The Sun.
London, England, 1808-11-12 00:00:00

THE CASE OF THE Dail, Baitiatl.V.
t •

Many remarks have lately a peared i7a' the Public
Papers, reflecting on the 13Jai Owners of Deal. We
have endeavoured to collect :dl the inform ition pos-
sible to guide our judgment, before our pages be-
came a vehicle of censure on so useful a class of men.
They are accused of a combination—but, can com-
bination be said to exist in a profession like theirs,
which is open to every subjeift of the empire, with-
out any lee or servitude whatever ? So open is the
access to the business of a Deal boatman, that r,iany
men, practising other trades, are accustomed to go
on the water whenever they find their account in
it. Nor is there any thing to prevent the London
ship-owners from sending down 500 watertnen at
once, to attend the merchant shipping in the
Downs. We always like to hear the pros and cods
of a question ; and, with this disposition, we should
be glad to hear something said of the complaints
of the boatmen. These, we understand, are not a
few. To enumerate one, fur an example :—Their
services for carrying off anchors and cables to
ships in tl:e Downs, in gales of wind, whereby
they encounter very great danger, in launching
through raging seas, and delivering such heavy
articles alongside of vessels in the Downs, often
in the night time, the tides running with the ut-
most rapidity, the winds blowing tremendously,
and the ship, alongside which they are, pitching
bows under, while the boat is in the utmost danger
of foundering before they can get the anchor and
cables unloaded. Indeed, without the greitest skill
and activity, which it cannot be denied these peopleare
possessed of (we will say there are nonesuch availed
the whole coast of this country), services there •
could not be performed. Nov,' we understand, by
a recent AEI of Parliament, these boatmen are com-
pelled to refer the remuneration of ;heir services to
Commissioners appointed by the Lord Warden,
without any discretionary power in themselves to re-
fer the same to arbitrators, indifferently chosen by
the parties interested. This they think very hard;
for they believe that the authors of the Act in ques-
tion, were the Ship-owners, or the Committee at
Lloyd's, or persons employed by them. They com-
plain that the role of ,irbitration, the most equitable
of all rules, is abandoned, and they contend that
the Ship-owners might to do one of two things,
" Either send down boatmen of their own, to attend
on their shipping ; or, in employing the present boat-
men, refer all disputes to arbitrators, chosen einally
and impartially by both sides."

s-or

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. to.

DAGNELL V. WILEY.

rThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL. moved for a rule to
thew cause why there should not be. a new trial in
sl lois cause. It was an action lipon a Bill of' 1,,x-
-e].allge-:--VidiL'A for the. Plaintiff. The considera-
tion !or which bill he niaintaine`l to he umtrious.
The ,A a whA was called a Bill Broker.—
.
He ciitid understand what was meant by a Foreign
•
Bill of Exchange Broker, because, in that case, he
purchased a b• 11 of a person wtn;se name might not
be on it, and might give another for it, and the
traffic ixould depeld on the rate of exchange be-
tween this country and that to which the foreign
bill of exchange related. Thus, for instance, a
person might purchase a forcien bill of exchange,
the rate of. the' exchange of which might depend
upon the relative,situations of this country and Por-
tiviral I in cases of this kind he 'could understand•
• •
xviiat was meant by a bill broker. But a bill broker
Of inland bills of exchange was a charaaer which
he did dot understand, because money advanced on
them were mere loans of money. In this case there
was no brokerage, and therefore'there should be no
coinmission. This was a mere dry loan of money,
in w inch there was no pretence for commission,
ai[!l,,ugh here was colninission charged in such a
manner as • (0 Make, it the clearest case of usury
that imagioation could suggest ; and it had been
multiplied in such a manner, as that Plaintiff
the
iougHt to hide the illegality, of the .transacaion
the muitiOlichy of the aets- which proved it:
Lord
,ELLENBoanuCH.—" I am afraid that an
idea has gone forth, that what May be thought an
usury in a si;tgle instance, acquires a species of in-
,
nor... Awe by tb multipticity of the crime."
ATTORNF.V-GENERAL.—"My Lord Kenyon
(loan in the case of a person of. the name of
itliths„ that that inch is charged under the name
interest, cannot he attc4wards justified as a commis-
sion ; reasoning from thence, some per,,ons haiie ar7-
rived at the conclusion, that what they charge as
commiSsion, cannot by possibility be turned into
usury."—H:iVing Stated- the circumstances of the
case, the Court granted a Rule to shew cause.

