Star.
London, England, 1807-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ADMIRALTY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONL
FRIDAY, DlCallatit I f.
This day, the Right Hon. Sir WlLLtatt SccrrY
proceeded to the adjudication of the following cafes:
Kinders Kinder, Laufens Matter.—A question of
joint capture.—lt appeared that this veifel, under
Ruffian colours, laden with a cargo of hemp, bound
on a voyage from Riga to Badicourt, was captured
on the aoth of December 1803, by his Majefly's Chip
of war l'Aigle, and fent into Plymouth, where the
ufual proceedings were commenced againft the (hip
and cargo, and they were finally condemned as good
and lawful prize to the captor in the High Court of
Admiralty. It further appeared, that about a year
and a half afterwards, his Majefty's (hip of war De-
fiance fet up a claim of joint intereft, alledging,
that l'Aigle was under the direetions of the Defiance,
that thefe two (hips were affociating together, and
employed under the orders of Admiral Cornwallis,
in blockading and watching the enemy off the light
hook of Chafferon on the coast of France, and the
entraoce of the harbour of Rochefort, and that the
capture was made during Inch employment. It was '
contended on the part of the Defiance, that thefe
two velrels, the Defiance and l'Aigle, were engaged
in one common enterprize, bur, independent of that,
it was contended, that the Defiance was in fight of
the prize and l'Aigle at the fame period of the day the
'capture took place. In this cafe the Court had the
Alliance of Trinity Mailers, and obferved, in delive-
ring its opinion, that in all cafes of joint capture, the
onus pro bate& lay upon the party aliening a joint inte.
telt ; it lamented, that in thefe kind of cafes, the pro
per evidence was not produced, namely, witneffes
belonging to the captured (hip, who could have no
bias on their minds ; but the Court had generally to
determine thefe cafes on the tellimony of releafing
witneffes on one fide act the other, and the logs and
journals of the Paid Blips, which evidence was forte-
times defective. The Court, after making fome
other obfervationt, having the Alliance of the Tri-
nity Mailers (who were of opinicin that the prize, from
the logs, charts, and journals, could not have been
in fight of the Defiance at the time of capture) pro-
nounced that the Defiance had not eftablifhed her
joint intetea, but gave no colts.
The Two Friends, Williams mafter.—ln this cafe
the Court rejefted the claimant's prayer for colts and
damages.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, I)EC. no.
CHAMPION AND KIRBY V. CIO. SHOAT.
The Plaintiffs are wholefale grocers in Mincing
lane, the Defendant is a retail grocer at Salilbury.
The aelon was fur goods fold and delivered, to which
thb plea was, that the Defendant was not liable, ex
cepting as to t Is. 9d. of which he had made a
tender. The tender was admitted.

After the ATTORN sr GINERAL had been heard on
the part of the Plaintiffs, and Mr. Gaititow for the
Defendant, and the witneffes had been called on both
fides,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH Paid, that this was an anion
brought by the Plaintiffs, to compel- the Defendant
to pay the price of two hogfheads of fugar, and of
one theft of prunes, amounting, with cartage and
other expences, to nil t as. tod. It was Rated for
the Defendant, that the order given was for a va
riety of anklet, and that he was entitled, therefore,
either to have the whole executed, or to rejea at his
pleafure any partial execution. By the tender of
is. 9d. for the French plumbs, he had admitted
that the contra& need not be executed in profs, but
that each part of the order might be fulfilled fepa•
rately. The queftion then would be, whether that
part of the order which refpefted the 'foist and
prunes was executed under loch circutnlitances that
the Defendant ought to pay for them. Here a lam-
pie of the fugar Was produced ' • but in all cafes loch
produftions did not imply that the article fold was to
be identically the parcel from which the (ample was
taken; fometimes it only meant, that the quality
fhould be equal to fuch (ample. It teemed to be
evident here, that the (ample was not drawn from
the identical fugars fent to the Defendant for the
execution of the order. if the Jury were fatisfied as
to this particular, the next enquiry was, whether an
order reteiv-cl on the 9th of May, was completed
with fufficient expedition on the toll of the fame
m )11 b, or whether the delay was a fufficient ground
to 'chit the payment t—Verdiet for the Plaintiffs,
I it. 125.

