The Sun.
London, England, 1810-11-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. zB.

STE:Et. ZCLACEY.

The 'question in this case is of great importance
to the commercial world,- naniely; whether a ship,
by carrying false papers, renders her policy void.
it appealed by the pleadings this day, that the Penn-
sylvania, an' American ship, which arrived
pitch and warlike stores to this country, had insitrest
twin London to Russia. In the course of 'her voyage
she was captured by a French privateer. and con-
.detnned.- She had carried simulated papers," by
%t Inch it appeared, that she !Ltd cleared out of Ber-
gen, in Norway ; but the Judges of the enemy's
Prue Court condemned her, on the groutid that the
'data in •the papers made her suspicious, and that
see had not produc,..d a proper sea passport:" The
liaderwriters resisted the policy on pretence, firSi,
that the ship Lid carried simulated papers Without
their- knowle and also that she bad 'not proper
paperd on boat d.
Mr. Serjeatit BEST contended that a ship having
false papers on board; could net—prevent the assu-
i-eito,ftom recovering. It would strike the-Judges
that every ship must have-false papers, before they
could enter any port on the Continent of Europe,
in order to deceive Buon'aparte's otfiCers, and con-
vince..them that she had not sailed from a British
port-. If the ship in question had not had the pa.;
pers which the -Underwriters had complained of, she haVe been condemned by the operation of the
Berlin decree, she having been to England with
pitch, hemp, and warlike stores. Sir William Scott,`
and other witnesses from the Admiralty, had proved
that no ship Could'expect to enter' the-ports oCthe
Continent witheUt licens -s. The state of Europe
vas altered,.and if trade-was to be carried on at all, it
tiouid not be without licenses. The Learned Ser-
jeaut contended, at considerable length, tliat it was
fmnecessafy 'for 'the assured to infOrm the under- ,
writers that he, intended to carry simulated papers,
because the state of Europe prevented any ship from
sailing'withOnt them. If their Lordships decided in
favour of The Underwriters, an end would, in con-
sequence, be put to all trade in Inture. This was a
most import pt case, the l'Arst of the kind that ever
came Under their. Lordships' consideration, and he
was not be able to'ci:e any • case to guide them in
their judgedent. It was plain that,the ship was
comperled
,to carry false papers to save her from
copffication. It would put an end to all commerce
with the if their Lordships did nut
tabliesh the plaintiff's claim.
lac Court did not give judgment.
DAWSON V. THM SUBMIT'S OF LONDON.
Mr. Serjeant BEST moved to set aside the nort.
sun in this case, anctenter a verdid for the plaintiff.
It was an aaion of tre4pass brought against the late
Sheriffs of Lbridon, for taking in execution some
goods itrthe possession of a 'person named Pike. •It
appeared that Pike bad been put -in a public-house
in IVlitte,criurt, Flee street, by Dawson, who had
obtained the .Jease, and was in- fad the land-
lord- He also kept,a public-house in another part-of
tthe.city, and .as the regulations of the city did not
allow. him to hold twollicenses in the same Ward,
he aliowed Pike.to take out the beer-license for the
J.K4se in Mitre-court:. Pike was in other respells
considered the Owner of the house, and one of his
creditors seized the goods, which belonged to Davy-
son.

,At the trial, the Judge diretied a nonsuit, on the
grotind that the tnisconclud .of the plaintiff, in sup-
portingthe deception, did not entitle him to recover.
It was-contended,. in support of the motion, that the
Court had .no au►hority.-to say that the property in

LONIION Priatecl by RICHARD HARRIS, of No. 4, Martlett,court, liow-strect; and Pi bli
• - ,the Surf Strand, where ild.viiiiimitents, Orders tar t

queitton- was not roe property of Dawson, ()muse
Dawson had allowed• Pike to appear,as owner. Daw-
son stood in the situation ofa man who lets a ready
'furnished house. ThepersOin in possession appeared
to be the owiter, yet the Learned Seijeant said, he
had never heard that, the creditor of such a person
had a right to seize the property on the perukes.
Sir lons MANSITIELD remained of the opinion
'be had expressed at the trial, namely, ant the
plAnt,ff could not recover; but Judgds Lawrence,
Heath, and Chambte• differed from this Lordship,
'and, their opinion -being in tavOur of the.plaituiff's
claim, the rule was granted to enter a verdict
for 661.

COURT. OF ARCHES, DOCTOR'S COMMONS,
NOVEMBER 21.

BEAVER V. BEAVER.

This was a cause of divorce, or separation from.
bed,- board, and mutual cohabitation, promoted on
the part of Mrs. -Beaver, against her husband, by'.
reason of cruelty and adultery. On a former Court
day the proceedings.were 'opened by the learned Ci-.
viiians on the one side and the 'other, when the
Court (Sir John Moira) observed it would recom-
mend the parties to endeavour to comprouni,e the
ina‘ter. day the cause again came on for hear-
ing, and after entering into a part of the evidence,
the Court was of opinion the husband ought to 13:_,
dismissed from the suit, and accordingly pronOunc-
ed for the same.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. t 6

SCOTCH MARRIAGES.

