Star.
London, England, 1808-01-30 00:00:00

SIR WATKIN LEWES V. WILLIAMS.

Mr. MARTIN having obtained a Rule to shew cause
why Mr. Williams, the receiver on Sir Watkins'
estates, should not expedite his accounts up to the
last half yearly payment,
Mr. DAUNCEY shewed cause against the rule, and
put in an affidavit to prose that Mr. Williams had
used all dne diligence in the collection of the rents,
and laying his accounts before the Deputy Remem-
brancer, to pass them. Those in question had been
before him ever since the 7th of November, and partly
from the intricacy of a coal account, and the indispo-
sition of Mr. Morgan his solicitor, this unavoidable
delay had arisen, he therefore prayed the Court to re-
fuse the rule, with costs, which was ordered.

Sir Watkin Lewes addressed the Court, expressing
a wish that all the secrets of the case might come out.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 29.
This being a Special Paper Day, the time of the
Court was entirely occupied by an argument in the
case of

HORNE V. BAKER AND OTHERS.

The plainti Xwas administratrix of the deceased hns.
band, who was partner with William Herne and .
Jackson, as distillers. Being desirous f quitting the
bus;ness, he let the still and vats with the house, and
agreed to receive 6001. a-year for himself and wife for
life. The parties became bankrupts, and the defen-
dants, as assignees, sold the stills and vats as the pro-
perty of the bankrupts ' • and the action was brought
to recover the value of them.

After a very long discussion of the various points
in the case, it having been argued before during last
Term, the Court now gave judgment, that the de-
ceased Horne having permitted the bankrupts to use
them as their own, and have the reputed ownership
of them, the vats, which were not fixed to the free-
hold, passed to the bankrupt's assignees under the
Commission.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 276

JENNINGS AND OTHERS v. LORD GRENVILLE.

This was an action of trover to recover the va'ue
of the half of a whale, possessed by the defendant,
belonging to the plaintiffs, a full report of which ap-
peared in our Paper of the 19th December last - in
which a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, subject
to the award of Charles Price, Esq, as to the quantum
of value, which he determined, after being attended
by both parties ; and he also awarded to the plaintiffs
the costs of the reference.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD now applied to set aside
the verdict, upon two grounds; first, upon the me-
rits, contending, that no such custom as that proved
by the plaintiffs witnesses, could be supported 'in law;
and that although a whale be struck by the boats at
one ship (even in the Southern Whale Fishery, yet
that such whale is the property of the boat which af-
terwards kills it, unless it is fast to the boat of the
first striker, by the harpoon and tow-iron ; and that
it was open to the defendant's Captain, not to sub-
scribe to the old rules, and to consider a fish with a
droug in it, belonging to ano her ship, still as fora
natura, and a loose fish. He also took another ob-
jection ; that the parties were tenants in common of
this whale, and that the plaintiffs ought to have
sought the produce in another form.
the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, he had upon
the trial thought there was some ground for the lat-
ter objection ; but that it appeared to have been prov.
ed that, according to the prevailing custom, the whale
struck was, prima facie, the property of the' first
striker. However, the Court granted a Rule to shew
cause, in case the business should not be in the meal&
time settled.

HATHAWAY, A BANKRUPT, V. BARROW, WINTLE,
DAVIS AND MARRIOT.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN moved for a new trial in
this cause, on the ground, that the principal witness,
M'Clatchie, had acted in the character of Solicitor,
and all the circumstances that came to his knowledge,
were learned in consequence of his having acted in
that character, or as attorney's clerk ; and that
therefore the evidence was not sufficient, as as attor•
ney ought not to divulge the communications and se-
crets of his clients.

The Court were of opinion that M‘Clatchie did not
act in either character, but that of the principal con-
spirator.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN observed, he was instructed
to move also, on account of excessive damages, but
had no intention to press that objection.
Lord Chief Justice MANSFIELD said he thought th I
Jury had acted with great discretion and moderation.
Rule refused.