The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 20. • •
TILE ATTOUNEY-OENEIIAL V. THE COOVERS' COMPANY.
011 coming into Court his LordsHp p:oceefted to give judg-
ment'on Dr. Jeans's petition in this cas,,whitli was argued last
week. - He decidedly olbjected to that part of the petition which
prayed that it might he referred to the Master to in quire whe-
ther girls as well as boy S might not be instructed at the free-
school at Eghant. He was of opinion that it was the intention
of the founder of the schOol that bays only should be educated
there. All he could do with respect 'to the other parts of the
petition was to direct that in the scheme which should be
adopta l fur the future management of the funds of the charity,
considfration.should be had as well to theby-lone and accumu-
lated rents as to the anticipated rents, and that such a distribu.:
tion of the funds should be made as would include the past ser-
vices of the Master of the school. It might also be referred to
the Master to inquire what necessary repairs of : the i;chool had
been effected by Dr. Jeans, and the Court would 'act as it
thought proper upon the consideration of the Master's report.
He would decide how the costs of the application were to be paid
to-morrow.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE SKINNERS' COMPANY:
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his argument of yes-
terday, and contended, that the Skinners' Company were bar-
red by their own declaration from the surplus rents in the Acts
of the 14th and 31st of Elizabeth, that the Grammar School at
Tunbridge were entitled to the . whole estates purchased by Sir
Andrew Judd from Messrs. Gates and Thorogood, and that
they were only the trustees Of the charity. By this.means the
will of A. Judd was established, and the devise did not depend
on the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth, declaring that all ,bequests
to Corporation's in trust for charitable purposes, bequeathed pree
vious to.the passing of the Act, should be valid.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" In my opinion the intention
of the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth is not perfectly understood
as I understand it, it was passed to assimilate the law, on the
subject of bequests to corporate bodies for charitable uses in
Courts of Equity and Law--for the latter, before the passing
of the Act,.held.they were invalid and contrary to the law, and
in the former Courts they were in the habit of decreeing that
they Were Valid, contrary tc. the existing laW of the land."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL' in continuation, said, that
throughout his argument he had abstained from *casting anyre-
flection on.the Skinners' Company : be did not doubt but they
acted from a conviction that they were doing r:glit ; if he di:-
fered. in opinion from them, and left the question of right or '
wrong to the decision of the Court, it could not be said that he
reflected on the conduct of the Company. Ile believed theiti to
be as honourable a Cornpany as any in the City of LondOn, and
-did not feast more ; hut it was his duty, as his Majesty's At-
tomey-Gederal, to prevent their doing so on funds that ought
to go for the maintenance and support of the grammar school at
Tunbridge. It was necessary for him to reply to the observa-.
tion of his Learned Friend, Mr: Sugden, " That it was-very
extraordinary that no question should have arisen with respect
to the charity funds for two centuries and a half, until the Com-
missioners of Education made their circuit thro' the kingdom."
lie would tell him, that after the great labours of the Com-
missioners, there were but very few instances where they found
there was a misapplication of the Funds of a charity. 'Then it
was not likely, as had been stated by his Learned Friend, that
every Corporation in the Kingdom would be brought into
,trouble, however proper their conduct might have been; lie
concluded by contending that the decree of his Honour the
Vice-Chancellor was right, and ought not to be disturbed.
Nir. HART and Mr. TROWER followed on the same side.—
The latter Learned Counsel had not concluded his argument
when the Court rose at three o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 20.
Nothing of particular interest to the public occurred in this
Court to-day.

•
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 20.
The Court this day heard special arguments, but none of the
cases had any public interest.
•

