The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-03 00:00:00

15 RESTOg LONG U. SMITH.

This was an action by the plaintiff, proprietor
of a %Vest India ship, against the defendant, who
is Treasurer of the West India Dock Company, to
recover compensatiou in damages for a quantity
of sugar destroyed ou board the -plaintiff's vessel
on entering the Dock front the River Thames,
where the vessel struck against one of the piers
and was bulged, whereby a great quantity of
water entered the vessel, and destroyed the sugars
in question.

The defence was, that the aceirient occurred
through the carelessness of the persons on board
the ship.
A great number of witnesses were examined on
both sides, the detail of whose evidence would he
of no general interest ; but the examination oc-
cupied the Court till three o'clock.

The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence
with apposite observations ; and the Jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1124/. Q.

WESTNIINSTER HUSTINGS.

ARTHUR MORRIS, ESQ. V. HENRY HUNT.

This was an action brought by the High Bailiff
of Westminster against.l.Vlr. Henry Hunt, one of
the Candidates at the last General Election for
the representation in Parliament of the City of
Westminster, to recover a third share of the ex
pence of erecting hustings, paying poll clerks,
&c. in Covent-garden, during that Election Con-
test, the action being founded on the Statute 53
Geo. 111. c. 152.

Mr. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. MARRYAT,
Mr. GURNEY, and Mr. SMEDLEY) stated the plain-
tiff's case, and observed, that the action was
brought by the High Bailiff of Westminster,
against rt gentleman whom the Jury might pro-
bably have heard of before, as a person who pro-
fessed himself to, be a great advocate for public
independence, and a candidate for popular appro-
bation. The claim which the plaintiff now preferred
was one recognised by Act ofParliament,and which
could not be resisted upon any grounds of reason
or justice that he (Mr. S.) could anticipate.—
.Probably, however, the defendant, whose po-
pularity had now arrived at its height, might
suggest as a defence on the present occasion, that
his extraordinary anxiety for the public welfare,
and his devotion to the public cause, both in mind
as Well as person, had deprived him of the power
of attending to his own private concerns, and of
performing those obligations which his individual
capacity required him to discharge. The Jury,
• however, might think that this plea would not
serve the defendant on-the present occasion. Ac-
cording to the Act of Parliament,,upoti which this
action was founded, the High Bailiff of Westmin-
ster was entitled to recover from all persons who
stood as Candidates for Representation in Parlia-
ment, a proportionate share from each, of the ne-
cessary expellee incurred in the erection of hust-
ings, paying poll-clerks, and other charges, in-
cidental to a contested Election. The questions
which the Jury had to determine oil the present.
occasion were, first, whether Mr. Hunt had offer-
ed himself as a Candidate for Westminster; se-
condly, whether he was one of the three Candi-
dates only who were called upon to contribute
towards the expences in question ; and, thirdly,
whether the charges and expences of which he
was required to bear a share weie reasonable and
just. It was true, that by the construction which
the late Lord Ellenborough had put upon the Sta-
tute, 53 Geo. 111. c. 152, in an action against Sir
Francis Burdett, a person who did not actually
present himself as a Candidate upon the hustings
was not liable to contribute to the expense of the
Election ; but the defendant could not avail him-
self of any thing in that decision, as a ground et
exemption. At the late General Election there
were undoubtedly six Candidates put in nomina-
tion; three of whom, namely, Sir Francii Bur-
Jett, Major Cartwright, and the Honourable D.
Kinnaird, were exempted from liability, on the
authority of the decision referred to, inasmuch
as on being applied to by the High Bailiff before
the Election, they had disclaimed the character of
Candidates, not hwithstanding their political friends
had put them in nomination. The avowed Can-
didates therefore were only Sir Samuel Romilly,
Sir Murray Maxwell, and the defendant. The
contributions due from the first two thus men-
tioned, had been most cheerfully paid, without any
difficulty or objection, and the backwardness of the
defendant in following their example could only
be ascribed to the reason already assigned—name-
ly, that his devotion to the public interests had
completely put it out of his power to attend to his
private concerns. It frequently happened that
men like Mr. hunt,, who dedicated (he whole of
their lives to the public, and who felt an ardent
patriotic zeal, were disposed to forget the cere-
mony of attendhg to their private affairs and pay-
ing their debts. The instance now before the
Court was but too strong a verification of this
position. At the same time, however, it was to
be hoped that a gentleman of Mr. Hunts pa•
tootle disposition would not be disposed to Niggle
about sixpences, after_ the distinguished mark of
public approbation which he had experienced at
the late General Election, in the flattering testi-
monial which the poll-book disclosed.
The witnesses examined in support of the plain-
tiff's case, were Mr. Francis Medley, the Deputy
High Bailiff, and Mr. Intwood, a Surveyor, who
had made an estimate of the expellees incurred by
the plaintiff at the late General Election. From
the testimony of the former Geutleman, tsp.