FALSE ARREST.

BOADEN V. FETTER.

Mr. Serjeant LENS moved- for a rule to chew
cause why a orin,uit should not be entered, or why
there should .not be a new trial. It was an action
for malicionsly causing the. Plaintiff tai he arrested,
and to be detained in prison. The Plaintiff came to
Rtrnstap,e, but was not known There ; he appeared
afterward~ w be
at 'Winchester. 'While at Barnstaple, Hooper, a per-
son in his vinployment,was arrested for a debt of 561.
and the Plaintiff, Boaden, felt an interest in pro-
curitV., the enlargement of this agent of his, which
the. De:endaut, who was the Sheriff's Officer who
had arrested the man, assented to, on a deposit of
301. by way of sure!), for his appearance before the
retain of the writ.. Accordingly the Plaintiff,
• Boaden, deposited with this Sheriff's Officer, the
Defendant, two bank-notes, one of 201, and one of
PA. as a pledge for the return and-surrender of
Hooper on the darappointed, Which was on the 21st
.of May on which Hooper was liberated. On the
tst May Hooper surrendered himself in discharge
of • his Master's engagement; upon which Boaden,
the master, demanded his notes" in return for this
surrender. He had taken of Petter, the Defendant,
a written acknowledgment of his having taken, by
Way of deposit, these notes as a security for the
surrender of Hooper. This produced a difference
between Boaden and Petter, the Plaintiff and De-
fendant in the present adtion ; the latter suspe6ting
that the notes were forged, detained them, and tore
the paper of acknowledgrneyt, upon which, instead
of giving tire note,- to Boaden, Petter took him into
custody, for the put pose of securing hint in case the
notes were forged, which he suspeaed them to be,
and tlu y tad a very suspicious appearance, for the.
one of them was dated so long back as the year 1774,
and the other in- the year 1777; and Boaden him-
self, who had deposited them, had not the least ap-
pearan; e A-But-nue. To w hich Was added another

Circumstance whit h increased the suspicion, for the
notts were I:9t mach viyable to Bank Cashier,
as i, usual in Rink Ncres, but to a parliCular per-
The Defendant; a Sheriff's Officer• did not

5011.

. -
undertake to understand these matters, but thought
it his duty not to let this man have these notes, nor
to let him go away, um:er all these suspicious cir-
cumstances, and teerefere detained h m ; but he did
not pro, eed from his'own judgment, for he asked the
opinit,n of i Magistrate on the case; and from whom
he obtained a warrant for apprehending this man.—
Ucon this he was detained from the 2 1 gt to the 26th
May., ti h;Ch was• the time necessary to diScover
whetl:er these notes were genuine or not ; fof Which
purpose they were sent up to the Bank of England,
from wi.ence an answer came down that the notes
were genuine; and it turned nut that they had been
lockeki up by an old gentleman, and kept for many
years in his chest. Upon wbiph this man, who had
been thus wrested on susphion, was set at liberty,
and upon which he brought his anion for a Malici-
ous arrest and detention ; thefoundation of which
was the wart of probable cause. • No'.v the Learned
Serrant Contended, that the Plaintiff ought to be
nonsui!ed, for here was no malice ; the man was a
mere sininger, and here was probable cause from ail
these suspicious circumstances; and a banker in the
town of BArnsiaple,• when he. saw these notes,
thought .they were fOrged.

The Court asked the Learned Serjeant what the
datr6ges were in this case ? He Said he had not got
the sum upOn his brief, he believed 201. or 301.; but
he not move on account of excessive damages;
be submitted that.as there was here no malice, and
ai there was ,a probable cause for detention, the
Plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited.