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 20.
POLICY OF INSURANCE.—HUDSON V. HARRISON.
This was an argument upon a special case.. The plaintiff.
had insured the ship Swallow from the Cape of Good Hope
bound to Liverpool and Dublin; freighted with a cargo of Cape
wine, valued at 7,9001. There were 241 pipes .and 71 half
pipes. The ship was wrecked near Bristol, and the cargo for
six hours under water : a. hole was made in her side, through
which several pipes were drawn out ; many of them were found
staved, and the salt water had penetrated others ; 71 pipes and
43 half pipes were, however, saved free from injury. The
wreck was Made on the 23d Dec. ; and three days afterwards,
the Captain gave notice of an abandonment to the underwriters,
who agreed (at a Meeting where three only attended) to send
doyn an Agent to Bristol, to examine the partof the cargo
saved, and to assist in the necessary arrangements for. making
it produclive. The..defendarit did not attend the Meeting of
the underwriterS ; but at the end of the month of February, and.
just as the sale of the saved part of the cargo was about to take
place, he sent a notice to the owners of, the vessel, that he would
not accept the abandonment ; he also transmitted a notice to
prevent the sale then about to take place.
Mr. Sergeant PADDY, for the defendant, contended, that
though he did not object to thenbandonment the moment it was
made, he was still in time to interpoie his objection before the
sale. He had never acquiesced, nor was he an attending party
at the Meeting at Lloyd's, where only three of the underwriters
attended. One quarter of the cargo had been saved in an un-
damaged state, and with that ft vessel ought to have been
freighted to the ultiinate destination of the original cargo.
Mr. Sergeant HuLtocx contended, that the defendant had
due notice of the abandonment, and ought to have attended the
Meeting at Lloyd's. Not attending, he was still, however,
bound to object to the abandonment at the time it was made ;
and by not doing so, had disentitled himself from interposing
on the eve of the sale. At the end of December the notice had
been given him, and he never stirred in the matter until the end
of February ; and then he complained that the wine and the
salt water should be sent on to Dublin.
Chief-Justice DALLAS said, that the great question of, under
what circumstances, generally speaking, an assured had a right
of abandonment, so as to open a principle which would be ap-
plicable to all cases, the Court were not now called upon to con-
sider—that was a question of great and difficult consideration ;
so all the text writers thought, and with them the Court con-
curred ; but here there was no necessity of considering what
ought to be the groundwork of that broad principle. That the
assured might abandon under certain circumstances was quite
clear. That the abandonment might also be superseded if the
voyage could be proceeded upon, for instance, in such a case as
a re-capture, was equally clear. But where a damage was done,
and a proportion of a cargo saved, was the assured bound to go
on with the part 5o saved or not ? If he be bound to make his
election, then in what proportion of injury does the right of
stopping or proceeding onwards rest, so as to have a regulating
principle ? This was a rule of very difficult attainment, and was
laid down differently in the commercial codes of different na-
tions. France held one rule, other nations held other rules,
and each case as it arose must depend upon the particular law
of the country where it occurred. Whether the principle laid
down by Lord Mansfield was or was not broken in upon by
that subsequently stated by Lord Ellenhourgh, the Court we:
now driven to the necessity of inquiring by. the particularcase
before them. The Court were now most anxious to avoid being;
understood as laying down any general rule ; they applied them-
selves
solely to the particular case, and meant not to apply any
principle to govern other cases where the circumstances were of
a different complexion. The reason of such a precaution was
evident ; because so importantageneral rule must affect a great
system of law, and must follow a detailed examination and com-
parison of the different decisions which had been held upon the
subject. The.case did not require that examination, for it was
limited to the specific ground of the right of the assured to re-
cover under the particular facts of his case. Was he entitled
to abandon ? That what he had done was for the benefit of all
the parties concerned there could be no doubt; but then,if so,carne
the question—Had the underwriters or any of 4,7lein any right
to interpose a legal or technical objection to the course which
had been taken ?'ln the first place, the party contesting with
the assured here had due notice of abandonment. What did the
law impose upon the assured ?—that he should after reasonable
time give notice to the underwriters of his having abandoned.
The assured was bound, if he determined to abandon, not to wait
and take an ultiniate view of what it would be more profitable
for him to do ; but at once to make his election, and give im-
mediate notice to the underwriters. The Court could easily con-
ceive that different duties devolved upon the assured according
to the place where the abandonment occurred ; for instance, if
in a foreign country where there was no agent, the Captain was
entitled to use his discretion ; but in this case, where the aban-
donment took place in this country under the eye of all the par-
ties, it was the duty Ef the underwriters, to whom the abandon-
ment was made, to see if it had been duly done, and at the mo-
ment to ascertain how far the facts and the state of the cargo
justified the abandonment. Be should pass over to the meet-
ing at Lloyd's, and the question whether the three who attend-
ed could bind those who had not attended, and come at once tti
the other facts in the case. The damage took place in one of
the harbours of this country • the earliest possible notice is given
of the abandonment grounded upon that loss the party to whom
the abandonment was made took no notice of it for two months
. afterwards, until the time of sale arrived. Now did the law
,authorize the Tarty to remain passive for such a space of time,
and thereby afford the assured rational grounds to believe that
he had acquiesced in the notice of abandonment ? Surely there
could be no justice in permitting him to take such a course ; it
would be in fact to permit him to delude the assured. In the

