The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-02 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

_ •
Yesterday a Court was held for the purpose of receiving the
Reports of several Committees, particularly that of the London
Bridge Waterworki' Committee.
LONDON BRIDGE.
The CITY REMEMBRANCER laid before the Court the Bill
passed in Parliament for removing London Bridge Water-
works. The Report having been read,
Mr. OLimAm said, he was desirous to deliver a few senti-
ments upon this most important question. Upon reading the
Bill with great attention, he found to his great regret that it
contained clauses injurious to the interests of the City of Lon-
dOn, and he found no clause making it imperative upon the
New River Company to give a regular supply of water, while
that Company were permitted to confine the supply of water
Within certain limits. There was another Company, with
whose interests a Member of that Court had some concern, and
Which would combine with the New River Company in sup-
plying the City with water. Thus would be established a com-
plete monopoly, which, if Parliament interfered'not, would be
most prejudicial to the interests of the citizens of London.
There was also another clause in the Bill to which he had -a
strong objection—that compelling the City of London to pay
the New River Company 15,0001. He knew no reason wily
that sum should be paid. However, as he was anxious to see
the City well supplied with water, he should permit that ob-
jection to pass. With respect •to the construction of a New
Bridge, he was determined to insist upon having the money
provided for so serious an undertaking before one step should
be taken. On such subjects it became the City of London to
be exceedingly vigilant and jealous: The whole of this !psi-
ness was, hfeared, a job, and he believed most sincerely that
the enlargement of one, or at most of two, of the arches would
'completely answer the hopes of all who were not looking for
personal advantage to a change—He concluded by pledging
,himself after the recess to submit a motion to the Court re-
lative to the funds for building a New Bridge.
Mr. FAVELL was surprised, under all the difficulties that
presented themselves, that the Bill for removing .the London
Bridge 'Waterworks had passed Parliament. It was, he
thought, matter of congratulation that a buSiness of so com-
plex a nature had been brought to such a conclusion. One
good at least would result—a better supply of water. - With
respect to the building of a New Bridge, when he took it into,
his recollection that the repairs of the old one were so im-
mensely expensive, he could not but think it advisable to erect
a new one. He cheerfully concurred with the Report.
Mr. Dixost said, he felt anxious that the Court should not
become a party to the building of a New Bridge, and objected
to a passage in the Report pledging the Court to interfere be-
fore next Session of Parliament on the Subject of erecting a
New Bridge.
Mr. JAMES strongly argued in favour of the Report, at the
same time congratulating the Court upon the great advan:
tages to be produced by the trivial expence of 15,0001.
Alderman WOOD said the Report pursued no other course
than that' taken on general occasions.
Mr. OLDHAM declared that he was convinced that if the
Court interfered with the -building of the Bridge, they would
be saddled with all the expcnces attending the removal of
struetions in the approach.
Mr. LOCK moveu that it shonll referred to the Com,
mittee on the Thames Navigation, to ascertain whether any
prejudice would result to the navigation of the river from the
building of a New Bridge."
An. Amendment that." Bridge-houte Committee" should be
substituted for " Navigation. Committee," was, after a discus-
sionof considerable length, proposed, and the original motion
for agreeing with the Report was, thus amended, agreed to.
COINDUCT_ OF THE BAILIFF OF SOUTHWARK IN

REFUSING TO CALL A MEETING.

This question underwent a warm discussion. The report of
' the Committee stated, that the High Bailiff, in refusing to call
a Meeting on the subject of the dismissal of Sir Robert Wilson',
was influenced by no improper motives, more especially as he
conceived the calling of a Meeting tu• be an interference with
the Royal Prerogative.
Mr. J UPP moved that the Court should agree to the Report.
After some observations upon the general propriety of the
High Bailiff's public conduct, and the unquestionable excel.;
lence of his private character,
Mr. FAVELL considered the interference of a public Officer
paid by a public body upon a subject so deeply involving their
interests, and the interests of the community, deserving, in the
highest degree, of the reproach of all the friends of liberty: He
did not mean to accuse the. Bailiff of a corrupt motive in the
refusal, but certainly that officer had acted from a mistaken,
which could not but be called an improper motive. The Bai-
liffhimself was sensible of this fact, which certainly ought to
form a portion of the Report.
Mr. DIXON declared, that there were many occasions in
which, if the public officers granted the request of the people
for meetings, general danger might ensue to his Majesty's
subjects.'