[PRICE. SEVENIifINCF.

peared, that the• only -avowed -Canthilutes ,for
the Election were,:Sir SamuelllY, Sir Mur.,
ray Maxwell, and Mr. Hunt ; and that the. plain-
tiff had incurred a very considerable xpence in
the erection of the hustings, paying poll cletliN,
stationery, con.,tables', wages, printing, Ste.; at Li
he stated, that Sir Samuel and Sts Murray
Maxwell had without hesitation paid their re.

spective shores. The testimony of the latter
Hess went to chew, that the estimate of expenca
for the erection of the hustings was reasonable
and just. His own charge, for np.king the sur-
vey was 161. odd ; but this charge was made in rem
spect of his attendances during the erection of
the busting, repairs during the election, and the
final removal of the hustings
At the suggestion of the Learner) Judge, the
plaintiff's Counsel waved the demand against the
defendant, in re-pect of the chat ge for consta.
Iles, which his Lordship thought was not sus-
tainable under the Art, and also the items lu the
account for printings&c. It appeared,that alit nug;s
:he plaintiff had received the contributions from
Sir Samuel It,nnilly and Sir Murray Maxwell, he
had nut pad the rarnentet's trill, and had only

pa'd the poll clerk?, 26 in number, half a guinea
each per diem, the usual tee bring one guinea, but
with an understanding that they were to be pai3
the remainder in the event of his recoveriog his
demand ag.jiist the dt leudant.
Mr. HUNT, who was his own Counsel, after
the close of the plaintiff's case, took three objrc..
lions to the plaintiff's right of action ; first, that
the best evidence had not been addaced of his
having been a cai,didite, inasmuch as the Pttll-
- bad not been pioducrd ; secondly, that the
Act of Parliament on which the plaintiff turd bring
a private one, had not been proved; and, thirtli;,
that it was necessary to produce the original writ
to the High Skeraf of the Comity insteau of the
precept to 'the .High Bailiff, for the ;nowise of
proving the right of the latter to hold the
tion. All these objections, however, were over-
ruled, the Cl&q J,istice holding, as to tht first
point, that the best evidence of the delend ,nt's

being a Candidate, was his own deckration iq
writing to that effect; as to the second, that the
Act of Par!lame:tit in question vas in fact the re-
newal of a 'while Act; and, as to the third, that
the production of the precept was quits sufficient
for the purposes of this action.
Mr. iluicc then went to the Jury, and con-
tended as the principal ground of his defence to
this acrion, that at all events he was only lia7ble

to one-sixth of the expences in question, tit ginz
on the authority of the ac►ion triad in 16e8
against Sir Francis Burdett, that it was tot ne-
cesstoy, according to Lord Elleuborough's rul-
ing, that•a Candidate should be actually present
on the hus•int;c, to rcnider hint liablr, as a con-
tributor to the expence of t he election, concluding

from thence lbw Sir Francis 13,rdett, Mr.,Cart•
wright, and Air. Kionaird, being repre:,entea
during the late election by their Agents and Co;
mittees, were equally liable with himiell to con-
tribute towards the plaint.trs demand. He com-
plained that the Learned Counsel tor be plaintiff
had resorted to unwarrantable insinuations, its
suggesting that he cad attained the height of his
popularity in the City of \Vestminstet. 'These
insinuations, he said, were the more unjustifia-
ble, when it was considered, that probably other
Candidates fora seat in Parliament had been as
backward as himself in paying their election
debts. He was not disposed to tallow the Learn-
ed Counsel through his peregrinations at Lewes
and Peterstield, but it was not unlikely that the
Learned Counsel might be subjected to the same
species of complaint.
Mr. SCARLETT.---In all events, Mr. Hoot, I
hays paid my bills at Pttersfield.

Mr. HUNT resumed, and coml►lained of the
taunts which had been thrown out rgainst him by
the Learnrd Counsel, and alluded to :he injury
he had sustained from the improper mention of
his name by the Ledrned Counsel, at a late trial
at York, in associating it with that of Sir Samuel
Romilly.

Mr. SCARLETT—I don't know what you mean ;
but if you wish to report accurately wadi 1 said a
hundred and fifty miles off, I beg you will do so.

I have no wisl► to co►►ceal what I then said. I
think I then said, that you did Sir Samuel Ron►illy
all the harm you could by saying that 101 l were
of the same side with him.