opiniOn of the Cc-art he ought to late interposed earlier, if h
meant to ieterpcse at all ; and not having so interposed, he
could not now afect_the act of the assured. Nareowing the
question to that point, the Court were-of.. opinion that. the as-
sured had a rigi t to recover, and under all thocireamstances for
a total -lose. .3 .
The other Jiir..GEs con eur red entirellyhi the opinion-pronoun.:.
ced by the (':tine itIST ICE, who after Wards remarked, that
when the cases of,, ,Bainbritige and and Faulkner and-
Ritchie, were beibre the House or Lords, tlie•-•taird Chancellor
rernerked upon au.expression of thotext writers upon-- insurance-
(of course he must have meant the old text writers), who boasta
cd that there was no doubt upon the principle df the lalv as ap-
plicable to their puipose, that he.tholight there was as much
uncertainty. upon it as on any other branch of law with which
he was acquainted. This observation excited some laughter in
Court.
-HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 20.
• • • SHIT. NANCY.
• On the 4th September last, a warrant was granted by this
Court against the ship Nate}', and stores: 'Three defaults hav-
ing already passed, -•
-
Dr. 1)01mo:a now prayed the fourth and last default, pre-
viously to the execution of the said warrant—Defaith granted.
. THE.' EMILY.
The Rise's..laDvocar observed, that this case had been
already once or twice, before the Court; the Court being ap-
plied to, to call upon 'M r. a substituted agent, to bring
into the registry certain sines of money, the present prayer
was contained in an allegation responsita- to that of `.]r. Abbott.
The latter gentleman affirmed that he had delivered the re- I
quired accounts into the hands of an individual named. at a
particular time; and the affidavits which. the Court was row
prayed to admit would prove that the individual in Ovation
gaye a different account of this very ill-Tot:tent point from that
which had been furnished by Mr. Abbott.
Dr. Lusarraroroer; in objecting to this motion, thought the
Court would recollect that this was the case of a monition which
had been taken cut lag the Treasury- of his Majesty's Navy,
calling upon Mr. Abbott to pay into the registry-certain sums
of money, the proceeds of prize.. As . to the. facts, they had
never been disputed ; and the question for the Court's decision
was purely one of law. The matter having been some time
since argued before his Lbrdship, his Lordship was pleased to
,direct that Mr. Abbott's accounts should be given- in. The
exhibit, which'his MaiestY's Advocate was moving the Cone, to
admit, bore date on the I2th of. Feb. 1821 ; and to that evi-
dence he (Dr. Lushington) must most decidedly object, on every
ground upon which the-introduction 'of evidence was usually re-
gulated. The case was heard before. the Court on the•lfith Jan.
1821 ; yet the exhibit itself was dated on the 12. th February
1821 ; and was not therefore to-be estimated as if it we're a paper
given in at any.reascnable period of the cause, or-anterior to it.
Another objection to this evidence Was; that it sought to affect
Mr. Abbott, by the contents of a letter written by an indivi-
dual with whom Mr. Abbott had.no connexion whatever ; and
who refused to verify them, moreover, upon bath: •
Lord STOWELL said, he was' very .much in the dark as to the
admissibility or otherwise of the letter in question as evidence,
because he did not 'atoll know the. contents of it. . •
. Dr. LUSIIINGTON had no sort of objection to the letter being
read, in order that the Court might'decide'whether it was or was
not admissible.
Lord STOWELL directed shat the matter should stand over to
a more-convenient opportunity, the day's .paper being very-full.
THE CARL JOHAN. •
Lord SToWELL proceeded to give judgment in thiamatter. A.
Swedish vessel the Carl Johan was charged-to have run down a
British vessel called the James, which was totally lost, some of
her crew being with difficulty saved, on the
,12th of Sept. 1819.
Proceedings were comMencedirnorediately by the British owners
against those of the Swede, and a judgment obtained against
them (certainly under, the interposition of all the delay which
either the use or the abuse of the law .could supply) on the 26th
of November of the last- year. , By that decree of- judgment it
was found that the losi. in question had not, in fact,- been occa-
sioned by virtue- of any uncontrellable accident, but by the mis-
conduct and mismanagement of the Swedish vessel ; for which
her owners were answerable to the extent at which the losses
were charged. An appeal' was prosecuted ; it lingered on in
the Court of Appeal till nearly the time at which the hearing in
that Court Would have taken place.' was then desetted by
the parties, dismissed witheosta, and the cause remitted 't6 tills
Court. But this Court proceeding upon its former sentence, re-
ferred it to the registrar and merchants -fo ascertain' the amount
of the damage. This had been done : and their report, as now
brought in, was attacked upon the ground that a wrong measure
of compensation had been taken, the registrars and met-chants
having considered the measure of loss actually Sustained by the
injured party. On the other hand at was contended that this was
not the true measure of restitution ; but that the injured . party's
loss ought to be measured by the-value of the ship that had done
the injury. Now,- to be ghte,- at first sight this appeared- to
be a most inapplicable principle; for how could the value of the
vessel that had done the injury be any measure by which to as-
certain the extent of injury done to the vessel which -had Suf-
fered ? It hadno connexion with it,- and it bore no assignable
