The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-22 00:00:00

-~

LAIC REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Ivcir 21.

SITTZNGS BIFORE LORD ILLRNBOKOUGII.-

SHUTTLEWORTH V. STEVENS.

This was an aaion against the drawer of a bill of
exchange of 781.
The Defenl-nt originally gave the bill,which was
drawn on A'.:r. Moss, in London, ton person-of the
name of \vim afterwards became a bankrupt.
JenkinsfaA the bill, before his ban kruptcy, io Messrs.
Shuttleworth and Co. the Plaintiffs, in payment of
goods,.biit upon its not being paid at the time of its
being due, the Plaintiffs sent it back to him, and
requested he world pay the amount. -About this
lime:Jenkins became a bankrupt, and had never yet
o4tained his certificate. The Plaintiff had at first sued
Jenkins for the money, but -withdrew his action on
receiving back this bill, whiclrhad been then overdue
a considerable time. It appeared that ML Moss had
nn effeds of the Defendant's in his hands at the time
of his drawing upon
• The principal question in this case was, whether
by law the Plaintiff's: could maintain an affirm upon
a bill which they had thus received, after it was
overdue ?

Lord ELLENBOROUGU considered that the alion
would lie against the drawer of the bill, without any
regular notice of its not being, paid by•any body
else. The bill had come into the hands oftheylain-
till in the c purse of business, before it was due; and
the law would suppose it to be in I;ii custody.until
it was paid, not withstanding its being sent to Jen-
kins, and afterward returned.—Verclidt. for the Plain-
tiff, 781.

ASSAULT ON THE 'HIGH SEAS.

M‘NBAL, V. GOODALL.

Mr. TOPPING opened this case, and stated it was
an anion to recover damacres for an assault cpm-,
mated on the High Seas; the Defendant was owner
of the ship Hopewell, the. Plaii.tiff had been a
seaman on board the Hopewell,. on,avoyage from
the port of London to St. Domingo; the Defend-
ant was also on board of the ship, but not as. Ca-
ptain or Commander, there being another person' on
board as registered Master; on the passage home-
wards, the Defendant ordered .the, Plaintiff to loose
the main-sail; the Plaintiff said it was not his husi- .
ness, he was stationed on the fore-tOp, and was not,
to be drawn from one part of the ship
,to the other,
on which the Defendant struck him, and knocked him
doWn twice, and ordered him tip to loose the main-,
sail ; lie was going up the shrouds, When the Defend!. ,
ant called him down and beat him most unmercifully
'with a rope, after which lie sent bins again to loose
the main-bail, which he having ..done, the Defend-
ant ordered him to the mast-head, where he kept
him better than an hour. The Learned Counsel
observed, he would prove that the Plaintiff was
so weak when he came on deck, that he was not
able to go below without assistance. He thought
this case called for damages, and large damages.
Persons entrusted with the lives and liberties of a
part of his Majesty's subje&s, and 'he would say a
most valuable part, the seamen, instead of protect-
ing them, to use them with the most brutal violence
without a cause—when such an instance 'came be-
fore a British Jury, he trusted that they, by their
verdict, would mark the atrocity of the crime. The
Defendant was not the Captain, therefore could not
have any thing to do with the discipline ; but, as
the owner of the ship, if he had.seen the Captain
making use of the.same violence, it would have been
his ditty to have prevented it. He. trusted the cause
Of hiS client in the hands of the Jury, and he was
confident they would, by their verdict, give the
Plaintiff ample compensation for the injdry ,he had
received. He then proceeded to call his witnesses.
Williams, the Steward, proved, that all
hands were called to make sail.; the, Plaintiff was
standing by the boat; the Defendant-ordered him
up to loose the main-sail. He answered, he be-
longed-to the fore-top, and would not be. driven
from one end of the ship to the other, on which
the Defendant struck. him, knocked hiM down two
or three times, and sent him up to loose the main-
sail. As the Plaintiff was going up the main-
shrouds, he said to the Defendant, " will make
you p.iy for this when I get to London,'.' on which
the Defendant called him down; the Plaintiff obey-
ed the summons, and when he came an..deck, the
Defendant gave him a most severe, flogging with a
rope, and-sent him again up to loose the main-sail,
.which the Plaintiff did. After -its being loosened,
the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to 'the mast-
ihead; and kept him there for an hour. When he
came upon deck he was so weak-that he was hardly
able to.stand ; one of the other seamen helped him
down into the forecastle, his body vas so much
bruised from the rope. „The Defendant was not the*
-Captain of the Hopewell, bat the Owner..

