Star.
London, England, 1801-01-27 00:00:00

PEREMPTORY PAPIR.

Lord KEN vox Paid, in looking into the Peremp-
tory Paper, initead of going firil into the S'pecisl
Paper to-morrow and Wednefday, the Court
thought it would be better to give the preference
for a few days to the Peremptones. As this was
an iffuable Term, it would be extremely conve•
merit the Peremptories ihould be all difpofed of
before the Circuit came on. To-morrow, there-
fore, the Court would firft hear the motions, after-
wards the cafes in the Peremptory Papers, and
then, if there was time, they would hear cafes in
the Special Paper.

EYRE AHD ANOTHER V. DIMMED.

Mr. ERSKINE moved the Court for a Rule to
thew caufe why there fhould not be a new trial in ,
this cafe t It was tried before Mr. Juilice LB.!
BLANc and a Special Jury of Merchant., on the!
22d of December laft, at Guildhall. It was an at.
'ion brought by. the Plaintiffs againß Mr. Duns-
ford, a partner in a refpeClable houfe of trade in
the city (Litchigary and Nephew), for the pur-
pale of recovering a compenfation for ?Jots which
they had fuffered in confequence (as they raid) of
a falfe reprefentation made to them by him of the
credit and circumftances of one William Thomp-
fon, a Merchant at Hamburgh. The Jury found
a verdict for the Plaintiffs for 7101. Mr. Erfkine,
in his application for a new trial, contended with
great earneftnefs and eloquence, that this cafe did
not come up to the principle of any of the cafes.
(about twelve in number) of a fimilar nature,
which had come before the Court. He adverted
to the firft cafe that had been decided (that of
Pafely v. Freeman, in 3 Term Rep.) and obferv-
ed, that the Court
had there Rated fraud and itn.;
pofition as the ground of the action. But here it
was fairly and honourably admitted by his learned
Friends on the other fide, that there was no fraud.
Mr. PARK, of Counfel for the Plaintiffs, Paid,
they admitted there was no moral fraud.
Mr. ERSKINE contended, that the Defendant,
who had been admitted to be a man of truly re-
fpeCtable chara&er, had, in the opinion of the Jury,
been guilty only of inadvertence, in omitting to
Rate to the Plaintiffs part of the qualifications
under which the houfe of Litchigary and Nephew
had given Thompfon credit for 12,c001. It was
not fo much for_the money that this Gentleman
made that application as for his charaCter, which
he was afraid might be implicated in it.
Lord KFNYON—" Take a Rule to Phew caufe."
Rule granted,
THE KING V. BAKER.

The Defendant was the Pilot of a VefTel that
came from Barcelona in the autumn of z 799, and
arrived at Plymouth, while there was a Procla-
mation of his Maje.ty in Council, direding that all
Perfons on board fuch refiels Ihould perform qua-
rantine, under an apprehenfion that they might be
infelled. The Defendant went on hoard this veffel
to conduet her in, and tho' he was informed how the
matter flood, yet he came on (hors contrary to
the commands of the Royal Proclamation, upon
which he was profecuted, and pleaded guilty.—
This day he came into Court to receive judgment.
Mr. Jullice Gamic told the Defendant be had
been convicted of a crime of a very ferious nature.
It was for going on board a (hip called the Iris,
from Barcelona, in Spain, and coming on Shore
without performing quarantine, conformably to
' his Majefty's Proclamation founded on an Ad of
Parliament. That very wife and provident AEI
of Parliament And the King's Proclamation that
had been iffued on it in Oftober 5759, provided
that every Pilot, or other perlon, going on board
a (hip performing quarantine, (ball not at any rate
return till he likewife has performed quarantine.
Said his Lordfhip--" at the moment this Procla-
mation ailed, there was great danger in breaking
that rule, and, in truth, no man can forefee the
pernicious confequences that may happen if that
rule Should be violated. It is not impoffible that
you might have gone on board ignorant of the
Rate of the (hip : and, looking at your affidavit,
which I have done with great attention, I hope
that was fo. Burl( it was, it is clear you were in-
formed before you left the (hip of a diforder being
on board, and a caution was given to yon not to
leave the (hip, which was totally difregarded. It'
is impoffible for us, by your example, not to let
the world know, that this Ad of Parliament, fo
wife and fo provident, mull be obeyed and enforc-
ed. For the offence you have committed, this
Court doth order and adjudge—that you be im-
prifoned in his Majeay's Gaol of Newgate for fix
Calendar Months."

WHALIY O. 1100THCOTIt, BART.
This was a Rule which hood in the Pelemptory
Paper for this days •it was to (flew caufe why a
Warrant of Attorney given by the Defendant,
who is a young man of Falhion, to confefs a
Judgment, fhould not be delivered up to be can-
celled, upon the allegation that the confideration
of it was for money won in a defperate manner in
gaming, and other illegal pratices, at Brighton,
Tait limner ; part of which cafe is already before
the Public, the whole of which 'hall be detailed in
due feafon. The Court, the fall Term, having
heard thesaffidavits on both fides, made an order
that the Warrant of Attorney ihould remain as a
fecurity for whatever might appear, if any, to be
due upon the tranfitetions between the parties, but
that the perfon to whom the Warrant of Attor-
ney was given, fhould proceed• without delay, in
an Action at Law upon the vouchers which he
alledged he had in ftipport of his demand, and for
which the Warrant-of Attorney was given, in or-
der that a Jury might fee how the cafe Rood be-
tween the parties, and that the caufe fhould be
tried in London, at the Sittings after the laR
Term. Some time afterwards an application was
made to the Court, on the part of the Plaintiff, to
poßpone the trial of this caufe, on the abfence of
a material wimefs, who was alledgcd to be then
in Ireland; to which the Court aircnted, but ob-
ferved that, as this was a delay which came from
the Plaintiff, it would be unreafonable that the
Defendant &odd be kept in cuitody on that ae-1

I enttnt, and therefore ordered that he thould be dif.
charged upon tiling common bal, which he 'WAS
accordingly.
This day,.Mr. GAILROW laid, that the parties
who are the Plaintiffs in this' caul:, did all they
could to. delay the trial,Thef had now made it
a Special Jury, which etaried the matter over
.the Term, becauf: fuel) trials were never brouzh:
on at the Sittings in Term; they mu t he quick-
-ened as much as poiEble ; but in the mean time,
nothing could be done with the prefent Rule but to
enlarge it.—Rule enlarged.