The Sun.
London, England, 1810-11-09 00:00:00

telIV REPORI:

tbtfT:T OF KiNG'S

THE yALIXHALL ERIDGE COMPANY V.•DODD.

The ATTORNEY .GENERALsbewed cause against a
rule obtained against the defendant in this case, for
attachment fir non-payment of liioney belonging-to
the Company in the defendant's hands, agreebty to
an award. The plaintiffs his case were a Co•n-
pany incorpbratud, ize believed, by Act of Parlia-
ment. Against a Corkioration no attachment for
non-payment of money could issue ; but if the pre-
sent defend Ant, or any person else had, or supposed
he had any claim against such a Company, he must
proceed to make it effeCtual by an action at law. If
such then was the only mode of proceeding which
the defendant could have had against the present
plaintiffs, he conceived. that it followed, as a matter
of course, that the plaintiffs could be in no better case
when Making a claim against the defendant, than
the defendant would have been bad ne been in their
-place, -and were now bringing torward a demand
egainst thcm. •

Lord ELLENBORUGH—" Mr. Attorney Gew;ral,
will you tell us 11 here we are to look to find this
rule of reciprocity ?" .
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL—,": Into your own
minds, as being consistent with material justice?'
Role made ab§olute.

From analogy to the ease of Broughton and IVlar-
tin, where it bad been held that after a man had•
been absent from the country for seven years,
out bis having heard any accounts of him, she
was entitled to suppose him dead, and contraeta
second marriage, Mr. Nolan some time since tuned
for a rule to shewv cause- why a person who as a
prisoner in execution- at the suit of one Who was
himseif an untertificated bankrupt, and had left the
country upwards-of seven years•ago,
being heard of, should be discharged out of custody.
He now 'moved to have this rule enlarged, on ac-
count of an inaccuracy in -the'. mode of drawing- up
the rule.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH desired that, before the
Rule should be tn“de absolute, the Court should see
the affidavits, as it was a new case. It would b
necessary that the affidavits should bear, not only
that the creditor had been abroad tor seven years,
but that he had not been heard of for that period.--
Rule enlarged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.

GAEDINER AND wririas, SENHOUSE AND

uniz RS.

This cause, which was on a. policy of insurance,
had been, tried last term, on a motion fur a new
zrial,,and a verdict entered for the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeanf COCKELL now moved for a Rule to
spew cause why a new trial thould , not be again
granted, on the ground that the Jury had found
a perverse verdict, contrary to the direction of, the
Court, and had construed
_the policy of insurance
improperly ; havina given-to it -a latitude which, in
_fat, it would not bear.—The policy was on the ship
Good Hope,' bound on a trading voyage from Lon-
don to Trinidad, and from -thence to all or any of
the ports of dischargelon the Spanish Main, with
liberty of calling at any of the British settlements.
orviilands, in'the course of hee,voyage to the Spanish'
Main, with the exception of Jamaica and St. P—
aling°. Tue vessel, it appeared, .waslast on. the Ane-.
gala Reef, near the island of St.; Thotrias ;. ard the
question lams, whether that island was in the direct
and seamanlike course of a vessel bound to Abe
western part of the Spanish Main
_ _

_Chief Justice MANSEIELD--,•‘! There must. be a
rule to shew cause. The Court was pertectly in
possession of the merits of the ,cause-I recoiled the
feeling by which I was.infLienced when. I practised
at the Bar, and had I been Counsel for. the plaintiff
in this cause, I should, atter the Court bad waled
its opinion, have agreed that toy Client should be
. non-suited, and tior have trusted to the. prejudice of
a. Jury. I do not :mean to insinuate any. thing
against the Jury Who pronounced. the verdict' in
this case—they, like other men, have their preju-
dices. These things are talked over, at Lloyd's be-
fore they come into Court, and opinions are there
given as to the meaning and- intent of disputed
policies, which, of course, must have soine eti-ct It
was supposed by the plaintiff, that there was a pre
judice among the Jury, and, therefore; the question
was suffered to go. to them. It hail , been at-
tempted to be proved, that • proceeding by the
Virgin. Islands was the way to Trinidad.; but this
was qualified by the plaintiff's witnesses staling, it
was the way according to the clause contained in the
Policy ; and when I first read the Policy, I sup-
posed that it gave a latitude, which, on a subse-
Oent examination, I fotind. it did not possess.--41,
the same ccmchaCcis to be pursued by the plaintiff's
Counsel, and that a little, prejudice exists among
the Jury, the defendant will gain . nothing, ulti-
mately, by this application.--,-However, Like the
Rule."

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD who was Counsel for the
plaintiff on the former trial, stated, that it be bad
supposed the opinion of the Court had been so de-
cidedly against him on that occasion, he ctrtainly
would not have 'messed the business farther.