Star.
London, England, 1809-01-27 00:00:00

THE KING V. NAIRN&

The defendant had been convicted. of perjury on a
trial before this Court, when he appeared as a witness.
The sentence of the Court waj., that he should be con-
fined 18 months in the Kines Bench prison, and be
fined Is.

TIPR,P4AN V. !APISH.

The ATTORNEY GENRRAL moved for a new trial
in this case, which arose out of a policy of insurance'
on the ship Canopus,bound from St:Thomas's island
to Bremen. She was captured on her voyage by a
Plymouth privateer. This capture being pronounced
illegal, she was liberated, and was about to proceed
.cm her voyage, when she was wrecked in Catwater,
in the port of Plymouth. The defence set up by the
underwriters, who had obtained a verdict, was, that
the vesel bad been lost through mismanag:ment.—

This defence, the Attorney General contended, was
no answer to the claim of the plaintiff. He laid it
down as the law on this subject, that a deUiency :of
skill in working a ship was not an answer to the de-
mand of the person assured, when the latter, as in this
case, had taken every reasonable precaution, by hav-
ing rifull complement of men and a pilot on board.
A Rule to spew cause why there should not be a
new trial was granted.
Previous to the Court's sitting, the Judges met in
their Chamber, and chose the following Circuits for
the ensuing Spring :
NORFOLK—Lord Filenborough, Mr. Justice Grose.
MIDLAND—Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, Mr. Justice Bayly.
WESTERN—Mr. B. Thomson, Mr. Justice Chambre.
NoarRERN—Mr. Justice Lawrence, Mr. Justice Le Blanc.

Oiroara—,- Mr. Baron Graham, Mr. Baron Wood. •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JANUARY 26.
LORD DORMER T. - KNIGHT, ?SQ.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD made an application for a
new trial, on the ground that the Chief Justice was
wrong in his opinion, that Mrs. Knight, merely by
receiving the visits of Colonel Fuller, as of any indif-
ferent acquaintance or friend, would incur the forfei-
ture of ,13400 a year, and that the meaning of the"
word associate, introduced into the.deed, meant crimi-
nal association, which neither was, nor had been at-
tempted to be proved since the execution of it ; that
evidence had been received of a person who called
herself Mary Etches (but whose real name was Mary
Hobbs) of some circumstances leading to a suspicion
of some criminality between Colonel Fuller and Mrs.
Knight previous to the deed of separation, but that
Colonel Fuller had, since the trial of the cause, made
an affidavit, in which he positively swore that he had
never taken any improper liberty with Mrs. Knight,
either before or after the execution of the deed, or any
period of his life, and that lest it might be objected to
him that he had not called Colonel Fuller at the trial,
he stated that Colonel Fuller was ready and anxious
to have given the most pointed and positive evidence
to that effect, and attended the Court for the express
purpose, but that the Plaintiff's Counsel did not call
him, because although be would have most positively
contradicted every fact which had been sworn to with
regard to any improper association with Mrs. Knight,
he could not deny the visiting, in the ordinary and
innocent sense of that expression, which, according to
the opinion of the Chief Justice, was sufficient to in-
cur the forfeiture. That in addition to Colonel Ful-
ler's affidavit, he had also the affidavits of four other
persons of unimpeachable character and credit, will
acquainted with Mary Etches (the only person who
swore to any material circumstances of suspicion,)
directly proving the falsehood of her testimony.
The Court, however, thought the ChiefJqstice was
right in his construction of the word acsociate, and that
it was intended to prevent even innocent visiting,
which was 'allowed to have taken place.

THE COMPANY OF FRAME WORK KNITTERS V. PAYNE.

This was an action for debt, to recover from the de-
fendant penalties for following his trade of frame-
work knitter, without freedom of this Company :
for having neglected to take up his freedom after hav-
ing served an apprenticeship of seven years to one
Fletcher, a freeman ; and for teaching and instruct-
ing a person in the art, not being his own child, with-
out taking him apprentice ; all which was contrary
to the by-laws of said Company, and to their Charter,
which had been granted to them in the 15th of
Charles 11. The Plaintiffs had obtained a verdict,
and it now came before the Court, upon a motion for
a non-suit to be entered, upon the grounds that it was
contrary to existing statutes, and was, in fact, placing
a restraint upon the common law. Rule granted.