Star.
London, England, 1807-06-09 00:00:00

COURT OF, COMMON PURRS, JUNE 6.

LAW INTILLIG ENCE. • • •
' • aft.

COURT- OW Min BENCH JUNE 6.

0&0111111.0! LICMIWOILTA.
The-Pinintiff. was a feaman on board the neutral
Swedithanerchasit (hip. Speculation, and this a&ion
waabr to recover the firm or for wages
due- The ,pendant was Captain, and 44 4ngtgesi
the Plaintiff at Arnfterdaa.,, to fail with him on a
voyage tithe Welt Indies, at a certainfam per month,
and bothipar tits tigued articles for that purpote. The
Specelation failed from Amaerdam, ands in comic
of liabe.4rriveci at Witmar, whole her dellination was
changed, ands. Ittlead,of proceeding to the Weft In•
dies,4 he Platotif was informed the was ordered to the
Eaft, to,iatid her cargo as.* Cape of Good Hope,
And from thence proceed tor „Batavia, return to the
Cape, and ultintately cad her voyage at Witmer.—
The Plaintiff, before. the CeompAny of Elders, at Wit•
mar, undertook this voyage, and hod fo far accom-
plifhed it, that the Speculation arrived in the Chan-
nel, where the was taken by an naglith privateer and
parried into Dartmouth. The Defendant deeming the
pretence of his feamen needles/ evidence to the relict.
ration of his veffel in the Court of Admiralty, detained
the Plaintiff, as well as others, fimilarly fituated, at
Dartmouth, five fix months, when the Speculati,m, un-
der the care of a prize mailer, was ordered to proceed
to the river Thames; but before the failed, the Defen-
dant paid the Plaintiff part of his wages, promifing
the whole when she voyage was completed. They
arrived Cafe in the river Thames; and the Defendant,
anxinus to render the fituation of his feamen as com-
fortable as poffible, lodged and boarded them with a
perlon at Poplar, allowing for each one guinea per
week. In this fituation they remained for tome time,
apparently pettedly fathfied, when, fuddenly, they
left it, without giving the Defendant any notice t nor
was he acquainted with their retreat, till the Plain-
tiff bad commenced thi, action. The demand was
refilled, on the ground that the voyage was not com-
pleted, and thy the plaintiff had no right t • defert
from the lervice of the vette!, till her late was de.
'tided in the Court of Admiralty ; nor even then
without permilliori of the defendant ; and that the
plaint ff had forfeited his wages by fo doing.
Sir laws. MANSFIBLD (lid, the maritime law was
clear on this i#9 i t . If a Iceman undertook a voyage,
and deferted before that voyage was completed, he
could not recover, by law, his wage,.
Mr. Serjeant Bray, for die plaintiff, infified, that
his orient had a right to recover what was due to
him, from the time he entered into the lint agree-
ment at Amfterdam to go to the. Well Indies, till it
was rendered null, by a fecond, at Wifmar.
The Learned Judge, in addrefEng the Jury, ob.
(erred, that the Defendant had a4led very honourably
to his feamen, by allowing a guinea a week for their
board. With refped.to tbgit Chalk voyage, there was
no fuch agreement produced; no evidence to tub-
fiantiate that fuch a voyage .was in agitation t nor
did it appear that the plaintiff had made any claim,
till that moment : indeed there was.ressfou to belitte
it was a fabrication altogether. . . .

