The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-17 00:00:00

THE l's-ENV ORDERS.

Just before his Honour rose,

_ . ,
Mr. bDIPICINSON applied to the Court to issue an order
to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to bring Alfred Collett to the
bar, for neglecting to comply with an order which had
him,
it
to
was
provided pay
money into Court. By
that, in such cases,
the party should be brought to the bar on-the ground
of contempt.
beenth the 1 lt h served
New upon
Order
His HONOUR said that, as the cue was the first of the
kind which )ad occurred, he would defer his decision
upon it until to-morrow.
(Before Vice Chancellor WIGRAM.)
MELTX V. BELL.
___ __

His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The sub-
ject of this interpleading suit was a bond dated July 5,
1824, by which certain persons, including Thomas Star-
ling Benson, became jointly and severally bound to DiarY

MORNING SUN

Jeffries, now Mary Jordan, in the penal sum of 16,0001.,
with a condition for making the bond void on the pay-
ment of 8,0001., with interest. On the marriage of Mrs.
Jordan the bond was assigned to trustees, in trust for
the benefit of, herself and children, and after her death
for the belie& of her husband, so long as he remained a
widower. The bond, by means which did not appear,
came into the possession of Henry Jordan ; and in the
year 1832 the defendant, Mr. Bell, advanced 7,000/. to
Jordan, upon the security, amongst other property,. of
the bond in queition, upon the faith of a representation
made by Jordan to Mr. Bell, that his wife's real estate
had been settled upon her and her children, and
that the bond had become his property. In
support of this statement Henry Jordan produced to
Mr. Bell a settlement, which he alleged to be the only
settlement upon the marriage, and from which it ap-
peared, contrary to the fact, that he was in legal posses-
sion of the bond. Mr. Bell made no inquiry whatever
of the obligors of the bond before he advanced the
money. In March, 1833, Mr. Bell, by his solicitor, gave
notice of this security to the obligors of the bond. The
question, therefore, to be decided was whether Mn,.
Jordan and her children, or the defendant, Mr. Bell, had
the best equity upon the money secured by the bond.
The sole question was, whether at the time when Mr.
Bell gave notice of this incumbrance to the obligors of
the bond, such notice of the marriage settlement of
Mrs. Jordan had been given to the obligors, or any of
them as would deprive Mr. Bell of the benefit
of the rule of law. Thomas Starling Benson,
one of the obligors of the bond, deposed that he had no-
tice at the time of Mary Jordan's marriage that the
bond was settled on her and her children. That testi-
mony was not contradicted. If it were necessary to fix
the other obligors of the bond with notice, he would
have great difficulty in acting upon the Master's Re-
port. But it had been decided in the case of Smith v.
Smith, in a full Court of Exchequer, that notice to one
trustee was sufficient to bind the rest during his life ;
and the case of Tenison v. Ramsbottom, before the Mas-
ter of the Rolls, had confirmed that decision. In both
these cases the question of sufficiency of notice was
treated by the Court as a question of substance, and he
entirely concurred in that principle. The judgment in
this cause must therefore be in favour of Mrs. Jordan and
her children. If Henry Jordan were in Court, there
could be no question as to who should bear the costs oc-
casioned by his iniquities. He could not give Mr. Bell
his costs, because if he had made proper inquiry he
would have escaped that loss to which the judgment of
the Court would subject him. He could not acquit the
trustees of all blame in the transaction, for if they had
used proper caution the bond never would have come
into the possession of Henry Jordan. He could give no
costs against the co-defendants ; the plaintiffs must have
their costs out of the fund.

Considerable discussion having arisen %t the bar in
reference to the situation and rights of the several parties
to the suit, his Honour made the following addition to
his decree:—" Declare that Bell is entitled to stand in
the place of Henry Jordan during his life (provided he
remains a widower) in the event of his surviving his wife,
and declare that he is entitled to a lien on the fund to
that extent. Declare that the fund subject to the inter-
est of Bell, belongs to the trustees of the settlement made
on Mrs. Jordan's marriage upon the trusts of that settle-
ment. Let the fund be transferred to the trustees of that
settlement, and let the cash in Court, or stock, arising
from dividends invested, be paid to Mrs. Jordan, and if
necessary, let the Master ascertain how much of the fund
in Court has arisen from dividends accrued since the
fund was transferred into Court. Declare that this order
is without prejudice to the claim of the trustees to be re-
imbursed their costs out of the trust fund."

