The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE on the part of a person named Lancas-
ter, moved the Court this morning for a rule, calling upon an
attorney of this court, (whose name was not mentioned) to show
cause why he should not answer the complaint of Lancaster.—
The motion was founded on an affidavit by the latter, in which
he stated that a son of his having the misfortune to
be charged with an offence at the Marlborough-street
Police-office, he employed the attorney complained of, to
defend his son, giving him at the same time a considerable
fee. When his son was brought before the Magistrate
however, the attorney did not appear, and the son was in conse-
quence committed for trial. Upon inquiry, the complainant as-
certained that the attorney was confined for debt, and called upon
him for an explanation of his conduct. The attorney apologized,
and having afterwards got at large, he prevailed upon the cam-
plainant to entrust to him the son's defence at the trial. He ac-
cordingly employed a counsel, but shamefully negleeted to send him
a brief, till between 10 and 11 o'clock of the night before the
trial, which came on next morning at ten o'clock, and besides
omitted to subpoena an important witness till it was too late, the
trial having been over before the witness arrived, in consequence
of which the son was convicted. A report of the trial appeared
in the newspapers, which reflected on the complainant's conduct
towards his son. The complainant was advised to prosecute the
newspapers fin• a libel, and the same attorney prevailed upon him
again to entrust the conduct of the prosecution to him. He re •
quired 121. to commence proceedings, and the complainant not
having so much money at the time, gave him a bill for 171.,
which he agreed to get discounted, and promised to return the
difference, which, however, he did not do, the complainant
having been unable to get back snore than one pound.
The complainant shortly afterwards became embarrassed,
and was confined within the rules of the King's Bench prison,
but while there, he, in order to see the attorney, violated the rules,
and called upon the attorney for an account of the money, and
also regarding the state of the prosecutions against the newspapers,
but he refused to give him any satisfaction ; and a few days after-
wards the complainant was again arrested—he believed by the
contrivance of the attorney. He raised the actions, but, in con-
sequence of his not following them up, judgments of non-process
were obtained by the defendant.—Rule granted.
The CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his indignation at the scandalous
manner in which some attornies contrive to get money from their
clients.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
THE KILLINBECIC.

Dr. LUSHINGTON (with whom was Dr. DonsoN) stated, that
this was an action for damages, brought by the owners of the
schooner Acorn, to recover the value of their vessel, which had
been run down, and totally destroyed by the ship Killinbeck.—
It appeared that the Acorn sailed from Shoreham on the evening
of the 23d October, bound for Switzerland, and whilst running
down the Channel, between two and three o'clock on the fol-
lowing morning, she came in collision with the ship
Killin-
beck, bound from the island of Antigua to London. The
Killinbeck struck the Acorn on the midships, and she went
down immediately, the crew hiving escaped into the Killinbeck.
The Killinbeck had her spritsail-yards broken, and her jib-boom
driven in. The Acorn was rated at 80 tons, and valued at NO
guineas. There was a striking variance between the testimony
given by the crew of both vessels as to the state of the wind.—
After adverting minutely to the allegations of the several wit-
nesses, the Learned Counsel submitted that there was gross negli-
gence on the part of the crew of the Killinbeck, and that the
owners of the Acorn were entitled to the value of their vessel.
Dr. JENNER on behalf of the owners of the Killinbeck, ad-
verted to the discrepancy which appeared between the testimony of
the crews of both vessels, and contended, that the Court was
hound to dismiss the case, as there was no evidence of misma-
nagement or negligence on the part of the crew of the Killinbeck.
Dr. J. AnDasis followed on the same side. After which Dr.
LUSHINCTON replied.
Lord STowEtt. then pronounced in favour of the claim made by
the owners of the Acorn.

Lord STOWELL was assisted in the hearing of this case, by two
Members of the Trinity Board.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

THE UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, AND THE INDEMNITY AND
THE ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES V. MILLER AND

OTHERS.

In this case, Mr. BICKERSTETN moved for a commission on the
part of the plaintiffs to examine several witnesses about to leave
this country, whose evidence was necessary to prove their case
on the trial. The proceedings arose from the loss of the
ship Courier, which was alleged by the defendants to have
been lost with her cargo off the Cape de Verd Islands. The ship
had been insured with the plaintiffs, and they now put in an affi-
davit that the above witnesses were now in England—were usually
residing at Lisbon, but intended to depart this country before the
trial. They (the plaintiffs) would be able to prove by them, that
the said ship and cargo had not been lost as represented, but that
the cargo had been clandestinely unshipped at Lisbon, and the
ship wilfully and fraudulently sunk by the owners.
Mr. FONBLANQUE, for the defendants, contended that the affi-
davit was incomplete, as it did not properly describe the wit-
nesses, or show that the goods were not unshipped at Lisbon fin•
the purpose of repairing the ship, as was actually the case.
After some further argument the Court granted the commis-
sion, upon Mr. Bickersteth undertaking to: amend the defective
parts of the affidavit.