The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-13 00:00:00

CARRTS r. RICHARDSON%

Mr. Sergeant HuLLOCK moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict for die plaintiff in this case should not be set aside,
and a new trial had. It was an action brought by the keeper of a
tavern at York, against an attorney employed in a cause, for the
expence of witnesses entertained at that city during the Assizes.
Much conflicting evidence was ofltred on the question whether
the credit was given to the client or to the attorney; but the
Jury at the trial before the Lord Chief Justice, found a verdict
for the plaintiff. The Learned Serjeant now moved for a new
trial on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE referred to his notes, and ob-
served, that he could not say the verdict was against evidence,
nor that he was dissatisfied with it, neither should he have been
dissatisfied if it had been the other way. It was entirely a
question of fact for the Jury, and he saw no reason to complain
of their decision.

Mr. Justice BATLEY said, that it would be proper when an
attorney did not intend to be personally responsible for his wit-
nesses, that he should explain to the innkeeper that he must
look to the client or the witnesses for payment.
The Court accordingly refused the rule.

PENN v. LADBIWOKE AND ANOTHER.
Mr. CO,!MON SERCIEANT moved for a rule to chew cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a
nonsuit entered. It was an action against a constable, and
a party acting in his aid, for false imprisonment, tried before
Mr. Baron Graham, at Warwick. The defendants pleaded the
general issue, and a justification under 1 George IV., passed
for the summary punishment of malicious injuries. On the
trial it appeared that a gun had been fired through a window
across a street, which broke 24 panes of glass in an opposite
house, and might have done more serious mischief. Circum-
stances tended to throw very strong suspicion on the plaintiff; he
was taken up and detained in custody, though the magistrates
ultimately did not think there was sufficient ground to commit
him for a capital offence under Lord Ellenhorough's act. The
.Tury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with a farthing damages,
which carried very serious costs, and which, therefore, the de-
fendants were anxious to set aside. He (the Common Sergeant )
was fully aware, that as the damages were under 201., he could
only move for the misdirection of the Judge in point of law ;
but he apprehended that such misdirection existed. Here there
was no doubt that a felons' was committed, nor that there was
good ground to suspect the plaintiff; but the Jury were not
told by the Learned Judge with sufficient explicitness, that if
they believed a felony had been committed, and that there was
good reason to suspect the plaintiff; there was ground of defence
under the general issue.
The LORD Citrt:a' JUSTICE at first intimated his opinion
that where the evidence did not prove the guilt of the party ar-
rested, but only reasonable suspicion, the grounds of suspicion
must be set forth in a special plea ; but afterwards expressed
doubts whether this opinion had not been too hastily given.
The Coy tie granted a rule to show cause.
The Judges rose at two o'clock to go into the Exchequer.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 12.
GRAHAM V. NIXON.

Mr. Serjeant VAUG HAN in this case moved for a rule to shew
cause why the plaintiff's attorney should not have his full taxed
costs, as a verdict for the plaintiff had passed for 2/. 10s. The
defendant had compromised the action four days before it came
on in Court, and it was now admitted that the case was after-
wards brought on to entitle the attorney to full costs. The
question now was, whether the compromise was fraudulent ; for.
if not, it was admitted that it would be binding.
The Coy HT were of opinion that nothing of fraud appeared
in the compromise. 'I he most which they could now do, was
to allow costs as in a case of stet processus.—Rule refused.

Si. JOHN V. SIR T. CHAMPNEYS, BART.

The Court was occupied until nearly two o'clock in hearing
the arguments of Counsel in this case. It was an application
to set aside certain annuities granted by the defendant. We
defer any farther notice of it until the arguments on both sides
have been gone through and judgment given.
At two o'clock their Lordships rose to attend the Lord Chan-
cellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other .Judges,
in the Exchequer Chamber, to prick for Sheriffs for the ensuing
year.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 12.

The Twelve Judges, the Loan CHANCELLOR, the Earl of
HARROIVRY, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord
COLCHESTER, and Mr. PEEL, took their seats in this Court
to select Sheriffs of Counties for the year ensuing. The busi-
ness commenced at two o'clock. The nomination, as usual,
will be submitted to the King.

MOH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 12.
PRIZE.

A cart-harness, 5 mules, 1 barrel of beef, and 1 barrel of
pork, found in one of the West India islands by a boat's crew,
under circnmstances implying a breach of the revenue laws,
were, on the application of his Majesty's Advocate, condemned
as good and lawful prize, and a warrant for distribution of the
proceeds was directed to be issued.

COMPETITOR.

Dr. GosniNG, stated, that some time since this ship and her
freight were arrested on a bottomry bond. The affidavit which
was last court-day read to the Court, the Court was pleased to
declare inFufficient, because the name of the owner was therein
omitted. That defect being now supplied in the affidavit of
Robert Dent, a partner in the house of Richards, Macintosh,
Law, and Co. of London, merchants, the Learned Counsel
prayed that in this cause the Court would direct a perishable
monition as well as a decree of appraisement to go out.—Or-
dered.

THOMSON v. FRASER.

