Star.
London, England, 1809-12-20 00:00:00

be refeare,

. wages. The
iefendant, Cap-
teranda, had con.
upon a voyage
id back, at t.
mth, and a bo-
the completion.
The plaintiff also sought to recover 60 dollars, lent
by him to the defendant, on the commencement of
the voyage.
The ship in question had performed the voyage
from Malta to London, and having disposed of a
valuable cargo, the Captain then sent her on a voyage
to the Baltic; and on her return sold her to a third
person. When the plaintiff applied for payment of
his wages, and to be sent home, according to contract,
the defendant replied, that he had disobeyed his I COCKPIT, WHITEHALL, DECEMBER. te.
orders, and was not entitled to any. The disobe- . Before the Most Noble and Right Hon. the Lords
dience of orders, it was stated, consisted in the plain- I Commissioners of Appeals in Prize Causes :
Atalanta, Klein master.-1 his ship, under Bremen colours,
tiff's reusing to wait upon some company the defen- I
re
;,F•drain thed:iigh Court
sugar,hav icnoffetaci&nci.nwatsthconitsllemof Ad.
dant had invited to dinner ; but the fact appeared to I
be in the plaintiff's refusal to carry the ship's books wniitt•isilt
I to theYl4inisttgT at le'aris,afrones which seratneenece thedispatches
claimantsilesa
,
from the ship to the defendant's house ; and this
re- : pealed ; but their Lordships this day confirmed the sentence. 1)--I
- ' orders constituted the chief part of the , 'tinier Charlotta, Otrna master.—This vessel was under Pap-
asc.—Verdict for the Iluntiff—Da- : penburgb colours, laden with salt, cork, &c. 7he Court
below
restored the ship and cork but condemned the salt, from which
sentence both captors and claimants appealed ; and their Lord-
GWYNN!: V. WILLIAMS: ships reversed the sentence of restitution of the ship, and con- :
In action brought by the owners of the , dawned the same, together with the salt, and restored the cork.
-A, the Caledonia, against the owners 1
Chinsurah.—This question respected a suns of mai arising
from
fur damages sustained by reason of the of the the capture of the.above place, which had lain its the hands
East India Company fora considerable time. Their Lord- 1
the defendant's servants, &c. i ships took time to dtliberotcs

:lit ' A lb._- • 'AP' 4.1,;.
.1.411/ INTELLIGENCE. t
1
1 - COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. t 4.
ar.vaia v. PEARCE.
This was an application to the Court on behalf of
• , Mr. Cockerel], the receiver appointed by the Court to i
receive of the Portuguese Ambassador 17 years ar- ;
•
rear of rent (amounting to .ClOOO and upwards), for ;
the house which has been occupied for many years ;
by the Ambassadors from the Court of Portugal ; ;
. and the object was, to discharge an order lately ob-
tained by the plaintiffs in the cause, that the receiver •
should in four days bring in his account before the 1
. • Master, or stand committed to the Fleet Prison ; and i
I Mr. Cockerell now made an affidavit stating his many ;
applications to the Ambassador for the rent, bnt that
he had not obtained an answer ; and that therefore he
had no account to carry in.
The Court, under these circumstances, discharged
the former order against him, and tccommended him 1
to take the Master's directions how to proceed to oh- 1 ;
ta.::n payment ofthe rent, consistently with the Act of ; ;
li Queen Anne, made mit• preserving the privileges of ', •
, • Ambassadors. 1 '
,
• : ' ! I,
COURT OF NG'S BENCH, DEC. 19. i
WILCOX JO
v. KEA MS. i
l This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a •
I "1. rnechanic, to recover from the defendant, a hat-
4 i
Ili niannfacturer, the stipulated value for a machine •
invented Yy the plaintiff, for reducing the quantum
'0 of manual labour in the manufacture of hats. . •
k, • The witness ad laced by the plaintiff proved the ,
'agreement for sE":!.SO for the exclusive use of the plain- ! "
i !tiiPs invention ; that k? o 0 or thereabouts had been
paid by the defendant ; but that the machine, at no •
. ,•
time, under the plaintiff's anspices, was fit for the
, .
purpose intended.
• The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
ravaans V. pa TITIY. .
{ Mr. PARKE, for the plaintiff, stated this to be anti;
action by a lom Aga seawall, for payment of his wages, ;
in a vessel of this country, in a voyage to St. Do- :
mingo and back, which occupied about the period !,
I of sir months, the wages for which, being at the rate - ]
of four guineas and a half per mouth, amounted to
•
e. 27. !:
. The service orthe plaintiff on board the defendant's '
vessel was proved, and also an offer of the defendant
to pay the plaintiff's claim, ca receiving a release.—
This proposition, however, the plaintiff could not ; ;
• comply with, having an :maim! pending against the ; •
&fondant for a violent assault committed on him by
the defendant, also standing in the paper for trial. ; •
I Mr. GARRoW, for the defendant, pleaded, that the ! i
plaintiff had behaved in a mutinous and insubordi. 1 •
. • . state manner, immediately after an engagement with ! •
!
• i al. reach privateer off the harbour of St. Domingo, I •
and while the privateer still hove in sight, by which . i
the defendant had, to repress that insubordinate spi-
rit, been obliged to fire his pistol at the plaintiff, on
account of which the action of assault was brought, i
but, in consequence of which disobedience of orders, I •
the Learned Counsel contended, the plaintiff had for-' •
feite'd all claim to wages. l' '
. Mr. PAD:ir. contended, that such a forfeiture, sup- '1
. :
posing it to have taken place, could not be both retro- ! ;
spect;ve and prospective. If the plaintiff had for-
! ; . . ,
.
feited his wages by disobedience of orders, previous ;
, .
to the arrival of the ship at St. Domingo, achy not !,
then dismiss him, and, if be deserved it, punish him I
far his disobediencei He submitted, however, that the
defendant was not entitled to seeps to pass by any 1
misconduct in the plaintiff at the time, and now to i
bring it forward, as inferring a total forfeiture of !
• , wages l•-a" a voyage both out and home.
Lord ELLENaoaoron held, however, that it was all
or,e contract, and that no view contract having been I
made, a violation during any part of it would serve i
as a forfeiture of the whole.
~• A witness was then adduced for the defendant, to
prove the mutinous spirit evidenced by the plaintiff,
, . and by others of the crew, while the French priva-
teer whom they had repulsed was still in sight. The
evidence, however, was not given with that temper
or seeming disinterestedness as to the issue of the suit i
which could satisfy the Court of its truth and impar- I
tiality. On his cross-examination, too, the witness !
1 ,
was obliged to admit, that, in consequence of the
wound which the plaintiff received from a pistol fired'
at him by the defendant, though, as the witness id- i
ledged, loaded only with powder and wadding, the
plaintiff was confined for seven weeks ; and that, !
while time plaintiff was lying apparently lifeless on the
deck in consequence of this wound, the defendant
seized the other pistol, loaded in a similar manner, !
and swore that he would blow out the brains of any
, other man on board who might so conduct himself. I
• On a suggestion by the Learned Judge, it was
agreed that no more should be heard of the case ; !.
that a verdict should in this action he taken for the •
plaintiff ; and that the assault should be refeered to
I Mr. Gazelee.
Immo,- v. MONTEVO.
This was also an action for seamen's wages. The •
• .
parties v'ere bf.'il Italians, and the defendant, Cap-
tain ',f the Maltese f hip, the Emeranda, had con-;
tracted with the plaintiff as a mariner, upon a voyage'
from Nialra to this port of London and back, at the
; rate .a•',;') len dollar ,1 !;p.:nish doll per month, and a Imo-
i lois ofl ',a; II and Spanish dollars, on the completion.
.m,,. ,-,1,;,,,;;r „1.,, coo.oo. to rpenvvr Ail ri (-Marc_ Inns.

final to obey c
defendant's c;
maw, A 674.
This was an
merchant vess;
id the Sophia,
negligence of