Star.
London, England, 1815-01-26 00:00:00

COP AtrBLLIONICA

•
L'OURT OP C N6-I"CERI;I:tAut-TtIART 114: - •
THlti ArrolittiltY•OßNßlLAl. V. Irns OORPORATioIF,OO
ItArriNGs.-011.11101 Or cONTrAtrr.
This was a Petitiodunder the late Act, 52d oFfh
tog, for granting more speedy relief and recteisi
the abuse of Public Charitable Institutions, by Petit-
lion, sanctioned by the ArroRmIt•OZRERAL, without
the circuity or expense of bill and information.
The Petition was supported by Mr. HART and
Mr. BELL, who moved for an order to commit to the
fleet Prison, Mr. Millward, a Barrister, one of the
Corporation, and aChief Officer thereof, for contempt
of Court in resisting an order, requiring him to de.
liver to, and lodge with a Master in Chancery, all
books, writings, papers, and vouchers relating to or
explanatory of the accounts constituting the matter
of this suit, which he had in his custody, power, or
pcscessi'cro, as a principal Officer of the Corporation,
and as holding several of the charity lands in ques-
tion that were devised to divers Charities in the pa-
rish of Hastings, and others about it, in Kent, being
ut of the dismembered Priory of Hastings and
Rye, or one of them.-
' Ml. Miliward Claimed in his affidavit the part he
held as a purchase for valuable consideration, arid).
out any knowledge, as he believed, of any charitable
claim by his late father, in the year 1775, after *
Decree of this Coutt, for selling tHe same.
Sir Sammy. RotettiTeAttrd lottetesotr opposed
the motion, and Itis•Lerdihip ponponestiedgatent.
AGAR w.•Tilit 11101111TIO-CASAA.GorINAGif. •

k

This was an applitation to the Court by the Plain-
Agar, to cothmit certain of the e.ompany's
ORicers to the Fleet Prison, for disobedience to the
-Order of this Court, in setting out the line of Canal
'through the Plaintiff's estate. The CHANCZLLOR
gated, that it appeared the Defendants had shewn
,the greatest asziety to comply with the terms of the
Act of Parliament, and to conform to the order of
this Court, and therefore dismissed the Plaintiff's
botitit.
SAIRFAIRT 2.S.TAIILITON W. BACKHOUSE.

In this case the LORD CHANCELLOR gave his judg-
ment. Tarleton and Backhouse bad been in partner-
ship for several years, as West India Merchants, in
Liverpool. In 1802 they dissolved partnership, but •
until 1808 Mr. Backhouse continued to manage his
own interests in the concern, which bad not• been
completely made up. His Lordship enumerated a
number of bills, cross-bills; and answers to them,
which had been put in by both parties, with much
mutual recrimination. It appeared, however, that,
after the dissolution of partnership-between Tarleton
and Backhouse, in 1802, Tarleton got into treaty
with one Postlethwaite to have the share in the con-
cern which Mr. Backhouse had possessed ; but, as
that Gentleman stated, he was thwarted in his inten-
tions of getting a final settlement of his share in the
concern by the perverseness of Tarleton, who, as his
Lordship observed, had shewn at least a great deal
of intrigue in the business. In 1808 Mr. Backhouse
consented to take £40,000 for his share in the con-
cern, which was secured to him by a deed, and some
bonds of Tarleton':. The object of Tarleton had
been to get these bonds and the deed set aside, on
the ground of their having been unduly and fraudu-
lently obtained, because Mr. Backhouse had kept up
a private correspondence with the agents abroad for
the -concern, by which lie obtained an improper
knowledge of the situation of the firm, which Mr.
Tazleton could not know of. In answer to this, Mr.
Backhouse had stated, that be was obliged to keep
up this private communication, in order to secure his
own interests; stnd that, if there were any harm in
it, Mr. Tarleton had done•the same. His Lordship
said, that on' the most deliberate and attentive view
he could give this case, there were two points for his
consideration, whether he should offer Tarleton an
issue to try at Lancaster whether the deed and bonds
of 1808 were obtained from him unduly and fraudu.
lently ? and if he (Tarleton) refused to accept of
that issue, he would then give his final decision on
the case. For this purpose he should give Tarleton
a week to consider, whether he would accept of the
issue or not.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 24.
DYOTT V. DUNN.