JOHN POOL! V. CEO. NOUSTIELD.

This was an anion on a bill of exchange, dated
the 13th of November, 1802, drawn by a Mr. Mould
and accepted by the Defendant, to the amount of
1041. B►. The Defccdant pleaded that be was not
liable.

Mr. CARLOW Paid, that he was furprifed that Mr.
Bousfield, who was an attorney of this Court, fhould
attempt to make Any defence to the anion. The
Plaintiff was formerly in trade, but had retired. Mr.
Mould, a relation of his, was clerk in the office of
the Defendant, and drew the bill. The Plaintiff,
who had money to employ, thought kimfelf happy
in having asprofeffional gentleman who could difpole
of it for him to advantage, and no doubt his pecu-
niary concerts were fkilfully managed, although it
did fo happen that they were not faccefsfully eon-
dated. The Defendant was now to fay, that he had
not received all the money for this acceptance, but
it was to be admitted, that he had received 301. to-
wards it. He fhould have thought that this Defen-
dant was a better lawyer than to make fuch a de-
fence, fat an acceptor bound himfelf to pay a bill to
which he had applied his name, if he had not re•
ceived a fhilling upon it. The bill having been put
in, proved and read,
The ATTOlttlki Gamllt•L faid, that this hill was
liable to fufpicion, as it became due in 1803, and the
anion was now to be decided at the clufe of 11107.
He fhould put in two agreements, to which the
Plaintiff was a party, by which it would be teen that'
the Defendant was wholly exonerated.
The agreements having been read, it appeared that
one objet for which the payment of the bill was
difpenied with was ambiguous ; and therefore Mr.
Mould, after fame altercation as to the admiffibility
of his evidence, was called to explain the tranfanion.
This withers Paid, that the pound why payment was
difpenfed with was, becanle he (Mould) interfered
to
_prevent two mr•tions before the Court.
Lord Ext.snaortoucit...." Were thole motions to
procure an aolwer to tome matters in affidavits ?"

Mr. Mould--(1 They were. my Lord."
Lord ELLawanaotron—" That will nnr do•"
The payment of pl. haying been admitted, a •. r•
diet Wall given for the refidue, adding thcreto elu
interell. 31.

DECE9IIER U.
BOYCII V. BAYLIFFE.

The Plaintiff was a tavern keeper at Bombay, the
Defendant was the Captain of the Huddart Erin
Indiaman. This anion was brought to recover a
compenfation in damages for talk imprifooment,
during his paffage in the Paid (hip, and further, a
fpecial damage of tool. being the extra ezpence he
had incurred in leaving the Chip at St. Helena, and
entering as paffenger on board another veffel.
Mr. Gartatrar;for the Plaintiff, Gid, that his client
had paled ttrilwial* various (imam; in the army,
until he had regalia from the ranks to the refpeaa.
Me part of Condu&or of Ordnance. He had after-
wards engaged in a lucrative occupation at Bombay.
This perfon had a daughter of the age of eight
years, who he was defirous fhould have the benefit
of an European education ; end in order to place her
out to advantage, and to afford her his proteaion in
her paffrge to Europe, he took a place for her and
himfelf on board the Huddart—but the terms on
which he engaged did not entitle him to the privi-
leges of the principal cabin. Notwithtlanding this
circumflance, during the early part of the voyage,
he was permitted to occupy the poop, and to take
his recreation there with the fuperior dicer' and
paffengers. The Captain thought fit, without any
reafon being aifigned, on a fndden to debar him of
thole means of enjoyment. He com?lained, but his
remonftrances were ineffeattal ; and therefore, with-
out any further interference, he contented himfelf in
his retirement, and amufed himfelf with the exercife
of the paternal duties towards his infant child. No•
rice was indeed given him, that the might have the
run of the (hip ; but he would not avail himfelf of
this permit Eon, that his daughter might not be ex-
pofed to the pi-omit-coons loony of the crew of an
Indiamao, without the protedlion of his fuperinten-
dance. On the z zth of May Come grange rads hove
in fight, and it was thought expedient to make pre-
parations, either for the purpofe of attack or defence.
In this lunation of things every perfon on board bad
affigned to him his particular nation, and the Plaintiff
was ordered on the poop, for the purpofe of difcharging
a dangerous duty, from whence he had been driven
as a place of recreation. He refined this order of
the Captain, offering at the fame time to fulfil his
duty any where elfe ; but his pride would not permit
him to join that company, from which, unler loch
painful circumnances, he had been excluded. In a
moment of ratlines and cruelty, the Defendant
ordered that he (hould be put in irons, that with this
difgraceful incumbrance he fbould be expofed on the
poop; and until eight o'clock the next morning he
was continued in fetters. When he came to St. He-
lena, being incapable of enduring the fociety of thole
before whom be had been thus expofed, he took his
raffle for England by another veffel ; and for the
falfe imprifonment, and fubfequent ezpenceo, by this
new means of conveyance, he brought the prefent
adieu.