Sir. OLDHAM said, that when an officer, under the jurisdic-
tion of the Court, thought fit to exercise political opinions to the
injury of those who appointed him,it was but proper for the Court
to interfere. The Report had not gone far enough in giving an
explanation of this very blameable conduct; but as the general
animosity excited by the case was abating, hehad no wish to
revive it, and thought the Court might agree in the Report.
Mr. FAVELL moved an Amendment, that the Report should
lie upon the table.

Mr. OLDHAsi seconded it, and the Amendment was agreed to.

LONDON TITHES. .•
Mr. HURCOMBE brought a voluminous Report from the
London Tithes Committee, relative to the claim of 2s. 9d. in
the pound upon certain arrears, amounting to about 4001. with
respect to six houses, situated in the Corn-market, in the
parish of All-hallows, Barking. The Curate rested his claim
of 2s. 9d. in the pound on an ancient Statute of Henry VIII.,
but he had been compelled to be more considerate in his claim,
and to take 99/. on the property, instead of the 4001. .
Mr. HANSARD expressed his satisfaction at such a result.—
In the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, the Curate had raised
140 actions against inhabitants, for the same claim of 2s. 9d.
in the pound. _ _

Mr. Dixon hoped the Report would operate well on the rest
of the parishes in London.—Report agreed to.
The Uaol Expence Committee presented a Report for raising
a Sum of Money, to Discharge the Debt due to the Bridge-
house, which was agreed to.
The Court considered a Report from the Improvement Com-
mittee, in relation to an improvement in Cow-lane, which was
agreed to.

-The LORD MA.Yon declared a Vacancy in the situation of
City Printer, by the death of Mr. Fenwick, and it was referred
to the City Lands Committee, to consider what regulation
should be adopted in relation thereto.
The Court, on the motion of Mr. DIXON, resolved, that the
appointment of Deputy Sea Coal Meters should be in the Coal
and Corn Committee as heretofore,