ISAAC SCOT'? Ile tortnyt AND DONITILLI.
Our Readers vislirecollett that we have hall fre-
quent occafion ttii hbfice thirattlion,' brought again*
the defendants,' is the latiSheriffs of Middlefir, for
a falfe return to ajferi facia:. A writ had. been iffued
again(' the effeft. of George Colman. the younger,:
Efq. which was ftated to be the duty of ihe deka- ,
dant, in execute upon his property in the '
market Theatre.' Upon examination, they' fauna,
that Mr. Colman had only an intereft in Mist toncerit
for a term of years, which they conflated. not tan-
gible, and they therefore returned the writ, cridenfed
nulla lona. This return, it was eontentied on 'the
part of the plaintiff, was falfe, and that inch interea
as Mr. Colman had,might be taken in executiothend ati
aftion wastrought again(' the Sheriffs in confequence.
At the : rial, a verdift was found for the plaintiff ; and
during the left term a new trial was movedforon the
ground that'by all the cafes on the books, it I*as de-
cided that an equitable intereft for a term of years
on an eflate, was not the fubjeft of feizure under a
writ of Jeri facia:. • This point was argued at confi-
derable leng'h on bath fides, but the decificin of the
Court was deferred until this term. •
Lord ELLS! SORO UGI H in delivering the judgment,
after reeding the cafe, kid, that the point to be de-
cided wail, if the Plaintiff under ill the-circumflances
(fated, *ere 'or watt not entitled to recover, and if I
the opinion of the Coati ()Mold be in tbd affirmative,
Shen the Verdift foundfor the plaintiff was io eland;
bit if in the negatiie, then* new trial was to be
g•ranted. The. queltion of law silting upon the faes
Thom and it was whether ibe refiduary
nefiefil: intereft of Mr. George Colman, after the
bizirn'inn eozfecaultlionthefortrtthiftes
ickttofsitabse p.laiSinietiffto•
op* Ini.bther words, whether an equitabk intereft
M' a tint of years could be the ftNeEt of file
under a wait of fgri facia:. In order to make any
property tangible by the Sheriff,* it was ahfolutcly
neeeffary that it fhould be of fuch a nature as to be
capable of being converted into money by file ; but,
on the contrary, in the cafe before the Court, there
was not a tingle innance to be found in the whole
hillory and praftice ,f Courts of Common Law,
where it had beets recognifed that fuch an intereft as
that of Mr. Colman, an equitable intereft in a term of
years only, could be feleable, and that which was not
Likable, could sot be feizable in fatisfaftion of the
debt a creditor. Under cireumftances of that kind
die Sherif had, and could have no opportunity of
entptirlng into, or means of knowingthe nature of
the infe&ft, the legal claims it might be fubjed to, or
fiercely any fad belonging to it : he mull be totally
ignOrani of that which belongs to every other (pecks
of property. If authority were neceffary to decide a
point Al plain, the cafe of Shirley v. Watts, (3 Atk.
aofi) Was amply fufficient. In the abfence, therefore,
of any authority to fay that an equitable intereft was
rateable to anfwer a common law fuit, the Court
determine that the return of nalla honer, the defendant
poffeitng no other property, was a valid retorts, and
that the verdift for the plaintiff mutt be let afide, and-
s new trial granted.

