The Sun.
London, England, 1830-10-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 27.
KEISALL V. MACKWORTII.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
is a cotton-manufacturer at Rochdale, against the de-
fendant, who is the son of Sir Digby Mackworth.
the banker, to recover the sum of 2001., the amount
of a bill of exchange, drawn by a person named Mar-
shall, and accepted by the defendant.
Mr. Se►jeant WILDE opened the defendant's case.
The defendant, a young gentleman only 23 years of
age, having incurred some expenses at college, with
Which he was unwilling to acquaint his father, was
induced by an advertisement in the newspapers to
apply to a person in Manchester•square, for the loan
of 3001. This person undertook to raise the money,
and after obtaining .5/. by way of travelling expenses,
and made Mr. Mackworth sign some papers, which
were to be his authority, he said, for raising the
money, he promised to introduce him to Mr. Mar-
shall, who hail a shop in the Poultry, as the person
from whom he was to receive the money. After
various appointments made and broken, the defend
ant at length saw Marshall, who told him that the
person for whom be had signed the papers had filled
them up as bills of exchange; but he (Marshall)
would destroy them, and let him have the 300/.
upon signing other papers as an authority for raising
the loan. This was accordingly done; and it after-
wards turned out (the Learned Serjeant stated) that
this second batch of papers, which were blank ac-
ceptances, were filled tip for various sums, amount-
ing• altogether to .5,8001., and were now out-
standing with► this young gentleman's name upon
them. The circumstance having come to the
knowledge of the defendant's friends, bills of dis-
cover), were filed in the Court of Chancery against
the several holders of these acceptances, to compel
them to disclose under what circumstances they had
come to their hand.; and amongst the rest, a bill
having been filed against the plaintiff, that gentle-
man put in an answer, setting forth all the particu-
lars which had led to his becoming possessed of the
acceptance in question. That answer was neatly
the whole evidence relied on by the defendant. It
stated that Marshall, who was most respectably
connected in Yorkshire, had been strongly recom-
mended to him by a relation of his (Marshall's),
whereby he had been induced to employ him to sell
goods for him on commission; but having applied
some of the proceeds of such sales to his own use,
he became indebted to the plaintiff to the amount of
1451., for which he sent him his own acceptance.
It became due at the end of September, 1829, and
was dishonoured ; upon which, after some further
correspondence, in the course of which the plain-
tiff threatened Marshall with legal proceedings, the
latter transmitted to him the bill in question, stating
that it was accepted by Mr. Mackworth, son of the
banker of that name, who had accepted it in con-
fidence to oblige him (Marshall).
:The plaintiff
continued to press Marshall for payment, and in the
mean time kept the defendant's acceptance by way
of a security. He was only enabled, however, to
extract altogether 70/. from Marshall, whose house
was soon afterwards shut up, and he therefore now
brought this action against the defendant upon the
bill iu question.

The .Jury, having retired for some time, returned
a verdict for the defendant.

ADMIRALTY SESSIONS, OCT. 27.

(Concluded from our Paper of yesterday.)
Henry Hammond, a seaman of the Inglis, was
then called by Mr. CLARKSON, and sworn. The
Learned Counsel, before be commenced kis exami-
nation, requested that any ladies who were present
should be required to withdraw. Several ladies
took the hint, and immediately retired. A question
was then put to the witness by Mr. CLARKSON, as
to his recollection of a particular expression used
by Mowat to Rose, while he poured some cold wa-
ter down his trousers. The witness repeated the
expression,which was of a moat indecent description.
William Dobson, boatswain on board the Inglis,
was then examined by Mr. CLAtucsoN, who asked
the witness with reference to the exertions used to
save the boy Howes when he fell overboard.

Mr. ALLEY rose and objected to the question.
The Counsel for the defence, he contended, had no
right to introduce matter which was foreign to the
result of this inquiry, and daily made use of for the
purpose of raising a prejudice against Captain Dud-
man and his officers. The Learned Counsel (Mr.
Clarkson) had no right upon the present issue to
bring forward evidence tending to prove that the
crew were goaded to mutiny in consequence of the
alleged improper conduct of Captain Dudman and
those who acted with him. If any of the seamen
had cause to complain of particular acts of cruelty
or injustice, the courts of law were open to them.

M. CLARKSON contended, on the contrary, that
he had a right to call witnesses, and examine them
upon all points tending to contradict the evidence of
Captain Rudman, and the other witnesses who tsp-
pcared for the prosecution. He would, however,
wave the point, and call no more witnesses except.
ing the police-officer, who waited upon Captain
Dudman, at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, on his ar-
rival in England.
Moody, an officer of the Thames police, was ac-
cordingly called forward, and deposed to the fact of
his having waited upon Captain Dudman, at the
Jerusalem Coffee-house, to apprise him of fact
that his men were waiting at the office, to see if he
had any charge to prefer against them.
Mr. CLARKSON here intimated that the case for
the defence was closed. _

LUSIIINGTON then rose to reply to the evi-
dence produced on behalf of the prisoners. The
question for the Jury to decide was this—Have the
prisoners at the bar been guilty of the crime of con-
spiring together, to resist the lawful commands of
their masters. With respect to the offence of mu-
tiny, it might by possibility occur, that a justifica-
tion could be pleaded for such a crime, when men
were goaded into insubordination by a long-con-
tinued course of rigour and injustice. But what were
the facts of this ease, and how was the act of mu-
tiny to be justified, when the Jury were reminded
of this simple circumstance,—that the last punish-
ment which took place on board the vessel, occurred
in February, while the mutiny did not happen until
the June following? The Learned Counsel, after
commenting upon the discipline necessary to be ob-
served on board merchant ships employed in distant
voyages, referred to the opinion of Lord Tenterden,
that it was lawful in the master of a vessel to correct
those who were placed under him : even a parent
might correct his offspring. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to advert to the particular case of
the Inglis, and said that during the seventeen months
that vessel had been at sea, only ten punishments had
taken place on board, amongst a crow of 126 men.
Mr. Justice BosANQuET then went over the evi-
dence, and left it to the Jury to return such a ver-
dict as should not only do justice to the prisoners,
but satisfy the public.
At half-past ten o'clock the Jury, after referring
to the Learned Judge upon some points of evidence,
retired.

A lew minutes after one o'clock, the Jury re-
turned to the box, and the clerk having asked them
whether they had made up their minds to find the
first prisoner, John Harrison, Guilty,
The Foreman replied, that the verdict of the Jury
wits vt ,ritten down, and he wished to know whether
he might not read it.
Mr. Justice BOSAWJET saw no objection.
The Foreman then read as follows :—" We find
John Harrison and John Murray Not Guilty ; and
Samuel Cole, Joh
we find John Lalley, John Jordan, Stephen Rose,
oGrreiosrgMeg(Weneritlas, n
Guilty of having, on
‘t(Th.joiethrrtfiletrh'Satoenfelli,ell%,ulne last, when off the Cape of Good
Hope, riotously assembled and assaulted the master,
but under all the circumstances in which they were
placed, the Jury recommended them to the merciful
consideration of the court."

The prisoners were then called up for judgment,
and
Sir C. Rou►Nsov having 4ddressed etch of them