The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-10 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, JULY 9.—Wind S.W. moderate.—No arrivas
or railings.
PORTSMOUTH, Jinx 9.—Wind W.—No arrivals.
FALMOUTH, JULY B.—Wind N.--Sailed, the Princess
Elizabeth packet, for the Afediterranean.
BRISTOL, JULY 9.--Arrived, the David Dunscomb,
from Jamaica ; Steadfast, Barton, from Barbarloes ; Hero,
Aloorsom, from Miramichi ; and Betsey, Howlett, from
Cadiz.

Laanonx, JUNE 27.—The Echo, Reed, was struck
by lightning last night, and the main-mast shivered.

GRA YESEN D, JULY 9.—Arrived the William Jolliffe,
Donne, from Hamburgh ; and the Lord Melville, Middle-
ton, from Calais. Sailed the Burrel, Metcalf, for Batavia;
Nimble, Wrightson, for Seville ; and Premier, Edgar, for
Malta.

VEsseLs SPOKEN wrrn.---The Amity, Richards, from
London to Penzance, with loss of bowsprit. Isaac Hicks
and Robert Seourfield, from Liverpool to New York, on
the 19th ult„ in lat. 42., long. 42. George the Third,
Clark, from Jamaica, in the Gulf; Plover of Halifax, for
Demerara, on the 16th ult., in lat. 34., long. 44. Lean-
der, from Oporto to Newfoundland, on the 20th ult., in
lat. 44., long 26.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
THE ANN OF WHITEHAVEN.

This was a suit brought by the assignees of the
owners of a moiety of the ship Ann, to recover the
amount of a bond, passed in April 1826, to secure
the return of the vessel to Whitehaven, the port to
which she belonged.

Dr. JESSE Ai3DAms now moved the Court to
declare the bond forfeited, as the vessel had not
returned within a reasonable time, which he
argued was the true construction of the bond.
The facts were, that the master, who was the
owner of the other moiety of the vessel, declared,
before he took her abroad, that she should never
return to England. She sailed from Whitehaven
to Gibraltar, laden with coals, from thence to Leg-
horn, from that port to Halifax, and back to Leghorn,
where she was hired to a merchant for an unlimited
period at a monthly freight. When these circum-
stances were added to the declaration of the master
that the vessel should never return to this country,
his intention was put beyond all doubt. It was no an-
swer to say that the ship was now on her return
home, for the same statement had been made months
ago, and without foundation. The terms of the
bond, he insisted, implied that the vessel was to re-
turn after the first voyage, and in default of that re-
turn the bond was legally forfeited.
Dr. LUSHINGTON on behalf of the owner of the
other moiety of the vessel, contended that no
grounds had been shown for declaring the bond
forfeited. The vessel was now on her return from
Leghorn to the port of Belfast, and would have re-
turned to Whitehaven long before now, but for the
difficulty of getting a freight from the Mediterranean,
which was quite notorious to all persons acquainted
with mercantile affairs.

Whitehead (the master) denied having declared
that he intended to keep the ship abroad for ever,
and had exerted himself to the utmost to procure
her speedy return.
Lord STOWEL said, that as the ship was now stated
to be actually on her return from Leghorn, it might
be as well to wait for a fortnight before declaring the
bond forfeited.
Dr. JENNEB. said the oily objection was, that the
case might be thrown over the long vacation.
Lord STowEL—The case shall not be thrown
over the vacation. If the vessel does not arrive
within a port of Great Britain in one month, I shall
declare the bond forfeited.

THE SCIENCE.
This was a claim for salvage, brought by the crew
of a fishing-smack against the owners of the brig
Science, which, on her voyage from Sunderland to
London, laden with coals, got on the Gunfleet
Sands, off the coast of Essex, and made signals of
distress. The fishing-smack went to her assistance,
and the vessel and cargo, which were valued at
i,6001., were saved.
The COURT awarded the sum of 701. to the
salvors.

There were some other salvage cases disposed of,
the particulars of which are of no public interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

HUOIRES V. CUTTEN.

This was an action of trespass, brought by the
plaintiff against the assignees of a bankrupt named
Larmouth, for having forcibly seized certain goods
which the plaintiff claimed to be his.
Mr. Sergeant TADDI stated the case. The plaintiff
had been the sbopman of Larmouth, and pur-
chased his business from him some time previously
to his bankruptcy ; notwithstanding which, the as-
signees of Larmouth had thought proper to seize and
dispose of all the property found on the premises.
Several witnesses were examined on the part of
the plaintiff, but their prevarication was so gross,
that the Jury, without entering into the merits of
the defendant's case, declared that, in their opinion,
the alleged transfer was made with a fraudulent in-
tent. They accordingly found a verdict for the de-
fendant.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that in the whole
course of his experience he had never witnessed
such gross and abominable perjury, and but for the
hope that the persons guilty of it would be prose-
cuted for it and for a conspiracy, he would commit
some of them to the Fleet prison for the remainder
of the Sittings.

REILLY V. GAY.
This was an action by the plaintiff, who was the
solicitor to the plaintiff in the former cause, against a
tradesman residing in Hounslow, for the amount of
a bill of costs. It was distinctly proved, that Reilly
had agreed to take as a compensation for his trouble
half what he should succeed in recovering for the
defendant.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, under these circum-
stances, directed the plaintiff to be nonsuited.
WRILLICS V. OXE, IMSBITT, AND MI MS.
This was an action of trespass, brought by
Weilles, a schoolmaster, residing at Chelsea, and by
his wife, against the defendants Gee, Nesbitt, Cooper, and INl`Beath.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case. The
defendants had conspired for an unworthy ob-
ject, which they had carried into effect by violence ; the plaintiff was an infirm man,
living in a small house at Chelsea; he had
some transactions with Gee, who produced a note
of hand from him, as well as from Mrs. Weilles.—
Upon the day which gave occasion for the present
action,
three of the defendants
proceeded to
Chelsea, and after arresting the plaintiffs, forced
the, to execute. a warrant of attorney, trans-
ferring all the r property as a security for
h
the amount of
t e two writs.
This warrant of
attorney was subsequently cancelled, with costs
against Gee, under the direction of the Court of
The Learned Sergeant
would prove
King's Bench.
case by the Sheriff's officers the facts of the
cers, who
accompanied the defendants, and then leave it to the
Jury to say what
damages the plaintiffs were
conduct.
Joseph en-
titled to recover for
s Joseph AVarmsleY—
lam a sheriff's officer. On
the 29th of February, 1826, I was called on, on the
part of Mr. Gee, to execute processes
against the
wife—one for the sum of 191. 195.,
plaintiff and his
and the other for 131. 14s. The writs were brought
to me by a Mr. Nesbitt, one of the defendants.
I was desired to attend on the next day, at
the office of Gee, who is an attorney, residing
went and found
in North-street, Red Lion-square. I
Nesbitt, Cooper, and M'Beath there. Cooper is a
clerk of Gee's. At Nesbitt's desire I accompanied
7
hen we
them to Marlborough-square, Chelsea. W
her house.
arrived there Mrs. Weilles was Pingi.ntothe door
I immediately arrested her; Mr. W. openedli I arrested
forthe purpose of admittingher, upon w it e
h prisoners
him also. I was about to bring away
Nesbitt pro-
who were very much annoyed indeed..
Posed that security by them, and
should be given .
said that if they made over their furniture to. him
(1'4449 it should be a discharge to the action.—