Star.
London, England, 1808-12-23 00:00:00

LIIIF INTELLIGENCE.

" . eottlet OF CHANCERY, DECEMBrR2II.
ume ofthe I..anti.CuatiesuAtoa was occupied
to, y hearing a variety of Cause Petitions, w lch
ettlibite4 no feature of Public. Interco.
IltzdshiP 1450:4 heard petitions in lunacy, and
in h4nkruptcy.: ‘mong 'the former was a petition,
frOm the Countess of Athlone, to have herself and her
second son appointed Committee to her eldest son,
Lord Agin:4%l4ow Earl of Athlone, which was re-
fepHed to the bl4o-a• also, a petition from the Com-
reitteein theiluuncy of the Duchess of Chandos, to
be allowed the expellee of repairing the mansion house,
which was granted*,
A widow lady, of 'the name of Crow, appeared her-
self, in support of a petition, to be liberated from the
recognizance she had entered into as committee for
her husband. She craved permission to read the pe-
tition, all of which was substantiated by affidavit ;
but it being stated by Sir SAtauct. Ropluxv that
the "natter of the petition, except the prayer of it, to
which he had no objection, was altogether extrancons,
and wept to a revival of disputes adjusted years ago,
the lady was stopped in her progress. The prayer of
her petition was granted ; but the LORD CHANCELLOR
reserved consideration of the costs of the aPplication,
on aeconnt a the extraneous and improper matter
with which'it was loaded.
In bankruptcy a legal argument of considerable
interest occurred, on a petition by the assignees of
a Mr. Dewdmi, praying, that the proof of a debt,
claimed oa by a person of the name of Roffey, which
had been admitted by the Commissioners, should be
expunged, on the ground that the debt was struck at
by the Statute of Limitations.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. WETHERALL very
ably argued this case on the part of the petitioners,
but the argument was not brought to a conclusion.

COURT OF KlNG's BENCH, DECEMBER 22.
BOULTON V. DOBREE.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance on
the ship and cargo of the Neutralitytto and from the
Havannah and L ,ndon. This was a Danish vessel,
and consequently neutral previous to the 30th of De-
cember 1807, when the policy was entered into. The
owners of the cargo had procured a regular license
from Government, which entitled captain Eliison, a
Dane, to navigate his vessel to this country.
The defence against this action was, that Captain
ElliAson was an alien enemy, a prisciner in this coun-
try, and as such not entitled to recover ; but it was
contended by the plaintiff's Counsel, that his having
a licence to navigate to this country, also necessarily
entitled him to reside here, and therefore he was not
to be looked upon as 'aft alien enemy.
This vessel was taken by a privateer on her way
home, when in great digress, from the violence of the
sea, at a time when she was thought likely to be lost.
It being thought by Lord ELLENBOROUGIt that the
license to navigate did not entitle this foreigner to re.
side here, it not being so stated in express words in
the license, as set forth in the declaration, the pliintiff
could not at present recover under such a plea. He
should, however, reserve the point for future conside.
ration. Plaintiff nonsuited.

FAVt..;NC tr. EENNETT AND co.
This was an action by the Plaintiff to recover of the
Defendant, the price of a quantity of coffee sold to
the Defendants by Messrs. Kenyons, brokers for the
Plaintiff, undqr the following circumstances:
The Plaintiff employed the Messrs: Kenyons to sell
the coffee, which they did at a month's prompt.—
Upon this sale they did not state to the Defendants
who were the actual sellers, and the Defendants
having some othe: dealings with them, paid for
the coffee, by a bill, which became due six days
after the expiration e,f the month, and received the
coffees within the month. Messrs. Kenyons be-
coming bankrupts, the Plaintiff resorted to the De-
fendant in this action for payment, contending that
the payment to the brokers was not According to
the fair course of the trade, nor according to the terms,
of the contract for, that although the brokers' prin-
cipal was not known, yet it.had been known that the
Messrs. Kenyons sold as brokers, the payment to them
instead of the pinciPal, could only be legal if made
ptecisely according to the terms of the sale, which
was at a month prompt.
On the part of , the Defendant several riercialits'
were 'called to spew, that upon dealings for a month's
proont, the purchaser might usually obtain the goods
of the broker by paying him ,cash before the time, and
he.would bp allowed the discount.
.14)Ta EiIANI)OROUGH clearly stated the law to be,
that tliP broker could not exceed his authority, and
the pan" knowing he was a brolcer, was boUnd tripay
onfy accordisig to the toms of sale. He might have
piid in cash before the *lntl:find blitaine4the 'goods,
but tlse.br4er had .no right.to ettend creek be-
yond that time.
There , appeared, howper,
.some. very imperfect
evidenCe, that Kert:tops had discounted the bill given
in yaymenfi but tnis was not very clearly established.
the Jury, against 1144 t Lordship's opinion, gave a
verdict for the Defendaptc.

/Nail" v. COWIE.
Mr. ATTORNIY 01919141 AL and Mr. Serjeant MAR.
SHALL stated, that this was an action upon a policy
of insurance of the ship Cheswick, from Liverpool
to St. Domingo, ani home with a cargo of goods
from thence. It was admitted.by all parties, that at
St. Domingo 5.5 bales of cotton had been put on
board as part of the ship's cargo, and that the re-,
mainder of the cargo would in all probability have
been shortly shipped and insured, had not the ship
in that interim been lost, with that part of her outward
cargo which remained to be baytered for her home-
ward, and the wrecks of which sold as damaged goods
for more than the amount of the insurance. The
Defendant had paid the Plaintiff the.valne of that
part of the homeward cargo which had been lost ;
and this action was to recover the, emainder of the
insurance money, upon those goods which on ac-
count of the ship's loss could not be brought home.
Mr. Serjeant MaasuALL put the present case a; com-
pletely parallel to one of Horncastic v. Sways ti
East's Rep.) when the Plaintiff was held to be ent
titled to reeover.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he had more doubt that
file Cott of that case was incorrect, than that in the
present the Plaintiff could not recover. This action