The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-08 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE JiQVES.

The consideration of this case, postponed yesterday, was to-
day resumed, after the motions were disposed of. The book
referred to was produced, and found to contain a number of en-
tries by Jaques, of payments to Thackeray, of 11. and 11. ls.
each, for successive weeks, as well as entries of other advances.
The defendant, being called on to explain these entries, said,
that he had acted as clerk to Thackeray, at a salary of 1541. per
annum. Thackeray was a man immoderately addicted to
liquor, and lie.,was forced to take care of his monies, and to
make him these advances. He solemnly disclaimed having re-
ceived any share of the profits of the concern. At his desire,
the affidavit of one of the clerks was read, declaring that he
considered Thackeray as his master, and that all proceedings
were taken in his name. ,He then requested that his own affi-
davit might be read. The officer accordingly began to read it,
but as it appeared 0 be of great length, and the time for the
rising of the Court-had arrived, the further discussion of the
case was postponed till tomorrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov-. 7.
' CROOK V. 31`TARISIT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff; a captain and
owner of a Dutch vessel, against the defendant, a commander
in the preventive service, for illegally seizing and detaining his
ship. The cause was tried at the last Assizes at Maidstone,
when it appeared that on the 23d otAugust, 1821, the vessel
then being off Dover, it was boarded by the defendant, accom-
panied by several armed men ; he, however, did not then de-
cide that he would seize the vessel, but left three men on board.
On the 25th2 he "ave notice to the plaintiff that he had deter.
mined to seize the vessel, which he then carried into port,
where she was obliged to . perform quarantine. A correspon-
dence took place, and an investigation was instituted, the re-
sult of which was, that the ship was ordered to be released, and
given up to the owner, the revenue officers being directed to
re-load the cargo at their own expence. The ship was restored
on. the 23d of September, and the action was commenced on the
17th of November. On this evidence the plaintiff was non-
suited, as having been..too late in bringing his action.
111 r. Serjeant 'FADDY now moved for a rule lo show cause why
the nonsnit should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. By
the 23d sec. of the 43d of the late King, on which statute this
action was founded, it was ordered that the action should be
commenced " within three months next after the thing complain-
ed of was done or committed." The questions intended to be
raised were, Ist. Whether the " thing done or committed" was
completed on the seizure of the ship, or only inchoate, being com-
pleted on its re-delivery to the owners ? 2dly, Whether "months"
in this statute meant lunar or callendar months ? By the 25th
section of the statute, it was ordered that before bringing any
action, the plaintiff must give one calendar month's notice to
the Officers against whom the action was to be brought ; and
the 28th section gave 'one calendar month to the defendant
in order to make a tender of amends. The Learned Serjeant
therefore contended that the statute must be consistent through-
out; for, otherwise, the plaintiff would have but a few days
after the expiration of the two calendar months required for the
notice and tender of amends, in order to bring his action. Be-
sides, in this case, the ship being under quarantine, the plaintiff
could not send letters on shore under penalty of felony, without
benefit of Clergy, 8Q that by the construction contended for by
the defendant, no remedy whatever was given to the party in-
jured.
The Court granted a rule to skew cause.
At one o'clock, Mr. Justice BURROU Gil sat at Nisi Pries.