The Avroasav Gnu:am. alledged that the ad of
the Defendant was necefary for the good difcipline
of the (hip, and Rated that the Defendant had in time
of danger refufed obedience to the Commander, in
prefence of the whole crew, and a part of a regiment
which was returning home.
Colonel Anderfon, of a Corps of Natives; Mr;
Henry Proffer, the ill Mate; Mr. Gordon, the Pin-
ter of the (hip; Mr. Green, the Surgeon ; Mr. Gra-
ham, the Midfhipman ; Mr. Setree' the sd Mate
Mr. Henderfon, the 3d Mate ; all fwore, that the
Plaintiff was commanded by the Captain to go to
the poop, and that he pofitively refuted to go ; and
that, in their judgment, the Captain could not pars
over the difobedience with( ut punifhment, by way of
example, and of fafety to the (hip.
Lord ELLinaottotrcts obferved that both parties
were here much to blame. Whatever indulgence
the Defendant had (hewn towards the Plaintiff during
the fir a two months, he was at liberty to withdraw
it. When the Defendant, in the hour of danger, or-
dered the Plaintiff upon the pocp, he Arnold have
thought that a well regulated pride would have
taught him to confider that as a poll of honour, and
to have left the Captain to his own reflation upon
the impropriety and indelicacy of excluding him from
that place for air and exercite, which in an hour of
peril he affigned to the Plaintiff for the feeurity of
the (hip. Upon his difobedience, if it were neceffary
to mark his condue, a lefs fevere punifhment might
have been inflitaed, and for that over feveriry only, the
Jury would give fufficient damages to fupport the
liberty of the fubjeet ; but at the fame time not fo
extravagantly fevere as to relax the neceffiry vigour
of difcipline. With refpea to the tool. expended in
coming from St. Helena, that expence was not ne-
ceffarily incurred, and therefore the Plaintiff could
not claim it in an adtion.

The Jury, which was a fpecial one, retired, and
shortly brought in a verdid for the Plaintiff—Da-
mages Sol.

THE SAME V. DOUGLAS.

The defendant was a Major in the army, and a
parenger, and as the plaintiff was afcending the lad-
der to go upon the poop, in the cuflody of two of the
crew, the defendant lifted up the but end of a mufket,
and Paid " you d—d fcoundrel, you ought to be
hanged ;if you !peak a word knock your brains
out." As he was going to (trike. his arm was checked
by two officers, and the plaintiff replied, that was not
a proper time, he thould take notice of his condua
afterwards.

The ATTORNEY' GENERAL Paid, that although he
approved of the verdidt in the laft cafe, this could
°Ay be coufidered as the anion of the Attorney to
put cults into his own pocket.
His Lorcffisip had previoutly recommended a ver-
did to be taken for nominal damages, having heard
the fadts Bated in the lait cafe. He lett the damages,
however, to the Jury, who found a verdt for the
plaintiff—Damages ♦os.

TINIIMPION •• BERNARD.

Mr. PARK fisted the cafe to the Jury. Is was an 'aim for
words. The Defendant had hid of the Phintlif—m He Is a thief,
and fo was his Fad* before him, and I will prove it !"
Mr. G.taitow, for the Defendant, contended, that the salon
would not Ik. beeaufe did not appear that the Defendant im-
puted to the Pkintiff any fpecific ad of felony.
'llse Cour jorrielt—" Imputing to a man that he !tole tome
particular thing was actionable ; . but scat laying generally—" Hs is
a thief r beau* dot was not a fpcclei charge—Plaintiff Nun-
rutted. Tarns over.