The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-21 00:00:00

\lr. rroPr":NG dbieiN ecj .11.1's'ca Se 'was closed.

Mr. ATTOTINEY-(hNERAI., Counsel fora the De-
-fetui•Atits, then a.idresttSd 'the COurt and Jury, and
.observed,,_thatthis action was not brought by the
1)h-timid's aJone, but by a combination of the spirit,
merchinits, to do away with the regulations of the
West India I)ock4, which they did not like, as they'
kept them too Stria in regard-to the Te‘.entie of :the
country. The obje& in the declaration was chargmg
-the servants of the Company with peculation,
making away With-800 gallons ofrum, to the amount
of 1001. anti upwards, and if there had been such a
\charge ,proved against any one of them, he Would
hale thrown up his brief; but the faCt was, Go-
%eminent would not entrust the merchants with
the bonding of their own goods ; and, by an Plot
of Parliament, obliged them to bond it in li-
celised store houses ; where, to their shame and
dissatisfaelion, frauds were prevented, and by the
prevention .of them the revenue ceased to be
cheated ; and this reflected honour on the \Vest
India Dock Company, although it. might gall the
merchants. There was not a single count 'in the
declaration charging that they were stowed in an
impropet place. The sheds bad been built three
years, and although there was a combination
of the wholevol• the merchants, this was\ the only
solitary instance they could bring forward.—The
Court and Jury could not believe it was on
account of respe& to the Company, if they had
other instances, that they did not produce them.—
There never was a more miserable, or a more infa-
mous attempt to injure a body of men, than the pre-
sent was. His clients would never have defended
this action, but they thought it their duty, as a body,
to disperse any aspersions that might be attempted
to be insinuated. He concluded by observing, that
he would not call any witnesses, and he felt' per-
fealy satisfied the Jury would set their_faces against
such a combination, and give their verdiel fOrthe
Defendant.

Lord Chief Justice ELLENBOROUGH summed up
the evidence, and observed, that. the question "for
the Jury to consider was, whether there had been
any negled or inattention in the Company th 4 caus-
ed the loss ? or that the sheds were an improper
placefor the rtim- to be stowed in, and by its being
exposed to the rays of the 4tITI and the draft of the
air, the loss was sustained ? If this were'their
opinion, they would give their verdii.i for the Plain-
tiffs, but if not, they would give their verdict for the
Defendant. He could-not.help saying, although the
mer Chants who gave their evidences were ip,-.sorue
degree interested, he thought they had aele4erfett-
ly honoUrable in the mode they had declared their
having that interest to the Court.
The JurS,, without considering a minute, gave a
verdiL for the Plaintiffs---41. Gs. 9d.

MARTHA HILLYER V. COLONEL FLINT.

This was an a6tion to recover tool. from the -De-
fendant, for money laid out fortis use. It appeared
that the Plaintiff had lived in the capacity of house-
keeper with the Defendant, and had been in. the
custom, for years, to pay his bills, and purchase all
the provisions that came into the house ; she used
to- give him a .weekly account, and he used to pay
her regularly 51. a week 5-but it appeared on the lace
of her books 'that the weekly- expellees amounted
generally to a greater sum.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, on. looking over the ac-
count, said, he thought there was something due to
the Plaintiff, although not to the amount set forth in
the declaration. He would therefore recommend to
the parties, to leave it to the decision of a Gentle-
man at the Bar, who would have a better opportu-
nity and more time than the Jury to investigate it.
,This was agreed to, and it was left to arbitration
accordingly. •

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20.

FLEET V. MARSDEN.

This was an aCtion for the board and lodging of
the Defendant's wife, charged at upwards-,of 2201.
It appeared on the trial, that the Defendant and his
wile had been separated for near 20 years, although
the deed of separation was not produced. The, De-
fendant was a poor man living at Deal, and on his
separation from his wife, he. settled on her 201. a
year as a separate maintenance, which was as much
as his circumstances could afford. She had a house
in Rosemary-street,Clerkenwell, and had made some
money in letting lodgings. Having afterwards
fallen into ill health, she went to the house of the
Plaintiff; who was married to her sister, and lived
there for six months. The trustees of the deed of
separation had paid the Plaintiff during that time
the suin of ► 01. being half a year's allowance ; but
the Plaintiff considered himself entitled to bring
his maim) against the husband for necessaries fur-
nished to his wife, according to the fair and reason-
able value.

A point of law arose upon this case ; whether an
aEtion would lie against a husband from 'a trades-
man for .necessaries furnished to a wife, when it
was knoWn by the tradesman that the wife Was se-
parated from her husband. _ _

Lord ELLENI3PROUGII conceived that it was now
generally Understood that. the aaiQn would lie, but
that the husband might be indemnified by-the trus-
tees to the deed of separation. In the present case,
however, it appeared that the Defendant's wife had
some Money when she went into• the Plaintiff's
house, which money was really the property of her
husband, and which she ought to have applied, as
far as it would go, towards paying her necessary
ex p.2nces. .

The Jury, after a short consultation, found a ver-
ditt generally for the Defendant.,
Atter one or two Undefended causes were disposed
of, the Sittings at Westminster concluded, and the
Court rose at about twelve.e'clock. The court will
sit to-morrow at Gu►ldhall.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, jutY 20.
HUGUENINE V. BAZELEY.

A Petition was presented in this case pa the part
of the Defendant, who had been ordered by Decree
of the Court to deliver up the possession of an estate,
belonging to the Plaintiff,
.tinder a deed which tbe
Court had ordered to be set aside, praying the D-
ecree might be suspended pending an Appeal there-
'from to the House of Lords.

Tile application was grounded on an allegation,
hat great hardship would arise to the . Petitioner
should he be precluded from trying the Appeal in

. ,
ad publlshei by IVILLIAM ARMIGER SCRlrrs, South Molton.stret, Grosvci.or—s luArci
r the Wader.-1 etlers for the Editor, Bcc, (Post-paid) must be addressed.