Star.
London, England, 1802-12-02 00:00:00

1.41' INTELLIGENCE.

• • .
, COURT OP KING's iIENCH, NOV. 29.
, On ad applicatl n made that Catt!'e might be per•
milted to be thzvin before a Judge_ at Chamliers,
The, CHIEF JurricE laid, that this (hall not be
u done, nlefs it appears that it had been intrilible
for the pat ties to come to the Court. boner : fur the
Coutt would not nnneceffarily load the labours of
the Learned judges at Chambers.

FR.ONTSEPI V. FROST.
In this Ore application was made to the Court
by Mr. HORN e, the Counfel for the defendant, for
a rule to (hew caufe why a vet diet given by a Jury
in favour of the plaintiff, on a former occafion,
fhould hot be fet alide; and a new trial granted ?
The circumflances of the cafe were Hated to be as
follow—while the Progrefs merchant fhip was at
Martinique, in the Weft Indies, the Carpenter,
who had been carried out from Europe with this
Veffel, died. The plaintiff, who is a fhip carpen-
ter, being unemployed at the time, came on board
the Progrefs, as it appeared, by way of trial.—
Having continued Tome time, he was feized tvith
the yellbw fever, and went on Chore, but returned
in abbut three weeks after, when he entered into
a regul`ar engagement to ferve on board the Pro-
grefs in the capacity of Carpenter, till the vefrel
had arrived at her mootings in the River Thames.
This was accordingly performed by the plaintiff,
who brought this anion for the recovery of his
wages. The defendant refilled to pay there wages
on two grounds. The firft was, that the plaintiff
had deferted from another veffel in the Weft In-
dies previous to his engagement with the Progrefs;
and, on that account, by an AFC, paffed in the
37th year cf the reign of his prefent Majefly, to
prevent defertion from merchant (hips trading to
the Colonies and Weft Indies, he had no legal
claim to his wages. The fecond was that the
plaintiff had left the veffel, after her arrival in the
River Thames, before the cargo had been dif-
charged, without any order in writing, contrary
to the At ofParliament paired in the ad of George
the Second, for the regulation of Seamen in the
River Thames, by which it was enaaed, that any
feaman who fhould leave his (hip before fhe came
to her moorings, and her cargo was difcharged,
without a written order from the Commander,
fhould be liable to a forfeiture -of one month's
wages, which became due to Greenwich Hofpital.
No fatisfaaory evidence could be produced of the
defertion in the Weft Indies, and therefore that
point was abandoned by the defendant's Counfel,
who confined themfelves to the fecond ground,
namely," the plaintiff's deferting the veffel after
her arrival in the River Thames. That the plain-
tiff had left the velrel without any order in writ-
ing was admitted, but it was proved that this was
the general praßice ; that the commanders were
often extremely happy to get rid of them at fuch
times. The prefent plaintiff, it appeared, even
from the defendat is evidence, bad gone off open.
ly along with a great many others.
The Jury gave a verdia for the plaintiff for the
whole of his wages. The application for a new
trial was refufed, and the verdict left undiflurbed.

DECEMBER 30.-SMITH V. IRELAND.
The. Plaintiff is a linen draper, and the Defen-
dant was his foreman. Some time during the laft
fummer a perfon of genteel appearance came into
the fhop and afked for goods to the value of
501. or 60. The Defendant made them up for him.
The gentrtman, who turns nut to have been a
fwindler, wrote out a check for a few pounds
more than the money upon Bolder°, the banker,
and a(ked the Defendant for the difference. There
was not enough in the till, but the Defendant gave
him two guineas. The Gentleman faid he would
call again for the remainder. Upon carrying the
check to the banking houfe it was found no fuch
name as that upon it was known there. This action
was therefore brought for the value of the goods.
On the part of the Plaintiff, evidence was given
that he had ftriCtly ordered his foreman never to
give credit, and it was contended that the fore-
man had no right to do fo without an exprefs au-
thority from his mailer. The known cullomers of
' the fhop might be nutted, but firangers could only
be ferved for ready money.
Mr. ERSKINE, on the other fide, maintained that
it was the cullom to give credit, and that the De-
fendant could not be liable unlefs he had jufi rea-
fon to fuppofe that the man who bought thefe goods
was an impoftor. He afked if his learned friend,
Mr. Garrow, would not obtain credit eafily in any
fhop u here he was not known ?
Mr. GARROW replied, that it was not an eafy
matter for him now to appearin the City of Weft-
mintier incog. but where he was not known he cer-
tainly would not be trufted. His LordThip would
recollect, that in the famous cafe of Creafy he had
alked the witncfs if he would fell him goods on
credit ? and the anfwer was," without good fecu-
rity, certainly not." Indeed, he had once in this
way been reduced to great difficulties. When hur-
rying from the country to the fittings at Guildhall
one of his horfes fell ill, and it fo happened he had
no money in his pocket. He went to an inn, and
Rated his fituation. " No, (faid the innkeepet ),
you're not Counfellor Garrow ; this is all a Rory :
I won't truft you." He was at length obliged to
turn advocate, and urge that his carriage would be
afecurity. However, he was f ill fufpicious, and his
laft words to the pat boy were, " See that you do
not quit the carriage till you are paid."
A deduCtion was made for wages owing; the
Defendant, but for the ref the Jury found a ver•
did for the Plaintiff.