The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-17 00:00:00

creditors as came in—namely, those creditors of the
fourth part, who executed the deed.
Mr. fEACOCK—I appear for the defendant William
Hitchcock, and I will shortly explain to you the view
upon which the plea is formed. It appeared the plain-
titf had a cause of action against the defendant fur a
misrepresentation; the declaration states that Thomas
Fearer and Thomas Lewellin were in partnership, and
that they were, about to dissolve partnership, and
did afterwards dissolve that partnership in 1837. It
then alleges that Thomas Fearer and Thomas Lewellin
were at that time indebted to the defendant and Richard
Leweliin in a sum of 3,0001. ; that the plaintiff was de-
sirous to enter into partnership with Fearer, and that
the defendant misrepresented the circumstances of
Fearer—that is the declaration. Now the answer to that is
this—that the plaintiff' and Fearer afterwards were in-
debted to the defendants and Richard Lewellin in
2,107/., and he was also indebted to William Nash and
other creditors to the amount of 40,0001. Then there was
a proposal made fur a composition, and it appears that
William Nash, who was one of the creditors, had
offered to become surety fur one of the instalments of
the composition. It appears that afterwards, and before
the creditors hail come in and consented to take the
composition, and before Nash had actually bound him-
self to any of the creditors, Nash refused to become
surety for the composition unless the plaintiff' would
give up any cause of action he might have against the
defendant in respect of the misrepresentation.
Mr. Enu.:—Any cause of action ?
Mr. PEACOCK—Any cause of action.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Has he given it up ? Has
the plaintiff released him ?
Mr. PEACOCK—No, my Lord, he has not released
him, but the plaintiff represents to Nash, that if he will
become security for him for the last of those instalments
to the defendant, and his other creditors, he represents to
Nash, he will give up the action as against the defendant.
Then the question is, whether, if Nash, confiding in that
stipulation, and the defendants also confiding in that,
came into a composition which is binding upon them,
and prevents them from suing the plaintiff for the full
amount of their debts, whether it would not be a fraud
upon. Nash, and those other creditors, who came into the
composition on the faith of that representation, that the
plaintiff, after they have done so upon the faith of that
representation, should violate that agreement he has
come to with Nash, and sue the defendant in this action
for the original cause of action. That is the question.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—This is a question between
the plaintiff and the persons with whom he made the
con tract.

Mr. PEACOCK—Yes, my Lord, and the defendant;
because if your Lordship will allow me to call your at-
tention particularly to this plea, you will perceive this
composition was a valid composition, and the defendant
came into this composition upon the faith of that repre-
sentation which had been made to Nash, that Nash came
into the composition also as one of the creditors upon
the faith of that stipulation, and Nash also gave his secu-
rity to the other creditors, which induced the other cre-
ditors to come in upon the faith of that representation.
The question is, is it not a fraud, when all these parties
have been induced to change their circumstances upon
the faith of this representation, that the plaintiff, imme-
diately he got them into that situation, should turn round
upon them all, and bring this action? That is the ques-
tion. Now there are many cases to show that an action
may be prevented, if that action would be a fraud upon
a third party. If it were alleged that, if the parties were
to bring an action, it would- be a fraud upon a third
party, that would be a defence to the action.
The LORD CUM BARD .—I am of opinion this plea is
bad upon the grounds stated in this demurrer. That the
plea may be double or multifarious cannot be a defence ;
the pleading in such a manner as to be an imperfect and
bad plea, does not necessarily prevent' its baitl double ;
and in my opinion, although the mode in winch this is
pleaded as a fraud upon the other creditors would not be
sustainable, yet it is the attempt of the defendant to
take that ground ; and he also so argues his plea. So
with respect to the question, whether he does not mean
to set up accord and satisfaction upon that ground, I
think it is bad. We shall have the question by and by,
whether accord and satisfaction be a good plea in this
swtion—whether this plea is good as accord and satis-
faction ? All I can say is, that, though generally speak-
ing a great deal of that which is stated upon this plea
might be evidence to point to a conclusion, yet the plea.
does not state it with sufficient distinctness, if it rested
only on accord and satisfaction: At all events the plea
is bad, being. double ; therefore I think the demurrer
must be allowed.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON.—According to the argument
there are three defences :—the agrTement with Nash that
he should become surety, in consideration of which the
party is not to proceed against the present defendant—
the agreement with the defendants themselves to make
out the debt for 11s. 6d. in the pound, with the additional
stipulation—and then the fraud upon the rest of the
creditors, as it is said, in entering into that arrangement
with the knowledge that this was the arrangement
between the present plaintiff and the defendant. The
plea sets up all these defences, and the argument sug-
gests all those are separate defences. It seems to me
the plea under all those circumstances is bad. The case
must turn' ultimately upon the agreement between the
parties, and it would be a lawful agreement if it were
with the knowledge of the rest of the creditors : that is
to say, the superior advantage which the defendant gets
over the rest of the creditors by having this demand
released, would be no answer, because, if the reason of
that stipulation were known to the creditors, there was
no fraud in it, because they entered into it with full
knowledge of what was done between the parties.
Mr. Baron- GURNEY—I am of the same opinion.
Mr. Baron RoLkt--4 am of the same opinion.

CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

•
SINGULAR, CHARGE or I'M/Ir.—Samuel Ogg, 30,
carpenter, Thomas Davis Morgan, 22, steward, Benjamin
Preelnt, 20, James Bottray, 17, Frederick Diggens, 20,
Peter Maybohm, 38, James Williams, 23, James Lotto, 46,
James Houghton, 22, Isaac Williams, 22, John Higgins, Erb,
Charles Johnson, 39, John Rutherford, 21, Ridtardlnkpen,
40, and Hugh Piper, 38, sailors, a set of fine-looking fellows,
who had been remanded from last session, stood indicted, for
that they being seamen ou board the ship Ann Hall, feloniously
and piratically did confine, on the 24th of January last, John
Francis Lazenby Arrett, the master, did keep him in confine-
ment thirteen days and nights. and did make a revolt in the
said ship upon the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Ad-
miralty of England.
Mr. Clarkson conducted the case for the prosecution, and
Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoners. ..
Mr. CLA RKSOW stated the case to the Jury. The vessel Ann
Hall, was a regular trader between Liverpool and Charleston.
In December last she left Liverpool on the voyage to Charleston,
and on that voyage the conduct complained of took place. Ills
Lordship would tell them, as a matter oflaw, that in order to make
out the charges against the prisoners, it was not at all necessary
to show that they intended to run away with the vessel. It
appeared that in the present case the prisoners had no such in-
tention, for notwithstanding that they kept the Captain eon-
fined, and had the opportunity of running away with her, they
took the vessel to the port of Charleston, whither she was
bound. He should leave it to the Jury to say, under the direction
of his Lordship, whether the conduct of the prisoners had been
such as to constitute the charge of piratically seizing the ship.
This prosecution had been instituted, not for the purpose of
punishing with any degree of severity the prisoners at the bar,
bat to hold out an example to people in their situa-
tion—an example which, for the protection of life and property,
it 11,16 necessary should be held ont—that they were not
on account of any supposed grievances, to take upon them-
selves to say that they would not work a ship on board where
they are sailors, and refuse to obey the commands of the
'stain. On the 22d of January, when the vessel was in the
;Vest...:vn Ocean, the first indication of disaffection, on the part
manifested itself to the Captain in the following
of the cre:'' .
g:
ave erders to shorten sail, and whilst
way : --The. (.....''tin
executed, Inkp
such ship as .this, ani en said, " D—m any
that order was is.fing
the place ii, comes from ; no b---r
shall ever get me to sail ul Pny b—.....e St. John ship for any
h--y 24 ss. a month." 'she captain' Asked him what he
They were
Meant by using language like that, and he' answered, " Oh, I
never testi no bad language—l'm a methoa.lo:"
I n
nkpe
then standing en the quarter-deck. The Capta:n said to him,
" This is no place for language like that—go for'as"(l."
made answer, " On board a merchantman I see no *:.4lfferenue
'atween aft and for'ard ; there's no quarter-deck on bc;:rd a
merchantman." The Captain did not reply to that, and tl,e
man went forward. On the evening of the same day,
a man named George Woods, who was a sailor on beard,
said "he wished a b—y flash of lightning would come
Ind take the mast nut of her." The Captain said that
was a very foolish thing to say, for if a flash of lightning
should destroy the mast, they would have to rig a new one.
The man replied • 'Oh, it wasn't the mast I meant, it was you."
The Captain then took him by the collar and asked him what
he meant by that. Woods immediately seized a piece of wood
and struck him across the nose, when the Captain knocked
Mut down. Inkpen then came up and said to %Voods " You
go away, and let me have a slap at the b—." Several other
cases of insubordination occurred, the mate and every soul on
board refusing tosobey orders, as the witnesses would prove.
The Captain shortly after called the men on to the forecastle,
and asked them why they struck work. They said that the
provisions were bad, that the beef and pork were not good, and
they could not work because they were all disease. The
Captain then went into the cabin to consider how he should
act, but when he wished to leave his cabin he found that the
door had been fastened. He broke open the door with an
axe, and then went upon deck, when he was immediately seized
by the crew, who pinioned his arms with ropes, and carried
him below, put him into his -bed, and there left him; they
shortly afterwards went down and removed the ropes, and put
handcuffs upon him. lie lay in those handcuffs all the night,
and was quite unable to help himself, and when he called out
for 9oteething to eat, they fed him with bits of meat uponda
fork, They then said, or affected to say, that he was;na.c.;
and one of them manufactured a strait-waistc in which
to o
they left him for one night and one day, when they
ti released
him, and occasionally, but very seldom, allowetdhel
upon deck, and when he did they always
prisoners
side of him. When the vessel arrived at Charleston.
was unlading and lading,
were placed in prison whilst th toesll placed sen
thei Ton eachg
board, when they would
they might work their way back
and when she was again ready saoio, the Consul told them that
do that. They had no objec-
racters ; but no, they would_nu
they
would not work; nor did
have an opportunity by good
octoduct of retrieving their cha-
racters;
to go back on board, b
tyres
...
ern,
-age and the Captain was obliged
the whole of the homeward voy ,
These they, with the exception of thr tth do one day's work on
w- s would be called who would
brief facts of the case. itnes,es
to get a fresh crew to work the vessel home. were the
more minutely detail them, and from their evidence it would