Lord ..ELLENeo*tioccir observed, that although
there be no expresi'mAlice, yet if a person acted
with gross-negligence and indifference to' the cOm-
fort or another, it would supply the want of malice
to support such an action as this, because from .gros
negligtn(e and indifference to the comfort of ant-
ther, malice might be inferred.
Mr. BUR ROUGH observed, that there was a very
material tacl proyed which had not yet bet ti stated,

which was, that when this Sheriff's ailieer, the
Defendant, had got this paper, acknowledging that
these notes were left with him as a deposit, he not
only tore the paper, but afterwards said to the Plain-
tiff, " There ! what have you got now to shew for
your notes ?"
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" I am afraid, Brother
LENS, that 9te next question is, " What have you.
got to shew for your motion ?" -
Mr. Justice LE BLaNc—And it appears, that this
Sheriff's Officer was not disposed to inquire whether
these notes were forged or not, until he was called
upon to deliver them up."
For these reasons, the Court saw no cause for
disturbing this verdict --Motion refused.
Baooxs (qui tam) V. MIDDLET6N.

Mr. GARROW moved for a Rule to spew \ cause
Why there should not be a new trial. This he treat-
ed as a Cause of no less usury than that of a quarter
per cent, per month in the transaction's o) Bills of
Exchange and Loans between the said parties. The
verdict was for the Defendant, against the whole of
the evidence, as well as against the clear decisive
opinion of his Lordship, as well as his dtreaiOn to
the Jury ; who were bent, in defiance of all autho-
rity, to bring in a verdidt for the Defendant. He
considered these modern verdicts of acquittal of per-
sons guilty of barefaced
.usury, as a very alarming
matter in our late administration of justice.
Here Mr. Justice Gauss suggested a doubt, whe-
ther in any penal case, either of misdemeanour, or
a civil suit, and where there was a %erdict found for
the Defendant, tile Court ever wanted a. new trial,
except in a case of a mistake, or kruisdireEtion of
the Judge.
This produced a great many observations from
the Bench, iu which the Chief Justice inclined to
assent to this suggesti,2n ,getterally, but thought it
ought to have some limits, otherwise there wi,uld be
no remedy against the rnost outrageCus
when they happened to be for Defendants in penal
.cases, excel* the very old remedy of attaint, which
might now savour of harshness. Pcrhaps the better
way would be, to take time to consider this matter,
for the Court to look into ali tine precedents, and
see whether they were absolutely precluded b) them
from interfering in any case whatever of a penal
kind, where the verdict was for the Deteildot, ex-
cept where thew \was a mistake, or a misdirection
of ►h e Judge. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Justice GROSE said, it .had been rivetted in
his mind that such was the established rule.

Mr. Justice LE IiLANC inclined the same way,
but thought it better to look into the case.

Mr. Justice BAILEY saw-a great deal of danger in
a Rule of this kind without limits ; he apprei►ended
it might encourage Juries, in some cases, to g►ve
verdicts in one way, know►ng there could be no re-
vision of them.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he knew of a case
on the game laws, wherein the Defendant was sued,
for a penalty for shooting a partridge, he not being
qualified. The evidence was, the Witness saw the
Defendant shoot at the partridge, and saw the bird
fill immediately after ; but a Learned Counsel for
the Defendant told the Jury, that probably the bird
fell froth frighr at the noise of the explosion, arid
the Jury adopted that reasoning, and found a ierdid
for the Defendant ; yet so binding was the Rule, that
the Court refused to grant a new trial, bteause it was
a verdict for the Defittudant in a penal action. The
Court, upon this, expressed a desire to look into all
the cases, to see whether it was tied down by this
praetice in cases so flagrantly improper; and to order
in the mean time, judgment should not be entered up
pursuant to the ver:id in this case. But afterwards
a case being handed up which., is to be found in 3d
Wilson, 50, in the Common Pleas ; in which. it _ap-
peared, by determination of the whole Court, that
there was to be no new trial in a penal case wherein
the verdiet was for the, Defendant, for the praCtice
was so uniformly for 50 years, and condemned a case:.
in Keebie, 226, holding a contrary doctrine ; frown
this case, in Wilson, the Court held itself precluded
front entertaining a motion for a: new trial in a penal
case, where the veradis for the Defendant, except
in case of mistake or axis-direction of the Judge„.

