Star.
London, England, 1822-07-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY Is.
FORBES V. SIR ALEXANDER COCHRANE AND ANOTHER'
Thi :is an action on the case against the de-
fendants, Si' Alexander Cochrane and Sir G. Cock-
burn, fie seducins and enticing certain slaves of the
plaintiff to quit .a cotton plantation belonging to him,
in East• Fl. visa, whereby 'he lost the services of the
mak -laves, and was prevented and hindered from
cultivating -the said plantation. The second count
was for harbouring and detaining the said slaves ; and
the third count was for harbouring and detaining
them, after notice that they belonged to the plaintiff, ,
thereby depriving him of their services on the estate.
The case disclosed in evidence was this :—The
plaintiff, a British subject, had, for upwards of thirty
years, resided in East Florida, and carried on the
business of a merchant for supplying the South Ame-
rican Indians, under licenses from the Spanish and
British Governments, when hostilities happened
to subsist between the two Powers. His place of ac-
tual residence during that time was Pensacola. He
owned a large cotton plantation, called San Padlow,
situate about 30 miles from the confines of Georgia,
one of the United States, on which plantation were
employed about 100 slaves. During the hostilities
between this country and the United States in 1815,
the defendants were employed in a naval expedition
against Georgia, and took possession of Cumberland
Island, which is separated from East Florida by the
River St. Mary. The. plaintiff's plantation was si-
tuated on the banks of the River St. John, within the
Spanish territory of East Florida, and bounded by
Amelia Island, which is under the same dominion.
As soon as the defendants had taken Cumberland
Island, a proclamation was published by Sir Alexan-
der Cochrane, inviting persons resident in the United
States, supposed to be dissatisfied with their then si-
tuation, to withdraw from the power of the Ameri-
can Government, and place themselves and families
uncle' the pi otection of the British power, at the same
time offering to receive persons fit to serve in his Ma-
jesty's land- or sea -ervice, or to carry them to any of i
the British Colonies, there to be provided for as free
settlers. This proclamation was distributed in Cum-
berland Island, in which St. Mary's, the capital of
the province of Georgia, is situated, and in conse-
cprence of it, numbers of negro slaves deserted their
masters' service, and placed themselves under the
protection of the British Admirals, who received
them on board a tender called the Terror, where they
were furnished with provisions. The proclamation
having found its way into the Spanish territory, a
great many slaves also escaped from their masters,
and followed the example of their American brethren.
Amongst these were thirty-eight slaves belonging to
the plaintiff, including men, _women, and children,
who seized a b. at belonging to their master, and
conveyed themselves down the River St. John to the
Terror on board which they were received on the
'23d of" February, 1315 ; thence removed to the Al-
bion., commanded by Sir George Cockburn; and
afterwards cal zieJ on boarA his Majesty's ship Ruby,
where they remained until March, 1316, when they
were lart,2ed at Bermuda, and employed in his Ma=
jests's Dock-yards there, where they now remain.
consequence of the escape of the slaves from East
Florida, the Spanish Governor of that Province en-
tered into a correspondence with Sir A. Cochrane
upn the subject. The plaintiff also wrote to the Ad-
tni: al upon the sante subject, and had a persondl in-
terview hint, in which he demanded the restitu-
tion of his slaves. The answer was, that as- the
slaves hal inade their escape, they were free agents;
that they were under the protection of the British
power ; that the Admiral bad no authority to deliver
them up again to slavery, but that the plaintiff was
at liberty to use his best efforts to persuade them to •
return, if they thought proper, and that he would
not offer any obstruction for that purpose. Persua-
sions of this kind were used accordingly. but without
effect, the negroes preferring their new to their old
situation. The slaves were received on board the
British ships as refugees, and their names were re-
turned as such to the Admiralty. To recover a com-
pensation for the injury thus occasioned to the plain-
tiff, the present action was brought: The slaves were
estimated at 1001. each in value, amounting to three
thousand four hundred pounds, in addition to which
the plaintiff sought a reparation for the injury sus-
tained by the loss of their services. The question
was, whether the slaves, having escaped and placed
themselves under the protection of the British Ad-
mind, the latter was bound to force them to return
to their former master? For the plaintiff it was
contended, that as he had lost the services of the
slaves in consequence of the acts of the defendants,
they were liable, in point of law, for the consequen-
tial damage. On the other hand, it was insisted that
the defendants were exempt from all liability upon
the general principle, That when' once a slave escapes
from his bondage, and places himself under the au-
thority or the British laws, he becomes absolutely
free of his manacles, and no authority on earth can
compel him ro return to his former state of slavery.
The CHIEF JDSTICE thought it a question of vast
importance, and recommended that there should be
a special -case stated for the opinion of the Court
above, with liberty to turn the facts into .a special
verdict. This was agreed to on both sides, and the
Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
3,8001. subject to a case.
FELTON V. EASTHOA, ESQ. •

