Star.
London, England, 1823-01-27 00:00:00

understood it, was the senior proprietor as to pur-
chasers, and Mr. Street the next senior preprietor.-:=
Mr. Street was senior proptimor of the shares from

IS to 24; and therefor, had aright of pte-entptioa
as to those before Mr. Daniel Stuart, and consequently
before the plaintiff. - It was clear, therefore, that Mr•

plaintur. - IC w _
Daniel Stuart and Mr. Street were both senior pror
prietors with respect to the whole 24 shares ;but both
could not have the option as to all the shares. They.
neither of them wished to relinquish their rights, and•
they agreed that one should lie senior proprietor as
to one 12 shares, and the other as to the other 12
shares. if he was incorrect in this view of the subject,
he should wish to be set right. •
Mr. list.r. concluded his reply, by alluding to the
claim of Mr. Mudford, and expressing his surprise
that that Gentleman had not previously asserted his
right of pre-emption.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR believed he had in his re-
collection all the important facts of the case, and,
there were two main questions to be considered.
Ist, Whether this was a case upon which it became
the duty of a Court of Equity to declare its opinion
as to the right of pre-emption claimed by the plain-
tiff? 2d, If there were such a case, what was in that
respect to be the judgment of a Court of Equity?
As the case was argued so long ago as the 19th of
November, he felt unwilling, without refreshing his
memory, to give judgment on this important ques-
tion. He desired, therefore, that the papers might
be handed to him, and he nfould in a very few days'
endeavour to
_give judgment. At present he con-
fessed he had a strong impression as to both the
points lie had stated ; but he would not declare what
that impression was without first reading the papers.
Mr. ALAI called his Honour's attention to the
prayer of the bill, which was for an injunction to
restrain the defendants from assigning over, or dis-'
posing of, their respective shares, otherwise than
to the plaintiff.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought that was a relief
to which the plaintiff could not be- by possibility
.en-
titled. On both side:, as it appeared to him, the
question orpre-emption had been mistaken. He
should read the papers carefully, because he was
well aware this was a nice question, and, in fact, one
which did not belong to this Court. But it happened
that the relation in which the patties stood to each
other made it impassible that, in point of form, the
question could be entertained in a Court of Law.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 23.
COLGRAVE V. DIOS SANTOS.
Mr.GURNEY moved for a Itule to shew cause why
the verdict for .the plaintiff should nut be set 'aside,:
and a nonsuit entered. This was an action to recover
the value of fixtures appurtenant to a house in Essex,
which the plaintiff sold to the4letendant, without de-
manding any remuneration for the articles. At the
trial the question raised was, whether the fixtures,
consisting chiefly of grates and ranges, were parcel
of die freehold, and therefore passed with the house
to the purchaser, or whether they were to be re-
garded as personal chattels, forming the ground of
a distinct claim, which might be the subject of an
action of trover. The Jury then round a verdict for
the plaintiff, under the direction of the Lard Chief
Justice. 'who gave tire defendant leave to move for a
nonsuit.—The Court granted a Role to shew cause.
TUE KING V. MARTIN.
Mr. WA Liman moved Tot a Rule to shew cause
why Moses Martin, against whom an indictment for
larceny had been found, should not he admitted to
bail. He did not apply for a Ilab.eas Corpus in this
case; as lre.thoughyahe Court would be of opinion
that the circumstances rendered such) a preliminary
needless. Mr. Martin, the defendant, who was a
confectioner, had taken a quantity of his goods for
sale to the shop of a person named White, and had
an interview with his wife. Mrs. White became the
purchaser of confectionary to the amount of 3/. but
not having that sum in Mimi, she paid partly in
money and partly in goods. In a month after, he
called again, to seek for another order, when, to his
astonishment, Mrs. White charged, him with having
stolen twenty shillings from her at his last visit. This
was a most singolar accusation, coming as it did'
from a woman who, at thetiMe of the pretended theft
had not money. enough to pay for the confectionary
' she had bought of him. She, however, took him to
Union Hall, where the charge was heard and dis-
missed by the sitting Magistrate. Not satisfied with
this decision, Mrs. White pt eferred • a bill 01 indict-
ment at the Surrey Sessions, which was found by the
Grand Jury. At the Sessions Martin attended, with-
Counsel ready to enter on his defence, but he was
iufot med that an application would be made, on be-
half of the pmsec.utor, to poitpone the trial on the
ground that a material witness was absent, and to
cause hint, in the interval, to be committed to prison.
He accordingly withdrew, and now applied to the
Court to prevert hiM from being improperly ar-
rested and confined in prison on a most absurd and
groundless charge. •
Tire Count grinned a certiortin to remove the in•
dictment, and a Rule to shew cause why Martin
sl;ould not be admitted to bail.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JANUARY 23.

