The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-15 00:00:00

THE PILOT ACT.-PEARSON V. BROWNFISLD,

This was an action to recover the penalty Of 501, under the
Pilot Act, from the defendant, for having piloted the brig Paris
down the river Thames, he not.being a licensed pilot.
Mr. Serjeant LENS, in stating the casa to the Jury, ob-
served, that the Act in question was passed for the greater
security and protection of vessels in the nver, and for preventing
improper or unskilful persons from navigating them. The de-
fendant, who, it would be proved, was a waterman, and not a
licensed pilot, had taken charge of the vessel ; and though a re-
gularly- licensed pilot had come on board and produced his papers,
the master refused to deliver the charge up to him. He (Serjeant
Lens) understood that the defendant meant to rest his case
on a seetion of the pilot act, which exempts from its operation
colliers, and all vessels sails sailing for Norway, the Baltic, or
the Cattegat ; and that the brig Paris 'did not come under the
Act, as she was trading to St. Petersburgh, whither she was
bound from the River.

The CHIEF JUSTICE asked, would not that bring her un-
der the denomination of vessels bound for the Baltic ?

Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, that that was the point at issue.
He then called

Mr. Baswell, a pilot, who proved that he saw thebrig Paris
proceeding down the river. Witness went on board, and saw
the defendant at the helm. Witness produced his papers to all
on board, but the charge of the ship was refused to him.

On his cross-examination, witness said that the vessel was
bound for St. Petersburgh. -
On the part of the detendant, Mr. Serjeant VAUGUAN called
Mr. Nelson, the owner of the vessel, who proved that she had
traded to the Baltic for the last five years, and that she was then
bound for St. Petersbuigh.
Chief Justice DALLAS held that this brought the vessel
within the 'exceptions to the Pilot Act, and directed a verdict
for the defendant, which was entered accordingly. .
Mr. Serjeant LENS observed, that the aetion was brotght to'
have the opinion of theCoort on the case, in order that if it should
be as it now turned out, an application might be made to Par..
liament in the course of the next Session. - • , .

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 14:

LE MANN AGAINST CONSAL.

In this case certain witnesses who had travelled Up from Wales
in order to give theirtestimOnyappearedat the bar, and attract,
ed, by the singularity of their appeara.nce, considerable atten-
tion. The 'habiliments of the females were particularly 'gro4.
tesque. An interpreter having applied to the Court, by their
desire, for permission to be sworn as witnesses on behalf of one
of the parties (a pauper), took the. opportunity of stating that
the parties, before the oatlis'were taken, were desirous Of halin;,,'
some allowance made to them for -their expenses. These had
been already considerable, and were likely to become still mon:
so, by reason of the delay to which the prosecution of the cause.
might subject them.
The COURT directed the Interpreter to acquaint the witnesses,
that the party on whose behalf they appearcd,bc;ing a pauper,cculd
furnish no funds; and that it was quite impossible for the Court
to undertake for compensation. It was for them to decide
whether they. would take the oaths or not—a cc :se which, for
the ends of justice, it was evidently very desirable should be
taken ; but the Court thought it would be highly unbecoming'
and improper, if they should now return to their tomes without
giving the . evidence which it was in their power to Co. The
witnesses by means of the interpreter expressed their apprehen-
sion ofbeing detained. in London, • at great expense and incon-
venience to themselves 7 unless their charges were defrayed...-.
The proctors on both sides, anti the examiirr, undertook to
exercise every possible diligence ; and the witnesses with s,nitc
apparent reluctance at length consented to take the oaths, which
were administered to them in the Welch language.

FORBES V. GORDON.

In this case the Court was prayed to admit an allegation,
propounding, together with the will of the late J. Forbes, E.
of Fitzroy-square, London, two testamentary papers marked A
and B ; the former being described as a codicil to the said will,
and the latter undated. It appears that Mr. Forbes died in the
night of the' oth June, 1821, leaving behind him personal and
freehold property to the amount, it is supposed, of 580,0001.
and upwards. The will, dated May 2, 1826, duly executed in
the presence of three witnesses, disposed of a property in value
about 220,0001 specifically. The value of the residue was not
known even to the testator. Paper A was dated Ist of Al arch,lB2l.
Paper B- without a date, was handed over by the deceased to his
solicitor, Mr. Hutchinson, as containing instructions for a
new will or a codicil (that beirw'a matter of dispute) which it
was his intention-to make, and by by which he meant to alter and
to add to some foriner beqUests. This interview between the
deceased and Mr. Hutchinson took place on the 12th of June,
1821, eight days before testator's death ; but important business
calling his solicitor to the Continent, the codicil in 'question
could not be immediately prepared. In the interval of this
gentleman's absence, Mr.. Forbes died, and the executors felt it
necessary to try the question of the validity of one or both of
the two codicillary papers, inasmuch as they went -to make a
very important alteration in the disposition of the residue.
Lunn NoToi.“ and Dr. MASHAM opposed, and Dr.
SWABEY and Dr. Px4.l.4xoltE contended for the admission of
the allegation.
Sir: JoHN NrcnoLL, without giving any decided opinion as
to the merits of the Testamentary Papers A and B, but defer-
ring that to a future stage of the case, thou =ht there was that
matwr pleaded in the allegation which made it proper to be
admitted.—Admitted accordingly.

A meeting will be held this day, at two
o'clock, at the Old Ship, to take into considera-
tion the best means of giving public expression,
on the day of his MAJEsTv's arrival at the Pa-
vilion, to those feelings of joy, which have been
diffused among all ranks, by the prospect of hav-
ing our beloved Patron and Monarch again resi-
dent among us. T. R. KEMP, Esq. is expected
to be in the Chair.—We are happy to announce
that his MAJESTY is expected to arrive, at the
Palace to-morrow.—(Brighton Chronicle, No-
vember 13.)

Dame Fortune hag her favourites, and one she.
seems most to prefer, is her old friend ats.u.—
This Lottery, it appears, her blind Ladyship has
looked to biul only, for of the Four Capitals
already drawn above rf2.00,,he sold all four.
Perhaps this might be intended as a compliment
to his Office in Cornhill, as the number of that
'house is. Four ; and as his Office at 'Charing-
Cross is numbered Nine, we may expectliy the
same rule, that he will sell Nine more Capitals ;
and, no doubt, include one or both of the Thirty
Thousands yet in the wheel.