EX PARTE, HALL IN THE MATTER OF DICKENSON.
This was an 'application on the part of Henry
William:Holland Harriet his wife, the said Harriet
being bee of t;.e daughters of the bankrupt, to be
allowed to prove under the commission in the fol-
lowing circumstances.
The tetit loner, Hall, and Miss Harriet Dickenson,
being both under age, had eloped to Scotland, and
had there been married, 'agreeably ,to the forms of
the Scotch Chuich, without, or rather contrary to,
the consents and inclinations of the fathers on both
sides: On their return to England, the father of
the 'bride being impressed with an idea that a nlar-
riage in• Scotland was illegal, and desirous'that no
possible stigma should be allowed to attach to the
Young couple, insisted strongly on their being again
married in England:by proclamation of banns; and
with all the usual solemnities:, The -father of the
:bridegroom, on the other hand, was of opinion that
a:Scotch marriage was completely and there-
f.ore objected to a repetition of 'the ceremony. • To
induce 'him to 'consent to this measure, Mr. Dic-
kenson wrote ,to the elder Mr. Hall on the 81hDe-
;'cembery is.o7, agreeing on the marriag&being again
'elehrated,- to grant bond for payment t 6 his,daugh-
ter, and her husband,. of 1051. per:annum, during
their joint lives, under the penalty of 0501; The
'marri .ge ceremony was again p4rforrned, and the
bond by. Mr. DiCkenson, the bankrupt, in tae our of
.his daughter and her husband, was granted ; and
some tirne.after this, but subsequent to the bank-
ruptcy of Mr. Dickenson, the father of the peti-
tioner, H. W. Hall, granted to his son an additional
. annuity of 4001, on the narrative that such annuity
was gi% en consideration of ' the bond granted by
Mr. "Dickenson in favour of his daughter, the wife
of the petitioner. On this bond it was 'now asked
of the Lord Chancellor', that the petitioners might
be allowed to prove before the Commissioner's, on
Mr. Dickenson's separate estate.
Mr.: in support of this application, contend-
ed that the bond now. sought to be claimed on, was
not voluntary or gratuitous, but was granted, in two
difftrent respects, for a valuable consideration. In
the .first.viace, it was granted in consideration of the
re-celebration, of the marrrage'between Mr. Hall,
the younger, and his daughter, which to his (Mr.
,Dickenson's) mind, was not lawful or obligatory 3
but might, upon application to the proper Court, be
dissolved—that the creditors of Mr. Dickenson too
could not be injured at the time he granted the bond
in question, by such an appropriation of part of 'his
fortune; on:the contrary, that he might have been
warranted in making a much larger provision for his
daughter, was apparent from thiS circumstance, that
.at this moment his separate estate was much more
than sufficient to pay all his individual debts. But,
secondly, if anything could he required to support
the fad that this bond was not granted voluotarily,
but for a consideration, it was not to be gathered
from 'this circumstance, that the additional annuity
granted by. Hall the eher to his son,_ proceeded on
the narrative that it was
.so granted in-consideration
of this very bond ; so that,-to judge of the motives
Which had dictated the conduct of the father of the
young lady,. they had only to look to what the fa-
ther of the young Gentleman had done.
The fist part of his case, the Learned Counsel
admitted, must depend, on the estimation. in which
his Lordship held Scotch marriages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he entertained no
&Wit that Scotch Marriages were very good.
Mr. HART argued that that-Caurc was not accus-
tomed to hold them so.
The *LORD CHANCELLOR said, if the settlement
had been made 'by the order of the Court, that
would have stipported it against the claims 'of any
creditor':. i: was not stated that any positive,
agreerrit-had'been made previous to the execration.
of ttte fiund iti`gitestion It did, not appear 'thai'Mr.
Dick'enetln'had grAnted the bOndlrorn airy obligation
'OH him' to do so. The annuity granted by the peti.:
tiones. tatliei to him; was granted some time after
the date of the bond ; so that, instead of the band
being 'granted iti-CiinsidFration'of :the'annuity,. Ole,
annuity seemed' to have been grante'd in considera-
tion of the bond;_a circumstaoce which was at once
destruotiire of the petitioner's claim on the bankrupt
estate, an the ground of the bond riot being a vo-
luntary as on the' part Of the defendant. It, how-
ever, the...petit loner Could skew an agreem:ent existing
antecedent to the date of the bond, that would do
away the Citeuttistance. of the annuity by M.
senior, to his son haVing been granted at a posterior

hal by WILLIAM ARMIGER. SCRIPPS,-South Met/Cm
Paper, issuer; tin the Editor Stc, (,aot-paia),