Star.
London, England, 1807-06-05 00:00:00

THE ICING O. COLtN JONES AND OTHERS.

Thii/caute came before4he C mrt, upon a fpecial
cafe, from the Quarter Setlions of Anglefey, which
lilted that the Defendants were owners of a packet
faiiirig to and from Holyhead to Dublin, which con•
'eyed the mails and paireng,ers. The 'read was re-
gillered in the parilh of BealiM3ll,, and the refldence
01 the owners Wai at Holyhead. tinder fuch circurA
fiance', the queftion for the contideration of their
Lord:Ups was, whether ibis packet was :uch a fpecies
of local and visible proper tp as to :ender its p-Ifefrors
fulajeet t,) pay tire poor!: rate for the pain of Holy.
bead The Qi_iarter Scifions had decided, that it was ;
and the jtitigtrent of the C tart upon this point was,
citha to alarm or Thtili the order made by the Court
below. •
Mr. ITomtoyn v.-as proceedina to argue in rapport
the determination made by the Sciftens, when

Lord ELLFNIMROUGH afked the Counfel on the
other fide, if they thould be able to (hake the au'ho-
rity of the cafe of the King v. White, which bad
already decided the prefent queltion ?
14Ieffrs. PARR and Armor, fof the Defendants, re-
plied, that the cafe of the King v. White, had been
materially thaken by that of the King v..Collinfon,
argued two years fince. What they fh,uld fubmit,
would be, that the packet failing backwards and for-
wards from Holyhead to Dublin, which was regiftered
in a different parifh, was not fuch a fpecies of fixed
and vifible property, as to make the owners liable to
pay the poor's rate of Holyhead. While a 'hip was
Itationary in one particular port, the was unprodtr.:•.
tive, and was only beneficially employed in her paf
rage from one country to another, by which the
freight was earned. Suppofing, however, the cafe of
the King v. White to be law, which determined that
the (hip was rateable in the peal in which The was
regiflered, and where her owners refided, yet this
inttance could not apply ; for the packet was attempted
to be rated for a parifh, in which the was not regif-
tered. The truth was, that the packets appointed to
tranfport the mails were not the property of indivi-
duals, but of the Government; and thefe Defendants
were not the legal owners of them, but merely per-
fons employed by the Poft Office, at a fixed falary, to
perform the neceffary voyage. So much fo was it,
that they could not even fail without the mails tor
the port to which they were defined.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH." Is there any queftion,
but that any one of them might be taken in execution
for a debt of the owner, the Captain of it 1"
The Learned Counfel further argued, that it was
evident, from all the circumstances, that the defen-
dants could not be confidered fubjed to the rate, as
for property from which they derived the tole advan-
tage. The Government of the country were at the
expense of rigging, a ming, and manning the pac-
kets; and the profit derived to the Captain almoft
folely arofc from the paffengers which they conveyed.
All velfels that were private property were fubjed to
various claims for port duties, harbcur expenses, and
light houfe charge,; but to none of them were the
packets ltsrble, for they were paid by the Poll Office ;
and in one infante particularly, the Putt Matter
General paid 501. per annum, as an equivalent to
fuch demands.

Mr. Jullice Gansa —" If what ie contended be
really the cafe, at the death of the Captain of one of
there packets, the property devolves to Government."
The Court, in delivering its opinion, obferved,
that they could difcover no diflinaion whatever in
this cafe from the quetlion decided in the King v.
White. It was faid, that no part of the profit was
gained at Holyhead : it (hould, however, be remem-
beta, that in the voyage from that place to Dublin,
the commencement of the earning of profit was at
Holyhead, and that, in the homeward voyage, the
freight became (hie and payable at Holyhead only.
Although, indeed, the veffel might be hired by Go-
vernment, the property remained in the owner, and
there could not therefore be a queflion but that the.
packets were fuch a fpecies of local and vifible pro.
perty as to be rateable.
The rell of the Court concurring in opinion with
his Lordlhip ; the rule for feting afide the rate was
difcharged, and the order of Seffions affirmed.
THE KING V. TFIR COMMISSIONERS OP SEWERS VOL

THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET.
This cafe came on to be argued by Mr. Bu ItOUG H •
It was a Md.ndamus to there Commillioners, to appoint
new rates fur defraying the expence of erefling a new
fea wall, for the prottftion of that part of the county
which adjoins the fea.
The C mmiflioners made a return to this Mandamus,
the fubflance of which was, to deny that they could
appoint a rate from the fituation in which they were
placed. This was to have been argued this day ;
but Lord EccsmanaouGH direfted the attention of
the Court to a part of an Aft of Harr* VIII. re•
lating to Commillioners of Sewers, which, he Paid,
he had not himfelf obferved until he was coming out
of his own hoofe this morning; and as none of the
Learned Counfel had adverted to that part of the
Aft, it was the defire of the Court, that the further
confederation of this Wind's lhould be porlpAned
until Sarni-day. that the Court might not rathly firm
a judgment which might afterwards be found erro•'
neous.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE r.
DENY V. BRETT.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD moved the Court for a
Rule to Ibew caufe why Mr. F. Smith, an Attorney,
(hould not pay into Court 30001. which he. had re•
ceived as the Plaintiff's Attorney. It appeared the
plaintiff had putchafed certain annuities of the De-
fendant, who bring defirous of redeeming the fame,
the Plaintiff employed Mr. Smith as his Attorney, to
execute the deeds, and receive the amount of the re-
demption. After Mr. Smith had obtained the money
of the Defendant, the Plaintiff fent an agent with an
order to receive the property, but Mr. Smith refuted
to deliver it, and laid, lithe perfon who applied for
it mulled on demanding it, he would fend down to
enquire iato the (late of the plaintiff's mind, who, he
infinuated, was in a Rate of mental derangement. The
Learned Serjeant obferved, there was no ground for
the allcdged infanity, and hoped the Court would fee
the propriety of granting the prefent application.
Sir J. blamsvirLD.—Take a Rule to thew caufe.

DORKING W. LAWYER.
This was a motion to difcharge the Defendant out
of cuflody, on the ground of having been taken in
execution for a greater fum than the Plaintiff could
demand. It appeared a verdift went againil the De-
fendant IA Term, for 251. damages, which, added
to colts, made 561. He was, however, taken in exe-
cution for 651. ten pounds more than the damages.
The true fum was tendered when Ike Defendant was
arreffed, but refuted. The Court granted a Rule.

Another flriking inflance of the policy of perfe-
verance, in lottery adventure, occurred in the late
Scheme. A proptietor of hackney coaches had ex-
pended nearly 601. in the purchafe of Shares during
the foimer five preceding Lotteries, in which he had
rh%-zined only about 51. in (mall Prizes. This fum
he determined to adventure in the purchafe of a
quarter Shale- in the late Scheme, and acquired
thereby that portion el one of the greater Capitals.
'Tis needlefs to fay, hew merrily his coach wheels
bare (lace mcv:J.