The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-21 00:00:00

OTHERS•

Upon the suggestion of the CounzA for the plaintiffs, the
Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of Mr. Horne, on the
part of the defendants, directed this appeal to stand over till the
first seal after the holidays.

IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD AND GIBBS, BANKRUPTS.

Mr.- HART called his Lordship's attention to an appeal peti-
tion in this cause: The petition for the removal of the Assig-
nees was heard before his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, who
directed a new choice of assignees, on the ground that the
bankriiptS had improperly interfered in the election of the as,
signees. The Learned Counsel' requested that the petition
might stand at the head of his Lordship's paper. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked to be furnished with the pe-
tition, and said that he would signify to-morrow morning whe-
ther he could hear it out of course.

Mr. iIoRNE said, that if his Lordship should determine to
hear the petition, the persons engaged in other causes might as
well stay away from the Court.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DF.C. 20.

His Honour heard petitions all this day. There was no
question of a public nature involved in any of them.
Mrs. Stubbs,' a respectable Lady, who stood up in the seat
immediately behind that which is
,appropriated to the King's
Counsel, addressed his Honour, and proceeded to state with
great fluency and accuracy the merits of the case in which she
was plaintiff:
Mr. HORNE was sorry to interrupt the Lady ; but her case
could not be heard in that Court, as it was an appeal from the
Master-of the Rolls. . _ _

•His Hoxou-n said, that of course he could not hear it.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 20.
Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Common Juries.

FEELEY V. REECE.

Tis was action by the plaintiff as executor of a man named
Elliott, who had served as cook on board the Reynard, a vessel
eniphled. in the whale fishery, of which the defendant was Cap-
tain. 1t appears that the Reynard engaged all her crew not
onmonthly wages, but on shares ; and Elliott was engaged on
the 't ergis of receiving the one hundred and fortieth share of the
net proceeds of the .cargo. The ship proceeded on her voyage
and Wai aliSeht nearly two years, and on her return when she
was within eight -weeks of her arrival it happened that a violent
storm arose, in which Elliott the cook was unfortunately washed
overboard, with the whole of his cooking apparatus. One of
the seamen who was in ill health fulfilled his duties for the re-
maindeeof the'voyage. The owners (who were the real de-
fendants in this action) settled with the crew on an estimation
of the proceeds of the Reynard's cargo, but refused for some rea-
son or other to pay the plaintiff Elliott's share, although he had
regularly obtained probate. The defendant had paid into Court
451. as the balance due to Elliott. From the evidence it appeared
that Elliott's share would amount to 841. 3s. from which the
defendant claimed to deduct 381. 13s. 6d. for cash advanced him,
for slops supplied, and for charges on the cargo. The defendant
also claimed some allowance for the loss of his service for the
time which elapsed between his (Elliott's) death and the arrival
of the ship.
Some evidence was adduced to shew that the charges were
reasonable and customary, but the proof of actual payment was
defective. _ .

The LOIXD CIIIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence to
the Jury. His Lordship regretted that a case like the present,
consisting so inuch of matter of account, should be brought be-
fore what he considered the very worst tribunal for such mat-
ters. It was for.the Jury to say, whether any and what de-
duction should be made from the plaintiff's claim on account
of the service lost by the unfortunate accident which happened
to Elliott before the completion of the voyage. if they thought
nothing should be deducted on the account (and all the pur-
poses of the voyage were completed), and that the defendant
was entitled to the whole of his charges, they would find a
verdict tbt the plaintiff for 9s. 6d. which, on the evidence, ap-
peared to be due to him, besides the money paid into Court.
If they thought any part of the charges should not be allowed,
they would add the amount of their deductions to that sum.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 201.