ing 1
ths

t the vessel was serf ou* iittred,rossl-pat7t of
30. effected. A Captago ense.
navigator, who wazen the spot. - -.oostiaencleil
tad/ Zankes this
Olt

ae Captain of the .4 not of yielto . ds
!advice, for that if be , the Pico-A iratty
Court, he should sustain'many- impoaitioart -and I.e

also told him, after examining the ship, that she
might be repaired on the spot ;'and he added an offer,
that he would in his own ship, then in the port, take
the cargo on to England. The Captain, however, put
her into the Vice-Admiralty Court, which decreed'
her sale and that of the cargo. Yet, according to the'
evidence of Capt. Manning. who brought his vessel to
England after with a cargo (which shewed he did,
not want one in the first instance) instead of being'
broken up, the Lady Bankes Was repaired by those
who purchased her, and was, when he left the Mau-
ritius with a new cargo on board, ready for a new;
voyage. It was under these circumstances that the
Jury found the Owners liable for the act of the Cap-
tain, upon the same principle that the employers of
any other carrier were bound by his acts. The Court
were, however, ready to grant the rule, without say-
ing anything upon its' ultimate effect.
Mr. Justice PARK—It has been only of late years
understood, that a Captain could hypothecate his
cargo. A great deal is to be said upon the extent to
which he can bind his Owners. A luminous adjudi-.
cation upon that subject has been given by the present
Lord Stowell, in the Admiralty Court.
Lard Chief Justice DALLAS sail, that the lumi-
nous review of that subject by the eminent Judge at
the head of the Court of Admiralty of Great Britain,
was not only an honour to that distinguished man,-
but to the country to which he belonged. It Wid be-,
come, in fact, a past of the Law of Nations, from
the circumstance of the station which this, country
held in the maritime scale of the world.
HOWARD AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY.
Saturday being appointed by the Commissioners
at their last meeting for the final examination of the
bankrupts, when it was expected a full statement of
their affairs would be laid before their creditors, a
very numerous attendance of creditors took place.
After a short time had been spent in receiving proofs
of debts, Mr. Wittsc, who is Counsel for the as•
signees, addressed the Commissioners. lie said the
Commissioners were already aware of the multipli-
city and complication of the bankrupts accounts:
ever since they had delivered in that statement by
which they declared they were ,:etermined to abide,
the assignees had been most diligent in their investi-
gation of the statement of the several accounts of the
bankrupts with their creditors and debtors, which
had been so delivered in, and Mr. Gibbs was in the
course of giving the assignees every assistance and
information which they desired.- With this informa-
tion and assistance, the assignees had made consi-
derable progress in the arduous duty they had un-
der taken ; but it would still take a considerable time
before the whole of the accpunts could be so fully
investigated as to enable the assignees to come to a
certain conclusion on the statement delivered in by
the bank' yids. (Ile Learned Gentleman hare inti-
mated that he did not think that less than two months
would be ~tiflicient for the purpose.
Mr. TALBOT GLAscoca, who attended for Mr.
Stubbs, whO had just proved a debt of £9Th on the
bankrupts' estate, objected to the delay. Ile said it
WAS now two years since the first commission issue
against the 'rarritrupts, and nearly a year and a ha:
since the present commission issued ; and he knew-
that several of the creditors, who were his clients,
were much dissatisfied at such a length of time being
allowed to elapse without 'a dividend being made, or
even the bankrupts having passed their final exami-
, nation. Ile knew that till the bankrupts passed their
final examination, they could not be made to give up
Ithe property in their possession. (The Commissioners
started with surprise, and said that was not the llsv.)
Mr. GLAt•COCK resumed: he came from Ireland—
a bankrupt country, where bankruptcy was as well
understood as in any part of the world ; and he knew
that there it was quite a common practice for bank-
rupts to delay their final examination, that they might
retain property in their haiTds, which could not he
taken from them until theyhad passed that examination.
Mr. Commissioner SEATON to Mr. Glascock..—
Pray, Sir, are there any assignees appointed to a
baakrupt's estate in your country ?—( el langh).
Mr. Commissioner TREBECK asked Mr. Glascock
whether he had seen the statement delivered in by. the
bankrupts ? Mr. Glascock admitted he had not.
Mr. Taenecr pointed to a heap of written paper
that lay on the table : anil. told Mr. Glascock that
WAS the balance sheet delivered in by the bankrupts:
ever since it had been presented, the assignees hack
used their utmost diligence in its investigation; and
their Counsel had jtist then declared they were re-
ceiving the utmost assistance from the bankrupt fply
whom it was prepared ; but it was still necessary
that they should have a longer time allowed for ex-
amination before they could decide with certainty on
its correctness.
Atter some consultation, the Cons...._
pointed the It of April for the next meeting.
DEVON QUARTER SESSION&

