The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-10 00:00:00

114iVI BURGH; OCT. 25.

• THE Senate- has this day appointed Mr. WIL-
LIAM.. BRANDT, Partner of the House of BRANDT,
RODDE, and Co. at Archangel,- to be Hataro'
Consul at that

. According to private advices from Paris, a printed
letter has got' into circulation in that City, Written
by a ContraCtor of the. name of .PIGNER who
loudly complains of the embarrassments under which
he labours, from the want of punauality- on the
part of Government ; and who accuses -BONAPARTE
himself of having broke the promise which he had
given him. Eve!), endeavour has been exerted to
buy up the copies ; but, it was thought prudent 'not
to institute any proceeding against the.,author, lest
the Service in which he was employed should tail;
or any tlarm be spread amongst the other Con-
traiftorS.

The following Anecdote, which is given in a
French Paper, may, prthaps,apply, this day, to se-
veral ui our Readers, East of Temple. Bar. M.
CAREL, President of the Parliament of Rouen, a
huge eater, being on his death-bed, sent for a
Priest--". Father," says he to him, " my Confes-
sion will be short—l have only been guilty of indi-
gestiow."

There has been for some time a great bustle in
Petetsburgh about the fprmation of a plan for an
Academy in that. City. ,This is not to be wonder-
edat, as the plan has been drawn up by a, Mr. Fuss.
The multitude, of beggar's in our streets are said
be beyond conception; how then does it happen
that they so rapidly increc4c

• The wheat sowing has hitherto been so highly
favoured by PrUvidence, that it is calculated, the
consumption of seed will, in consequence, be one
third less' than in 'ordinary seasons. A saving of
no inconsiderable importance to the community.

:LAW REPORT'',

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Nov . 9

THE‘KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF JOIN: BACON,

WM. MILES.

ERSKIE moved for a ,Writ of'Ctrtiorar;,,
to remove an Indithnent from the Sessions into this
Court, on an Affidavit •which stated,-that an .Atli :n
was brought in the Court of Common l'eas,:for De-
•famation against a person of the vatne oftLoa
Defamation, Mr..ERSKTNE said, of the ;trost-ti--ssL•
graceful-nature: this -case-coming on to be tried,
was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Wm. Miles,
who aivarded to the PlaintiTin tharaaion.,:the sum
of 3501, which, ME.'EnSKINE.said, was very mo-
derate, considering the nature of the Defamation ;
in consequence of this, Bacon was called on to pay
the.money ; he refused it, and moved the Court of
Common Pleas to set the Award aside
hearing of that Motion, Mr. Miles-did that, .which,
if the present Motion was unsu-xessful, Afhltrators
would be slow in doing in future--te made an
davit in support of his Award ; and he.re the Court
would not fail to observe, that an Arbitrator was
to be considered as a Judge, in a tribunal, the au-
thority- of which, • their Lordships' would Support,
from a sense of its value in -the adjustment •of dis.
pates between Individuals, who made choice of that
forum. -Bacon still persisting in his refusal to com-
ply with the Award, in the same spirit asioefore,
resisted the Award, •indiaed this. A rbitrator, Mr.-
Miles,
.for Perjury, alledged by Bacon to have been
committed. by Mr. Miles, in the Affidavit he made
in support of his Award.
Here the CHIEF JUSTICE asked where :the Bill
of Indiament was found ?

Mr. ERSKINE said, it was at Clerkenwell Seg-
slims. Mr. Miles, he said, wis a very respenable
man in trade : it was stated that this was a maiici-
rus Prosecution, and instituted with a view of in-
timidating the party, and that rather than this Gen-
tleman should appear in Court, upon his trial, the
Whole of this money will given up. Mr. Ea SK tNE
observed, that if any case cnuld be removed on -,c-
,count of its extraordinary circumstances, this was
that case; for unless Arbitrators received encoura,.:e_
ment, there would be an end of Arbitrations altoge-
ther.

Lord' ELL FNEOROUGH said, " I incline to this
application more on the last groUnd you'have stared,
Mr. EasmtvE, than that which just preceded
In order 'to induce men to take opin them the cha-
ratfter of Arbitrators, it is proper to protth 'them ;
and, as it is stated, thatsthe proceeding is injurious
.ro the• Arbitrator, we should grant this Motion;
but it is on the ground of prorcaing this C:ntle_
man, in the character 'of Arbitrator, that we put
the case into a course of being tried ,in the most
solemn manner. As.to the-grounctolinconvenience,
in exposing this GontleMan to stand at the bar of a
Court of Justice, it is a subject which we cannot
take into consideration, because that is the situation
in. which the Law would place him, and, therefore,
the Court would not gran: this Motion on that
ground. , But we assent to the Motion on 'the other
ground."
INdotion granted.

DUNCAN v. REEVES.