Cross-examined by
.111 r. PARK.

Did not exatuine his body, only. beard. it. was
much bruised. Although the Defendant was not
the Master olthe Ship; the `Witness and the other
itnen on board were in the habit of obeying as
much as the Captain.
Another ofthe crew corroborated the evidence of
Williams, and the Plaintiff's case closed;'
Mr. PARK, Counsel for the.Deferidant, observed
that this was one of those ,ations that were brought
for the benefit of the Attorney instead of the
Cli-
ent; it was true.the law was against his Client, as
an assault had' beemprovedj.but what damages could
the Jury give in such a ease as this r It would be
impossible for commerce to be Carried-. oc without
discipline ; there. was no braver set omen under-
heaven than the seamen; but-there was no set of
men more inclined at times to. be refrattory than
they were; although the Defendant was not the
*dual Master of this ship, it was usual- to carry in •
thoe kind of vessels an acting Master, and -an in-
speding Captain ; the Defendant was in the capa-
city of inspecting Captain ; it was proved by the
Witnesses ftr_ the Plaintiff that they were .in the
habit of obeying biLl as such; thej; -also acknow.
hedged that all hands, alter a gale of wind, were
. called to:make sail, and the Plaintiff was-seen loiter-
ing round the long-boat 5. it was natural -for the De-
fendant, even if he was only owner, to, inquire
wiiat he was about; and to order him to that part of
the ship in which he could be of the most use;
he- *as ordered -to loose the 'main-sail, his answer

almost amounted to Mutiny; if it was to be let go
unpunished, and the rest-of the crew heard of tt,
the consequence would have been a mutiny, for
they would only do duty in a certain part of the ship,
which in -the mil might prevent the Officers from
being able to work the ship at all. The Learned
Cotutsel then. Observed, that he was eantident:the
-Jury-must give their verdict against. his client ; but-
-I.vhat,kind.of damages could they give ?, None, save
those of so small a nature as would prevent the
bringing of such aaions in future. He did not
-blame the poilt deluded , Plaintiff for bringing, this
.aCtion, but those that. advised him.
Lord Chief Justice .V.L.LENBOROUGH summed up
the evidence, and observed the Defendant had taken
the law into his own, hands. lithe Plaintarefused
'doing his duty there were other means to be taken.
The laws of this country protested all his Majesty's
subjeMs alike ; the assault had been proved, and it
.lay with the Jury to say by their verdia what da-
tinges the Plaintiff was,entitltd to. 'the Jury gave.
a verdiet-for the Plaintiff—Damages 101.

MESSRS. KNOX AND CO. V. REV. NIR. CRAWFORD.

