Star.
London, England, 1802-07-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLICZNCE.

COCKPIT, WHITEHALL, JULY 7.
(An Appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of
the Ifland of Guadaloupe.)
The Venilia, William Paine Matter.—This fhip,
laden with a cargo of wine, brands', and other
ankles, and dellined therewith from Salone to the
ifland of St. Thomas, was captured on the 2t ft of
March, 1799, by his Majefty's (hip Invincible, and
carried into the ifland of Martinique. It appeared
that a claim was given by the Miller on behalf of i
Jofeph Covachich, defcribed of New York, mer-
chant, for the (hip, and for the general cargo, on
behalf of the faid Jofeph Covachich and W. M.
Seton. It was fubmitted on the part of the cap-
tors, that in point of national charaCter, Mr. Co-
vachich was not to be confidered as an American,
but that in this tranfaaion he was to be confider-
ed as a Spaniard; for although the documents
for the prefent cargo held out a dell in ation to St.
Thomas, yet it was manifeft, from the correfpon-
dence before the Court, that this claimant was
carrying on a trade from Spain to a Spanifh fet-
tlement, and back again.—Their Lordfhips direet-
ed further proof to be produced in this cafe.
(An Appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of
the Ifland of Jamaica.)
Neuflra Senora de Los Remedios, Antonio Ser-
ra Mafter.—This (hip, laden with a cargo, confift-
ing of goo barrels of flour, and fome cafes of wine,
and bound from New Providence to the port of St.
Domingo, was captured in the beginning of Janu-
ary, 1799, by his Mai.efty's !hip of war Stork,
Chriflopher Laroche, Commander, and car-
ried into the ifland of Jamaica, and (here duly pro-
ceeded againft. It appeared that this fhip was
failing under a licence granted by the Governor of
the Bahama Iflands ; but it was fubmitted, on
the part of the captors, that at the time of the
capture the veffel was fleering from one Spani(h
port to another, which was not conformable to the
terms of the licence.

Their Lordfhips, in this cafe, reverfed the fen-
tence (If the Court below, and reftored the chip and
cargo as claimed, and alto condemned the captors
in both instances in the colts.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY s.
SHADD V. JOHNITONF. _ _ _

This was an argument for a new trial of an ac-
tion upon a Bill of Exchange. The Bill was drawn
in thefe words : " Pleafe pay at your boufi soot
three months after date."

There was no evidence at the trial of its having
been prefented at his houfe for payment, and the
Counfel for the Defendant infifled that that was a
material allegation of the Plaintiff's declaration,
which he had not proved, and therefore thought
the Plaintiff ought to be nonfuited.
As this was a doubtful point of law, it was re-
fereed for the confideration of the Court ; and the
Defendant had a verdit fubjed to their dccifion.
In fnpport of the verdict it was argued, that it
was immaterial, inafmuch as in common cafes it
was not neceffary to prove that the Bill has been
prefented ; and a cafe was cited from Bailey's
Treatife on Bills of Exchange, in which the words
were, Pay to my Banker,' naming the houfe,
and yet it was not held to be neceffary to prove
the prefenting it at that houfe.
On the other fide the authority of this cafe was
difputed, on the ground that it was altogether un-
reafonable, that when one had exprefsly fpecified
A banking-houfe at which provifion was to be made
for the Bill, that payment &fluid be demanded
any where elfe.—The Court poftponed their de-
cilion till further confideration.

JULY 6..-.-SIDLEY AND OTHERS V. TRODSHAW.
Mr. Juftice LAWRENCE faid, that this was a
cafe tried at the lal Affixes for the County of Lan-
calter, before Mr. jUlliCe CNAMBRE..—It was an
action of Debt, upon the fifth feEtion of the Ha-
beas Corpus Ad, to recover a penalty againa the
Defendant, for refilling to grant to the Plaintiffs
a copy of the warrant of commitment or detainer,
by which they were kept in the cuftody of the De-
fendant, who is the keeper of the gaol of Liverpool.
A verdiEt was found for the Plaintiff, with liberty
for the Defendant to move that a Nonfuit might he
entered, in cafe the Court fhould be of opinion that
the Plaintiffs had not (hewn they were entitled to
call on the Defendant to (hew this warrant at the
trial. The fubaanee of the Plaintiff's declaration
was, that they were in the cuftody of the Defen-
dant, but not under any charge of treafon or fclony.
The Plaintiffs demanded of the Defendant a copy
of the warrant of commitment or detainer, but
that the Defendant did not within fix hours after-
wards deliver to the Plaintiffs fuch copy, whereby
he forfeited the penalty of tool. dec.
It appeared that the Plaintiff, with three other
perfons, were apprehended in Ireland, by a perfon
of the name of Shee, under a warrant from Lord
Caftlereagh, and brought over to Liverpool by '
that conflable, and came into the cuftody of the
Defendant, as Keeper of the Gaol at Liverpool,
on the 17th of July, and remained there until
the 19th of that month, when they were taken
away by Shee. That they, feveral times, demand-
ed a copy of the warrant of commitment, which
'the Defendant refuted to give to them, and that
the Defendant had a warrant in his hand. The
' Defendant had notice to produce this warrant at
the trial : it was contended at the trial that the
' Plaintiff ought to have been nonfilited, becaufe it
was not proved that the Plaintiffs were under any
warrant of commitment or detainer. But the
learned Judge left it to the Jury to fay whether
there was a warrant or not. The Jury found theta
was not any warrant, but that which was given to
Shee, and he took it with him, when the Plaintiffs
were taken away and brought to London. A vet,
did was found for the Plaintiffs, for the penalty
in the Mt of Parliament, fubjeft to the opinion of
the Court upon this cafe. There were feveral other
fads proved at the trial, but as they were not im-
portant in the confideration of the law of the cafe,
the learned Judge faid he fhould not Rate them.
The LORD Cillite Jusrice having been Counfel
in the tank, took no part in the judgment.—Mr.
Juftice Lawaawce laid, that his brothers GROS'
and La BLANC and himfg had confidered this

' cafe, and were of opinion, that tbe oblation taken
at the trial was well founded: that the plaintiffs
having declared they were detained under a ccm-
mitment or detainer for Come criminal matter, but
not for treafon or felony, it was incumbent on
them to prove fomething of the nature of that
warrant. That there was no evidence given of
the warrant given to Shee, and which was taken
away by him, and that therefore notice to the de-
fendant to produce it, was nugatory, it not being
in his poffeffion ; that this notice to the defendant
to produce the warrant, would not have entitled
the plaintiffs to give evidence of its contents upon
its non.prodn6tion by the defendant. The conic-
quence of which was, that the rule for entering a
nonfuit in this cafe should be made abfolute.—Rule
abfolute accordingly.