The COURT was occupied until its rising in hearing the
urther arguments in this cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 16.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DEN) AN and a
Special Jury.)

CRAM, B IRT., AND OTHERS V. FENN AND OTHERS.

Mr. KELLY stated the case. It was an action brought
by the plaintiffs, Directors of the Northern Reversionary
Company, against the Asylum Life Insurance Office of
London, to recover a sum of 2,0001., being the amount of
a policy of insurance effected upon the life of the Hon.
George Talbot, brother to the Earl of Shrewsbury. It
appeared that Mr. Talbot was desirous of raising a sum
of 15,0001., and the contract for repayment depended en-
tirely upon his succeeding to the Earldom and estates—
if he failed to succeed nothing at all was to be paid.
A sum of 2,500/. was advanced in hard cash by
the plaintiffs, and to cover the risk which they ran,
as in the event of his dying before the Earl
of Shrewsbury, they would receive nothing, they ef-
fected an insurance on Mr. Talbot's life for such a sum
as they thought would cover their risk. They insured
in several Scotch offices, and in one London office, the
Asylum. The Scotch offices paid the sums in which
insurances were effected, but the Asylum office had
thought proper to refuse. The result was, that they
thought it proper to file a bill in Chancery against the
plaintiffs, and extorted from. them, upon their oaths, an-
swers regarding every fact that could affect the case, and
furnish them with the means of defence, ar.d which they
could now make use of if they thought proper. He
would establish the fact that at the time when the loan
and insurance were effected, Mr. Talbot was in good
health and of temperate habits, and when he had done
that, he was really at a loss to know what defence could
be made with any shadow of justice to the present action.
The only question for the jury being, whether he was not
of intemperate habits in the month of August, 1837, when
the insurance was effected.
George Caulfield—l am a solicitor, carrying on busi-
ness in Harl.y-street. I was acquainted with the late
Mr. George fralbot, who was brother to the Earl of
Shrewsbury. I acted as his solicitor from 1836 down
to the time of his death, which occurred on the 11th of
June, 1839. I was in the habit of seeing him almost
every day when in town, and I frequently lunched and
dined with him. He was living at Broadstairs, and came
up to London occasionally. I scarcely ever saw him
drink anything. I negotiated the loan for him with the
Northern Reversion Company, and by desire of one of
the Company I made arrangements for insuring his life.
The Company carry on their business in Edinburgh. I
made a proposal on their behalf to the Asylum Life Office
in London, the 253 th July, 1837. [The proposal to effect
an insurance on the life of Mr. Talbot, fur the sum of
2,0001. was then put in and read. On the margin was a
note " 4/. Is. for former intemperance."] The ordinary
premium according to their scale would be 2L 15s. per
cent. and the increased premium of 41. Is. was for former
intemperance. My communications were with Mr.
Farren, the resident director. The policy was effected
on the 11th August, 1837. I thought Mr. Talbot was
at that time leading a moderate and temperate life so far
as I knew it. I saw him repeatedly during the re-
mainder of the year 1837, and his habits were the same.
I have seen him take as much as five or six glasses of
sherry after dinner, and there was sometimes a bottle of
claret afterwards which he did not partake of.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I first
saw him on the business of the insurance about the Ist
or 2d August, 1837. I had seen him previously in April
or May. The business I saw him about on the Ist or 2d
August was another loan. I saw him every day till the
4th or sth, and sometimes twice a day. I recollect see-
ing him in October, and also January, 1838. My share
of the 2,5001. was nothing. Mr. Farren paid me a com-
mission for effecting the insurance. Of course I was
also paid for my trouble and loss of time. I dined once