proportion to it. It was putting the,matter on the same footing
with the " compensation" of ruder times--a compenSation.
Which, in modern days, bore the name 'of deodand." Coma
pensation, however, was, that which restored to the sufferer-
what property he had lost. But-how was its value to be ascer-.
tained by any property which the 'other party might appear to
possess ? In this case they were ' in no degree commensurate,
and so far from being correlative with -each other, they might be
disproportionate in the highest degree.. Thus, the value of a
collier or a coaster could furnish no measure of value" to a ship
which it might encounter, laden with the rich productions-of the
east, whether these should be precious stones or the precious me-
tals. It -was, in truth, but very lately that such a law had been
introduced into the maritime laws of this country. Usually,
they went, like the general maritime laws of Europe, to pro-
tect ship-owners from the liability to damages arising.from un-
avoidable accident ; but they fixed them to the extent of render-
ing such owners liable for the inability or- miscondUct of those
whom they employed. Several cases had occurred- under the
ancient rule of law, where this responsibility had be..n re-
' cognised ; yet the interests of navigation had not been ineffi,-
eiently conducted in this country, while the influence of the an-
cient rule had prevailed ; at least not so inefficiently as to call
for any alterations, until the Statute was passed of the 29th of
his late Majesty, which discharged the owners of the-vessel oc-
casioning such damages to another from all liability beyond the
value of the ship, and of the freight accruing upon the voyage,
in the-course of which they might happen to arise. A later
Statute, the 53d of his late Majesty, protected them to tile same
extent with respect to any losses or damages, with such excep.
tions, that they might occasion to other ships, or to the goods
laden on board of them. A similar regulation, the Court observ.
ed, had been made in the maritime law of sonv: of the other minor
but commercial and maritime States. The avowed purpose,
of it was to protect the interests of those who were engagul in
the mercantile shipping of the State, and to remove the terrors
which would otherwise discourage people from embarking in
the maritime commerce of a country, in
.consequence of thein-
definite responsibility which the old law attached on them. But
the new rule of responsibility
.was really none at all. Though
that word had found its way into the statute, yet to give this
law that title was Something of a misnomer both as to intention
and effect. It was a law of protection to the ship-owners, but-
framed with a very moderate regard to the compensation to be
made for the real injury sustained. It was, as the Court
had already observed, no compensation in itself. It was
a measure evidently of policy, and • established by coun-
tries for the encouragement of their own maritime inte-
rests. The results of it were only to be vindicated on the
ground, perhaps, that it wasa common benefit, and a common
burden to those whom it applied to. The British law operated
equally upon all the commercial subjects of the country; and lie
who was affected by it to-day might be benefited by it to-mor-
row: If all the commercial states adopted the same law by
common consent, it would nave the same mutuality to support
it. There could be no question as to its relative effect upon each.
But it would be the grossest injustice to apply it to other states
who had no such mutuality ; and who could not apply it against
British subjects for any injury which they might have sus-
tained from them. If, therefore, this British statute were ap-
plied to foreigners by the Legislature of this country, it would
be a disgrace, and an enormous act of injustice, which were
not to be imputed to it but upon the strongest evidence of facts.
But nothing of this sort was to be presumed upon this sta-
tute ; for it could not be supposed to be any secret to theßritish
legislature, that foreigners, sustaining an injury of this kind,
had a right, under the maritime laws, to full and real compen-
sation ; and that for the legislature to say that foreigners had
no-such right, would be a gross violation of all justice, and a
gross excess of all the authority that belonged to them. If, in-
deed, ally two countries chose by law to apply such a regula-
tion to their own subjects—if they contracted by treaty, to
communicate that mutual regulation respectively to each
other; then it would stand on a footing of mutual justice and
authority; but no one country had a right to prescribe laws
which were to limit the absolute rights of the subjects of other in-
, dependent states ; for they would be no laws to them, and
could have no binding effect on them whatever ; and therefore
the British laws, it was evident, disclaimed any such intention.
Those laws throughout contemplated only our domestic policy--
the improvement and encouragement of our own domestic navi-
gation. They purposed neither to impose the same burden,
nor to conifer the same benefit oh foreigners as on their own sub-
jects. If it could he shewn that Sweden had adopted the same
policy with regard to British subjects which Swedish subjects
were now attempting to plead, that might somewhat extend their
cases,' and might furnish some ground of equity, upon which
such a plea might be argtled. But that Sweden was to lay hold•
of a British regulation, intended and maintained exclusively for
British subjects, and only claimed by her in a particular case
where it might be for her own benefit to do so, though gene-