The Defendant, who was held to bail, under a
Judge's order, for £1.500, made an application to
justify bail to that amount, in osder to be discharged.
Mr. ABBOTT objected to it under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of this case. The action was for Crim.
Con. and the defendant was held to bail under the
order of a Judge for £l5OO. The cause was, how-
ever, tried since that time, and the Jury had found a
verdict for the plaintiff with damages £15,000. The
judgment, it is true, was not yet signed, and there.
tore, strictly speaking, the defendant was in custody
only in tame frrocut until the fourth day of this term,
when he might be charged in execution ; so that un-
til Frida_y be might be liberated on finding bail ; but
he submitted to the discretion of the Court, that they
could not now let him go at large upon giving bad
for £l5OO, when there was a verdict found to the
:Mount of i 115,000.
The Court said, this was a novel case, but they
thought that as aJury had estimated the damages at
4115,000, it was a guide for. the discretion of the
Court, and that, therefore, they should require the
bail to be in that amount.
The bail being called, could not justify in that
amount.
Mr. TOPPING afterwards moved for a new trial in
the cause, grounded ,on several affidavits, in which
the Defendant stated, that being in custody? be could'
not procure the attendance of several material wit-
nesses, and therefore the cause was taken as an un-
defeaded cause:' The affidavits of other permits also
disclosed several material facts for the Defendant,
particularly that the Plaintiff- and his wife lived in a
state of separation.
The Court granted a Rule Nisi, and added, that
as there were now some grounds to question the pro-
priety of the Verdict, if a new trial should be grant.
ed, st ought no longer to stand as the measure of the
bail to be required, and therefore the Defendant in that
cue should be allowed to justify bail to £l5OO only
JANUAR! 25,
COI AND °TUBBS. ASSIONBE3IIO. W. SWAN*

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs. as ail)
signees of J. Swan and Co. bankrupts, against:the
defendant, brother to elle of the bankrupts, to re.
cover t 1,990, money paid by the bankrupts for the
hoof the decedent t onaacoount of a failure of eri.

deotei on the trial, the.ptaintift was non-suiteci. Mr.
PARK now applied in set Aid the nonsuit, or to
have a new trial, on the grounds that there was
Wilenee to a certain extent, which ought to have
Oa, to the Jury. One• of the bankrupts, T. Swan
.was called and examined; but, although he at his
bid examination before the Comthissinners proved the
debt of his brother to the amount of selo9o, yet when
called on as an evidence at the trial, he could prove
nothing. A gentleman named *Lane, wts how-
ever called, who proved that a bill accepted by W.
Swan, and made payable at the house of the bank-
rupts for £3OO, had been presented by and paid to
him; and Mr. PARK now contended, that this was
evidence which, as far as it *went, ought to have been
submitted to the Jury.—The Court granted the rule
to chew cause. •

MOIER V. THRNOYAL EXCHANGE COMPANY.
Mr. TOPPING applied to the Court for H rule to show
cause, wily the nonsuit in this case should not he set
aside, and a new trial granted. It was an Action on
a policy of insurance on ship and cargo, dated. in
1811, at and from Memel ; lost or not lost, free of
seizure in the post of lading, warranted to debar: OR
or before the 15th of September. The vessel com-
pleted hetlading on the 9th, and having obtained all
her papetsi weighesl on that day. fith a fair wind,
Ind .proceeded to sail; but before she got out the
*ind chimged, and she was detained at the mouth of
the %arbour tilt itfter the. 15th. The ship was after-
wards lost, and the plaindffstrought an action to re-
dover on the policy. 'Lord Ellenborough, howevvr,
'held at die trial, that the terra; of the policy had not
been complied *hies they had' mit departed before
the 15th, and therefore the plaintiff was nonsuited.
-.Mr. TOPPING now-stihinitted to the Court, that, in
fact, a departure had taken place. The vessel hav-
ing completed all-her business, obtained all her pa-
pers, and proceeded to sail on the 9th inst. although
delayed by contraq winds before she was out of the
harbour.
Lord ELLENSOROUGH observed, if the word in-
stead of &earl had been :ail, no doubt cou• ld have
been entertained that the vessel had proceeded to sail
is time, but here she had not departed.
Mr. Toeeixo submitted,- that there being no word '
ism in die policy, but only to depart the moment
she broke ground, she had commenced her departure.
Mr. Justice Le BLANC—" Then you must contend,
that break:mg srouitd and departure are one and theta=
thing."
Mr.Toeettio—si My Lord, I mean to say, that
having got in our lading, obtained all our papers,
completed.our business, and having nothing more to
dO at Memel, 'the moment we weighed anchor was
the moment of departure."
taord Et.t.exatutovoit-,-44 'Phis is rather a question
of grammatical construction than of law. Sallie:,
would have commenced the moment the anchor was
weighed, but depart,* must mean quitting the port."
Mr. TOPPING still contended, that in tins case a de-
parture had taken place ; there were several other
questions pending on similar policies.
Lord ELLE:IEOEOMR ..•`44 The Underwriters say,
you shall depart by such a day, and then we will be
liableior all risks."—Mr. Justice Ls BLANC-66 You
Imast be from the port of Memel by such a day."
Lord ELLENDOROUGH-1( I think you brought all
your forces into the field at the time of the tri d. If
you had your rule you would get nothing by it."
Rule rtfuscd. .

