The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-04 00:00:00

practice more common, for we presume lie
pocketed the .1/., the 501., and the 350/., and
all from a tenant whose chief stock was a
pig ! We notice this ridiculous story to show
that the narratives of the Irish papers are to
be received with great distrust. Here is a man
who wants to say, that the peasantry have
money concealed, which they withhold from
their landlords. Instead of stating it as a fact,
or a conjecture, he gets up, or rather he regularly
dramatizes a story of his own invention. It is
most probable that many of the frightful outrages
which go forth in the Irish newspapers are fabri-
cated in the same way. Some, no doubt, are au-
thentic, but from circumstances, and front the po-
sitive assurance of individuals personally acquaint-
ed with the state of Ireland, we believe, that al-
though there is much of melancholy truth in the
relations given of crime and depredation, yet the
histories of obscure and minor outrages are pure
fabrications.

LA►W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3.
WOLFE AND ANOTHER V. LUNDO.

Mr. Serjeant Vairoisaif stated that this was an action to re_
cover from the defendant the sum of 251. ns. Ild. the balance
of an account. The transaction originated in some speculations
in Foreign Securities between the parties ; but the Learned
Serjeant contended, that even should any question be raised
upon the legality of dealings in Foreign Securities, still his
clients would be entitled to a verdict, as the cash account
shewed a balance in their favour.
Mr. Darcey, a Solicitor, proved a contingent promise made
by the defendant to pay the debt, and produced two letters from
the defendant, in one of which he tendered his broker's ticket
as security ; but this having been found to be of no intrinsic
value, was rejected by the plaintiffs.
Seeant PETA, for the defendant, submitted that this was
not of those " time bargains" which could never be recognised
in a Court of Law. In a legal sense, there was no difference
whatsoever between gambling in the Funds and common gam-
bling. They were equally excluded from the protection of the
laws. It was unnecessary tbr him to tell the Jury that the
practice of snaking time bargains in the Funds was illegal, and
it would be for them to decide if the transaction in questiOn was
of that character.
Mr. Justice Hu ttROUGif said, the only question upon which
the .lury had to decide was, whether the whole transaction was
a time bargain. If they sh:suld find that only a part of it was
such, then they would return a verdict for the difference. He
would, himself, decline giving at that moment any opinion upon
the legality or illegality of time bargains. That question would
be determined upon by the Judges hereafter.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for 2571. with liberty to the plaintiffs
to enter a verdict f0r.251. 17s. 11d. ; and leave given to the de-
fendant to move that the remainder be struck out.

TtofiEUTSON V. CLARKE.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, stated the case for the plaintiff, which he
said was to recover the amount of two Policies of Insurance,
one for the sum of 300/. on the ship Neptune, the other for the
sum of 1501. on the freight of said ship. The question was,
whether the plaintiff on the record, or those deriving under
him, were entitled to recover from the underwriters the amount
of the loss. The plaintiff, Robertson, was not acting for his
own benefit in the case, he having assigned over his interest in
it to Messrs. Williams and Co. bankers. Before the voyage in
question, the ship had been engaged by Government to take
' out convicts to New South Wales, which proved that at that
time the vessel was seaworthy. In the month of May, 1821,
the Neptune arrived at the Mauritius from New South Wales,
when an anonymous letter was received, intimating that ske
was in an unsound state, and unable to make a voyage to
Europe; in consequence of which the Captain caused her to
be examined, and she was declared to be seaworthy in every
respect. Captain Moresby, of his Majesty's Navy, also proved
that she was sound ; the homeward voyage was therefore un-
dertaken, but the weather proving extremely tempestuous, the
vessel sustained great damage in her passage to the Cape of
Good, IF*, • where, having arrived she entered into Symond's
Bay. •,Sita was 'theruagain examined, and found to be so vouch
ittlnredi tUba incat.sble of sufficient repairs to enable her to
prosecute her voyage, and she wag consequently there sold and

iroken. *up
The witnesses for the 'plaintiff were then called.
The Captain of the ship proved her soundneis both before
he voyage .outward and her leaving the Alatiritius fOr Europe.
A number of other witpesses Isroved the other facts stated by
Serjeant Pst.L.
A letter from the agent of Messrs. Williams and Co. to the
defendant was also put in and read, which gave them notice of
the circumstances under which the vessel had arrived at Sy-
rnond's Bay ; her being condemned ; ultimately sold for 3,000
dollars, and broken up. It appeared also that the nominal
plaintiff, Robertson, had become bankrupt, and assigned his
interest in the ship and freight to Messrs. 'Williams and Co..
Here the case for the plaintiffs closed.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGUATi addressed the Jury for the defen-
dant. The ship bad been insured for the sum of 8,0001.
altogether; the cargo for 4,0001.; and the action was brought
to recover from his client the sum of 4501., being his pro-
portion of the sum insured. In the first place, the
Learned Serjeant contended, that the notice to his client
by Messrs. Masson and Co. was not the notice of the
plaintiff, hut of the agents of Messrs. Williams and Co.
It was also deficient, because it did not contain an "abandon-
ment," which Lord Ellenborough and other high authorities
had declared was absolutely necessary in such an instrument.
Lord Ellenborough's words were, " the abandonment must be
direct and express—and I even think the word abandonment
ought to be used." Another question arose upon the terms of
the policy which went to cover the vessel during her voyage out
to New South Wales—her subsequent voyage in search of - a
cargo "in India, or at any of the East India Islands." Now,
without assuming much geographical knowledge, he would
submit that the -Mauritius was not an East Indian but an
African island, to which the Charter of the Eatt India -Com-
pany did not extend ; on these two points he would rest the
case for his client.
(Evidence was then given of the bankruptcy of the plaintiff
Robertson, and his assignment to Messrs. Williams and Co.
as before detailed.)
A gentleman who holds the situation of Ilydrographer to the
East India Company was called, who proved that the Mauri-
tius was not an East India Island, but one of the African
Archipelago ; he also proved that the Charter of the East India
Company did not extend to or include the Mauritius.
Under the direction of the Learned Judge, the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff., subject to an argument before the
Court upon the points stated by Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, the
omission of " abandonment" in the notice, and the alleged de-
viation from the terms of the policy, which stated that the
cargo should be taken up in India, or in one of the East India
I Islands.
01.1 .1.11010.111110.11111 A
les . .