The Sun.
London, England, 1812-11-19 00:00:00

BIELLISII V. ANDI'EWS.

•
Two trials have already taken place in this case,
an:l a rule to .shew cause why r_ new trial should
not be again granted, having .been 'obtained on,
the part of tle-eefendant—the eate, wbieh is one
.of ‘'.el,l great importance, came on, this day to be
argued in the course of the peremptory paper.
The action was on a Policy of Insurance to.
any port or ports in. the Baltic, with, leave -to
touch and wait at any port or:ports whatever, for
orders. The vessel first went to Carlsham, where
she received orders to go to Swinemund,. She ac-
:eordingly proceeded thither, and the Captain
went -on sh .re, but there be;ng no possibility bi
unlading at t port, he there received orders, to
.return :to Carisham, there to .-emain,for orders.
At Caz7Aain, on her return thither, thz: vessel and
cargo were seized.
SoLiciTor.-GENERAL and Mr. ar-
guer!, that, the terns of thel'olicy, the as-
surt were enti•::ic.l to go to Carlsham. for orders,
to Huernund for orders, and.then to. return to
car": on for fresh' orders, or for any other pur-
pose, as intic-!) tl'iov could have•been entitled to
Treeeed to any other port. • .
Mr. PARK, Mr. TOPZING, and Mr. TADDY, for
:the. defendants,_contended, that the-plaintiffs were
ew ;tied to make:this only a straight forward voy-
age. The moment the Vessel set off on,her re-
'tern to Carlsham for orders a second time, they
_submitted, a deviation had been. committed.

. The Court was of this opinion. There appear-
.e4 no necessary cause for the vessel's returning
to Carl Sham- except for -fresh orders. They,
therefore, made- the Rule for a um trial ab-
-solute. .
. .

COURT. COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.

Si AYOR V. KNOWLES,

This was a case for, special argument, in which
the question for decision was, wheLiler houses
which have never been inhabited, are liable to pay
_that portion of the paving rates to which, by Act►
of Parliament, those houses arc liable which travel
been once inhabited

, - Mr. Scrjeant Si,LEPHERD argued ou behalf of the
plqintiff, and Mr. Serjeant LEN s for the defendant ;
alter which the,Court, upon comparing the dif-
ferentelauses of the Act, gave their opinions se-
riatim., that landlords of such uninhabited houses

MORGAN V. KELSEY.

This was an action on a- covenant between a
lessor and a lessee, for non-payment of rent,
which, however, had been paid by the
.assignee of
the deleudant ; but the Court • held, that such
payment was not good, unless the assignee vas of
the lessor's appointment.

• 1-15 SE V. WOOD.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD moved for a Rule, to
'show cause why the c.itlawry against the plaintiff
in 'this case should not be reversed, on the ground
that he hail been abroad when it took place. If
appeared from an nt3davit which hadsbeen put in
.by the plaintiff, that he went from this country
`to -Hamburg in the year 1794, for the purpose
of raising a regiment for his Majesty's service ;
he came back frQm the Continent in 1796-,
and returned thither again in the following year,
for the same Purpose. which had induced him to go
there originally., Puri absence, judgment
-bad been (Altered against him.. in an undefended
action, which afterwards riin to an outlaWry,
of which be had no intimation till the year 1807,
being then resident in Vienna, Nvhithci• he had
ittinioved from Hamburg. He uadei stood that his
presence was necesleirf for the purpose of haiing
• the outlawry reversed, and he, in consequence,
'-took the necessary-measures for leaving Germany',
hut was unavoidably delayed from the obstruc-
tions which existed to aft communication.hetween
- this county and the Continent, from the measures
of the enemy ; he, however,' did come as soon as.
'be could, and now applied to the Court for a Rule,
• which was immediately granted. • •

BETTS V. AVARRINGTGN.
Mr. Serjetillt VAUGHAN moved for a Rule to
shew cause why the warrant of attorney signed
by the defendant in this case, should not be -de-
_livered up, in order to .be cancelled, Ln the ground
that it was i!legaliy had. It appeared, that the,
defendant add had lodged in t'lle house of
• due .tiizeland,a tailor, residing inWitripolestreet,
and " had freveutly accepted accommodation
for him-, and that, being out of -town- on
One occasion, Sizelar.d drew on the defendant,
.0,n4 prevailed upon his wife to . -accept the
Mils so drawn,. though no consideration had
,had for the. 'amount, a, circumstance with

LONDON: Printed by T 1
At the SUN OrFil

which the holder of the hills' had been apprised by
the defendant, who, however, was arrested and
taken to a lock-un house,-where-the plaintiff's clerk
went to him, to inncl..; hi:u to sign a warrant of
•
attorney, which he at l'ugtli con:“.:nted to do,
from a wish to free himgeli'frOnithe stuation he
was in.' There was an affidavit to prove, that this
person who Urged the defendant to Sign the war-
rant of attorney was not an attorney himself, but
merelyclerk to the plaintiff, who:is one ; and their
Lordships also were aware, that; according to law,
no warrant of .attorney-could be executed, except
in presence of the Soiicitor or Counsel of the per-
stin executing such warrant.—Rule to skew cause
granted.