This was a suit instituted for the purpose of recovering a cer-
tain proportion of the value of the proceeds arising from the
sale of a Spanish vessel and its cargo, which were taken pos-
session of by Captain. Thomson, the claimant, near Buenos
Ayres, in the year 1806.
It appeared by the pleadings and affidavits, that on the cap-
ture of Buenos-Ayres, in .Tune. 1806, by Sir Home Popham
and General Beresford, the British fleet was immediately with-
drawn to Monte-Video, and that but one vessel, the brig Pe-
gasus, under the command of Captain (then Lieut.) Thomson,
prciously of the Narcissus, was left behind, with a view to the

_PRICE SEVEN PENCE.

conveyance of stores, &c. The Pegasus mounted 12 guns, and
was lying at anchor on the Bth July, when a polacca was observ-
ed entering the roadstead, and coining with a strong wind up
the river. This proved to be a Spanish merchantman, named
La Esperanza, which pursued her course and came to an
anchor at a short distance from the fort, then commanded' by
General, now Lord Beresford, who had directed the British
colours to be taken down. Captain Thomson, who was
on shore, offered to go and take possession of her in a
launch or barge, if Governor Beresford would supply him
with twenty men, notwithstanding the roughness of the
weather, and the violence of the surf. He was accordingly so
supplied, and he proceeded to board and take possession with-
out resistance. In 1813, a warrant of distribution was obtained
from the Treasury, and Mr. A. Fraser entrusted with the agency.
This gentleman was appointed to prepare a scheme of distribu-
tion, which if not satisfactory- to the parties was to remain sub-
ject to any alteration that Court should think jnst and equitable
under all the circumstances. The agent had followed the pre.
cedent formed by the division of the booty taken at Bienos
Ayres, and had treated the capture of La Esperanza as tie re-
sult of a conjoint effort by the land as well as the sea forte,
mediately engaged in that transaction.
Dr. LUSUINOTON and Dr. DODSON maintained, .that
the whole or greater part of the property in question be-
longed of right to Captain Thomson, instead of that paltry
sum which the proposed method of distribution would as-
sign him. There was no effectual contradiction to what he
had sworn ; he was the officer left by Sir Home Pophani
charged with the execution of all naval duties after
the Neptune had been removed. The Pegasus was lying in
the roadstead when the polacca entered it, and the latter had been
condemned as a prize. What the Court had now to consider was,
how the surrender had been effected ? It was sworn that the
Pegasus was lying about half a mile from the fort, under
Lieutenant Bishop's command, when the polacca was ob-
served. The British ship had no colours but a man of war's
pendant flying. As the Spanish vessel passed her she fired a
musket shot, and compelled the polacca to come to an anchor
on her starboard bow. In this statement Captain Thomson
and Lieut. L'ishop confirmed each other, and very loose affida-
vits of Lord Beresford and his Aid-du-Camp, Sir R. Arbuth-
not, could not be said to impeach their credit. Such being
the facts, what were the legal consequences? It had been laid
down by a high authority, that of his Lordship himself (Lord
Stowell), in the case of the Edward and Mary, to be found in the
third volume of Sir C. Robinson's Reports, and in which the
question was—whether salvage was due, where the vessel was
never boarded by the actual captor ?—that, bring a vessel
under the captor's dominion it was not necessary, though
usual, to appoint a prize master. Now it must be admitted
that in effecting the capture, in this instance, the merit-of
Lord Beresford was very trivial compared with that of Can,
tain Thomson, who was at that tiro_ in the uncontrolled
command of the Pegasus. The former had taken down the Bri-
tish and hoisted Spanish colours; had ordered the guns to be
pointed at the polacca, and had furnished the barge with 20 men
trained to the use of small arms. He had deposed that the Espe-
ranza could not have escaped after these his arrangements, and
blowing as the wind then did up the river. This was however,
a matter of opinion, and the two naval officers thought diffe-
rently. They stated, that she came up with the wind on her lar-
board, and might, if she had not been fired at from the Pe-
gasus, have escaped down the river with the wind on her star-
board. Two English vessels had since escaped front the same
spot, notwithstanding a heavy fire from the battery. Surely
then it would be manifestly unjust to let in the garrison,.
which was two miles and a half distant, to a participation
in a prize thus completely captured and taken possession
of by Captain Thomson and the men under his command.
To adopt such a scheme of extended distribution would
be to allot to Lord Beresford the sum of 125/. ; to Captain
Thomson, who had risked his life in the capture, 7?. 2s. ; to
Mr. Bishop, 11. 4s. Bth. ; and to each of the seamen 4s. 10d.
Lord Beresford's second affidavit proved how much his me-
mory might sometimes betray him, but the statement of Capt.
Thomson was clear an 'f', consistent. It was therefore hoped
that his Lordship would direct the sum of 1,1001. or the larger
portion of the proceeds, to be paid to him.
Dr. ARNOLD and Dr. PHILLIMORE, on the other side, con-
tended that the
she believed to be a hostile force, nor in obedience
to a hostile summons. She yielded to what she thought was a visit
or order from thepolice. Without controverting the recent doctrine.
of that Court, this ci. cumstance was su ficier t to distinuish this
from the case of the Edward and Mary. Captain (Thomson
had shared in the booty taken at the conquest of Buenos-Ayres;
nor was it till his return to England that he set up his present
claim. All that had been here done by the Pegasus was to
tire a single musket-shot, and even that fact rested on the affi-
davit of Mr. Bishop. The Court had heretofore held, that
the mere performance of an officer's duty did not entitle him
to share in prize-money, and the present capture was effected"
without resistance, by means of a barge and men supplied by
Governor Beresford. The Learned Gentlemen submitted,
therefore, that under all these circumstances the proposed dis-
tribution was the just and proper scheme.
Dr. Ltisin NoT oar shertly replied; and the Court said it
would give its judgment next Court day.