rally it -Might affect her tittit.e the other way,- !via a prepasi- .
tion utterly insupportable ; and he (Lord" Statecil) coulti not
excite his mind to the sli,Liltest hesitation upon thia subject.
Ile thought that he shdeld libel the legislature,of his country-
if he did. But he went further,. and hetilought he ought sat,
,iNti-thout, any degree of rashness on. his 'part, that it was-clean,
from their own manner of actin!;, that teat: foreign sah.tectsta
'this case never imagined that such a plea could be available. to
themselves. 'Lordship here adverted ti.) that past of the :*"
history of this case which related to the survey that had-been
taken at Ramsgate of the Carl Johan, without the knowledge of
:,n l
the other parties, but se'_ at the disc: and with the privity
of her owners or their agents ; and after remarking. on toe
fairness and ex-parte character of that survey, he proceededd--"
It appeared impossible .that all this could have been so managed .
by the 41.waers, if they had really felt the sligi:tcst confidence in
their own plea. They must have been sensible that if that plea
was good in point of fas.s,', no Court cduld possibly apply it to a
valuationso made. But after this, what in truth parsed? Nothing
at all of this was said till at the distance of seine years or so,
after the long .pilgritnage ofthc suit through this Court and the
Court of Appeal. From the Court of Appeal; this unquiersuit
travelled lather ; the parties, by their Own confession, acknow-
F.Pedging that they could nest support their case there. With a
sentence of costs against, them, therefore, they returned to this
Court. But, in the mean, time, nothing Or this proposed esti- .
mate of value was .suggested by them. They were next sent to
the registrar and Merchants to have the value of the damage
ascertained ; and before ti:eM rot a word, .as the Court under- :
stood, had transpired the award rr.%,.1e : no protest was
affirmed, but the parties suffered the who'.t4 goon ID an undis-
turbed course. ‘Viien the registrar's report 87 a S returned to this
Court, then,' for the firsttime, the Court Wes told that the whole
of it proceeded upon a wrong principle ; that a different course ,
ought to have been taken; that the owners of the Swedish ves-
sel were prepared to support it by argument, and to illustrate it
by decisions. The Court, however, must brush away !eoth the
one and the other. They proved nctiting but that their's was a
mere struggle for time--an attempt to ss.Ve money by a pro- •
traction of time. After sa.m-'further obszon-ttions, in which his
Lordship affirmed the award of six mouths' inttrist on. the re-
puted value, his Lordship added, that Le shoul,'enter no Par-
ther into the parties' etiora, but should prOritiunce for the
award of the registrar and merchants, with costs ; and he de-
sired to add, that he thought he should not inr.-r0i,!:1,7 limit the
circa o appeal by declaring. th2t if t7;ava again
into the Court of Appeal, ar!d afterwards ag4in return hither, he
should"certainly meet it at its return wits: that attention to costs
whichhe thought such a suit would merit.-