at Hatchard's hotel with Mr. Talbot. I think George
Pine, a mate in the navy, dined with us.
Thomas Davis—I am a surgeon residing at George-
street, Hanover-square. I knew the Hon. Geo. Henry
Talbot for 25 or 26 years. Was his professional atten-
dant down to February, 1838, when he resided at This-
tle-grove, Old Brompton. Was well acquainted with
him, and saw him frequently. I saw him in July and
August, 1837, and he was then in very good health. His
general health was good. I don't know perhaps what
his usual habits of life were, but I believe he played
very much and sat up at night, but I don't think he had
any other bad habits. I -saw him man • times in 1837,
but I cannot recollect the months. I don't know what
his habits of life then were, but his health was
v:ryangdooads.
I often saw him as early as nine in the morning
late as five or six in the afternoon. He never exhibited
any
symptoms of intemperance when I saw him. H
had
a florid eruption on his face like-the late Earl ofShreews-
hab it
bury.s, because That certaihe had nly
it whne was on
a t pr
boy. dby
intemperate
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—I cannotsay when
I saw Mr. Talbot before August, 1837. I saw him in the
beginning of the year. On one occasion he called on me
to fill np a letter to an Insurance-office. I thought he
was of temperate habits, and I have never expressed a
different opinion. [A letter was put into witness's
hands, which he said was in his hand-writing.
Thesiger read the letter, which was dated March, Mr.
1836,
i
addressed to the Asylum-office, and n which it was said
that Mr. Talbot's former habits were not temperate, but
that he believed he now led a sober and temperate life.
Witness said that referred to an early period of his life,
when he was in the 9th Lancers.] In another letter,
dated March 9, 1836, addressed to the same office, I said I
that although his face bore marks of irregular habits,
believed him to possess a sound constitution. I referred
to the marks he had had since a boy. I gave my 'true
opinion to the office. lam a Director of the Clerical
and Medical Life Insurance Company, and I recom-
mended Mr. Talbot to that office.
Horatio Cleggett—l was acquainted with the late Mr.
George Talbot. I knew him about 22 years, and inti-
mately for the last three or four years of his life. I as-
sociated with him a good deal when in London, and dined
frequently with him. Ile was not on good terms with
his brother's family during the latter period of his life.
I was in London in the year 1837. I saw him whenever
plc Was in London. He always stopped at Hatchard's,
itr Teadilly. I saw him in May-nearly every day he was
"-Irldoq, and often dined and passed the evening with
"Lm, • , 'He used to talie wine pretty freely, but not parti-
cularly, not
yr , more than myself.
' hope your life is not insured, Mr.
ieggett ?
Witness—Yes it is, in a number of offices.
t,offices.
--(Laughter.) I never saw him drink a bottle of wine.
He drank beer at dinner. He drank less wine than the
others generally.
bottle. I tally' He drank, on the average, less than a
Sten him take a glass of beer at lunch.
At an earlier Period of his life he- used to drink more.
to habits Were.ranchthe I have stated down.
same as
to the month of
gust I dined with him in that
month ; his health A.
leiy good in that year. I never
beard him complain. nould say no person was more
intimate with him about
that time than myself. I visited
him after he went to Thistle-grove Old Brompton, in
1838. Ire had then a cough. It was in the end of 1837
•
and beginning of' 1838, ie
afterwards removed to the
Hampstead-road. There was a dampness on the walls
Thewhole of the firsted-room inp.
house was dam hick he slept at the Grove.
CrOdletriVralrlztea by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I knew
711*t:':iviii). he Zistate sin the 9th Lancers. I have
se.;n.kinx'ae.e4l.2o.the, tunes, but I should not say that
his habits-. were inteitailer. He became more tempe-
ratglivitatiiili last feW, years, Dr. Paris attended him
in hiriast j:,-think I saw Mr. Talbot in June or
-Jay, ,1837, but.l 411140 t speak positively. I dined with