!_

A CAPTAIN'S POWER OVER /113 CARGO. TORTURE TO EXTORT CONFESSION.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGUAN moved for a rule to shew
Robert Potter, an apprentice boy, was indicted for
'cause why the verdict obtained at Guildhall, before stealing some money, the property of a servant living
the Lord Chief Justice, 'should not be set aside, with the same master, in the parish of Cotleigh, near
and a new trial granted, in the case of the Lady Honiton. It was a case of suspicion only, as no mo-
Bankes, bound from Calcutta to England, when the
ney was found on the boy, nor was there any other
lOwners were field liable for the loss upon the sale of fact to prove his being the thief. It appeared that,
a cargo shipped for England. He contended, that after threats and other means had been resorted to,
the Lord Chief Justice had misdirected the Jury; the parish constable, a mad orthe name of Burrows,
for that, according to the evidence, the Captain was was sent for, who *as guilty or the following atro-
net liable, nor could the Owners, as the salt of the cious cruelty to extort a confession ::—He tied small
ship and cargo had been effected by an order of the cords round the thumbs of the boy, by which be sus-
Vice-Admiralty Court of the Mauritius. .
pended him to a peg in the wall, with his toes just
The LORD Clll Er JUSTICE said, that as the Court, touching the ground • sad whilst in this state, the
owing to the importance of the question, were dig-•\ day betore Christmas-day, he poured cold water'
posed to grant the Rule, he might be permitted to down the boy's sleeves at the wrist, so as to run over
state the manner in which he had left the case to the his preson. Undet thii tortire he extoited some sort
Jury.—This ship, the Lady Bankes, had taken in a 1 o 1 confession from the child, who was therenpon corn-
cargo in the East Indies, to be delivered in England ; mitted to prison ; but of course this could not avail in
she put in, owing to the severity of the weather, to a Court of Justice, and there ivas no other evidence.'
the Mauritius, and was met, as is• usual in other The boy wisinstiautly acquitted, and; in his turn,
places, in the Isle of %%Tight for instance, by the boats was about to be the prosecutor, but the matter was
of different merchants, who contended for her ma- I compromised by the constable pa) ins him i.:13.
nagement. When the Captain got into the port, it
was the general opinion, that had he remained at sea _ ..-.-..... ---..
eight hoes more, he would have risked the ship and
.Through an oppsiti
oon among the coaches, gigs,
crew. fie was advised by the merchants to petitioi ece..between Southatieids and Sunderland, Maw
Sunderland,
the Vice-Admiralty Court. to otiker a sale, it appear., gers ate sometimes au—led inside fattens item I 1 ,

•.•