Star.
London, England, 1823-11-29 00:00:00

L4W -INTEL L IGENC E.
• . , .
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NOVEMBER St •
.7SitsoN AND OTHERS V. STRONG AND, OTHERE.I.
Mr. Petits said, this was a bill filed bPahe under-
writers against the defendants, respecting the accounts;
of sales of part of a ship's cargo, and other neceentry
documents. The defendant Strong was owner of part
oldie cargo of the brie Waterloo, and part owner of
;he remainder, jointly with the other defendants. The
brjg sailed from Jamaica for England, with a cargo of
sugar and pimento, and was driven tut a reef of rocks,
its die Gulf of Mexico, where she laid until relieved by
the•etew of a privateer, sailing under the Colombian
iteisithlie- The privateer crew took charge of the
kis, and carried' her to Savannah, a distance of 500
roes, althaugh Havannah was within seventy-five miles,
end' New' Providence was also nearer. A suit was in-
;finites) in the Vice-Admiralty Court by the privateer's
clew fur salvage, when' the sum of twelve thousand
dollars was awarded. Strong said, he had been obliged
go pact of the cargo to pay the salvage. The de-
feast* himself bought part of the cargo. He (Mss:.
pepys) contended, that he had no right to sell any part
of the cargo, and that it seemed a contrivance between
therivatter's crew and himself.
Masan, for the defendants, said they had given
in the fullest answers to the exceptions of the plaintiffs;
the ship, on beiag.rescued from a dangerous situation
by a Colombian privateer, and by. her carried to &-
Tongs, it had beets' stated that she ought, for the
saritig of expense, to. have been carried to New Provi-
dence or Havannah ; but the former place was danger-
ous to appioach, from-the bomber of breakers, and the,
tatter was in the poasession of the Spaniards, so that,, if
tbey hid' pat in' theft they' would Both have been seized.
Thefact was,.immediately ;von. their arrival at Sava*.
malt, Mr. Strong put •the ship antgvargo under the- di-
rections of the British Consel,:'a.Frocter was employed,
*ad every opposition,withAe, Advice of the British
sul, was made, ,to taxe anlatliii !Of savage, and on. tint
ship's arrival in England, the whole of the accountywart
immediately handed to the plaintiffs for their approval.
The Count observed that it was now laid down as a
.)ositire law,. that no-person has a right to dispose of a
part of the cargo unlesahe is absolutely obliged to do
so from the circumstanoes of being without 'credit and'
rime, ; the question was a very short one—whither the
44u42.9t had soli any part of the goods at Savannah,
amain what purpose, and that required an inunediausi
anddirect answer? the answer was that he.had puts'
chased some goads* belonging to himself, not stating
what these goOdaleappe ; and chat he had purchased a
part beleeguqt, to. the ikarners of the other parts, net
stating what those goods were
•was not ouch an an•
swer as the case 'required, therefore their Lordships
, ellewed the exception pt thp plaiittidta t>K the defendants'

anSwes.. • • •
COURT OP RlllOll BICHCH, tOVEMBER
• THDIEIN• 11. IDSIDDOOD AND SONNA.
• Mr. GUMMY, being Called upon in his order, said M#
&swim was to thew cause 'against the rule far a eri-
Waal inforsoltion.agairist. Sherwood .4.11d401A. ..rof
publication ssr-ittadtphlet, insporting.itf be a N.a4ativa
of all tffe-ciftutastaincesscif Air: Weave's murder.
Mr. StAnLETT stood up, in his place, but for some
won, which
.we slid not hiri4 did not proceed. -
. The pamphlet still remained conspicuous among the
Learned Gentleman's briefs. - • .
Mr. SCARLarT, after a considerable interval, said that
LlASheswood lived in the country, and: had rettivited
kairiest-latioPristeedayii and .it had •not beam till die*
•If..dpfekilner be:plitained iso Office copy o the ride
panted. He (Mr.Searlett) bad not a copy of the liook,
Md submitted to the Court whether he could, since
**time, have read it Over,sso as to be able so *tie
is case with ally satisfaction to himself; he. thoreloce
pet it. whether the rule ought not to be enlarged till
mat Term ?
• ltitisticißitsT.Does he swear .thit
dtspA.Of aoy.more copses.? •
Mr. ScAnuirr.-,-1-bs slid • more than thati,he swore
&title hid known nothing of the publicatioo. but that
ehm.he heard.of the application against tips:Theatre,
be 'reralled all the copies he could, and sold none since,
sad would sell no more.
Afr. Gunnar intimated that he would not press against
Sterwood and Jones, but the other defendant was in a
sliffsiient situation, hi was printer as well as publisher.
• the COMMON SERJRANT urged for Mr. Edgerley,
that he was eqtially entitled to the favourable conside-
ration of the Court. He was a very poor man, h
egered to give up all the copies; be had no intention.;
and ao idea of doing wrong.
Mr. GURNEY 'would not accede to the pr
*.pressing for the rule._ Besides 10;000- copies •
niorn'to have been.sold; and was it to.be sald;selarit.
iNcb profit was,madeby publications of Seth AD •
glasAttadency. that piorerty was a . plea fir not pealing
proceedings against him? • •• • '
e Lotto Cain jtisiict._tridir press
.• `,
ilk! no doubt you judge crotectlylkailopt4ilie'cciurass
ttyou conceive to he -your dWy. the Ciarkhas no
bur-weak, the rule absolute. • Wade not con.
iianrin application of this sort as an
40% or the observations of Mr. COM mon' Serjeant wound
keentitied.tis consideration;. but it is an appiicatiCon for
•i iminal.infornmien against a -publication .castiug.
at least a doubt upon what may be the result elihe
1011,inistrItions of juitiee. . .
,;.111C. 3ti.
_WO Rifliti. said, that the -defend:la *Old
l'ree op p*rititiity of conducting himself in the mean-
time, its a manner. which; perhaps, would prevent far.
the piociedings against him.
Rule made. ihiOlate against Edgerlei.
TN DING N. COOKE AND Defiant,.
Mr. TALIr3t7RD moved for a role-to she* cause why
the plea of one of the defendants. Richard • Stafibrd
'Coke, should not be quashed. This was im indictment
at the instance of Sir George Jetningham, against four
'Pets**, fora conspiracy, three of whmi pleaded .1 not
Sonty;' and the fourth, that 60 he had been at the time
4 tilling the Inqhisition, and still was, Lord Stallard,
%too of Stafford, and entitled to that dignity." , This
irliawas insufficient, as it neither stated a writ ofpirivi-
lege. a patent, nor any other matter triablediotthislecord,
but was merely calculated to produce &LIT,' and- frus-
trate the purposes of.justite. The case of the Duchess'
vflterelind, 6 Coke's Report% 66, cited in 2 Hales
fkiis of the Crown, 240, clearly preyed that a mere
assertion of Peerage was no plea.
The Loan CHIEV.JUsTICS asked whether the plea
lasted that the defendant,* any of his ancestor% wetq
over summoned to the House of Deers ? •
-I.46iXii uremia ',plied. sli47,llsiffiE4rati such
Slows liar, indeed,: any matter tit plea.. but the alert
strettionribut the defendant was of sight Ifeorsl Stallard,
'•l•ish.he wculd compel the posecatoe to try in this
e