The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-17 00:00:00

ARTICLES of 'rim PEACE.

Joseph Wriffin; a Wiltshire farmer, preSented arti
of the peace against Thomas Sutton. They
stated, that the Complainant was in constant fear for
ills life, in consequence of the repeated 'threats of
Stittton ; • and that ou the.lBth of January last, 'the
Miter stiid he would stab hith with a carving. knife.
On the Bth of Febrnary folloiking, as Wittin Was
returning home rate at night, on horseback, Sutton
flung a large 'stone at Complainant, which hit
WS horse, and lamed :the animal. On the 13th of
the same month he repeater:l.6e like violence, and
from that' time to the preSent had 'put the Com-
plainant in continual dread.
Lord ELLF.NBOROUGET.--" The, last instance of
any personal.danger is as long agy as February, and,
therefore, the Complainant cannot have had. much
to tear, or he would have preSented himself sooner.
He may either go.before a Magistrate, or proCee4by
iudittment."

COURT OF EXCIIUQUER, TUNE 13.

HUBBARD V. JOHNSTON Ati'D OTHERS.

This -was a proceeding in errnr from the King's
Bench, before the Jades of the Common Pleas and
-the Barns of the Exchegner. Our Readers may
perhaps repikel the-statement of . this case, - under
the title of Heath and Hubbard, and. Bloxam and
Hubbard, but they'Will find -a more detailed account
in Mr. East's' Reports, in the 4th and sth vols. • In
that Reporter several -13ointS.. wine before the Court
which were not on` this occasion examined, the simple
tinestion before their Lot-id-Ships being, whether the
Plaintiff in error had a'good title to a ship called the
Fishburtie, under a registration 'novo, or whether
the ship rested in the Assigneek- of the Bankrupt,
-Ward; on account of the non :compliance with the
direetions 'in 26 Geo. 111. e. CO, and- '34 Geo. M.
c. f-58 ?

- Mr. SCOTT, for the Plaintiff in. error, said, that
this was an aftien of trover which was brought by
-the Assignees of Ward, to 'recivs...r one-fourth share
-of,the7.ship, named, which '_was pUrchased by his
"Client of the Bankrupt. The. wilterial fads were
.these: the Piairititrin:. error residing in' London,
int:chased this vessel of Ward, living at Newcastle,
,w,frile sire wits at sea. As soon as she arrived in the
.plirt of London,: the buyer took oat a new regiSter,
..aud*,ilo.transfer of-the ship appeared in any. of the
(!ocunwnts in'the Custom kitinse at,Newcastle, and
ki,totsvnent., was. ever rilaie opon the certificate.
Sir What should have
btep indorSed ?" , _

LONDON Brii,tul by RICHARD .HARRIst of No. 4, Maitlett.court. Bow-street ;
At the .SOtizolvice • No: lii!-,Sti'and; IWlCertt ildvertist4nents, oifiers

of the Counnis:iioners .cOitietilt d with' ,% hat had been
done in the present instance.
Sir JAMES MANstrIELD.-:--". The nsarre is not' to
influence our judgment. If -the Custtirn House
should persist- in a pruaiiie inconsistent with law;
such r)erseVerance will not alter the Fawßifthe Coun-
try. It would be most extraordinary to.construe.an
Act of the 2tith or 34th Geo. 111. upon usage:"
Mr. SCOTT concluded with lob4erVing:, that the
policr_of the laws, as explained -11ythe judgment in
the Court ed King's Petich; could Lot over-rule their
grarothatical construction andle insisted, that the
Conn had entirely 'Mistaken_ the objedt and policy
or those taws. Oti these grOttils, he contended;
that the Plaintiff ,iti error hid correctly complied
with the Statutes, and Was entitled to `the property`
in this vessel. .

