
City 31rirshnl, to lake the necessary steps fur examining the
&within ity aims which this odd puotuduig was founded.

OVILMIALL.