The Sun.
London, England, 1804-03-17 00:00:00

MANSION-HOUSE.

YESTERDAY Aga ileanis and Sarah IP:yley un-
derwent a private examination before the LORD
the Solicitor of the Bank, ecc._ charged
with uttering forged Bank Notes. It appeared that
these two women have been long in the praaice of
circulating notes of this description, .some of which
they had put off to a linen-draper in Whitechapel,
and put their names on the back of them.. These
notes proving to be forged, the linen.draper was on
his guard; they came again and offered others,
which were Well executed. Mr. White detained
the Prisoners while he took the notes in question .to
the Bank, when they proved
.to be forged. The
Prisoners were committed to the Poultry Compter,
and stria orders given for them,to be ,kept separate

LAW REPORT.

COURT 0 i•ICING's BENCH, GiiiLi>liALL, NiAacti G.

WILSON 'V. GRIiNVILLE.

'THE Plaintiff paitner in the %Vell.known -mer-
cantile house of, Agassiz and Wilson; the l)cfend.
ant 'is a deafer in the funds. The latter, on Ili?.
,day of the successful impOsitOn on the late Lord.
.I\layor, !iotptrellased of the former 5.0091. 3 per.
cent. Consols.
Mr. E16141N e having Stated the nature of the
tran,!i4ion, a .legal ,objeerton was taken by . Mr.
GARROIV, WiliCh, under i!;e_Loß? CHI EFJUsTIC,E's
"direr ion; was fatal to the Plaintiff: • the case is,
however, reserved to be argued "next Term..lt was,
that 'in the third count of theDeclaration,-the,,,word
persoNs in the plural, Was employedwhereas,.o n the
evidence, the stock was shewti to be 're-sold to a•.
single person of the name of Barnard: Besides this .
techilical objeftion, it appealed that the
,ilaintiff,
at the time of .the sale of the stock, had not a stafti-
ciini sum in the funds to satisfy the Contraa. The
price sif the sale Was 7O ; of the re.sale, 57 ; and.
the:differenee contended for was 67 51.—Piaintiff
nonsuited.

THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY V. JAMES AND ED-

WARD OGLE.

The Defendants are Lightermen. Four hundred
and i weive packages of .tea had been put onboard
oneof their lighters from a China. Ship, the Bombay.
Cagle, 4-elow "D,eptiord. In proceeding up_ the
River, the Lighterman
.hailed a Collier, which was
bearing down upon them; the crew. of which re-
.".We do not care a damn. for you The
anchor of the Collier, which was .hanging acock-bill,
pierced the bow of the Lighter, the water rushed
in, and the damage sustained by the tea amounted. to
10051. 14%. 61—Verdia for the 'Plaintiffs.

WEDNESDAYS ..MARCH 7.

COWELL V. SMITH,

The-Plaintiff is a W est-India Merchant, the De_
fentline: is Treasurer of the WestAildia Dock - Com,
Noy. This was an atlion for money had and re.
ceived, being the small sum o. 31. 13s. 6:1. ; bur it
is extremely 'matt:jai-in the res Ult, as settling the
rightS in an essential point, bet Ween the Mercantile
' Interest and the Weit:lndia Dock Proprietors. An
Parliament had been passed, by which it was
enaeteti, that whatever cooperage was to be pet..
formed on the ship's cargo in the Docks, should be'
at stipulated prices, and performed by the agents
of .the Dock Company. The ground of this aetion
was, that the Treasurer of the Company had charged
more than wa's allowed by that Act.
~
'Messrs. Gf‘RROW and MARRifATJOT the Plaintiff,
produced evidence with respeCt to the. charge of the
Defendant, and the payment made by the Plaintiff
and Messrs. FASKINE, GIB,Rs, and GILEs,. con-
tended,.in behalf of the Defendant, that the' charge
was regular, and ;!'grecAble to the spilit of the Mt.--
Verdict for the. Plaintiff:

WHALLACE 'U. SMITH.

. .
The Plaintiff'is a 'Broker ; the situation of the
Defendant-we noticed in the last ume._

Messrs. GARROW, PARKF, and WOOD, were
Counsel kr the Plaintiff; Messrs. ERsKIN.E,
and GILEs, for the Defendant.
Mr.' GAR RoW, for the Plaintiff, adverted to the
terms of the Ad under which the Westlndia D, ck
Company was formed, and die compensation it was
required to make to thoSe whose interests were pr'e-
judiced by this change in the circumstances of the
'West India trade. He further said, that this corn-
pen:;ati9n 'had. not been made 'to his clienr,
though he was entitled to it,, and proved 'damiges
to the extent of 2001. •
Mr. ERAINE, tor the Defendant, said, that how_
ever just his demand might he in a different situ_
item, it could not in this case be supported, as the
Plaintiff was not a sworn broker.
Lord ELLENBORoIiGI-1;-" A nonsuit may be
applied tor, on the ground noticed, next Term. The
question, however, may go to the Jury ; and it is for
theM to determine what damages the Plaintiff has
sustained, by his chili being•excluded from the exec_
cise of his daily occupation."—Nerditl for the.
Plaintiff, 2001.