him at Hatchard's in August. His dinner was between
five and six. I understood he had come to London on
the subject of an insurance. I am a married man. I
generally left him about half-past 10 or 11 at night. Mr.
Talbot was married, and was separated from his wife for
some time before 1837. He had a boy and a girl. I
was two days with him at Broadstairs in May, 1837.
Thomas Thomas—l am proprietor of Hatchard's
Hotel. I knew Mr. Geo. Talbot, who frequently stayed at
my house. He was there from the Ist Jan. 1837, to May
the Ist, 1837. Here was there from July 3to 13, from
August 1 too, and from August 23 to 26; from Septem-
ber 20 to 25, from October 3 to 12, and from October 16
to January 2, 1838. He frequently had gentlemen to din-
ner, and the whole bill was put down to him. I had no
opportunity of observing his habits.
Elizabeth Glover—l was in Mr. Talbot's service for
eight years, and had the care of his child. It was before
the separation, which occurred ten months afterwards.
He was livine. at Broadstairs in 1837 till the month of
October. He frequently dined with myself and the child.
He drank sometimes beer, and sometimes a little wine.
Sometimes he was temperate and sometimes intemperate.
I have known him sometimes take a little beer before
dinner. I have known him go to St. Peter's tea gardens
and return affected by drink. I don't recollect that oc-
curring in the year 1837. He did not drink so much
latterly. We went, in June 1837, to Paris, and remained
there a month. I have seldom seen him after seven in
the evening, but his habits up to that hour were tempe-
rate. He used to go to bed between ten and eleven, and
rise about half-past eight or nine. When we went to
Thistle-grove, he slept in a very damp room ; the water
ran down the walls. He caught a very bad cold, and rup-
tured a blood-vessel in April 1838. He died in June 1839.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—We
went to Broadstairs in 1835, and that was his place of
residence till October, 1837. I heard him say he was
disgusted with St. Peter's, and left off going there. I
have seen him intoxicated, but not frequently. I have
known him to be perfectly sober for three weeks toge-
ther, but I cannot fix any particular date. I heard him
say that he detested wine and would take no more.
Sometimes he has taken it again soon after, and has got
drunk at times. Sometimes he has not been able to
walk steadily up stairs, but not frequently. I don't re-
collect his being drunk for two or three days or a week
together. I could always hear him go to bed at night.
I could tell by his footstep in what condition he was. I
cannot swear that he was or was not drunk for many
nights one after another. He was temperate at times,
and often intemperate. I don t recollect his
being sober longer than three weeks together.
I never knew that he used to go to a public house in the
neighbourhood. I never saw him there. Once in a state
of intoxication he struck me. In 1837 the child was six
or seven years old. I kept the child up stairs when his
father was in a state of intoxication, or angry. The
child has generally been in bed at these times. I knew
George Fox, a fly driver. He has been at our house
sometimes. I don't know whether he has drunk there or
not. He sometimes stayed with Mr. Talbot an hour.
There may have been drink on the table, but I can't
say. Fox has brought him home, when he was the
worse for drink, not so often as five or six times. Mr.
Talbot was once ill at Broadstairs. In the autumn of
1837, in August or September, he was for about three
weeks very temperate. Before that he might have
been at times intemperate.
Re-examined—l have known him several times as long
as three weeks quite sober. We were at Hatchard's
from 3d October till the 2d January, and I do not recol-
lect seeing him intoxicated during that time. He was
not intoxicated, to my knowledge, during the month of
September, 1837. Ido not recollect his being at any
time intoxicated in August, nor in the month of July.
I think the time Fox brought him home was in 1836.
I should say for a twelvemonth before we left Broad-
stairs he used to drink less. It was in 1835 or 1836 he
struck me.
Dr. Beamish—l am a physician, and practised in
Ramsgate in 1837. I knew the Hon. George Talbot for
about three years. I saw him occasionally, and dined
once with him. I never attended him professionally; in
fact I never knew him to be ill. I gave a certificate in
July, 1837, and on that occasion I examined minutely.
I applied the slethoscope, and in my humble judgment
his lungs and every . part of him were quite sound. I
never saw him intoxicated.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—When I dined
with him Colonel, Mrs., and Miss Clarke, and my wife
dined. I thought the redness on his face was produced
by constitutional causes, but it is sometimes from intem-
perate habits.
Doctor Paris—l knew the late Mr. Talbot for several
years. I first attended Mr. Talbot professionally the 2d
May, 1838. It was a rupture of a blood- vessel in the
lungs. I attended him till his death. He died of tuber-
cular consumption. He bad a predisposition Lc) that dis-
ease. If he was of the most temperate habit he might
have died of consumption ; but intemperate habits would
excite morbid action in a weak organ. I recommended
him to be temperate, but saw nothing to indicate contrary
habits.
Israel Stcne—l am a waiter at Hatchard's Hotel Mr
Talbot was staying there at different times in 1837. I
generally waited on him. He had a private room, and
gentlemen frequently came to dine, and some came after
dinner. The wine drank was charged to Mr. Talbot.
He has frequently left his friends for the evening, and
sometimes he returned. During his absence they con-
tinued to drink. I have seen Mr. Talbot tipsy,
but never saw him excessively drunk. I have seen him
so frequently. lam speaking to the latter part of 1836
and the early part of 1837. I have seen him tipsy two
or three times in a fortnight. I cannot speak as to .the
month of July. He drank principally claret. I have
never known him drink in a morning.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESTGER—When Mr. Talbot
was in the coffee-room I did not see so much of him. I

