Star.
London, England, 1802-02-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FFB. c.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for t: Manila
inns to be dircCled to the Juftiecs of N•lid.nct..r.
calling upon them to proceed to the afeett
of the value of certain lands, which were wan: •:.
by the London Dock Company. He tinted th-
pros ifions of the Al by which the Inflicts in Se,
inn, were authorized to fettle the value when th
parties could not agree, and that it was ucceirt,-)
to complete the intended Dock, that they flrat:,:
have the poffeffion of Bell Dock, which was
in poffeilion of :t Mr. hlaftcrs. The Company Lad
already pm-chafed the inheritance, and wilhed
contra& for Mr. Mafiers's leafehold interell, hot
they could not agree upon terms. The matter
was accordiagly referred to the Sidon, but the,
Justices, upon conlideration of the AEt, thought
it ..as a cafe not provided for by its co:ram:ems,
and that they had no jut ififktion, and thereto, e
to entettain the appeal. The objea of Its
:notion v:as to obt:tin a judicial dccifion upon tite
conflruCrion of the Ail, in order, that if it was
a cafe not within it, they might apply to Patlia•
liament, becaufe it would be impoilible to carry
the plan of the intended Docks into execution,
witht,,rt poffeCion of the ground in queflion, and
he had the affidavits of the engineers faperintencl-
ing the works, to that effect. Neither could they
apply to Parliament before they had made opplica-
tion to the Court., bee:rule they might he told that
the cafe was aheady provided for by law, unlas
they 'hewed a deeilion to the contrary.—Ru:e to
thew rattle granted.
Upon the faction of Mr. Gist's, a Mandamus
was brained, directed to the Mayor of Carmar-
then, commanding him to admit Edward Davis to
the freedom of the Borono on the ground that he
had for three years poefed lands of the yearly
value of 4.1. nithin the faid Borough.
A Motion was made for a Rule to thew caufe
why a Criminal information fhould not be filed
againft W. Prothero, of L:tndylo, Carmarthen,
Mite, for challenging one John Rees, an Attorney,!
to fight a duel. The affidavit, upon which the mo-
tion was grounded, Rated that the Plaintiff came
to the inn where Rees lodged, and ufrd very abu.
five language, challenging him to fettle their 4if-
pute by a duel.
Mr. Rees declining his fuit, Mr. Prothero de-
parted, but returned in a (port time, and infitled
that he thould retire to the other end of the room,
and prefented a pair of piaols, which, he faid, he
had provided for the purpof: ; and he then un-
(crewed the barrels to thew Mr. Rees they were
loaded. The friends of Mr. Rees interfered.

Mr. Jullice ClosE aficed lam Prothero was ?
Being told he was a Sadler, and a Member of a
Volunteer Corps, he faid the beft way was to go
before the Grand Jury ; cr the Attorney General
might file an information ex riicio on the circuit.—
Rule refufed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY r.
A Mr. Berger, a refpeetable traderman in the
&rand, offered himfeif as one of the bail for a de-
fendant. Mr. Luke Naylor, an Attorney, eppoled
.
him upon an affidavit. in which be Rated that Mr.
Berger had been a bankrupt, and had paid his
creditors a very infignificant dividend, and confe-
quently that he was an improper perfon to be.
come bail for another. Upon enquiry of Mr.
Berger, it appealed the whale of Mr. Naylor's af-
fidavit was unfounded—he had never been a
bankrupt, or compounded with his c'leditors in the
whole comic of his life ; on the contrary, his cir-
curnftances fence he had been in trade had been
wholly unembarraffed.
Lord Atvasm—This affidavit is extremely
improper. I obretve the Court of King's Bench
has expreired its indignation at the pmetice of op-
poling bail upon the affidavits of Attornies and
their Clerks, founded t.prn infoi maim) picked up
in lode enquiries in the neigl:bourhond of a man's
re.fidence. The mifchief is, that fuch affidavits,
however deftrultive of a tradefman's credit, are
made with impunity, for it is impoffible to afflgn
a perjury upon them, as they are in orn to upon
the alledged information of others. Attornies are
allowed to oppofe ti-Ai who offer themfelves as
bail, by urging the etiimaticn in which they are
held with regard to their refponfibiiity among
their neighbours; but it will be dangerous indeed,
and truly a moll ferious evil, if they are to abufe
the latitude the Court allows them, by flaring
mere unfupported affertions as matters of fait.—
It will deter hone ft and refreetable tradefmen from
venturing to prefent themfelves in a Court as the
fureties tar their friends, it their characters and
folvency are to be impeached by the adverre At-
torney, upon anonymous information which he
may or may not have received.
Mr. Berger raid, the Attorney, Mr. Naylor, had
good reairn to know he was not the cliarafter he
had ventured to defcribe him in his affidavit.
Lord ALVANLry obll.:rved, that made his con-
duet the more irregular, and lie might depend up-
on it the Court would look with a very cautious
eye at any affidavit he might in fiatire make up-
on firnilar occafions.

EAGLF.TON V. THE EAtT I_Nrl.l COMPANY.

