Star.
London, England, 1813-07-31 00:00:00

FITZGERALD V. FORSTER-.-DEMURRRR.

The bill in this case stated, that the plaintiff had
gone into an auction-room, where a house at the west
end of the town was advertised to be sold, and pur-
chased the house at £5091. He had then just retur-
ned from France, where he had been a prisoner, and
wanted a house for family. There was only one
bidder against him, whom he took, as he alleged,
for a bona fide bidder 3 but he afterwards discovered,

that it was only the vender, or an agent employed
by the vender to bid. There was also a charge, that
if there were any other bidders, they also were agents
for the vender. The bill prayed, that the contract
might be so aside, on the ground of fraud, the price
being £l2OO beyond the value ; and also that the
plaintiff should be allowed for repairs and improve-
ments made in the house subsequent to the purchase,
amounting to a sum of £l7OO. To this Bill there
was a general demurrer.
The-VICE-CHANCELLOR adverted to the law, that
the vender might, upon notice given to slie atictio-
neer, bid, or employ a person to bid, so as to prevent
the property from being sold at an under-value.—
There were cases, however, where, when several.per-
sons were so employed by the vender, so as to give
an appearance of competition, the contract had been
set aside. Here, however, there was only one bidder
alleged to be employed by the vender; for although
there was a charge, that if there were more bidders,
they were also employed by the vender, it was not
positively stated that there were more. Then it was
alleged that the plaintiff paid more for the house
than it was worth. This was no ground for seuing
aside the contract, otherwise they would have enough
of applications from purchasers at auctions, who
would be very glad to get rid of their contracts. It
appeared to him, therefore, that the demurrer must
be allowed, though he should be sorry that this should
be considered as a final decision.

COURT OF JUNG'S BENCH, JULY so.
SPECIAL JURIES.

COWLEY AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES OP LUNN) T. RO-
BERTSON. "1.4.
This action was brought to recover £146, the
amount of a quantity of slops, sold by the bankrupt,
to a woman of the name of Gillies, and who had
since been married to the defendant. The plaintiff
proved the bankruptcy, the delivery of the goods,
and the marriage of the defendant with Mrs. Gillies.
Mr. PARK, for the defendant, stated, that his. de-
fence was most curious, and very short, namely, that
the former husband of Mrs. Gillies was alive long
after the contract for the goods, and that she con,e-
quently could not contract, or the defendant be lia-
ble. He should prove, that her husband's name was
Matthew Tittery Gillies, which was a very strange
combination of names ; that he went to Tortola in a
•fessel called the Eaton, and arrived there. He
should prove that a Matthew Tittery Gillies was
alive in Tortola in 1 809 ; that he had written home
to his wit, in 1808, although, in consequence of her'
having been married again, it was thought right to
withhold the letter. He should also prove that the
description of the person living in Tortola was pre-
cisely the same as that of the husband of Mrs. Gil-
lies. He felt it right to state, that Mrs. Gillies and
the defendant had supposed Gillies dead at the time
they were married, and Mrs. Gillies had gone, into
mourning for him.
Mr. TOPPING asked his Lordship, whether he
thought it competent to defendant to give such evi-
dence, he being estopped by his plea to dispute the
marriage ?
Lord ELLENBOROUTGH thought the evidence admis-
sible, as defendant, in his plea, did not admit the
marriage.
H. Howard, Clerk of the parish of gt. Ann's,
Limehause, produced the original registry of the pa-
rish ; in which, under date 24,th December, 1791,
there appeared a marriage of Matthew Tittery Gil-
lie's, widower, with Mary Dobson, spinster.
E. Dobson swore that she was present at the mar-
riage of her sister with Gillies, and alto at the mar-
riage of the same sister with defendant, in 1808 :
that Gillies was a seaman, and had had three chil-
dren by his wife. Gillies went abroad the last time
in 1801. Witness had never seen him since. She
had often seen him write ; and a letter having been
put into her hands, she said it was his. Her sister
went into mourning for Gillies, and had believed him
dead ; the reason she had for so believing, witness
did not know.

Mr. M,Cleverty had resided 20 years in the West-
Indies, recollected that Matthew Tittery Gillies ar-
rived at Tortola in 1806, as the Chief-mate of the
Eaton; and the Captain having died,• he was ap-
pointed in his room. Witness had seen dillies in
witness's yard, in the year 1811 ; he was well ac-
quainted with Gi:lies's hand-writing, having received
many letters from him : witness had recommended
an agent to him on his first arrival ; witness knew
Captain Floriman, he lived. at the island of Anne-
gado ; Gillies principally lived with him, and was
occupied in supplying Tortola with fowls and vege-
tables ; Gillies had of:en told him, that he had a wife
and four children in England : Captain Floriman
came to England about four years ago: a letter being
-put into his hand, he swore that it was the hand-
writing of Gillies.
The letter was then read, which was addressed to
Mrs. Gillies, dated May 2, 1809, and began "My
dear and once-beloved Mary." It complained of her
silence, and stated that he had written by many
vessels ; asked about his children, his wife's sister,
and various other friends, and complained of his si-
tuation ; and it was signed her unfortunate and loving
husband, Matthew Tittery Gillies.
Dr. Lettsom affirmed, that he was well acquainted
with Captain Floriman, and that he had been in Eng-
land in the months of July, August, and Sept. 1809.
Mr. TOPPING said, that he thought the defence was
sufficiently made out ; but it was apparent that his
clients were justified in bringing the action.
Lord ELLIINBOROUGH, in addressing the Jury, re-
marked, that probably such a combination of names
had never before occurred. Gillies was probably the
only person of such names in the world, and there
would never, in ail likelihood, be a person of similar ,
names.

The plaintiff then chose to be called.
PARKER AND SIRELLA v. JAMES.

The plaintiff had shipped a quantity of goods on
board the Astrea, a vessel belonging to defendant, to
go from Liverpool to Venice, with leave to touch at
Trieste. Part of the goods was insured, part not.
The vessel had a letter of marque, but on the voyage
was guilty of several acts of deviation, by cruizing
and lying to, and was taken while cruizing out of the
course of the voyage. An action had been brought
against the Underwriters, but they, in consequence
of the deviation, had a verdict ; and this action was
brought to recover the amount of the goods from the
owners of the Astrea, on account of their breach of
the contract entered into by the bill of lading.
Lord ELLSNBOROUGH told the Jury, that trey must

• .
be satisdect, that, as to the goods not tooted, the
plaintiffs had sustained an injury by the cruizesof the
Astrea : but, if satisfied of that fact, they would find
for plaintiffs for the wliole.
The Jury found a verdict for plaintiffs for the whole
ANDERSON V. WALLACE.
This was a question on a policy of insurance on .
ship and goods at and from London to Quebec. The
vessel, it appeared, after her departure from thin
country, and arrival in sight of Newfoundland, for
several days experienced such dreadful weather, that
all on board expected to perish. After contending
against it for three weeks, When the vessel was be.
come a compleat wreck, and was making upwards
four feet water an hour, the Captain, with the advice
of his Officers, determined to tun for the first port
they could make, and they with difficulty matte
Kinsale. After their arrival at that port, the owners
abandoned, and now brought their action against the
Underwiters, as for a total loss, on the grounds chat
the voyage was lost.
Lord tu..emionoucit said, part of the cargo wit;
iron, and other commodities, of a description which,
the vessel having been preserved, could not be t0t.411:
lost. He doubted it this artificial idea of total los!
could be supported ; a verdict, however, might
entered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
Court hereatter.-i-Verdict for the Plaintiff.