Mr. Torrino stated this was an aelion to recover
15001. Jamaica currency, from the Defendant.—
The circumstances were short. The Plaintiffs bad
been merchants in the Island of Jamaica ; the De-
fendant. was a Clergyman, who went out to that
Island in the year ma, as Chaplain to a.regitnent.
He was recommended to the Plaintiffs, and they
had advanced him at different times a large slim of
money. In the latter end of the year 1807, the '
Defendant returned to Ireland. When he left Ja-
maica he promised to remit the money on his arrival
in this country. Shortly after
_one of the 'Messrs.
Knox arrived at :Dublin from.Jarnaica, wheie be
met the -Rev. Defendant, and the same intimacy
continued between them. Mr. Knox not having
any security for his'tnsney, mentioned it to the De-
fendant, who, he would prove, admitted the debt,
and gave his honour he wonid, have it secured
fore he left the-kingdom, instead of which he came
Over to. Englancj. without menilo7iing his intention
of going ; Mr. Knox soon followed hun, and brought
his present a6tion. He was at a' loss to know what
defence the Rev. Defendant had directed his Learned,.
Friend, the AttornepGeneral, to make. He then
proceeded to examine witnesses. •
Andrew M‘Gin deposed)'he was die to Messrs..
Knox and Co. in Jamaica, in- t-%
the year 1805 ; had
often seen the D,efendant at the Pi3intiff's house ;
was in 'the habit of paying bills for him; which
money wai alWays advanced by the Plaintiffs,; knew
nothing. of any transaction after the 15th .Faly, 1800,
at which time he left Jantaicti: •
John brother of tfie last witneSs, de-
posed, that' he lived with Mr: Knox, as the com-
mencement of the present year ; had seen the De,
fendant at his masters house, in Dublin, in _the
month of IVlarchlast ; heard Mr. Knox tell the De-,
Pendant he was indebted to hiS tirtn, in the sum of
1,7091.- 17s. gd. which the Defendant acknowledged,
and declartd upon his honour he would give the
Plaintiffs ample security before he left Ireland. This
was the PlaintiflS' case.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Counsel for the De.,
fendant, oterved, that this was' an extreme bard
case on his client. The Plaintiffs had forceo.
services on him, and 2romised him that ihey would
not ask re-payment.of the money advanced to the
Defendant, until he bad recovered a property that
was t4en-in litigation. It was true the Plaintiffs,had
proved the acknowledgment of 1,2091. 1.75. 9d. and
na defence he-Could set up would influence tbe,,,fury
front giving .that amount. •
Mr. 'TOPPING said, the plaintie's, were entitled to
15001. as the interest and v.annuissions amounted to
that sum.

,The ATTOttNEY-•GENERAL 'contended they, had
no right .to , a verdict for a gteater stmt.than was
proved.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII was of opinion, that
,the
Jury could not give their verdi& fur more than the
sum admitted by the Defendant.
The 'Jury gave a verdict for the Flainties,nol.
sterling.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PLY Ar.

WAND V. PAVIES.

Mr. Serjeant BEST,, for the Plaintiff, said, his
client was the renter and keeper of the Hammer-
smith and Fulham turnpike-gates, and the Defend-
ant was a passenger through the latter in a gig, on a
certain day in February last. 'The gates were near,
ly adjoining each other, and- the Fulham one was
looked after by a boy in the employment of the
Plaintiff. 'Co pass through this gate in a gig, the
Defendant offeri the bc.y 3d. in bad half-pence,
which. he refused. The Plaintiff seeing the De-
fendant resist this tefusal, left hiS gate, and came
up to.the Defendant, when he offered the Plaintiff
6J. to change. The Plaintiff accordingly gave the
Defendant two successive three-penny' worths of
halfpence in change, both of which he tOrew upon
the ground as bad. The Plaintiff then picktdthem
up, and told the Defendant, if he threw them down
again he must pick them up himself ; upon which
the Defendant taxed the Plaintiff with having lately
been at Bow-street ; and upon his denial of the
charge, proceeded to strike him with his whip
several times, in so violent a manner that the marks
were visible for several days afterwards. It was for
"a satisfadion for this assault the present a‘ition was
brought.

The boy at the Fulham, gate proved the assault,
but was not near enough to hear his master, upon
being charge-Z with a late appearance at sow-street,
Say, " What do you mean by that you scoundrel ?"
since he had then stepped to his master's gate. The,
'Plaintiff, he admitted, attempted to catch hold of the
Defendant's reins,, but not-till he had been struck.

Kingsbury. Collector of Tolls also :proved the as-.
sault, but was not near enough to hear what passed;
as were not Thomas Davies and' Colnetti- in-
habitants of Kensington.
Mr. Serjeant SHErti HIM, for the Defendant, said,
he had no, doubt his client's halfpence were bad,•for
he had received' them at the last turnpike. , As com-
ing from this source, hoWever, he offered them, as
every body else would do, at the present turnpike; and
upon their refusal, was presented with hailpence, in
change equally-bad with those just refw:et; : indignant
at ties, his 'client threw-them upon the, ground, and
aiked the- Plaintiff, as the Learned Serjeatit • himself
should have asked, if he had not been one of those

L0N,D4)1,4 I'llmm' by R 'CHARD aaai s, of No. 4,'N•Lirtlett.o3llll. BOW-Stre-tit
4t thts Slm,;-071•1;4A No. i ir; btratl4; where 'aye: liseraenti, Orrtra