TIIE ItELEASE.

Dr. Donsox opzhed case.—lt was a questioh whether a

monition should issue against certain prop;rty, which it was.
prayed might be released upon bail. lie understood- that it was
to be urged in objection to the motion which he had to submit,
—that bail might not be directed to be taken in this case, that
this would then become a proceeding " in rem." Now in termer
Ernes the proceedings of this Court wen toot only against the thing.
itself, although he was well ayzare that in modern times the rule.
wigs, that bail migi.. lie substituted for property, -in order that
the ship might proceed on her voyage. The principle had beep.
very fully laid down by.his Lordship in the case of the Peggy.
(Robinson's Admiraltyßep. vol. 4), and also in the caseatheCo-,
T,)enhar,ien; (3d Robinson), upon which he (Dr. D.) meant to found
his motion. The Court had said " cargo shall: not• be. permitted
to be delivered up on bail, unless the captors- Consent thereto."
In this present instance, the release had been detained, and the .
question shortly was, ." should she be-allowed tb proceed upon
her voyage, no bail being given by Aaron her master, and part
owner ?" . His parties apprehended that it would be very dan-
gerous if she should 'he so allowed. happeared that Mr. Aaron,
who usually resided at Hull, had handed• to the Marshal of
this Court several names, in order to know whether they would
be-accepted or not as good and proper names for his bail
The Marshal,' 'acting in the-eonscientions discharge of'his duty, -
made the necessary Inquiries, and he found that they ought not
to be accepted.: Several of the Dames in question were entered on.
the lists Of a society called " The Guardians of Trade against
Swindleri and Sharpers;"- and were therefore highly ineligible
for any purposes of real bail. But the Court ttould further be
pleased to observe, that this was not the first time that Mr-
, .laron had attempted'to elude its vigilance. It appeared on the
register of-the Court's proceedings,. that in the-year 1817, Mr_
Aaron being then part owner of the ship Wakefield, did tender
certain elapses as bail Tilt the ship, which he was then command-
ing. Thai hail was taken, but'it did occur, that one of these
parties became shortly after a bankrupt,. that Mr. Aaron
took the benefit .of .the insolvent act; and that the parties
interested lost all their money in consequence. - He (Dr.
Dodson) appeared 'for the owner of one of two.bottomrY
. bonds- which 'had been 'granted on the-release; and, under
these circumstances, he trusted the Court would be of opinion
that a monition for taking bail in the country ought not to
COurt sari, with what reasonable apprehension his
Parties -were. disposed to look,on the bail offered by Mr.Aiiron,
after what had occurred ; arid it would be aware that the Ma
shal could not be. on the spot to exercise the same vigilance ana
diseretion in the country, by which he had been enabled to re-
:port that the bail proffered in London ought not to be accepted.
Dr. LUSHINGTONi on behalf of the owner of the other be&-
tomry bond, addressed the Court to the same etrect.
;Dr. JESSE ADDAMS, on the-part of the master replied.
Lord STowELL held, that he should be taking the safest--
course by not suffering this ship to go on bail :, and directed Ma
ship's register to be brought into the registry of the Court.
THE JOHANNA.