After a Sew minutes- confultasion, bow's er,•the
Jury returned a verdkt for the plaintiff-71. es.
Sir J. MAIISFIGLD afked the Jury how they made
that calculation ? The Foreman aefwered, for the"
plaintiff's voyage from Amflerdarst to Wifmar, there
being no evidence to prove that he did not enter him
fuch an agreement, nor was there any proof that h,
• TN! KUM Si TR t PARISH OP IRITRa ever received any compenfation for it. ~
JOHNSON V. NOCARTY.
This Ws striii'd the fetilement of a pauper.- ' This, as we have already Dated, was an affirm c
Two Magiaratel of the tousityof Kent had made a contras entered into by the defendant, to deliver
an order for the removal of iffilliam 'Harris froth the
dial M
the plaintiff's vetlel of a quantity of coals in five
parith of Cranbriollii a A d
I, which order It appeared he had been prevented fro per.
the Quarter Sefffoits hid tonfltined Tubjea to the I:yre:li from per.
his contrail by the default of another potion
opinion .of the .0
ourt upon a cafe which Dated, that ' concerned in the contrite!: and the Court decided,
die father iit the pauper Harris, in his lifetime, was that the aann could. not be fultained againa the de-
in the habit of wandering about' the country, without
. fondant. I'bc verdia given at the trial for the plain•
any Said Place of abode; that durinic this vagrancy tiff was let aftJe, and a nonfuit entered.
Harris *is born, .and that !viten palling the paridi of
Erithihisfatter hid, to hint," that is *here you was ACM" 7.-;-11IITRRY V. TOCKelt.
This
.w,as an altion brought by Mr. Bayley againa
bbrit, hi ihe parifh of Eritli."- The quenion, there-
fore:for thf decilion of the Court was, if this decla- a Mr. . ticker, an attorney, the grounds of which
were theft : a Mr. Richard Hilt, an attorney, had an
reit* It thelither; related by the ton, were evidence
anion againa a Mr. Parliyis, for whom Mr. William
tato the gape of that ton's birth, ftifficient to gain
him 4th tileinent in the with of Erich ? Bayley, the prefent plaintiff, became bail. Betides
which, there were feveral other actions in which this
Maim deny and Anoaaws, in fupport of the Parfons' had been arreDed, and in fome of which, this
order of removal, contended, that h was decided by
..Mr. Bayley had, along with others, alfo been bail
• .
agreat number o' cafes upon this fubjea, that the for him. The bail becoming anxious for their own
declaration of the pment as to the time of the With fafety and fecutky, a meeting took place between
of the child was good evidence, and upon the fame Patrons, Bayley, and a Mr. John Hill, one of the
priacip)e tlie Court Mutt be of opinion that the de- h bait,
ot et at the chambers of Mr. Tucker, who was
. . .
titration o the parent as to the place of the birth of prilins's attorney, upon the fubjea of rendeting
the Chad ias eq'ially valid.
.. arfons in difcharge of his bail. Tacker laid, be
Lord ELLEN/MOOCH—Can you cite a cafe where would not air a peg until he was paid 351. Upon
that has been determined ? this, 201. were paid by Parfcns himfelf, and 41. cos.
Metal. TARDY and Anneaws replied, that no de• was paid by the bail. Mr. Tucker having agreed to'
eifion of that patticular point had taken plaice, but accept of the& rums, amounting to 241. cos. as the
they Mentioned the cafe' Stephens v. Mnfc,' (Cowp. total charges in rendering PM fans in five different ac-
pp.) where it was decided that the declaration of Lions ; at the fame time a ffuring the bail that they
tile parent as to the time of the birth was admiffible were perfealy fecore, and might go home and fleep
teftitnony. 'This cafe fell entirely within the reafon quietly. It .afterwards tinned out, however, that
of a cafe of ejet9ment, where, when the queftion was Mr. Tucker only furrendered Parfons in four the
if a party died abroad or not, the hearfay evidence anions which depended in the Court of King's Bench,
of the.patent was chattantly deemed fufficient. leaving the fifth one, which depended in this Court,
Lord EstAnsotioncie—" We find in this cafe that in which he did not furrender him, on account of a
the father of the pauper is pa writ of error being then pending. MI. Hill, the at-
ffing.by Erich. and he
torney and original Plaintiff againft Parfon's, there
lays to Ms ion, 6 You *ere "horn in Erich.' It baa
been exprefsly decided in the cafe of i the Xinirer. time afterwards fued out a writ of fcire facia', and an
Chaddettqht' thiif . execution followed. Upon this happening, Bayley
icicle a declaration is not adini le.
went to Tucker, and acquainted him of the event,
Meffrs. Porcals and Bows, on the wpm.. conceiving that he had employed him as his attorney;
erred, that in orOer ha excite any doubt is the
OW that it was, therefore, his duty to free him from
minds Of trie Court, it was neceffary to bring the ail further trouble or expenfe. Mr. Tucker told him
prefent liihin rem of the excepted cafes where the
.. . to go to a Mr. Morgan, his former attorney, and de.
declaration of parents was deemed fufficient. It was fire. him. to apply to the Shetiff, and to have the
held in many cafes, that beatify evidence. might be money put into hit hands, and upon the matter being
admitted to proe the reputation of a tA, but not determined, the money would be relived. Bayley,
the fait Wolf.. A prlfoit mlght fpeak as to the belief however, hinted of doing this, went to Hill, the
of thi.eiiftence ail certaip meow, but it was held other attorney, who told him that Tucker was the
chit he cod not give iifflinoitas to what others
. man who ought to have paid him the money. Hill
Jeighe hive 4ieref the pc4mie of the cullom. ft was
. perfoaded *Bayley to employ him, and to put•tfid
mp lofty, that where a faEl like the preterit min • into his money
Ife tt ilia-diffeteut ways, hearlaT teffiniony co
.1
not
ye .r • env' it r from Tucker, and confequently the parent'
not be adinitted; *Mon was brought under the direelion of this Mr.
Lorri4l..etsanitonc u raid, that as this cafe might mu, in the name of Mr. Bayley, agatelk.d Pie refent
lie pf itry getwal iputtattance, and as the point bid Defendant.
neyeileen direky -.4lcided, the Coutt would take This *llion was lately tried by a Jnry, and -y, a vet.-
*pc helot! it 4livered its opinion. dig was even for the Plaintiff for all. The two'
. At one ittchelt the Indges of this Court attended principal' queltioni on the merits were, whether Mr.
e private conterence wi.h their brethren on the Bench . Tucker was employed by Bayley, as his attorner, fo
iii the Exchequer Chamber ; and at two o'clock the; as to maire.him refponfible I and next, whether the
Whitt Jultice went to Guildhall, to try Conte undo- ! ceindua of Barley, in not going to N4l-. Murgan, or
tended Gaffes. . / acting according to the direaistos given him, de-