Mr. MARROW moved for a Rule fo shew Cause
why the Defendaot should not be discharged on fil.
ing Common Bail.: this he moved on an Affidavit,
which stated, that the Defendant had a situation at
one of the Theatres, and lodged at the house of the
Plaintiff. Some disputes arose between the parties,
and the Plaintiff caused the Def-..ndant•to be appre-
hended on a charge of picking hiS pocket, which
was entirely without foundation, and the Defendant
was discharged, and the matter was supposed to be
abandoned, :but from advice, which was not the
bek, the Defendant commenced an action against
the Plaintiff, and that gave birth to the present suit,,
which was an Aftion of Troyer, for that the De-
fendant had taken, and detained, and kept in.his
possession, a desk with certain Deeds, .5.7 c. of the
Value ',of five hundred pounds, upon which the-
Defendant had been under the necessity of giving
bail to the Sheriff; but it would be itripcAs:ble for
him to procure two persons to justify in the sum of
-moo!. ; for men of such property did not like to
hazard it in a Suit .on behalf of a man who was
poor; so that, if he was put to'the common cot:r;c
of justifying bail, before he could procure his
freedom, he must go to jail, -and that would be his
absolute ruin, for he would Jose his situation.
On , application to the party, he said " it was an
Adion brought because the Defendant - had brought
,one against him ;" the truth was, it was brolight
to make the Parties cry '' quits," as the vulgar
phrase was. The Plaintiftin the A&ion said the
Defendant had got the key—" How have ytur'
arrested the man for 50001. ?" He said, " If
chuse to call this desk an article worth roool.
von ,have, no remedy, if I arrest you for it, but to
find bail." • This was the case here, and this w4'
properly- called Spunging.house Law :—he belicd,
the affidavit was taken from the precedent of ;as
Humpiiry Tristram. Potter, who arrested a .per.ion
in an Adiott of Troyer for a piece of furnitdce of
the value (to hirn) of 5001. which turned out after-
wards to be an E. 0. table, which was most fit for
the fire in which it was cc,nsumed. This practice
was alarming, and would be the absolute ruin cif this
poor man, unless there was some remedy for it.— •
Here Mr. GARROW read over the Affidavit, and
contended that it was not sufficient to hold the
Defendant to bail ; but the Court held it to be
sufficient, and observed, that the Motion would not
be_ assented to; for discharging the Defendant 'on
filing comarOn bail would be to 'try the merits of
the Cause—a practice which the Court of King's
Bench disavowed, but hinted that the Court nii3ht
possibly assist the Defendant in arvoher way; which_
was with a Rule, calling on the Plaintiff to shew
cause why, upon depositing in Court the key
the lodging, and thereby delivering up posses-
sion of the articles, for the conversion of which
the Adion was brought, the Defendant should not
be discharged.; bat this must be moved upon a
Special Affidavit.
Mr. GARRow said, he would take care lo avail
his Client of this kind suggestion, and soon came
prepared with popes materials beim ;he Court,

for that this Ipungin7o.llouse Law was absolutely'
insufferable. .

PAGE T. WHIPPLE.

Mr. Gvo. WILSON moved for a Rule to shew
cause why judgment Shatthi not be-arrested in this
Cause, which was- tried-at the last Assizes before
toy Lard At.v.trzt,r-r, when a Verdio was-found
for the Plaintiff, Damages $1.,. The Adion• was
for a malicious arrestsof Plaintiff at the Suit of
.the Defendant - for The Plaintiff trier the
pekodant,. paid the debt, together with a sum of
raoney• towards the costs, and was ,afterwards ar-
rested for the Debt, and remained in custody until
the ;natter was properly explained to the Under-
Sheriff. The only Count in the acclaration in this
on which the Plaintiff pretended to rely, was,
.that which stated—That upon such payment olthe,
debt, and such sum towards the costs, it became
'and was.the-•duty of the Defendant in the present
Aciion,' re have preserved, and therefore he ought
to have preserved the Plaintiff from being arrested
in tharACtion; t•hat he neiletted that duty,, and did
not prevent him .front being so arrested, •but suf-
fered him tO be so arrested, and that he was so
arrested.—Now, the Plaintiff must in this case,
contend that it was the duty-of the Defendant to'
have_: countermanded the, lostriaion to. arrest the
Plaintiff, the instant the Cause was settled, and.

thot.alzhough the party :did' nor desigh it, yet in

this case he was answerable.' for the inconvenience
' produced to this Plaintiff by this arrest ; but there
was a case in point, which put an end to this doc-
trine, and to
,the present 'Mtion. it was the case
of SHIPPEL V. FAIR E ANE and ANOTHER, in the
Rep. of Pvt.LEN and BOSANQU ET, COM'. Pleas 388 ;
:in which it' was laid down, That in this case the
Adion is not maintainable without the ingredient
malice in, the party, at whose suit the arrest
takes' place. Here there was
.no such malice; the
arrest being matter of accident, and the Adion
could not be maintained, therefore Judgment ought
-to be arrested. Ruie to slew Cause granted-