Star.
London, England, 1809-12-26 00:00:00

' M. Gunx-e.: addressed the Jury for the Defendant
lie stated that his client having bccA a brewer at
Dunstable, where he had the care of the Plaintiff's
horses that went that road, there were accounts m a
considerablf amount to seal& between them every
month. How improbable, therefore, was it, that
being often indebted to the Defendant in large sums,
he should for such a number of years allow the claim
in question to remain unsatisfied ? and how muds
more improbable that he should continue to have con-
siderable dealings with a person in whose honesty or.
veracity he had sta little confidence, that he could not
refer the existence of the bill in question to his oath,
even during the time that their connection was going
on. He submitted that every presumption, both of
law and probability, was in favour of the Defendant,:
Lord EL 7.ENBOROUGII held that the words of the
Defendant's letter amounted to a waver of the Sta-
tute of Limitations. As to the account given by the
Defendant of the mode in which he supposed he
might have destroyed the memorandum relating to
the bin in question, it was remarkable that he should
have Fo destroyed it, aware as he must have been that
it was a voucher of more than common importance.
He left the case, however, to the Jury. The Jury im-
mediately found for the Plaintiff—Damages 4200
and interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. °s.
lIANSON V. ATKINS.

Mr. Sri-leant SHEPHERD stated this to be an action
by the Plaintiffs, the owners of certain goods on board
a vessel, called the Sally, against the defendant, to
recover from him the damage done to the property
of the plaintiff, in consequence of the versa, called
the Anna Maria the defendant's property, running
font of the SOW, by which the property of the plain-
tiff on board the defendant's vessel, .was greaLly da-
maged. It appeared from the evidence of a number
of witnesses, that both vessels were passing up the
river, and that in consequence of a signal made to
the Sally, by the boat of the Quarantine ship, she lay
to. She had been in this situation for about a quarter
of an hoar, when the Anna Maria coming up, in
full sal, wind and tide favouring, and the people on
board not keeping a proper look out, she ran foul of
the Sally, in consequence of which she afterwards
stink. The cargo was ultimately got out, but with
great damage.
Mr. Sericant VaucztAx addressed the Jury, on
the part of the Defendant. This was an action,
in which the Defendant might be liable in damages,
without any reflection on his own character, but
which it was scarcely to be supposed, that any ho-
nourable man would defend, if he did net think in his
own mind, that he had a fair defence against it. The
defendant, in the present action, was as honourable
and independant a man as was- to be met with in the
commercial circles of London. He was one of the
resent Sheriffs of London and Middlesex ; and
though he must submit, as all others engaged in mari-
time affairs must do, to make good any damage occ f-
sioned by the fault of his servants, the Jury would be
satisfied that such fault existed before they subjcc
the defendant to the consequences of it.
The Pilot of the Anna Maria was examined; hut his
evidence not going to shew that any ?1:e precaution
to avi,:d the danger was ach.pted I-_ his vessel, it was
deemed finneces.;ary to proceed farther.
The Jury accord; •gly found for the Plaintiff--
Damages £lOOO, subject to a reference to Mr. Wad-
dington, as to the amount.

CAMPBELL v. ATKIYS.
7-•°
This was an action of a similar natrirt,-agiainst the
same Defendant, and in which a similar verdict was
given.
GOODALL, ESQ. v. COUSINS.-7;.IME v. PILSGRAVE.

The facts of this case have been repeatedly before
our Readers, who will recollect that policies to the
amount of :30,090 had been effected by the plaintiff
Mr. Goodall (the Admiral of Hayti), on the ship
Earl Bathurst and her cargo, from St. Domingo to
London. The cargo consisted f cotfse and cotton,
and had been shipped by General Christophe (the
President of Hayti), on Mr. Goodall's account, in
December, 1808, at which time, it will be recollected
that Mr. Goodall had been sent home a state priso-
ner from the West Indies, and on his arrival was re-

The actions against the Underwriters were b-ought
on the score of barretry. Nowel, the Master, instead
of bringing the ship and cargo, according to her des-
tination, to London„having sold that part of her car-
go which consisted of cotton, at Bermuda. and taken
the ship to Baltimore, where he landed the coffee„.
A few days after the arrival of the ship at Baltimore`
Novel died.

The principal gronnd of defence set up by the
Underwriters was, that a person of the name of Gro:
Band was Mr. Goodall's Supercargo, and that the
ship was taken to Baltimore by him, mod net by
Nowel the Master. The Underwriters also endea-
voured to shelter themselves upon thrgronnds that
the ship had made deviations, and that she was not
seaworthy for want of sufficient *visions ; in all of
which they failed.

Mr. Fleicher, the plaintiff's attothey, having proved
that the witnesses examined on the former trials were
now abroad, their evidence was read by consent
from the Judge's Notes. In addition to which, le
first mace of the Earl Bathurst, who had arriTsed
since the former trials, was examined on the part. of
' the plaintiff. It appeared that .Grogand was merely
a passenger on board the Ship, and that he was en-
tered as such in the los-book, and that there were
sufficient provisions to carry the ship to England.
Notwithstanding the phintiff, Mr. Goodall, had
obtained several verdicts, and a numerous body of
the underwriters had settled the loss, others perse-
vered in defending the actions, and the above causes
occupied the attention of the Court the whole of Fri-
day and Saturday, and ozite.d a considerable degree
of interest.

As the principla in isine has lnen decided by these
successive verdicts in favour of Mr. Goodall, the
defeat of the Underwriters is complete. .
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, in a most animated strain,
of impressive eloquenceo vindicated his client from.
all the aspersions of his antagonists, challenging any
and all of Mr. Goodall's enemies to adduce a single
fact in- impeachment of Goodall's commercial orj
naval history, or any transaction of his life that could I
gloss the sort of defence that had been attempted.
The Underwriters prodpced no evidence, although
their Counsel, Mr Serjeant CoccEi.4 contended for