DOE, ON THE DEMISE OP ASKEW, V. ASKEW.

Mr. TOPPING moved for a Rule to-7shew 'cause
why there should not be a. new trial, which was On
an action of ejectment. A widow had been admitted
to a copyriold estate in, a manor in Westmorland,
which she was entitled 'to during her widowhood ;
but it was held she bad forfeited her title by' having
had a child, on the ground that she was not to. hold
`doting widowhood, but during a state of chaste wi-
dowhood. Upon that subjed, the numbers of pei-sons
admitted into this manor were proved by the stew-
ard to be equal, of those who were to' hold doring
Widowhood, and during chaste widowhood; but this
manor had many singular modes of admission,
for some persons were admitted after they were dead
—and this resembled, in principle, a practice former-
ly iii Scotland, on the borders of which. this manor
stood ; he had learned from his friend, Mr. George
Wilson, that in former days, in Scotland, those who
had been in rebellion, and were buried, had their
bones dug up, and tied for high treason ; and, if
foui,d guilty, the estate was forfeited by the corrup-
tion of blood attending that conviation.—Rulc grant-
ed to show cause.

N'OVEMBER 1 i.

SIAM (qui tarn) v. ROGERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a Rule to
whew cause why the writ of mandamus, issued to
compel certain Justices of the Sessions to return this
convition, should not be quashed. The objet of
this motion was to facilitate that which the .a.,,fend-
ant wished." The Justices had convicted the Defend-
ant of an of against the 42d of Geo. 111. which
was an a& to prohibit ail persons from watering malt
"within a certain time, and in a' certain manner
therein specified. The 46th of the King repealed
.the 4-1, and gave the party convicted before alus-
tice, the right of appeal, which the 42d did not ;
but the 46th was only in force for a limited time,
which was expited a the date of the present cort
; for, on the expiration of the 46th, the 42d
revived; and by the 42d there was no appeal ; so
tliA the Defendant could make, nothing of his man-
damus, and therefore it was that he moved it should
he quashed. The Defendant was aectivrd in sup-
posing that he had an appeal, and now he was out

of. time-for his certiorari, and which be could not
have without his (the Attorney-General's) consent,
but he would consent if the writ of mandamus was
quashed.—Rule to shew cause.
Mr. GARRow moved f9r a Rule to shew cause
why the Plaintiff should not pay the costs of this
action, on the ground that he had held the Defend-
ant for a larger sum than was due to him, and be
-recovered. It was an attiou upon a Bond given, ori-
ginally for 1501. but which had been reduced by
payment to 501.4 and this the, Plaintiff must have
known, because the suns paid had been endorsed on
the Bond itself; notwithstanding which, he had
held. the Defendant to bail for 611.—Rule to shew
cause granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. to.

PAYI`ON V. WINTER AND HAY.

This was an action bromght to•recover the amount
of a bill of exchange, which bad been altered, when
left for acceptauce,from one to two months after
date, by which the Plaintiff was disabled .from re-
covering from the maker, upon account of the alter-.
at ion.

Mr. Serjeant RUNNINGTON contended that, by
law, the acceptors were warranted to accept under
what terms they pleased; and for this purpose quot-
ed two cases, the one from Strange, where the
time of payment was altered, as in the present in-
stance, the other from Burrough, where the altera-
tion was in the-sum.

The Court was of the same opitiion, and refused
to grant the rule for setting aside the verdict fur the
Defendants.

BANWELL V. BARRIS.

This alion had been brOught to recover the sum
of 271. tus. deposit, in the hands of the Defendant,
as auctioneer, uvon the sale of a house, which 'was
sold, Subjiti:t to a ground-rent of two guitieas, for
want of I ii le.