Mr. HUNT proceeded in his address, and insist-
ed that there was no foundation for this asser-
tion. As to the other part of the case, be con-
tended, that the charges made by the plaintiff for-
the hustings were most exorbitant and unju tifia-
He, as compared' kith the expellee of the last
Election ; and said, he should call Witnesses to
prove this part of the defence. Ac.:ordini,ly be
called

Mr. James Mills,. a Bristol surveyor and en-
ginetr ; Thomas Flemming, a carpenter ; Mr.
Jenkins, a poll-clerk, employed at the election
Mr. Burt, a linen-draper, one of Major Cart-
wright's Committee at the last election ; and Mr.
R. Garrell, a constable, who was employed at the
rlusting3 on the General Election.
Mr. SCABLETT made a very ingenious and
elo-
quent reply on behalf of the plaintiff.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the eAse with
the strictest impartiality, and

The Jury, who were chiefly composed of Tales-
men, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
2741. 103. Bd., being one-third of the plaintiff's
demand, exclusive of the items above-tueutioned.

The Court tat until half-past sight o'clock in ths
cvcaing.

PARLIAMENT.

lIOUSE OF COMMONS, JUtiE 2.

On ibis day the SPEAKER took the chair a few
minutes before tour o'clock, and the House re•
assembled pursuant to the order of adjournment
from Thursday last.
Mr.Griffiths, from the Court of Common Pleas,
presented en Account of the Number of Attor-
nice practising; at that Catirt,-,-Laitl on the table.
Mr. GoWham, from the Chamber of the City
of London, presented an Account of the Duties
received on Wines.—Laid on the table.

Mr. Patstaosa presented ei petition from the
Bnrgh of Queensferty, signed by 3-4ths of the
Burgesses, end praying that the operation of the
Lord Advocate's Bill might not be extended to
them.—Orderred to be referred to the Committee
on the Royal Bure.,hs of Scotland.
Air. G. LAMB brought in a Bill, which was
reed a first lime, and the title of which was " A
Bill to facilitate proceedings against..the Warden
of the Fleet Prison it time of vacation.“
ABEtoCeoSIBY presented a petition from
curtain Agents practising in the Insolvent Debtors'
Court, praying to be heard by Counsel against
that obtuse of the BA which provides for the due
qualification of persons acting in that copacity„
The Member, in moving that the petition
should lie upon the table, observed, that in con-
sistency with his known opinions he could not
suppoit tie prrtyer of it.
Mr. HUME presented two petitions, praying for
some further retorm in the present system of ad-
tnioistet log the Affairs of the Royal Scottish Bo-
rOng hi. The one was from the Borough of In-
verary, and the other from the City of Aberdeen.
The !elite► stated, that it was hoped by the peti-
tionets that their case would be considered de-
serving of peculiar attention. They had had one Re-
presentative in Conned. but he had no knowledge
of the progressive accumularion of a corporate
debt amounting to 230,0001.--Ordered to be
plinted.
Colonel BARRY gave notice of a motion fur
Tuesday next, relative to the subject of Conti°.
• verted Elections in Ireland.

The Scotch Clutches' Bill then passed through
a Committee, and the Report was ordered to be
teceived on Monday.

CANIELFORD ELECTION.
Mr. BANK ES suggested, that it would be an ar-
rangement Of much convenience to the House, it
the Order of the Day for takirig the Camelford
Election Petition into consideration to-morrow
were discharged, and fixed for Tuesday next.
Mr. CALVERT observed, that this arrangement
had been proposed before, and declined. He
wished to know whether the Hon. Member had
had any communication with the petit inners, as
it seemed fair to wait till their consent was
oscertained.
Mr. 111. A. TAYLOR having entered the House,
it was agreed that the order should be postponed
till Tuesday.
The order for the attendance of Defaulters to-
morrow was also discharged, and appointed for
Tuesday.
The Parishioners' Evidence Bill was read a
second time.

PUBLICANS' LICENCES BILL.
BENNETeXpreSSed his wish that the Publi-

cans' Licenses Bill might heallowed to pass through
committee, pro .forrnc, several clauses having
been omitted, and other alterations made, for the
purpose of being printed, and recommitted, at
which stage of its progress the whole subject
might be fully considered. He move& there-
fore, that the bill be now committed.
Mr. CROKER stated, that he had received seve-
ral petitions and representations, setting forth
the propriety of extending with some modifica-
tion the principle of this measure to Ireland.
The bill then passed through the Committee.
and the Report being brought tip, was ordered
to be taken into further consideration on Wednes-
day next.