The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, A Pim it:.
This being the first day of Easter Term, their Lordships did
not take their seats till near two o'clock.—Mr. Justice Hot,
HOYD sat for some time to' hear motions of course, before the
arrival of the other Judges.—The tisual report of the state of
the covicts at Sheerness, Portsmouth, and Chatham, and a re.
turn of the state of the Penitentiary, were read.

ST. MARY, NEWINGTON.
The Solicitor-fieneral moved for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not be issued, directing the governors and
guardians of the poor of the pariah of St. Mary, Newington, tco
call a vestry for the purpose of electing eight persons as the
officers of the poor, and twelve others as governors, in the place
of the present persons in that office. He moved this on the au-
thority of a local Act of Parliament passed in the year 1814, in
confirmation of a former Act in the reign of Elizabeth. He
stated that several tnandamuses had been granted on former
occasions. If this were not granted, the parish would be un-
der the necessity of remaining without officers. Ile therefore
hoped, that on considering these circumstances their Lordships
would have no difficulty in acceding to his motion.—ltule
granted.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY', Aral t. 15.
CAPTURES ON TUE JAMAICA STATION.
Lord STOWELL gave judgment to-day in the above cause,
the facts of which we have more than once laid before our
readers. This was a question of interest, between Admiral
Sir Alexander Cochrane, and Captain Carter, in certain
prizes taken by the fleet on the Jamaica station, so lone ago
as in the year 11114.—Sir Alexander Cochrane now clannins•
to share as Commander-in-Chief of that station ; and his
claim being opposed by the actual captor. The fans in this
case were, that Admiral Brown, who had the command of ti e
fleet in question under Admiralty orders, died on the 20th of
December of that year. No Admiral being present on the sta-
tion to succeed to the command, it was assumed by several
officers successively, all of them, however, inferior in rank to
that of Admiral, until the arrival of Admiral Douglas in the
month of May following. The claim of Sir Alexander
Cochrane was for the flag eighth, on the captures made dor,
ing this interval. It was interposed for hint on two grounds ;
the one, that he assumed the command of this fleet under or-
ders and instructions from the Admiralty (and this ground
alone was that brought forward by Sir Alexander himself)
the other, (which was adduced by his Counsel, and was
to be found neither in his plea, nor his evidence), that,
supposing it were even without any direct orders from the
Admiralty, Sir Alexander Cochrane had a right to take
upon. himself the command of this fleet, acting upon his own
authority as Admiral, and subject to his responsibility in
that capacity. There Were many reasons, the Court thought,
that must discourage it from admitting this last proposition.—
Sir A. Cochrane himself did not venture to chum on such a
ground, and no portion of the evidence applied to it save one,
which denied it—the evidence of Admiral Douglas.. It would
he a rule, as far as the Court could judge, likely to be attend-
ed with occasional public inconvenience and danger. The
Government alone, in which the law had placed the dis-
tribution of the naval force of the kingdom, could adequately
judge of the proper disposal of any part of it, according np
the general nature of the exigencies of public service. An Ad,
miral at a distance, confined ton particular station,could form but
a very inadequate and limited idea of those exigencies, bounded,
as it must be, by facts and circumstances occurring within his
own immediate observation. The Court, therefore, was rather
inclined to hold that the contrary 9f the proposition which had
been advanced must be the rule, and that such an assumption
of command as the one in question must be the exception, if it
were a splendid exception, and mochas might be justified by the
exercise of a sound discretion, acting with effixt on great and ur-
gent necessity. The papers before the Court referred to the ge-
neral rules and regulations of the navy; but these had not been
produced before him, " and I (continued his Lordship) should
be worse titan
war, if I were to state what I consider the rules should be
that ought to direct the Admiralty upon so momentous a sub-
ject." His Lordship went on to state, that he confined this
case, as Sir Alexander Cochrane seemed to do to two or thre
considerations only--" Did the Admiralty authorise him to take
the command of this station, in such a manner as to en-
title him to the flag share of captures made by Captain
Carter. Did Sir Alexander Cochrane assume such a coin,
mand ? And, if the Admiralty did not originally au
diorite him, had they given that subsequent kind of appreba.,
don, which might be supposed to sanction his proceedings ? ll k •
Lordship then stated the bearing of the evidence upon each of
these questions; and referring to the various instructions received
from the Admiralty, by Sir J. B. Warren (Sir A. Cochrane's
predecessor), by Admiral Brown, and by Admiral Sir Alex.
Cochrane himself: and adverting to the fact, at the time of the
expedition to New Orleans, Sir A Cochrane, sailing to his own
destination, only passed through the limits of the Jamaica sta-
tion,-his being the Halifax station, his Lordship held, that the
orders of the Admiralty were not of that definite and. dis-
tinct character that Sir Alexander, though he might hava
sumed the command of the Jamaica station, could properly
he considered as the Commander-in-Chief; and that it was a
fair inference that the Admiralty and Sir Alexander Cochrane
thought differently upon his right to that character, inasmuch
as both Lord Melville and Sir John Hope, Lords of the Ad-
miralty, had failed to confirm the appointments to vacancies in
the Jamaica fleet, which had been made under Sir Alexander
Cochrane's authority and had, on the contrary, directed Ad.
miral Douglas to make out such appointments to all vacancies
occurring subsequently to the death of Admiral Brown. On
all these grounds, the Colin was of opinion that Sir Alexander
Cochrane was not entitled to the flag-share of one-eighth, as
claimed by him.