Mr. HAL:L, on behalf-Of-the Defendants in error,
argued, itiat,thejudgtrent given was well founded,
and that the property in the 'ship ‘'ested in the' As-
signees. 'He said, that the statutes not having been
complied With, from the abseinCe of the ship at sea,
the intervening rights
,of the' Assignees must defeat'
the Sale. Two propositiOns heendeavoured to maiti-
tain,'lst. That what bad been done • was hot 'sbffi-
cient under the Aas ; and, 2dly, That if more had
been pertbrmed,. it would not have been completed
in time. This was' not a case which had been lightly
considered : it had been examined almost'more than alMos
anycase which had come befOre the Court of KingN
Bench. Resulting from the causes of Heath and
Hubbard, and Broxhim and Hubbard, there had
been two long and distinct arguments, and after
Mature deliber.ttiiin, the Learned Judges of than
Court had decided in fitrour of the-Defendants 'in
'error. It would not be surprising, if, thus support-,
ed, he felt some confidence in the cause of his
clients. The argument of his Learned Friend pro.-;
ceeded upon this broad ground, that they provision's
of the 26th and 34th of the King had . no reterchce
to the transfer of the entire. property in the ship; It
was obvious, that these statutes did make a material
variation in the law as it stood in the 7th and. Btli .
W. 111. and that. • they .not merely amended that
statute, but enlarged . and expounded its provisions.
Lord Liverpook :Acts were passe& not only fbr
private convenience, Put for great objects of
public .policy, and: they!: had. eminently contri4
bused to the prosperity' 'Of British.. commerce.-7,
The Learned COttnsel here proceeded.to .examine
numerous 'clauses of.,,these Acts, to: es'tablish the
propositions he Fad said .down, cgi'liparing them
as he advanced with the 7th a 44 Bth tr. HI. toshew
that they had-materially alterepl that law. He also
cited the opinion of Mr. Reeves, in rsupPort of,his
-Case, from his Law .of Shipping. and Navigation:
One reason ‘illy it was riecesary that the provisions
of these A,crts should be.corriplied with at. the port
to which the ship . belonged, was' ittorder -that the
Custom-house Officers at such port should be able to
give information of the'.transfer to the Commission-
ers of Customs in England and Scotland, .under
whose direction records were kept,of such transfers,
in order that the state of the shipping and havirtion
in the kingdom might be periodically ascertained.
In the present instance, nothing had been done by
the Plaintiff in error at the Port of .Newcastle ; and

if this negligence • were extended to all shipping,
these records wonld be defective, and the iiilport;-
ant purposes for which they were colleted-would
be, wholly disappointed. Upon these and various
other grounds, he contended, that the judgment of
the Court of King's' Bench ought. to be affirmed.
• Mr. SCoTT was.heardin reply._ _

Sir JAMES MANSFIELD askcci if the parties littd
employed proper persons to take notes, as a new ar-
gnment.would be ordered. " You contend," said
his Lordship, addreAsing Mr. Scot?, " that there is
nothing in these Ads of the Oth and 34th of the
King, . that apply .to the transfer of the whole pro-
perty of the ship. One obje& of the regulation was,
by the indorsement to make the transfer a matter of
public notoriety."

COURT OF CIIANCERY, i 6.
PENN V. BARCLAY AND OTHERS.

The Plaintiff filed his Bill, in this cause, against
his own brother, and the other Defendants, the trus-
tees under the will of his uncle, John Penn, deceas-
ed, praying that the sum of 10,0001. stock may be
transferred, and applied to the Plaintiff's- use, ac-
cording to the express provisions of the will. John
Penn, wishiog to perpetuate real and personal pro-
perty to his own heirs and family, in '746 devised
and bequeathed to. his /right heir, one moiety, in
sovereignty, of the Province of Pensylvania, in North
America, which he was -seized and possessed of
under and by virtue of a grant from his Majesty
King George the- Second, to him and his heirs
in tail, male,. for ever ; wishing likewise to pro-
vide for the next heir, or. heir expeetant to
:such
heir, he direded by his will, that a purchase
should be made of 1.0,0001-: stock in the fundS,
for the use of such heirs presumptive, .s 6 long as
they should, each of them in succession, continue
in such a state ; with a proviso, that none of them
should suffer a recovery, or by. any act dock or bar
the entail ; but in case any of such heirs should,, at
any time, bar the entail, then, that the stock -and
dividends accruing thereon, should go and inure. to
the, use and benefit of the person next entitled to the
denomination of such heir .presumptive, in suc-
cession to such preceding heir apparent, at all times,
for ever. The testator, made his brother Richard-
son John Penn,- his • first heir, by and under such
Will, passing by the testator's eldest brother,
who left no issue ;, he had likewises.a brother
nettled John. John afterwards had issue, • sub-
sequent to the making the will in. question.; • and
John, the. Testators's nephew, came into possession
of the moiety of Pensylvania, after she Testator's
'death, and continued seized thereof until the same.
was, in 1777, confiscated by the ALA of Usurpation,
which subjected it to the power of the Legislature
of the United StateS of America. The English.
Government afterwards passed an. -AO •of - Perna-
tuent, granting •to this family a perpetual annuity of
40001. a year, and making that :inanity an estate of
freehold in tail. Many years after the American
Ael of Confiscation, this annuity was, by the A 61,•
constituted an estate, of freehold, like those in the
county. of Middlesex, and a common recovery had
been suffered of-10001. thereof. It was contended
tin- the Plaintiff, that the Ati of eonfiscation .amoutit-
ed to a bar of the intail, and, under•the provision of:
. .

mat puhlislted by WILL:am Arcsoucsß.Sc.turrs. of 'South MNt
for the Paper, I ettcrs for the Editor, zitc. [post-paid), r

the will, did- let rd'ilte:Plaintitf a, his ex
the 10,0001. su•ck. . .