Mr. Serj...ant FO•ST latcd it was an aainn
brought by the Plain:iff to recover damages el
the United Compaily of Merchants of Ln?,lancl
trading to the Lad cor.fequence of their
having refuled to declare him the Left biddt.r far
certain quan:;ties of pet up Ly them to public
auaion, and for ::train, to receive the (Lpotit for
the f4IIIC, o' to cony!..tc :he itrchaf:. The tit-
claration dated, that the Pia iff was :t tea•JealLr,
and a Britifh fi,bjt.R : and right to bid for-

•-•erclin was for the Plaintiff, ro:ra to the
)pinion of the Court. The fpecial Cate, after le-
citing the fans of the Plaintiff being the highell
:,idler, and the Defendants tehtfing to fell him the
ca,, flared a bye-law made by the EMI India Com-
'oy which it was declared, that if the ptir-
clial;rs of goods fhntild make default in complet-
ing the purchafe within a tlipulated period, they
,hoal d he refold, and the difference, if any, paid to
•he fira pnrchalers ; and alfo that fuch purchafers
Crould ever after be rendered incapable of bid-
iing at a,:y of the Company's fates. It then ftated
that the Plaintiff had at a fale previous to the one
mentioned in the declaration, been declared the
bidder of a lot of teas, on which he had paid
'lie ufnal depofit, but neglening to make good the
purchafe within the period limited, he had applied
:o the Defendants, who fo far from infifting on the
forfeiture, had given him time; that he afterwards
paid the purchafe money, with intereft for the de-
lay, but that the Defendants declared he fhould not
be permitted to bid at any other fele. The queltion
for the Court was, whether under all the circum-
aances the Plaintif was entitled to recover? It was,
faid Mr. Belt, a queftion of extreme magnitude,
not merely to the parties to the prefent caufe, but
to the trade of the country in general. It involv-
ed nothing lets than this, whether the whole trade
of the Eatt Indies was to be completely under the
controul and dominion of the Company ? If they
could do what they pretended they had a right to
do, the Oren would be that of inverting them with
A degree of influence inconfiftent with the princi-
ples upon which commerce was carriA on. The
law of England had, with a view to the advantage
of the public, granted the Entl India Company a
monopoly of the trade of an immenfc territory,
more fruitful in the natural and artificial p: odue-
tionsof nature,and human industry, than any other
part of the globe. To monopolies the leaft even-
five is their operation, the law looked with a jea-
loin eye, and in no instance tolerated them without
impoting filch refit aims as were nece&ry. Perhaps
there was no monopoly that could exift which re-
quired more coercion than the one enjoyed by the
East India Company • becawfe there was no one
u hich had fuch an influence upon the general trade
of the country. The Government had been ever
anxious to prevent their making an undue ufe of
the Charter granted them, and therefore by
the Charter itfelf, of to William 111. it had been
ftipulated, that all goods and merchandize im-
ported by them, fhould be publicly expoled to fale
by inch of candle, and fold to the higheft bidder,
upeu pain of the King's high difplealure; and by
flat. to Will. 111. c. 4+ fec. 6q. referring to the
charter, it was ensued that all goods and met.-
chandizes fhould be fo fold. Such a reftraint was
abfolutely neceffary, for otherwife the Company
would be enabled to charge the public any price
they pleafed for the articles they imported. They
would be further enabled, as the concern was ma-
naged by Dirdtors, to fell the commodities to
themfelves, and retail them out at an unreafona-
, ble rate. They would be enabled to decide who
Mould or /hould not be the perfons to deal in the
produnions of the EMI. A more juft and politic
reftraint, than that impofed by the Charter of In-
corporation and the AR of Parliament, could not
be devifed. He therefore fubmittcd, that the right
of bidding at the public fates of the Eaft Indic
Company was a complete and inviolable right that
could not be taken away, except by Mt of Par-
liament. If nothing but an An of Parliament
could take it away, wilting but an Alt of Parlia-
ment could abridge it. Taking this argument for
granted, he fubmitted it was quite impollible the
Ea ft India Company could deftroy the right of the
fubjeet by any bye-law of their own ; and there-
fore maintained that this bye-law fet up by the
Company was, upon every recognized principle
of the law of England, abfolutely void, and not
binding upon the fubjens of the country. It was
a bye-law in reftraint of trade, and not in regula-
tion of it, and on that ground was illegal. The
Learned Serjeant cited a variety of the moft emi-
nent legal writers in fupport of the (latrines for
which he contended. The e11e.% of this bye-law
was not to regulate the manner in which the plain-
tiff fhould carry on his trade, but prohibited him
from exercifing it altogether. It would be in vain
to dired the Company's goods to be put up to
public aunion, unlets every fubjen had a right to
bid • and fuppofing that right to exift, it was int-1
poible for the Company to impofe a qualification
which rendered it nugatory. The An of Parlia-
ment, ift Geo. 11. c. a 6. fec. 7. (hewed that no
other power but the Legiflature could impose a
condition on the right of the fubjed ; that An,
with a view to prevent needy adventurers from
[peculating upon the Company's fates, had enan-
ed, that if any perfen should purchafe goods, and
neglen to make a depart within the ufual time,
he fhould forfeit fix times the amount of fuch de-
pofit, and the fate was declared to be null and
void, and fuch buyers were declared unable to bid
at any future Pale. If the Legiflature had thought
it neceffary to have prohibited perfons who had
neglened to complete their purchafes in time from
Ibidding is fatale, it would have fo faid; it was
competent to have maned full a law, but not
having deemed it neceffary, it was impoffible the
Company could of Welt' usurp a Legiflative Power
re ft rinive of the rights of the fubjen. The Learned
Serjeant then proceeded to argue; that the bye-
law in qaettion was unneceffary, injurious to the
Company, injurious to the public, and injurious
to the revenue. To the revenue it would be par-
ticularly detrimental ; for if perfons in the tea
trade were excluded from the Company's faks,
they would have no alternative but that of endea-
vf..arian, to procure teas through the medium of
fn.ugering from other powers who imported it
from the Eaft. Admitting the prefent bye-law