The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-16 00:00:00

A
.41
;etae

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CRANUERY, Nov. 16.

TABERT Y. TENANT AND NESBITT.
Mr. HART, for the plaintiff; moved for anin4unction to re.,
• strain the•defendants from putting to sea the ship Apollo, at
present lying in the port of London. The plaintiff was the
owner 'of 3'-Bths of the ship, and the defendants were.the.owners
of the remaining 5-13ths. The ship was 'formerly 'coMmanded
by the plaintiff, but Nesbitt had now transferred.the command
of the vessel to the other defendant Tenant. The defendants
had lately put new upper works on he "ship, which the plairitia'
was convinced she could. not carry, on account of the rotten
state of her hull, and they were about to send her on a voyage
which the plaintiff conceived she was hot capable of performing.
By Admiralty law, if a part owner of a ship was unwilling that
the vessel should proceed on a voyage, the other part owner or
owners had a right to carry her out, but at their own risk. All
that the plaintiff desired, therefore, was, that the defendants
Might be restrained from putting the ship to sea until they had -
furnished him with an indemnity for the risk of the voyage.
'The LORD CHANtELLOR grafted the injunction.'

pn ICE SEVEIcPtNC

prosecution, that the perjury was assigned upon a certain affi-
davit, by which the defendants swore to a debt of 1,0001.: and
under whicii a writ of ca. sa. *as sited out against the prose-
cutor:' When the defendants came to put in their affidavits,
those which they presented appeared to be unstamped.
'The COURT granted•time to amend the error, and order 4
that the matter should stand over until to.mofrow morning.- r'

THE KING V. HENRY COLLINS.
[Further Particulars.]

On the'motion of the Somert on- G the defendant,r
who had been convicted of an aggravated assault at the late s-
sizes,for Snsseki was now brought up to reecive the judgment of
the Court.

The case was tried before . Mr. Justice Bunnotro ft,. and it
appeared from the evidence at the trial, that the defendant had
been a midshipman in the same ship with the prosecutor, Daniel
Spursham, now an officer of the preventive service. The de-
fendant for some-reason not-explained to the Court had h;;,2
discharged the service. The assault,wAs committed near Ha.st-,
inns, under the following circumstances i—The prosecutor was
riding,.and he was met hy the defendant, who struck his-hbrse
with a stick. " The prosecutor made some remonstrance,. anti
the defendant then repeatedly struck him across the facqnd
then left him, saying, " You may now go tollastings,.and tell '
what a d—d good thrashing I have given you." On thiS evi-
dence the defendant was found guilty.
The CHIEF JUSTICE asked if 'the defendant had any affi-
davit or remarks to offer to the Cqurt.

The defendant, in reply, Said he had ft case of a strong cha-
racter to offer,to their Lordships' attention in mitigation of pu •
nishment, but that, as he was too poor to pay Counsel, iia
feared that its effect would be loSt. He'said that the assault bid
been committed in his own defence,; that he was first struck by
the prosecutor; and he denied entertaining any towards
him. He then offered some certificates of his good character, and.
an affidaVit front Win. Illackmore Noble, a Lieutenant in the
Navy, who stated that he had known. the defendant since the
year leo6, and that he had been a good-tempered man and not
disposed to quarrel during that period.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL 4fiefiy, addressed the Court in
aggravation of punishment ; and
Mr. Justice BAYLEY pronounced the sentence of the Court,
that the defendant, for this offence; should b.: imprisoned in the
custody of the
,Marshal of the Marshalsea for the space of three
months, and at the expiration of that period that he shall find
security to keep the peace, himself in one- hundred pounds and
two sureties in fifty pounds each, and that he should further be
imprisoned until he had given those securities.

PITT V. THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM 11USKISSON, H.P.

AND OTHERS.
As the Court was about to rise, Mr. Pitt, the plaintiff in
this case, made an application for a rule to chew cause why a
Mandamus should not be directed to the Judge of the Palace
Court, commanding him to give a new trial. Our readers will
recollect that Mr.l'itt brought an action in the Palace Court for
41. odd, mixed up with a charge of conspiracy against the dd.
fendants. The grcund upon which this motion was made was,
that the Learned Judge had misdirected ;the Jury' as to the
law of the case. Mr. Pitt said, that as he could not move ibr
a new trial, this was the only redress left him.'

The Court refused the application, as there was no example
of a similar one. They could only direct a Judge -to try a
cause, but they could not compel, him to,find a verdict one
way or the other.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Nov. I.
The Court sat at Westminster till' past 12 o'clock, but to
case of any public interest occurred. :Ir. Justice PARK went
at one o'clock to Guildhall to hear Nii Prius cases. The
lowing was the only one wortlynotice:— . . •

RICHAItbSC,N V. lAMB.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the case to the Jury. This
was an action of trover to recover a dressing case, the property
of the plaintiff, which the defendant nowlili‘galfy -retained in
his possession. The dressing case was splendidly fitted up with
silver gilt ornaments, and was valued at the sum Cl'. 1601. ; die
ink-stand was of silver, valued nt 401. The, plaintilf was an
officer in the army, and these articles had been purclik;ed
tlrs. Mestaer, from the defendant, for the purpose of pr:2-.
renting them to the plaintiff. He had since been oblip:tt
take the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The Learned !1:-.'rez.::r
called

•
Charles Cox, who swore that he went to the shop' of the de-
fendant for the purpose of purchasing a dressing-eiise, when the•
case in question was shewn him, with the 'crest of Captain Ri-
chardson on it, the defendant observing that it was perhaps tot; -'• •'
dear for the witness. Ile subsequently served a notice on
defendant, desiring him to give up the desk, and offering to pay
the amount of the money due, and in tue event of a refusal-
threat-fling an action of trover. The defendant demailded 11431;
which the witness being unable to pay, the dcfendant refused to
let him have the articles.

On his cross-exarnination' he denied that the-plaittiff had
ever represented himself to be the • son of 31rs. 31estaer, or
that that Lady was a Princess. He had been. informed that
the desk had been purchased by Mrs. Mestaer to present to the
plaintiff, and that the defendant had earned it to' Mrs-. 31est"
account.

Mr. Hague was called. He proved that he was the solicitor
to Mrs. Mestaer, the residuary•legatee under toe, will of Mr.
Mestaer. He called on the defendant.. in order to arrange
,tkie
account between him and Mrs. Mestacr; the witness then' prb_
tested against the case and inkstand, being carried to Mrs. Mes-
tacr's account, but the defendant persisted in his declaration
that Jll.s. M. was liable to hiin for it. . •

Mr. Serjeant LENS, for the defendant, contended that th.,
plaintiff had not proved his claim, even admitting that 3lrs.
.liestaer had ordered the case in order to present it to Mr
:L.,.
; Richardson_ yet after it had been-sent to that•lady's house
.„' "-..;
about three days, the plaintiff called on the defendant. and ,74. ~• $4,
him, be (plaintiff) was sorry it had been sent, Mr Mr. 11elt*i4^:;"',,
was dead, and it was not likely it would be paid for then and
he, therefore, requested the defendant to send fr.r it back gtain,
and keep it until he could pay for it. The Learned 'Seijeant
insisted, that if the ease hat .been originally made on ac cunt ..; .
of Mrs. 3lestaer, yet by the subsequent request of thetiotbriff, . I
he had forfeited all claim to it, unless he could pay thAefend-
ant, for he had by that request created a lien for the debt due ...
for the value of the case.
. Lamb, a shopman and relation of the defendant, proved the •
request of Captain Richardson, to which the. Learned Ser:
‘••tel -- -