Star.
London, England, 1808-07-29 00:00:00

L 41V 1.(Iffr.1.110.11.14.

(f)eKiNG'S BENCH,
F13147R nalE. •
Tiiiirati 41) action' en a poliey of inset-ante cm the I
ship Junk, at, and on-the coast of Africa, upon:
voyage for slacies„ and on ber return o Charleston, or
any port in America or the Wet Indies. It was
stated on the part of the plaintiff, that he was CiPtain
of the Junb, and had a great interest in the vessel and.
laertargo, and that the suet insured was much-below
his realinterest in theseeisei. The declaration to the
Underwriters was, that she was an American vessel,
but it was stated that the certificate of the American
Consul was to be received as suitcient proof of the
regularity of her papers. She had traded with the
English ship the Saturn, off the Coast, by giving slaves
for arms and ammunition. It was known that with-
outarms -and ammunition being part of their cargo,
whey could not be successful in purchasing a cargo of
slaves. The Plaintiff could not originally bring out
arms and:ammunition, as they, being contraband of
war, would expose his ship to capture. He therefore.
agreed with Mr. Geddes, his agent an London, that
a British..eessel• should Ica out with arms and animu-
nition, from which he would purchase them. After
being five !moths on the Coast, he completed a cargo
of 403 slaves, and set out on his return to America,
but having lost an anchor and cable; he intended first
to put, in at Martinique. He was, however, captured
by a 'French privateer, and carried into Martinique,
when he was seven or eight dais sail from the island.
His vessel was there condemned on account of the
circumstances of the voyage. . •
- The defence to the action was, that five months
was an unreasonable length of time to stay upon the
coast of Africa ; and secondly, that the sentence• of
the Prize Court at Martinique had falsified the decla-
ration made totheunderwriters, of the ship Juno being
an American ship. The agreement that the certifi-
cate of the American Consul should be proof of the
regularity of the papers, did not extend to make it
proof of the ship being neutral.
Lord Et.t.r.Nßoaouon, after reading the copy of the
sentence of the Prize Court at Martinique, obseried,
that it did not expressly state that the ship was not
American ; but conceiving generally, from the eh:
cumstances of the voyage, that the Plaintiff was only
the agent of Mc.' Geddes, in London, adjudged it A
lawful prize. Now it was sufficiently hard, hat,, ds
the French Prize Courts are now constitutedi their
sentences should be deemed.sufficient us establish of
falsify the declarations made to underwriters p—but
still, as that was the law, it ought to be required that
they should speak out openly and expressly. If the
sentence were positively to say, she was condemned,
as not being an American ship, that would be deci-
sive ; but as to their merely adjudging it good and
lawful
.prize, from the circumstances of the voyage,
those terms would equally apply to any vessel ou the
seas, which, on their present piratical principles, they
might choose to lay hold of.—Verdict for the Plain.
tiff--Damages 3001.

e

. COURT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, JULY 27.
BAYLLY AND CO. V. SMITH.
This was an action brought by the Plaintiffs for the
amount of a debt, for which they had levied an exe-
cution upon the goods of one Tennant. It appeared
that the defendant Smith was also a creditor of Ten-
mint to a large amount, when finding that the Plain-
tiffs had levied their execution, he immediately took
steps to strike a docket, and make Tennant a bank-
rupt.. The execution was levied lait September, and
the Commission of Bankruptcy was not dated till the
ensuing November. However, it was in evidence that
Tennant, by denying himself to a creditor, had com-
mitted an act of bankruptcy, previous to the issuing
of the Commission of Bankruptcy. Besides, it ap-
peared from the testimony of Tennant, that the firm
of Liptrap and Co. who were the petitioning creditors,
and in which house Smith was a partner, could not
legally 'be considered creditors of Tennant, inasmuch
as the term of three months, for which they had given
him credit, had not elapsed, and that consequently
they were incompetent to be the petitioners.
The LORD CHIRP JCSTICZ observed, that the ques-
tion hinged on the credit which the Jury would give
to Tennant's testimony. It was needless for him to
infOrm them, that it was a too constant practice for
other creditors, when they found one before them in
recovery of his debts from a man in embarrassed cir-
cumstances, to, as it were, defeat his legal remedies,
by the anticipation -of a Commission of Bankruptcy.
If they believed that the petitioning creditors had given
to Tennant the time of credit which had not expired,
the Commission was void, and they ought to find for
the rlaintiffs.
Verdict for the Plaintiffs, 1,6961. 145.. 4d.
WILSON V. TURNS&
Mr. Serjeant Comte stated ....s to be an action to
recover from the defendant amagos for a malicious
arrest, through which theplaintiff endured a long
imprisonment. The defer ant was a Captain in the
East London Militia ; the plaintiff a surgeon, at Yox-
ford, ncaz Halesworth, in Suffolk, and the defendant
lived in that town. The plaintiff had for years carried
on his business with credit. It was a remarkable fact,
that the plaintiff knew nothing of the defendant; he
had never seen him, and never had held any corres-
pn:l;lence with him. The learned Serjeant said he
w as i,:f.: aid that Turner had lent himself as an instru-
ment to a man who had made some noise in the
world, and whom he should call as a witness. That per
son had issued a process against the plaintiff, and had
him arrested for 7001. when he did not owe him a
farthing. He was confined in the Giltspur-street
Compter, and was so poor, that he was forced to live
urn the common allowance of the gaol. The learned'
Serjeant ilso stated, that Turner had entered-into a
confederacy with this other person to arrest Wilson,
andhad actually sworn a debt against him of a thou-
sartd pounds. •
The Deputy Filazer of the Court said, that he had
an affidavit in a cause—Turner v. Wilson, in 1806, for
a sum of 7001. said to-be due to Thomas Johnston.
. R. Barton proved Turner's hard-writing, and said
'_that the rapiar against the plaintiff was dated Feb. 1.
1806. He said Dr. Wilson was a very respectable man
in Yoxford. On his cross-examination he said he never
heard that ,Dr. Wilson was a dealer in spirits, or that
he vade voyages to bitching; neither did he ever hear
that 'ae was owner of snuggling vessels. He was then
asked if the Doctor had*gone over to Holland, at the
taaz the British temps were at the I:elder, in 1799,