The Defendthitß"-sittnflitted theCiikirl,'and A r
willing to atlas direded, being only truste.t s,
the: brother, who was a necessary party, but %%lin h
no real differencewith his brother, the Plaintiff; Jie,
object orboh being, by this bill,,to.take the Chan-
cellor'sjudgment, as to the constratiou of tlie.wini
and to learn whether either brother could obtain. ".ot
transfer the stock. •

. .
The Qn A MCA.: t0..94.. seemed decidedly.of.opiP.:l9o
that the Plaintiff cannot possibly
.Chian it with
prosped of: success,;, apd won leis coustrudion of that
dodrine and,laN.o"littlitations,,this case is a ficgl
tingency, too remote., and.subjeet to.too tn.any
tingencies in.Jegal possibility (cithough- they kw 4
not aCtually.oocArted iai
.thi4.1441i1Y).10 adtPitOhiis
remainder ever to take,, f.#44. The. Testa tor, ,/he
saitl,
_intended. a •perpetuity, or longintail to his
family ; his moaning was obvious ; but the law op
the subject, ,as Iniddown, was
,Against thifr,contin-
gent remaiutier. The tannQt,
.at,
ereationi.eittend further than •to one (if more Lite. ail
lives iu being,at.• the time, and ,2 i years . after r/A
death, of sne,h7l.ife ;or Here was -no certain
fixed period -of: time
.when the .re.maincier vp.s;
in any party; there, were too matty_pos,silikilities; anti
they wereindetinite
,the words he said) .c so long
as suit Heirs presumptive shall.continue,. tFoi.ll- tin
to time, in smch.:ti state," I.yl..'re reducit;!e to p{.4
tiuite or deteramate it was all uncert?).inty.
From the importance and ditfiqulty of the case,
however, he would take ~time, fo-rocatn.Y4i
morning, to deliver. his judgmetzt- at the ~itting,,g(
the Court. „

COURT OF .COMMON jusz, 14.

.DE N 4,... BR ETT:

U_ ~
v,
~

We' fcirreterly.state'd some Of leading- fats in
thicase, the Substance.of,which, was, that a Gen-
tlemau of the name of Smith, an. AttOrney; havint
been eniptoyed by the Plaintitt•Mr. Dean, to rieiase
a liond•of AHlllHty granted by the Dkjtendant ya Mr
Deal), for the; sum of a000l: after receiving
ney, refused to pay it to his Client,-al,ledgina- that
he Mr. DeAri, vas not of sound mind, dr pi& 0. a
managing his own affairs.
Mr, Strjeant SIIEMIF,RD, on hthalf of the Mim
tift,'read affidavits of Mr. Dean's two brothers, the
surgeon, servants, and people in 'the habit Ofors,
ink and conversing with him ; all of whotn.gated;
that Mr; Dean • had laboured under a liver cono,
plaint, which had rendered him continually appre:-.
pensive ofdeath for several Ik,.tl,ars -past but thlit his
mind, mern4y, and int-derstrinding; were pertilf
sound •and unimpaired; and- that, he .was sutficiontlf-
able to =Manage his own afliarg; .1/P on such eti-
dence; the Learned Serjeant submitted to their
LOrdships, that the .Money vAich Mr..Stnith
received from Mr: grett 'ought to be paid over -1e
Mr. Dean.

Mr.' Serjeant MARSHALL StRUIA; that the money
Was inAhe hands If Bankerg, and rind` to be`pttlec
whenever it *RS aster mined that 14r. Smith kliotila
be safe in doing so;'. s..D:i,an, to.g...was anxious
to receive the money ow of the littvis,of..her bus-
band's tigerit, had never yet ventorezi:tn-sweat t.1.64t
he-wa,s• of sound intelled,, although she must have
had the best opportunity of ascertaining the .faa,--;7
Mr. Smith, however, having been appointed bt
Air. Dean one of his trustees, conceived that lit
might afterwnrch have•an iroNrsant.,trust to lulfit,
and might be made responsible for any rashnsi-df
proceiltop ;, he- therefore hesitated till he should
know the pleasure of the Con itaii.tO .whom he rd4uid
pay the money.. , •
.
The Court thought that, as 'the soundness of
Dean's intelleds was supported by the aiiidavits; of
-his two brothers, who were nvxt of .kin;the,money
might safely be paid over to' the Pl tilltit . •

A proprietor of one of our Lottery Offices IT'Ce' iVed
a day,orlwo since, COmmission from two Gi3llk-le-
men, in different parts of the. kingdom, for tht
same' uumler, in the present Scheme. To .ohlige
'both, therefore, he sent half a share of the Inlinber
to each of his correspondents. The rage, in .shozT,
for selea numbers, in consequence of what happen-
ed in the last lottery, increases every day.

BIRTIIS

On. Sunday the 7th inst. at Sindliag, near 14 vthe, the
Lady of WUlilRt Deecks-, Esq. M. for 1-lythe, ofa Daugh-
ter.

'On the 28t1) ult. Mrs. I). Cairlermi, of Strontiaa,
land, was sarely delivered of two girls and a boy, who, with-
the mother, are dc,ing well ; and what is further reih.:•rlt,,,bic,,
this Lady has produced seven children at three births.