COWRY V. BARRER.
This was an action on a policy of insurance tried
before Lord ELLessoitouoit, at Gandhi:ll—verdict
for the plaintiff.
Mr. RICHARDSON now applied for . a rule to shew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
nonsuit entered. The action had been brought to re-
cover back the premium paid on a polic-y on goods
from the River Plate to this country, and the only
question in reserve was, whether the voyage was a
legal voyage ? It appeared that the vessel had sailed
in. February without any licence from the South Sea
Company, which circumstance would have rendered
the voyage illegal, bin in July following a licence was
applied for, and obtained from the South Sea Com-
pany, which licence was to be applied to the vessel in
question, and to have a retrospective operation. In
the interim, however, between the sailing of the ves-
sel in February, and obtaining, the licence in July,
she had been lost, and the question was, whether the
licence so obtained after she WAS lost could legalize
the voyage ? as otherwise, the voyage being illegal,
the assured could have no tight to recover hick the
premium. At the time of the trial, Lord Ellenbo-
rough was of opinion, the licence so obtained did not
legalize the voyage, but at the same time he reserved
the point, and Mr. RICHARDSON having noticed seve-
ral cases, where a different doctrine was held, the
Court granted the rule

GIB YON e. MEM.
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff (a
single woman) against the Defendant, for a breach
of covenant. A verdict had been taken for Plaintiff.
Mr. HEATH now moved an Arrest of Judgment.
The facts of the case were as follow. The plaintiff,
it appeared, had cohabited with the defendant for
several years; and he had-occasionally had various
sums of money of her. At length it was agreed, as
some disagreements had arisen between them, that,
should they separate, the defendant should pay into
the hands of a third person the sums of money he
had received from the plaintiff, and also allow her
an annuity of £3O per annum, so long as she con-
tinued unmarried, or refrained from cohabiting with
one Daniel Gardener, or any other man ; the plain-
tiff was still unmarried, and no proof was adduced
at the trial that she had cohabited with any man ;
yet the defendant refused to pay her annuity; and,
for the arrears due, an action was brought, and the
Jury gave her a verdict. Mr. HEATH now moved an
Arrest of Judgment, on the grounds that this agree-
ment was illegal on two grounds; 'first, inasmuch as
it is to keep her living with the defendant in state
of concubinage; and, secondly, inasmuch as it pre-
vented her forming matrimonial engagements, which
both policy, law, and morality required should be as
much promoted as possible.
The COURT, however, disposed of the first point
,immediately, and observed, that instead of this agree-
ment' operating to keep the plaintiff living in a state
of concubinage with the defendant, it had a contrary
effect, inasmuch 'as it provided her with the means
of living if she chose to quit him; and with respect
to the second its it no more operated against her

forming Matrimonial connections, than di I m
marriage settlements and wills, in iithich it was phi_
vided that widows and others, if they married, 5h,,,d.1
cease to enjoy those advantages, which, under such
wills an settlements, if they continued single, they
would enjoy. Yet those wills and settlements had
never been objected to as illegal.
Application refused.
COURT OF COMMON Pt.EAS, JANUARY 25.
Rim In•KNIGHT.
A rule to spew cause why an attachment should
not issue against a Mr. Knight, 14 contempt of
Court. Mr. Knight had been s !hymned to give ev-
deuce on a trial (Home .. Dr..9!nitli) tried at the
Hampshire Assizes, but chd not awful. In support
of the Rule, affidavits were produced to chew that
Knight was served with the subi :lACC eight days prior
to the Assizeri that he refused to go without proper
conveyance; that a &I note Was tendered him after.
wards, but he still refulied; that on the night pre-
vious to the commencement of the Atsizcs £3 watt
left in his house, yet he remained at Lome. The di;.
tance from his place of residence to Winchester, the
Assize.town, is 24 miles.

In answer to this, it WAS alledged, that Knight
lived in a cross-country, where he had no means of
conveyance s that it was impossible, from his ad-
vanced age, to walk that distance ; and that he had
no wish to disobey the order of the Court.
The Coma, after hearing the arguments on both
sides, thought, under the circumstances disclosed,
there was not sufficient ta attach criminality upon the
defendant. If Mr. Home had incurred any d.im,:tgz.
by the absence of the defendant's testimony, the sta-
tute of Elizabeth provided 'di' by an action of d.e-
mage ; to that remedy he might
,therefore apply.
Rule discharged.
HURD V. CIRDLESTONF.

