The Sun.
London, England, 1808-08-01 00:00:00

-r •'~eY:_~T"z .~ w—~~.:S-SS~r'..:w M~va ~.~a+J~~+.r
_ .~'~ e -- ___

LAI, itEnoßr.

COURT oFINING's 110N6-1, juLy 30.

• . DC), ALMON V. THOMPSON.
Tie ATTottN.EY-GelFAlA.L.stated this to be fin•
;`ti n ;Ton a Policy of Illstgapce,owa ship on her
v Tatfe from Malta, for Surinam, .caPittred.,hy. two
'Privateers belonging to RUssia.,%.atid -Onled into
Corfo, and there condemned a. 4 pl'irr ~account of.
Maltalv-lit then a blockaded port..-He'didlw par-
. tend to say that. Malta was notjthrekaded, httritte
'Ca:)taiii-tit:this Vesiel bad not-notice of it._ But the
great objeaion was.te the,Cnurt whereththis.vessel
was.conderrmed ; it was not a Court of.-Coemeteht
inrisdiefion,fyr Cortir'was ilot a part of the Empire,
nor subject to the Emperor of Rnssia, and there-
hire this vessel 'vVas ill'egaPy condemned, so that the
• seuteuce was not conclusive in this case, of the-ship
racing lawfolly condentiied, which it would' have,
- been, -.however unjdstly•ctindeinned, had the Court
t..:en of competent jurisdi6ii'on:
' The whOle of the case -alutio:t 'was upon admis-
.
sion. of fae.-Is, and the only qtlesti3n was, whether.
Corfu was or:Wai not subject to,the_ doininion of
Russia ? NOW, it was so fat' otherwise, that at tile
time 61. the passing of this sentence of condemna-
tion, Corfu was part of the lonian Republic.
Mr. PARK contended, Corfu was under the dotni-
nion of Russia when this s'entence was pr pounced,
,and called Mr. Kirke. to prove it; that Geetleman
was English Consul at that place at that times Res.
sia Aas then posses'sed of it as a military station ;
but after the Treaty of Tilsit, Russia gave it-up to
the French. He.-was British Coesui acknowledged
as such at Corfu. The Government of'Corfu was
not the Government of Russia, but of the lonian
Republic. The Russian flag was not flying there,
but the flag was that of the lonian R -public.
Lord ELLENBOR,aIGIi said, he should
.not, under
these circumstances, receive this sentence in evi-
&nee ; and the Defendants, if tliey.had any case;
'must rely on the blockade; but they could nor prove
. that the Captain of this vessel, an American, had
ahv notice of the bloekade.-
'Air. PAttx observed, that the distinctioh had been
taken by Sir W Scott, where the country in which
the sentence was pronounced did not belong to, the
Power whose Court pronounced it, but was a eo-
bdligerent, then the sentence Was conclusive, but
not otherwise. .
Lord ELLBNISORCUGH said he should always hold
the authorities 4:f
.Foreign Courts to condemn ships
as prize, to the utmost strictness of proof, when of-
fered in evidence to affect the rights of third parties
in a Courtoaustice in this country. Indeed thel'e
were some of the most enlightened ininds in 'this
. country, who thought they ought never -to be re-
ceived in evidence at all, on such occasions. Lord
' Thrirlow never met him without saying so ; his
mini was full upon it ; he said it was an anomaly in
the Law, and ought never to have been allowed to
have crept into it. Tlis Lordship said. be awe d
with Lord Thurlow upon that subject, and It boo I
i..
,5_...,_
die in that faith ; but the' usage of nations, p -
li:r,.S, required, certainly authority had decided, that
these sentences should be received in evidence, and
be conclusive` in i ail things on which' they operated
—a (I,,thine, to give way to which was SOffieit:Wly
painful in many instances, but he should never con-
sent to extend it an iota beyond its letter. Here
the RuSsians were mere visitors at. Corfu, and had
no more- right to pronounce this sentence of con-
demnation than he had; and therefore the Plaintiff
was entitled to a verthet.-
Verdict for the.Piaintiff----Dimages to the amount
of the Policy.

COURT OF COMMON GUILDHALL, TULY 30.

BEFORE C. J MANSFIELD AND A SPECIAL JURY.

SANDE:I6 V. WRIGHT.

T!iis -was an &sue direded from
.the Court of
Ch meery to try the .validity of a bond 'of annuity
granted by-the Defendant to the Plaintiff for 3001;
per annum 'on tour lives, and the survivor. By
the Ati of the 17th of the King, if is prodded, that,
wherever life aunuities are granted, a memorial,
specifying the terms, consideration, &c. shall be"
registered ; but from th;s rule an exception Is made
where the annuity was granted on 10e security of
property of equal value with it. In the present case,
on starching for the memorial, none was to be found;
bur it was contended by the klaihtiti, that the seal;
rity, which consisted of certain premises in Aldgate,
w.is of the value of 3901. per annum, at the time the
bond was granted ; and the consideration money
being 5,0001. per annum paid, of course that no
memorial was required. I'o inquire into the value
of Ow, property w,as.the object of the present issue.

Mt.. Burton, and several persons of skill were ad-
'cluced, whb estimated the property as being worth a
rent of 3001. a year at the time the bond of annuity
-was executed.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD for the Defendant, or
rather for his Assignees, he being bankrupt, con-
tended that this was one of those bargains which it
bad been in the contemplation Of the .4a o(Parlia-
ment to strike at and set aside,/and be ti-usted tbe
Jury would set this aside, and not allow the present
Plain►itf to carry off the who 6 of the ~bankrupt's
funds, but woutd force him to come in for ins share
with the other creditors.

Several witnesses, consisting of surveyors Pod
other persons accustomed to value propery in the
City, were then examined, who valued the property
M question at from 2231. to 2401. per annum.
Sir JAIEs MTANSFIEIOI3 left it with the Jury to say,
ti such evidenCe of the value as that given by the
witnesses for
,thesPlaintiff had been laid before him
at the time of his Ecceliting..of the annuity, If he
might not be supposed fairly to have entered into
the transa6tion

Tie Jury immediately found for the Plaintift.
Gol.pt.mtn AND CO. V.. FARQUHAR AND CO.
This tvas.an action on a
_bill ofexchange tor 7531.
drawn by
.F-latton ahrt Co. oti4erdeen,- on a mer•
candle house in Oporto, indorsed to the Defendants,
Messrs. Farquix and Moiris, and by them to the
Plaintiff. The hill-Ixas.dated the 28th of August,
1807, payable at 30 days sight, and 'it was protested
'lur non-payment on tlic• 30th Deceibiber, having
beti transinittill to: Opurto/ through Gottenburgh,
Amsterdam, and Hacnburgh.
_ _

Mr. St:tie:ant VAUGHAN, for the Defoidauts, re-