Star.
London, England, 1802-11-12 00:00:00

ROPIMAKINS COMPANY.

Mr. Gtsas moved fora writ to the Ropemakers
Company, of the City of London, calling upon
them to proceed to the choice of a Matter and
Wardens. A Meeting had been held for this pur-
pofe on the day fixed by the Charter, but the Mat-
ter had not been prefent, fo that its ads were void.
He was not Cure whether this cafe came within the
Statue of George L which empowered the Court
of King's Bench, when for any reafon an Election
had not taken place on the proper day, to award
a Mandamus to any " City, Borough, or Town
corporate."
Mr. Juftice Gaoss (in the abfence of Lord Et.-
minsoaotion ) Paid that the Court was very much
againft the motion ; but if Mr. Glass had a thong
opinion they would grant him a rule to thew caufe.
Mr. Gls as replied, that he had before intimated
his having confiderable doubts.
Mr. Jake Law& aims obferved, that it would
be a very defirable thing, if Legiflature would
extend the provifions of this ftatute to all corpora-
tions ; but at prefent, it was cleat that a Corpo-
ration rich as the Ropemakers Company was not
included in it.—Writ refufid.

THE RING V. PROWS!.
Serjeant Bssr faid, that the Defendant at-
tended to receive the jddgment of the Court.—
However, there were long affidavits on his be-
half, which the other party would probably with
t. have an opportunity of anfwering. It would
therefore be defirable that the confederation of the
cafe fhould be deferred till a future day.
Mr. GARROW faid he law no objection to this
mode of proceeding, provided that the affidavits
were filed.

In anfwer to a queftion from the Court, Mr.
Serjeant Basr replied that his Client had been con.
viaed of an affault.

THR 81110 V. THR MAYOR OF HARWICH.

Mr. Guam, moved in this cafe for a mandamus
to ho direaed to Thomas Bolton, Efq. Mayor of
Harwich, to proceed to the elation of a Capital
Borso The then Itated from affidavits which be
held m his hand, that by the conflitution of Har-
wich, the Corporation confifted of a Mayor, feven
Aldermen, and 24 Capital Burais ; that thofe
Capital Burgeffes elated the Mayor, and that thei
has been for a confiderable time a vacancy for the
littration of a Capital Burgefs. The Mayor was
.•

4 •
rolls Who wailed upon hins thAt he would have ho
communication with them except at the Towa
iliall. The eleCtion, however, was.not proceeded
upon, and as a capital Burg!: is a material com-
ponent part of the Corporation, it was abfolutely
neceifiry, that the vacancy should be Mled
Mandamus granted.

ANONYMOUS.
This anion was brought againft the Defendant,
for that his fervants had fo negligently navigated.
a !hip of his that fhe had been run againii a flip of
the Plaintiff, fo that the latter was wholly li'i and
deftroyed. The caufe did not go to the Jury, but
was referred to a Mr. Atkinfon. 'This gentleman
awarded that the damage done ky the flips run-
ning foul of each other (hould be equally divided
between the two parties. He therefore valued the
(hip that was funk and the expence of repairing
the "biking (hip, and decreed that one halt of this
fhould be borne by the Plaintiff and the other by
the Defendant. He accompanied his award i I
a long differtation; letting forth his reafons. A Rule
was granted lalt term to thew caufe why this award
fhould not be fet afide.

Mr. PARKE, for the Plaintiff, now (hewed cP.ufe.
He allowed chat a great many of Mr. A ,ki9fon's
pofitions could noc be maintained, and iFat his
numerous quotations from foreign writers upon
maritime law, were of no authority in this colintry.
But though he had been miftaken in point of law,
(fill as the matter had been referred to him, his
award was conclufive. For this he cited a cafe
decided by Lord Chancellor Eldon.
Mr. RAINS, on the other fide, contended, that
that cafe, as it appeared in the report, could not Fe
fupported as the conflant praaice to fct an award
afide, where the arbitrator had been mifiaken in
point of law. He imputed no negligence to the
Defendant, therefore the Defendant *as not in any
degree liable. Thefe notions of equity were quite
erroneous, as the Defendant muft either pay the
whole, or none. He confidered it an accident ;
therefore he fhould have declared that the Plaintiff
mutt bear the whole lofs. Befides, he had taken
into confideration the damage done to the Defen:
dant's veffel, a matter not referred tb him. Mr.
Raine read feveral paffages from the award, that
occafioned much merriment, particularly the fol-
lowing : " Lord Kenyon to be fure laid it down,
that where no negligence is to be imputed to the
Defendant, he is not liable ; yet when both parties
are equally culpable, or what is the fame thing, are
equally blanulefi, it ismy opinion,as well as that °father
eminent writers, that the lois fhould be divided."
The three Judgeswere unanimous that the award
could not be fullained. They faid he had erred once
upon his own principles, for he wilhed to decide
according to law, and he had decided againft it.
It wis not necelfary for an arbitrator to date his
reafons ; but if he did, and they wets infufficient,
his award could not Rand.
Lord ELLEtisoaouort was not in Court, as he
prefided at the Admiralty Seffidns.
Mr. ERSKINE was alfo abfent front COurt, on
account of the Admiralty Seffions.
At about one o'clock Mr. Juftice Ls &sac fat
to hear NO Prier mules ; but as it was the first
day of the hearings in Term, and Mr. ERSKINE
(who was unavoidably abfent) was employed in
every cafe of any importance, none but undefended
caufes were tried.