The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-14 00:00:00

31Or r. WYO.

ME. POLLOCK mentioned this case, which had
been before detailed by Mr. Brougham. It was an
action tried at Lancaster, on a policy of insurance
upon a ship, called the Wespray, from Gibraltar to
North America, and back again to any Port of dis-
charge in Great Britain. The ship had been an-
chored in the winter time, at a place called the
Ledge, in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, and had
struck there, on a rock, and suffered considerable
damage, which made the master and crew abandon
her. The ship had been saved by the master, of
another vessel, and had been repaired by means of
money taken on bottomy, and was in the harbour
of Liverpool at the time the action was brought.—
The verdict was for the plaintiff as for a total loss.
The new trial was moved on evidence discovered,
after the verdict, that the Ledge was not in the port
of St. Andrews, or Bay of Fundy, to whith the
Polity was limited ; and that, therefore, there was
a deviation.
Lord TENTERDEN—We have considered this
case, and it appears that there was considerable
negligence on the part of the defendant, in prepa-
ring his evidence for the first trial, we therefore, Can-
not send the case again to a Jury.—Rule refused.

DOE AND PLUNKETT v. LORD G. CAVEINIDISH.
This was an ejectment tried at the Lancaster AO'
sizes, for the recovery of certain estates in that
county, now in the occupation or possession of
the defendant. The lessor of the plaintiff claim-
ed the estates as heir at law of Sir William
Lowther, who died about sixty years ago, having
made is will, by )ylija, alter creating ti term Q 1 20V

years.for,the payment of certain annuities, he limited
an estate for life in-the premises to one of the Ca-
vendishes for life, to another of them for life, and tip
a third a remainder in tail. The first who hid ate
estate for life and the remainder-man in tail joined
in suffering a recovery, which turned' the remainder
into a fee.' The lessor of the plaintiff proved that
she was the heir at law of Sir William Lowther,
but the recovery was set up in bar of her claims.—
Verdict for the defendant.

Mr: PollocK stated; that taking a great - portion
of these estates to be copyhold, as they would pro-
bably turn out to be, then the recovery, to be worth
any thing, must, as to these lands, have been suffered
in the Lord's Court, if any recovery at all could be
suffered of copyhold lands. The general impression
among the profession certainly was, that copyhold
estates were not within the Statute de donis. On
these two grounds he maved for a new trial. -
Lord TENTERDEN—Take a rule to show cause
why judgment and execution shPuld not be entered
for the plaintiff as far as respects thise customary
lands. That is the utmost we can do for you.-,
Rule granted accordingly.
sorrow V. TOONER AND oruaas•

Mr. POLLOCK moved fora rule to show cause,
why the verdict in this case, which-was for the
plaintiff for 2501., should not be set aside. and a non-
suit entered, or why a new trial should not b 6 had ?
—Rule refused.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information should not b
filed. against Nathaniel and Henry Merridew, father.
and son, trading in partnership as printers, in the
city of Coventry. This
.application was. made by
desire of the Magistrates of the county of Warwick,
and he should therefore confine himself to that part
of the libel which reflected on them. In pursuance
of an Act of ,Parliament passed some years ago, td
make provision for the accommodation of the Judges
at Warwick, a sum of about 12,0001. had been ex-
pended, and the Magistrates to whose administration
this affair had been confided, had erected a house
suitable to the purpose, and placed a person of the
name of Holmes, to whom, under the authority of
the Act of Parliament,- they bad given an adequate
salary, to keep and preserve it for the use of the
Judges. The Magistrates who attended the Ses-
sions at Warwick had also been in the habit, since
this house had been built, of receiving accommoda-
tion there from Holmes, but they had always paid
for it as at a public tavern, whether it was lodging
or refreshment, breakfast, dinner, or supper. The
amount of the libel was, that these. Magistrates had
spent .12,000/. of the public money for their own ac-.
commodation, to provide themselves board and lodg-
ing, under pretence of accommodating the Judges.=—
Rule to shew cause granted.