This was an action under the Bribery Act, to re-1
cover penalties against the defendant, for bribing
certain freemen of the Borough of St. Albans, to vote
for him at the election of a Burgess to serve in Par-
liament f-Jr that Borough, in December, 1821, in the
room of W. Tierney Robarts, Esq. deceased. The
penalties sought to be recovered amount to 10,0001.
The case for the plaintiff rested principally upon
the testimony of his father, Robert Felton, a
bankrupt, now a prisoner in the King's Bench prison,
at the suit of the defendant; and who was employed
by the defendant as his confidential agent in manag-
ing his canvass for the Borough of St. Albans, in
December, 1821. Four other actions were promoted
by the same person, one at his own suit, in Hertford-
shire, and tke remainder at the nominal suit of his
son, in as many different counties. According to
his evidence, he was authorized by the defendant to
promise to lie out-voters for the Borough, resident
in London, two guineks for their expenses, whilst at-

v..P.*!,A7lr

!Fr..- •

tending the &sties, and three rinses each fox their
votes, after the election was over; and he stated that
the persons who voted for the defendant had been
paid after this rate.
Several of the voters were examined, %the proied
it to be the custom of the Borough of St. Albans to ;
be paid- for the exercise of their elective franchises
after this scale.
Seveial respectable witnesses were examined on
behalf of the defendant, to contradict Felton, and to
shew that the defendant was wholly ignorant of. any
such bargain having been made as stated by*im.
The Oulu JUSTICE, in his charge to the y, di-
rected their attention to the form of the decltration,
which alleged the corrupt bargains to have taken
'place before the election, whereas the evidence had
most reference to supposed corrupt bargains after the
election. They would, kowder, direct their atten-
tion to the evidence on both sides, and give it such
weight as the credit of the witnesses in their judg-
ment seemed to deserve.
The Jury immediately foUnd their verdict for the
defendant.—The trial lasted the greatest part of the
day, and was not over until half-past six oclock.
JULY 16.—JdORSAN V. PRIOR.
This was an action ern a policy of insurance on the
ship and cargo, the Neptune, from Liverpool to. the
coast of .Africa, the vessel having been lost in her
voyage. The insurance was effected by the owner of
the vessel, named Jones, since a bankrupt, and the
action was brought by his assignees against the un-
derwriter, who resisted payment on the ground of
concealment at the time of making the policy. The
Neptune, it appeared, sailed from this country in the
early part of 1816, and arrived in due course off Cape'
Coast, as appeared by a letter, dated November the'
sth, 1816, written-by the Captain of the Neptune to
Mr. Jones, in which the Captain stated all well, and
that he should leave the port where he then was in
three days, and proceed further on his voyage, and
that he expected to complete it in ten nionths or less;
and further, that he should take advantage of every
opportunity which occurred of communicating, by
letter to Mr. Jones, where he was and how he was
• proceeding. This letter reached Mr. Jones's hand in
the latter end of May or beginning of June, 1817.
The Neptune was at this time underwritten for a cer-
tain sum. The time passed on till September, 1817,
and Mr. Jones heard nothing more of the vessel ; and
on the 7th of September he directed his agent in Lon-
don to effect a further policy of 1.:1000 upon her. This
was accordingly done, and some time afterwards an
account was received that the Neptune had met with
very severe weather, and been so materially injured
that she had been under the necessity of putting into
an. African port, where she was condemned and
btoken up, and' her cargo, palm oil, sold at consider-
able loss. Application was made to'defendatit for
payment on the policy, but he resisted, on• the
grounds that Mr. Jones, at the time he directed his
agent to effect this. insurance should have communi-
cated the letter of the sth of November, 1816, re-
ceived by him on the 17th of June; and the further
circumstance that he had not heard anything of the
Neptune from that time to the 7th of September,
when the policy was effected. The defendant con-
tended, that the vessel was out of time when the po-
licy was effected, and that Jones bad said be knew
herto be so.. • •