generally went to bed at one or two. Mr. Talbot has
often been out after I went to bed. I have seen
him what might be termed drunk. On these occasions he
has generally gone out and not returned till afterl went to
bed. George Fox came with him at one time. Mr.
Talbot generally lunched, and took beer or half and
half. At night he drank spirits, but not frequently. He
might have gone out at night twice in a week. I have
not known him two or three weeks sober. Perhaps he
was tipsy once in a week. It was generally when he had
friends. I never saw Fox as a companion of his. I
don't think I ever saw him affected with liquor when he
was alone.

Henry Horton—l am night porter at Hatchard's hotel.
I sometimes let Mr. Talbot in two or three times a week.
Very few weeks I had not to do it. I have at times seen
him in liquor. Not in a beastly state, but just fresh.
The worse for liquor. He never required any body to
go to his room with him. He always took his candle
himself. He was generally in that state when I let
him in. It was sometimes one, and sometime two o'clock.
I was on duty every alternate week.
Stephen Light—l am night porter alternate nights
with Horton at Hatchard's. I sometimes let Mr. Talbot
in two or three times a week. That was pretty regular.
He was sometimes the worse for liquor. He never re-
quired any assistance to go to his room. He always
took his candle himself. He was able to take care of
himself. I thought him a little the worse by the violent
knockings at the door.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
defendants, and commented at great length upon the evi-
dence given by the several witnesses for the plaintiffs.
He believed it had been established saisfactorily that Mr.
Talbot was addicted to drinking, and that his habits'
were anything but temperate and moderate at the time
the insurance was effected. He also read the depositions
of a Lieut. Pine, of the Royal Navy, who was on terms
of intimacy, andwho stated that in the middle of the year
1837, Mr. Talbot was frequently intoxicated.
The following witnesses were then examined :
Sir Wyndham Anstruther—l knew the late Mr. Tal-
bot for eight or ten years. In July and August, 1837, I
was staying at Margate. I called two or three times a
week on him, and dined perhaps ten or fifteen times. I
left him generally between seven or eight o'clock. He
drank beer freely at dinner, and Port wine afterwards,
and some times brandy and water. lie was always the
worse for the wine drinking during that time, and some-
times drunk. I went to St. Peter's with him ; he had
drank a little before and after he got there ; he drank
malt liquor, brandy and water. He became very trouble-
some, and I got him out. He refused to go home, and
said he would :go down to Newbold's, a public-house,
and said he would have some more brandy and water.
He was then decidedly drunk. I saw him again at the
gardens, and he was then tipsy, and was calling for more
brandy and water. I saw him drink bottled porter be •
fore dinner ; about one o'clock. I called on him one
afternoon after dinner. He was sober, and there were
as many as half a dozen bottles of porter opened. He
drank a good deal of it, and was evidently affected by
He sometimes called on me at Margate after
dinner ; sometimes he was the worse for drink. He
11,sell to call for more, and one time he drank to excess.
wun aenother occasion he was also very much affected by
win.

Cross
-exam.,
••ed—l was never drunk in my life. I
I often drank as much as Mr. Talbot, but very little ap-
peared to affect him.
He was very talkative after he had
had some
lake
wine.
ti clerk to the defendant's solicitors, proved
v m
that Mr. Pine was at
of a ni ht
Broadstairs. I assist my fa-
ther, who keeps tiles and
neverim. Is:wavheimfregqouseonbtelyr
a greattg the lowest public-
in 1835. I occasionally droeveaites• I knew Mr. Talbot
gone out with him
houses, and he theredrank
a very great effect on him. I deal. The liquor had
from a public-house. I have gone to h•
drank with him there. He used to dis.house often, and
rum and water, and other things. I
have
porter, wine,
Dolphin public-house, where he has treatendetthhira at thee whole o
the company. If he was not tipsy when he wf
he was sure to get intoxicated. I never saw any
t there,
tion in his manner all the time he was at Broadiasdtera.
Jesse Roome—l kept the Dolphin public-ho'russ.e
at
Broadstairs. Mr. Talbot was in the habit of frequenting
my house down to September, 1837. He was there some
times successive nights, and sometimes not for three or
four nights. He mostly drank ale ; on one occasion
punch. I never recollect him to have left my house sober.
George Fox was sometimes with him, and sometimes a
tall gentleman.
John Hillar—l saw Mr. Talbot at the Nelson and at
the Rose Inn, Broadstairs, in 1836 and 1837. I saw Mr.
„Talbot in the front room; there was wine, spirits, and all
on the table. Mr. Talbot was drunk when I left at 9 or
10 o'clock. I saw him about the second week in October,
1837, and between June, July, and October, in the same
year.
William Smith—l am a sawyer. I have seen Mr. Tal-
bot at the Dolphin in 1836, and twice in 1837, about Au-
gust or September. On one occasion he drank nothing,
but was drunk. A fortnight afterwards he came and
called for a pot of ale. He appeared to be drunk then.
John
Brown, a carpenter, gave evidence to a similar
effect.

