Star.
London, England, 1824-11-18 00:00:00

WELLER V. WELLER.

Mr. Spat:cc mentioned this case again to his Lord-
ship. He wished to know whether, in the order made
by his Lordship a few mornings ago, that the Master
should approve a settlement to be made on the young'
Lady, his Lordship did not intend that the Master should
previously inquire into the validity of the marriage?
LORD CHANCELLOR—CertainIy, I meant thar, Mr.
Spence; but I conceive that, whether the Master finds
the marriage to be legal or not, the parties ought to be
slurried over again.

VICE•CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 17.
cocime V. WHITING•

Mr. JACOB argued the plea iu this cause. It ap-
peared that the bill was filed by some of the officers of
the Elizabeth, a South Sea whaler, against the owners
of the ship, to compel pa) ment of the wages due to the
plaintiffs under a certain agreement stated in the plead-
ings. This agreement was made between the Captain
on the one part, and the crew on the other: the latter
covenanted that they should perform their duties on
board the Elizabeth during the voyage she was then
about to make; and inconsideration of this, the Captain
agreed that they should receive, by way of compensa-
tion, certain shares of the produce of all oil, whalebone,
head-matter, seals, and other animals, which should be
taken during the voyage. The agreement contained
also a stipulation, that the Captain should alone be re-
sponsiile to the crew for the shares thus agreed to be
paid to them, and that neither the owners nor the
cargo should be liable to airy claims in respect of
such shares. The ship made her voyage, and re-
turned
to the port of London, where her cargo was
disposed of by the owners, who afterwards produced
accounts of the profits arising from the voyage,
and of the proportions which were due to the crew.
Thee propor lions fell short of the expectations of the
seamen, and a bill was filed, charging that the accounts
were untrue, that the produce of the voyage was more
profitable than it was represented to be by the owners,
and that consequently their own shares were larger.
To this bill, the owners, the defendants, had.pleaded
that the agreement precluded the sailors from all right
to sue them, and that if they had any reason to corn.
plain, their only remedy should be against the Captain.
The Learned Counsel argued at some length in favour
of this plea. He contended that the covenant was'
binding upon the parties who made it, and that as they
had chosen before they began their •oyage to content
themselves with the liability of the Captain, they could
not now resort to any other remedy. He drew a dis-
tinction between this covenant and a general covenant
not to sue (which Courts of Equity will always relieve
against), by urging that the covenant here was limited
to one description of persons only, viz. the owners; and
that it was therefore like that stipulati!ar which was
commonly made when ships were manned by foreign
sailors—that they should not sue for wages in any fo-

reign port, and which the Courts in England had held
to be valid. He contended also, that the _plea was
good for want of parties. the Captain not being included.
The VICII-CHANCELLO-11, "overruled the plea. He
doubted very much, whether the covenant in the agree-
ment Was one which could be maintained oader any
circumstances, but in the case before the Court it had
been rescinded by the act of the owners themselves.
When the ship came home they took possession of the
cargo and made sale of it; after which they drew out
accounts, which, as the bill charged, were fraudulent,
and as the defendants, by resorting to the plea now
argued, did not deny. The plea was as invalid in point
of law as of justice, and although everything had been
said upon it by the Learned Counsel of which it was'
capable, it could not be allowed to prevail against the
claims of the plaintiff. The owners pretended, that
because the sailors made an agreement with the Captain
that they would only sue him for their shares of the
voyage's produce, they were therefore not entitled to
relief against a subsequent fraud. which had been prac-
tised upon them by persons not parties to that agree-
ment, but who had obtained possession of the funds out
of which it was to be satisfied. His Honour could not
listen to any such arguments; bat would compel thel
defendants to answer the allegations of the bill.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 17.
THE ENO V. WESTWOOD.

This was a case respecting the mode of electing cor-
porate officers in the borough of Wycombe. By the
charter, those officers should be elected by the Bur-
gesses at large ; but by custom existing before the
charter, and by a by-law made subsequently, the elec-
tion has been conducted by the Common Council, or
select body of the Burges,ei. Two questions, there-
fore, arose: first, whether there can be a partial accept-
ance of a charter? and second, whether, if there can
be no such acceptance, a by-law can be made to limit
and controul its provisions ? These questions were now
argued in the negative by Mr. Sc.tataTr, and in the
affirmative by Mr. TIADAL.--The took time to
consider their judgn'hnt.