On the part cf the plaintiff, however, the Solact-
Ton-GENtnAL called persons engaged in the African
trade, who stated, that the vessel was not out of time;
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for two
hundred and fifty pounds, the sum underwritten by
defendant-on the policy.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. JULY Is.
LASSALITTII V. POWLLL ALCM OTHERS.

Mr. Serjeant Laws stated that this was an action
brought by a foreign merchant, for the value of a
large quantity of Spanish wool sold to the defendants
in 1811. At that time the French being in po:ses-
sion of Spain, the commercial intercourse between
that country and this was interrupted. The former
correspondents of the defendants were Messrs. Gomez
and Co. of Bilboa ; but as they were Spaniards, they
could not then continue their dealings with the de-
fendants, and they accordingly sent word that the
plaintiff, who was a Frenchman, and had been their
clerk, would open an account with them, which was
accordingly done; and the debt for which the pre-
sent action was brought was contracted.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET, for the defendants, ad-
dressed the Jury, and stated that it was clear that
the whole transaction was carried on merely to de-
feat the intention and effect of our Orders in Council,
and the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the Spanish
Decrees, issued while the French were in possession
of Spain. The plaintiff had been a clerk of Messrs.
Gomez and Co. the former correspondents of the de-
fendants; now could it be believed that having been
in such a. situation, be should suddenly be able to
send wool to the amount of 80,0001. into the English
market? The letters between the pai ties were to be
addressed to the defendants, as merchants of New
York, instead of Bristol, and London was to be called
Philadelphia; so that every circumstance proved the
ownership of the plaintiff was only a coloar under
which Messrs. Gomez and Co. could continue their
former co: respondence with the defendants. But in
either case the plaintiff must be defeated in his claim,
for if he were merely Messrs. Gomez' Agent, he
could not maintain the action in his own name; and
on the other hand, if he were really a Frenchman, re-
siding in -a neutral country, but at the same time
under the dominion of a foreign enemy, he could not
maintain an action on a contract entered into during
such time with a British subject. The Learned Ser-
jean; called three witnesses, who swore that during'
that time Bilboa was alternately in the possession of
the French and Spaniards.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS left it to the Jury to
say, first, whether the plaintiff was agent or principal
in these transactions? and, secondly, whether Spain
was then under the dominion of the French or not?
The Jury returned a verdict for 'the plaintiff,
• statilig it as their opinion that the French had only a
disputed possession of Spain.
The quCtlion of law, as to an alien enemy trading
with a Isl;ttash Subject, was reserved.

A suit was brought at Hayedll, New Hampshire)
on the 6th ult. to recover damages for a breach of
marriage promise, and the sum of 384 dollars was
taken from the pocket of the faithless lover, and put
is the the lap, the deceived fair.

Ir`~,r.

wlrm

POLICE. '

IJR•A