A letter from Mr. Farren to Mr. Caulfield, dated the
2d of November, 1837, was then put in and read. It
stated that the Asylum Company had ascertained that
Mr. Talbot's habits were not temperate and moderate at

THE SUN,

the time the insurance was effected, and stating that they
would not consider the contract binding, as it was based
upon misrepresentations. Mr. Caulfield's answer, and
some further correspondence on the subject of the insu-
rance, were also read.
Mrs Gardner—l rent the house in Broadstairs which
Mr. Talbot lived in. I used to let him in at night. He
was generally tipsy. I saw no particular change down
to the time Mr. Talbot left. Fox sometimes came and
went into the drawing room. I think Mr. Talbot went
to bed oftener tipsy than sober.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up.
The Jury retired, and after an absence of three quar-
ters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict for the
defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 16.
BURDETT V. JOHNSON.

This was an action brought to recover the value of
necessaries supplied to the wife of the defendant.
The formal proof of the supply of the goods having
been given,
Mr. J. JARVIS, for the defendant, met the case with
alleging adultery upon the part of the wife, which, if
proved, would exonerate the defendant from the liabi-
lity. lie called several witnesses, who proved the mar-
riage of the parties in 1832. Two years afterwards,
after they separated, and the wife had to support her-
self in the best manner she could. She at one time was
in service, and at another kept a school for female chil-
dren, and at different times lived at various lodgings,
where a man named Holman visited her, and, according
to the testimony of the witnesses, was seen to kiss her,
and sometimes put his arm round her waist.
To meet the case Mr. Platt called Holman, who stated
that his attention was first called to Mrs. Johnson by
his mother, who said she had been very ill-used by her
husband, who had deserted her, and who desired him to
do her any kindness in his power. He assisted her 'to
remove on one or two occasions, and having met her at
a lodging-house, to the landlady of which he was pay-
ing his addresses, and seeing her anxiety to do well
and provide for her child, he did call upon her some-
times to see how she got on, but he swore positively that
nothing criminal had ever passed between them. He
also put the daughter of the defendant into the box,
who had always lived with her mother, who always
slept with her, who had seen Holman often call, but
never saw any familiarity between them. It was also
proved that the defendant, who was living in adultery
himself, not only refused all assistance to his wife, but
on several occasions had threatened to ruin her,

The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Dec. 15.
THE NORMANBT.-SALVAGE

This was a suit for salvage service rendered to the
Normanby, while on a voyage from Stockton with a cargo
of coals to Chatham. Off the coast of Suffolk the vessel
ran on the Cutter Sand, on the 28th September last, but
was got off shortly afterwards ; but being leaky, signals
for assistance were
_hoisted, and the Hero and Aurora's
Increase ran up to her assistance. The Normanby was
safely conducted into port notwithstanding the weather
was squally. The value of the ship and cargo was esti-
mated at 1,3901.; a tender for the services of the salvors
had been made of 501.

The COURT said there was not much difference:between
the parties. The vessel had been in a leaky state, and
the assistance rendered was not more than pilotage ser-
vice. There had not been much danger or risk, and the
tender of 501. ought to have been accepted. The Court
would not condemn the salvors in costs, but in order to
mark its opinion of their conduct, in having entered an
action for 2501., it felt bound to condemn them in 101.
nomine expensarum.