MORRISON V. MORMAN.
Mr. Haste. yesterday, a short time before the rising of the
Court, moved, on behalf of the defendant, to dissolve an injunc-
tion granted by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor,- a short time
• since, under the fallowing circumstances 1621.; the plain-
tiff, a merchant at Toulon, entered into contract with two Gen-
tlemen 'of Amsterdam, owners of the William. Frederick,-then
lying at Antwerp, - being desirous of freighting the vessel for
the purpose of carrying timber frau 'Riga to Toulon. To this
end the necessary engagements were entered into on both sides,
and in the November of the sameyear the vessel, having taken
her, cargo on board, set sail fr6m Riga for her destination.
In the course ora few, days, however, having encountered a
severe gale in the Baltic, she. was under he necessity of putting
in at Copenhagen-to refit. After a considerable lapse of time,
being again made sea-worthy at an expellee of between three
and 4001. she attempted a second time to jProsecute her voyage
to Toulon, but unfortunately she had still to enNunter one of
the most violent hurricanes ever expelieneed in the Channel;
on which occasion she was drivensinto port at Cowes, in a
state of complete disability. Immediately on her arrival
at this latter port? Moormase the Captain, communicated
the intelligence of this disaster to the owners at ,Amsterdam,
.111311 alto to the agent of the plaintiff, Morrison, in London,'
thereby leaving each party at liberty to prcitett his own interest.
In the mean time he caused a survey to be made as to the
state of the vessel, and the report, which stated that to put her
again in • sailing condition would require 13 or 1,400/. to be ex-
pended on her, was forthwith transmitted to the agents of the
several parties as before, and from them Moorman received in-
structionato make the necessary repairs ; but, as regarded the
fund out of which the money was to , be taken for, liquidating
the charges thereby incurred, there seemed to exist some Mis-
understanding -between them. The Captain, however, pro-
ceeded to repair the vessel, which, when completed, the next
question was as to the mode of clearing the expenses. The
only course before hilt appeared to be either to sell off' or hy-
pothecate the cargo pro rata- itineris. With this intention the
defendant had recourse to the usual regulations necessary to be
observed previous to the sale of a ship's cargo, for the purpose
of paying-‘the expenses of her refit in an English harbour ;he
caused the property to be regularly'adVerfised ; the officers of'
the King's Customs were commissioned to make the sale, and
just as they were about to dispose of the cargo his Honour's
injunetionintervened, and at once put an end to the whole
transaction. The Learned Counsel then stated, that the Cetus
had thus interposed chiefly on the.authority of, an. affidavit of
the agent of the plaintiff, who swore, that on the entry of the
vessel into Cowes, she was not' of the value Of four hundred
pounds in the whole, consequently not in a state to warrant
the expense which had been incurred for repairs, and that. under
the circumstances of the case, such an act was one of gross im-
propriety. The injunction went to restrain the defendant from
either selling, hypothecating, or in any other manner disposing
of the property, or any part thereof. The Learned Counsel
said, that unless his Lordship now interposed on behalf of the
defendant, and some assistance were given to emancipate the
vessel from the state in which she was in, -daily getting worse
and worse, being at the present time supplied with a eomple.
ment of men at a cost of 1001. per mouth, an extremely valu-
able cargo of, between five and 600 tons burdens would be en-
tirely lost, the cargo sacrificed, and thus the interest of all
parties would be destroyed; for in the end they would find that
they had been contending for what would, when gained, be
literally worth nothing. The ground on which the Learned
Gentleman founded his present application was the absence 'of
all rightin a Court of Equity to interfere with a case which to
all intents came under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Colin,
the whole transaction being of a purely foreign natures
Mr. Saap*Er.i. followed on the same side.
Mr.-KSfIGHT this day shelved cause against the motion, and.
contended that the order of the Vice-Chancellor did not go far
enough ; as the defendant had no lien on the cargo for the re-
pairs of the ship, he should have recourse to the usual means of
payment for the repairs by a bottomry on the vessel. He would
prove this by the evidence in support of the defendant's case.
The repairs amounted to 1,400/.; the former repairs at Copen-
hagen 400/. ; and the value of the vessel when she arrived at
Cowes was only estimated at 500/. ; then, with the repairs,
demurrage, wages of the crew, and victualling, the expenses of
the ship would amount to between 3,000/. and 4,0001., when
her actual value on coining into port was not more than 500/)
He would for an instant suppose that the cargo or freight were
liable for these expenses, neither of them would amount to a
sufficient sum to pay them, and it could not be contended that
they were both liable. The cargo was only worth 1,500/. and
if it reached its destination; Toulon, the freight on it would
only amount to 1,2001. It could never .be allowed that thq
master of a foreign ship sh9uld be allowed to run his vessel intq
a British port for the purpoie of having her rebuilt, and then tq
come on a British subject for the expense of changing his old
vessel into a new one. A question of this kind, he believed;
occurred amongst the ancient. Philosophers, whether a ship
might not go under so many repairs as to cease to be the same
ship.
• The Loup-Citak-CELI.on—" Mr. Locke mentions a case
of a man having bought a silk stocking, and afterwards having
darned it so with worsted, that it ceased to be a silk stocking.
I believe there are- very few men who would darn a worsted
stocking with silk.".
Mr. KNIGHT, in Continuation, contended, that it was the
duty of the defendant to bottomry the Ship to the amount of
the repairs, and- although there had tieen.a bottomry on her at
Copenhagen, his Lordship knew that the law was, that the last
bottemry was the first entitled to be paid. Under those consfs
derations lie had. no doubt but his Lordship would dismiss Mr.
Hart's motion with costs.
Mr. COOPER followed on the Same side.
Mr. HART replied, and contended that it was not a case
Which came under the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity it
could only be taken Cognizanee of in the Court of Admiralty,
which Court had the power of taking into its consideration the
Tights of all parties in the vessel, whether foreigners or not.
He therefore trusted that his Lordship would dissolve the
injunction.
The Lout.' CHANCELLOR ObSerVed, that he did not clearly
understand how the ,Court of Admiralty proceeded in such
cases, but he would have an opportunity of knowing from the
Learned Judge at the head of that Court between this and Sa-
turday, on which morning he vtould giVe his judgment. Ile
believed the Court of-Admiralty had not the jurisdiction to re-
strain the defendant froul Selling the cargo; and the present
impression on his mind was, that he ought to be SO reStreined.
Judgment postponed.
His Lordship rose at half-past two o'clock.