At the trial it was proved, for the Plaintiff, that
.the house in question was part of a large lot of
ground and houses, the ground-rent of which having
never been divided by any deed of the head land-
lord, this house, •or any other part,-was liable to the
entire of the rent, and, consequently, that the seller
bad no good title.
The- Defendant proved, that the landlord had ac-
cepted two guineas a-year for this house for up-
wards of twenty years; and Sir JAMES MANSFIELD,
before whom the action had been tried, left it to the
Jury whether this acceptance of rent, for so long a
period, was not such a severance as to discharge the
house from liability to any further rent.
There was a verdi& for the Plaintiff., with liberty
to enter a nonsnit; subject to this point.

WILSON V. JOHNSON, AND WILSON V. TURNER.

. These were two a&ions to recover compensation
in damages for malicious arrests, and verdias- in
both, for the Plsintitic, in the sums of 10001. and
15001. In the action with Turner, it was proved,
for the Plaintiff, that the Attorney for the Defend-
ant had ottered to release the Plaintiff.out of custo-
dy, upon his discharging the other Defendant,
Johnson, the noted smuggler, from a demand made
against him, and fur which he had held-him to bail ;
but this was denied by Johnson to be authorised by
him, and therefore it was now contended, upon mo-
tion for a new trial, that the,. evidence was not ad,
missible. •

The Rule to sllew cause was granted.
WOOLLEN V. LARgMONT AND OTHERS.

This attion was brought by the Plaintiff, a
baker, 'against the Defendants, contractors with
Government for the supply of the troops at Shef-
field with bread, for -the amount of bread alledged
to have been so supplied by him on their credit and-
account. The defence at the trial was, that the
bread in question was not supplied on their credit.,
but orr that of a person of the nairie of Mast (since
a bankrupt) who was a sub-coniraEtor under them,
.and they called a witness to that fad.- The Jury
understanding that such sub-contra& was contrary
to the terms between Government and contractors,
found for the Plaintiff 1401. damages. It was now
moved to set aside this verdt& on the abcrve-evi7
6nce, and also on the deed of agreement between
the Plaintiff and Mast, _which was not forthcoming
at the trial. .

Rule to spew cause granted.\

POLICE.

BOW-STREET.—A case lias.been under the pri,
vate investigation of Mr. GR for se%ei al days
past, which•proves it almost essentially necessary
that every man, however exalted in his character or
consequence, should keep a journal of hi, tine, to
avoid the most- unpleasant circrmstances and serious
consequences. The following are the particulars :
About two o'clock last Saturday morning, a tailor's
and mercer's shop, in the neighbourhood of .St.
Martin's-lane; was broke' open : the noise of the
robbers awoke the tailor, who slept in his back par-
lour ; he 'got up, and it being moon-light, he dis-
tinaly saw that one of his 'shop-window shutters
was taken Clown, and two robbers at his window,
the glass broken, and one of the robbers taking goods
out ()Ibis shop. He looked at them for some time
till he made up his mind that he had seen sufficient-
ly of their persons so that he should be able to iden-
tify them, it being nearly as light as day: indeed,
one of them he knew well, he having been in his
shop a few days previous, and ordered a pair of pan
taloons. After he.had satisfied himself with observ-
ing their persons, he gave an alai in, and the robbers
made the course of the morning, the tailor
gave information at-the above Office of t he' robbery,
and positively described the man who had ordered a
pair of pantaloons a few days previous, and assigned,.
as suspicious corroboration, that when the man Or-
dered the pantaloons, he being a stranger to -him,
he asked for a deposit of..one pound, he not being in
the habit of making clothes for strangers, without-
taking that precaution,. to preVent clothes being
thrown upon his hands; which he refused to do.
He agreed to call upon Anthony, the Officer, on
Sunday morning, at nine o'clock, to Jo and take the
man: he described into custody.- Anthony' waited
for him during Sunday, but the tailor did not call.
'On Monday morning the tailor called at the Office
again. 'Anthony asked him the reason of his• not
keeping his time ? to which he replied, that-some
friends had advised him that Sunday was an impro-.
per day ; and asked if it- was not time enough then