This was a case of salvage. The ship Johanna, on her voyage
from the Mediterranean to Emden, laden with rectified spirits,
took fire, on the 7th June last, at the back of the Isle of %Vigil. •
Destruction appearing to be inevitable, from the fury with which
the flames were raging in the hold, , the Cantain, as a last re-
source, ordered the vessel to be scuttled.. ThiS desperate remedy '
had nearly proved effectual in extinguishing the flames, when
the water rushed in in such a flood, that.she went over, and lay
on her bearaends. The Captain,. mate, and. crew, had happily
been fortunate enough to hail a Dutch pilot-bpat, and the slew-
per and his 'men endeavoured to render them every assistance ;
but just before the Johanna went over, the Dutchman insisted
• that there was imminent danger hi staving in or near the wreck
any longer, took the crew out, and landed.
1)r. rIIILLIMORE appeared for the New Eagle anti Rebecca,,
two pilot boats. The New Eagle 'arrived just after the Dutch
vessel had gone away ; and found the Johanna, to all intents
and purposes, as he should contend, a complete derelict—" sine
spa recuperandi." She had already begun to eflixt the righting
of the ship, and salvage of a part of her cargo, when the Re-
becca came up and assisted her ; and some tune after they were
joined by his Majesty's revenue cutter the Dolphin : under the
orders of the commanding officer of the cutter, the wholenf the
parties acted throughout the remainder of this service, which
consisted in righting, clearing, towing, &c. The principal
question was as to the proportion asalvage ; and as he submit-
ted that the exertions of the two boats in question had been the
most meritorious, he should hope they would be adjudged the
largest salvage reward._
Dr. JESSE ADDAMs followed on the same side.
Dr. ADAMS addressed the Court on the part of the officers
and crew of the King's cutter. It Atas clear from the eircmn-,
stances of her superior force and strength, and from the main
business having been performed under the orders of the Lieute-
nant of the Polphin, that she had rendered the most effective
aid, and was entitled to the highest proportion of salvage.
Dr. LusuisrcroN, for the owners, admitted that here wars
case of meritorious salvage, though its claims had been much
exaggerated by both of his Learned Friends. He was perfectly
content to leave it to the Court's discretion to apportion the
amount of salvage due. •
Dr. HAGGARD followed for the same parties; and on this
authority of the Trioenfo, in 180 g; the Two Brothers, in 1808 ;-
the Frances, in 1809 ; and the Eglantine, in 1810, in all which
cases the Court had given either 1-3 d, less than 1-3 d, or 1-4th
of the value, he relied that his Lordship would not think this 3
case which called for a larger apportionment.
Lord STowELL thought this a case of very meritorious sae
vage, seeing the salvers had incurred very miniineitt dange;•-
His Lordship, after observing on the facts evidence, fcrand
that the estimated value of ship and cargo was 6,5161. Ws. tel
He should allot to the salvers 3,000 h at the following rates :
To the King's cutters, officers and crew (in ali 2/ men) '1'2,300
To the crew of the New Eagle (in ell 4 men) e• 400
To the crew of the Rebecca (in all 2 men) 300

Being a total of - " £l,OOO
Dr. LUSUINUTON then prayed that the Court, acting under
the authority of the Act of Parliament, would he.pleased
direct the Commissioners of the Cttstorns to allow so much o
the cargo of The Johanna to be sold, free of duty, as might
suffice to cover the amount of salvage allowed by the High Court
of Admiralty.—The Court decreed accordingly.

THE SPARTAN.

This was also a salvage case ; but the facts were without any
public interest. The Counsel for the owners admitting that
this was moreover a case of derelict, and that the estimated valli`"
was 1,2001.
Lord ST DWELL granted for salvage the sum of 6001. in tlx
5
following proportions : '
To the master of the vessel effecting the salvage, :£
the Hylos - - - - - 100
To the mate of ditto - - - _ ;JO

To the two men who went on board the Spartan
(found abandoned) with the mate, 4,11. each -
To the remaining salvo:s (several in number) - 32(/‘

. . .
.1:i;00
. . .
•
On the Motion of Dr. Lusa MGT oN, the Court directed the
same order to issue to the .Ctsnunissioners of his MajestO
Customs as in the preceding e.ase.''. ' '
-00

Printed and Published, for the rnoPitiETolts, ac ine
OFFICE, 112, Strand, by J. B. CARSTAIrizs: