Star.
London, England, 1825-02-25 00:00:00

sis.•
TUN FOLLOWING WNW .WlOlll,-NOUND Wilms, as AN
OLD MASD, is A COP? OF LOWSCACIeII &MASTS,
lAGIDGN. 1769.
A steed! a steed of matchless speed!
A sword of metal keen
MI else to noble hearts is dross—
MI else on Earth is mean.
• The neighing et the varies:se prowl,
The fowling of the dram.
Theliangour of the trumpet lend—
Be sounds from Heaves that come.
And, oh I the thunpddeerring praso et Knights,
When as their war-arise swell.
May toll from Heaven se angil bright,
And rouse a Send from Mull!
Then mount ! then mount, brave Gallants all,
And don your helms assala,
Death!. couriers' Fame and Honour, call
Us to the field again.
No shrewish tear shall ill onreye
Whin the sword-hilt's In one hand;
Heart-whole we'll part, and eowbat sigh
For the fairest of the land.
Let piping swain, and craven wight.
Thus weep and paling cry;
Our business is, like Men to fight,
And like to Heroes die!

LAW REPORT.

COURT. OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 54.
SWAINSTON V. ItITCHBV.
This was an action to recover the sum of 61. 16s. 6d.
for agency expellees in obtaining a release from the
Quarantine Office for the defendant's ship Iris, when in
quarantine, in Liverppol.harbour.
Caatfaat.r. stated that the plaintiff was a ship-
broker living in London, and the defendant was master
and owner of *vessel called the Iris, which, in Septem-
ber, 182$. was in quarantine at Liverpool. The plain-
tiff's clerk having occasion to go to the Quarantine
Office, found there the papers belonging to the Iris,
but no person had applied for the release; he therefore,
as was customary, applied for, and having obtained it,
the plaintiff sent it down to the defendant, and the ves-
sel was released in consequence. Application was made
to the defendant for payment, who promised to dis-
charge the bill, but had not at the time cash in his
pocket. Subsequently, however, he refused to pay;
alleging that the plaintiff had not been employed by
him to do the business. But Mr. Campbell contended,
that as the business was done by the plaintiff for the
benefit of the defendant, and as hetad made a promise
to pay, the plaintiff was now entitled to recover.
The plaintiff's clerk and brother were then called to prove the
facts stated by the Counsel.
Mr. SCARLET?, on behalf of the defendant, con-
tended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recoverany
thing. The facts were, that Mr. Butcher, being in
town, wrote to his agent, Mr. Parker, at Liverpool, re-
questing him to instruct some person to procure the
release of the ship. Mr. Parker accordingly em-
ployed a Mr. Lucas, who went to the Custom House
to know if the ship's papers were safely arrived. Hav-
ing ascertained that they were, he, on the same day,
wrote to his agents in town, Messrs. Coding and Co. to
apply at the Quarantine Office for the order of release.
When these Gentlemen applied, they found that Mr.
Saainsron had taken the liberty, without any instruc-
tions N hatever, to obtain it. This they communicated
to the defendant's agent. Now he (Mr. Scarlett) would
say, that it it were allowed to any person thus to inter-
pose thein•elves to do business for any one without au-
thority, then there would be no protection against the'
claims of any person who should think proper to seek
into the circumstances of others in order to make a pro-
fit by them. He would allow that the money paid out
of pocket by the plaintiff, ought to be paid by the de-
fend.int, but not a shilling was he bound so pay the
plaintiff for agency.
Mr. Lucas was then called, who proved the facts stated by Mr.
Scariest.
Mr. CAMPSILL said a few words in reply. He ad-
mitted the proposition of his Learned Friend, that it
would be mischievous to allow persons to interpose to
snake themselves agents fir others without any autho-
sky, but still he submitted the plaintiff, in this case, was
entitled to recover, inasmuch as what he bad done was
for the defendant's benefit, and the defendant had him-
self subsequently adopted it as his debt, by a promise
of payment.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICC recapittilated the evi-
dence, and said, that if the Jury thought what the
plaintiff did was fa the defendant's benefit, and that a
promise of payment had been made, then they would
find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the pkintili, for
411 Mk. 6d.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY 24. .4
POPPLIWRLL u. RIMING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
the Captain of a West India ship, against the defen-
dant, who is a Lieutenant of his Majesty's ship Se-
rapis, for sol.the amount of a balance of 501. which
the defendant was to pay for his boatd and pasage on
board the plaintiff's vessel, as a passenger from Jamaica
to London.
The defence was, that the defendant had only agreed to pay 201.
Including board and passage.
Several witnesses were calkd, Captains of West India ships,
to Ocoee that the general terms for the passage from Jamaica was
Sot. exclusive of the wine.
Oa the other hand, the defendant called Lieut. Sul-
livan, who proved the positive contract entered into by
the plaintiff, on board the Serapis, to carry the defen-
dant to England for 201, including hoard,
On this evidence the Jury found a verdict foe the defendant.
suoaseaT V. WILLIAI43.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages, for the loss he had suffered
by a breach of contract on the part of the defendant.
The facts of the case were shortly these:--The plaintiff
being indebted to a person of the name of Beard in
considerable sums of money, gave up to a Mr. Still,
a friend, a quantity of effects, among which was a
picture, said.to be by Claude: this picture, Mr. Still,
the plaintirs'hiend, gave into the hands of the deign-
daat,. an auctioneer, of the Auction Mart, for the pur-
pose.of being put up to sale in one of his auctions,
with 'the express prOviso that Mr, Still wan to have no-
tice of the sale. This was in May, 1822: The day
of sale came on, but the defendant gave no notice. The
plaintiff's friend had, in conseqeence, no opportunity of
seeing that it was fairly sold, or to whom.
The defendant called a Gentleman of the name of
Chahnerst who bought a picture, supposed to be the,
sot in question, but his evidence directly refuted the
assertion advanced by the defendant, that he as the
purchaser, and no identity was proved. The pictures
Mr. Chalmers bought ors that day, to the number of
frfay.were at present in Scotland, which, with the on,
certain description given of it, precluded the possibility
or its bat& produced; and even if the picture in Mr.
Chaluers'laids were the one is question, the defendant

ii:1111