. This was a question under the Annuity Act, whe-
ther any part of the consideration money under which
the Annuity was granted, had been returned? The
clause in the Act which vitiates the Annuity, ex-
pressly provides, that if any part shall be retained or
returned, then the Annuity is vol.!. The pLtintiff is
an attorney, and there was a small charge in his hill
for preparing the deeds. This, it %t as contended, as
he was purchaser of the Annuit:, was a retention of
part of the money. Several Wes were cited in sup-
port of this proposition, in which decisions w;:a4
given in favour of the gran:ors under such circum
stances.

The COURT however observed, that the Jury befur
whom the action was tried, found that the charge
alluded to was made inadve:zently, and cmsequen!ly
the objection did not come within the meaning of the
Act.—Rule refused.

The C11:Ele ILsricz afterwards sat at Nisi Prius.

DONNILLLY V. lIANNAII.

This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for £3oa
at two months date, accepted by the defendant. Evi-
dence was called to prove the acceptance of tke
defendant.
Mr. Serjeant BFST, for the defendant, contended
that this was a most impudent action, and he would
'state the facts of the case. Donnelly, the plaintiff;
.who is an attorney in Ireland, was over in this coon.
try, and in the month of April, tall, requested the
defendant to accommodate him with his acceptance
for £3OO at two mouths, and 1:e would lodge with
l'im as security a bill for the same sum, on a Mr.
Curzon, which became :lue some few days prior to
the one which he agreed to accept.. The defendant,
to accommodate him, accepted the bill, made it
payable at his Bankers', Messrs. Hammersly's, in
Pall Mall, at which house Mr. Curzon's. bill was
also made payable. The latter bill was dishonoured,
and a Mr. Hudson, the drawer, on being required to
pay it, said it was a gross and usurious transaction,
for that he had given Donnelly £3O for the discount.
To prove this he called
Mr. Hudson, who, on being shewn Ciwznn's bill,
stated, that Donnelly was engaged in law transac-
tions for him in Ireland. That he gave him the bill
to discount, and that he did discount it for him ; first
deducting £3O for discount, paying him the remain-
der in Bank-notes ; that the bill WAS left with the vie-
fendant in exchange for his acceptance ; that he con-
sidered it, however, as good as a Bank-note, Mr.
Curzon being disappointed of money, which he would
shortly receive to the amount of £170,000.
On his cross.examination he said, Mr. Curzon was
in France when the bill became due: that he' had
never been arrested on the bill, but had been inform-
ed of its dishonour frcm the defendant; that he did
not pass it over 'to Donnelly after Mr. Hannam's
name was on it; that Dannelly took it on the repre-
sentation of Mr. Houlditch, the coacbmaker, who
told'him that Mr. Curzon's name was good for £lOOO.
The CUIEF JUSTICE was of opinion this testimosy
destroyed 'or cut up the considerations. It appeared
that Hannam took the bill in perfect ignorance of the
transaction between Hudson and the plaintiff. That
he supposed it a good bill, and paid it to his bankers
under that supposititin.
Mr. Serjeant LENS contended, that some suspicion
attached to the evidence of Hudson.
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that if he chose to
address the Jury on that point he might:
Mr. Serjeant LENS declined, and chose rather to
be nonsuited.—Plaintiff nonsuited.

The following is said to be a copy of the Letter of
General EICELMAhS to King JOACHIM (MURAIa :
Sum—Since unfortunate circuinstatices have separat me
from your Majesty, I have not been indifferent to arty thing t:
may relate to you. I avail myself then, of the opportunity a-
forded by M. A— to bare the honour to lay at the feet of your
Majesty all the sentiments I owe you.
Permit me to express to your Majesty the joy whim my fa-
mily and myself felt at hearing that the affairs of Naples were
happily terminated according to the interests and wishes of your
Majesty.
No one, believe me, Sire, experienced, with respect to tile
fate of your fine kisigdom, more lively uneasiness than I uiJ ;
but, thanks to the heroic firmness and attitude of so great a
Wag, Europe is force.: to recognise you.
If affairs had not taken so favourable a turn for your Majesty,
It would have been easy, with so fine an army as your s, to
the Crown to be respected, which you ewe entirely to your h gla
talents and virtues. Besides, thousands of brave officers, trougut
up in your Majesty's school, and under your rye, would haw
hastened at your call to offer you thew emu—they would have
thought themselves paying a tribute to the gratitude and adintra-
don they feel for your Majesty.
For myself, Sire, who possess all these sentiments in a higher
degree, I shall unite with them incessant wishes for the glory and
bopping. of your Majesty's myna family.
I Intreat you, Site, to accept the homage, as well as the tender
veneration with which I shall remain to the end of my life,
Your Majesty's most faithful and devoted servant,
/SXCBLAIIANS.