Star.
London, England, 1805-08-01 00:00:00

PRO lALLLOYD's LIST.

011A.HIPI•' Join 3tr-Paleby the Minerva, Haiti from Bor.
ton • Emanuel,Stevenfom firm Norway ; Limerick, Ran, and the
_Joanna Wilhetmina, --- from Harlingen. Sailed the Ben
Lomond, Mitchell, for Dente:rare ; Penelope, Bryan, fur Yuca-
tan; London Packet, M'Dougall, for Philadelphia; Ifabella, Rob-
fon, for Peterfburgh ; Fidelity, Edmond. ; Commerce, Tindall,
and the Venue, Johnftone, for Tonningcn.

THE BRITPIH NAVY.
Monthly Statement of the Diltribution of the
Britifh Naval Force, to the ift of AuFtnil
Line. so', !erg. Sp.l
to 44.1-
In port and fitting, - ' 18 9 30 93
Guard chips - . - 3 2 3 3
Inthe Englith and frith Channel. 29 o 26 tsB
to the Downs and North SCA* 4 4 9 144
At the Weft India Iflands,and os
the Paffage - - - 13 • 17 23
Jamaica Ration 7 o 8 a 8
America & Newfoundland Rations • a 6 12
lift Indies, and on the Palfage - I A Ica 8
Coati. of Africa . . 8 e i 3
Spain, Portugal and Gibraltar - 13 0 a 6
In the Mediterranean &on Patna z la 8 13
With (rated Orders .. - o z oo
Hofpital and Prifon Ihips - 15 I a I

Total in Commilion - 1 tiS 11 111 454

Receiving i►ips . ' S 3 3 1
Serviceable, and repairing for (cr-
y-Ice A - - - 2S 3 i a
InOrdinag - - - sp 8 18 r 7
Building - • - - t 6 u 13 as

Total - 275 3s 166 363
STATIC •T TUX oiLLINAIT AT ZACII POET.
P•rtfm•utk - :6 I 13 10

Plymouth - • - Li 3 11 3
Chatham • - - 9 0 6 4
3hcamcfs • - • - 2 1 4 3
River • - " • 7 3 9 5

Total - - 49 14 44 27

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

e.l at.

706

......
12

879

Hiatt COVIT Or ADPIII•LTY.YeIIerday the
Right Hon. Sir W. SCOTT proceeded to the adjudi-
cation of the following cafes :

The Hoop, Moiler mailer.—This ship, under Pru Man colours,
laden with a cargo of wine, on a voyage from Bourdeauz to Ernb -
den, W.lll captured on the itth of February by his Majcfty's (hip
Cruiser, John Hancock, EN. commander, and brought into Yar-
mouth, and the cafe now came before the Court on further proof
of the property and deftination —lt was contended on the part of
the captors that there was a total failure of proof as to the former,
and in regard to the otter it was perfectly clear from the Ltuation
in which the veifd was found at the time of the capture, it was
the Intention of the neutral mailer to get into Oltend. This being
a queftion of nautical skill ss to the deftination, the Court was
siGiled by two Trinity Mailers, who were of a decided opinion
that he intended to gate Oftend. Ship and cargo condi:fluted as
g 0.4 and lawful prize to the captors.
Commerce, Parke maiter....Property condemned.

The Michael, Mieran malter.--.The Hazard, Haaman market
—This was a queftion of falvage. It appeared that the owners
bad made a tender of at guineas to the Salvers for the fervkes per-
formed—The Court, after hearing the evidence and the merits of
the cafe, was of opinion, that it was a mere queltion of pilotage,
and therefore held the tender to be fufheient, and condemned the
affertai Salvers in the colts from the time of the tender.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 27.
YIAZIR V. •YLEI.

This was an anion to recover the amount of two
Navy Bills, which the Defendant had prevented the
Board from paying.
The Defendant, wbo is a !hip-builder, ralident in
Devonfhire, had contraded with Government to build
leveral (mall Chips of war, and got all his payments
in Navy Bills through his agent, Mr. John Adams,
who procured them to be difcounted by Meffrs. Bar-
ber and Co. The Defendant had fucceffively ap-
pointed two other perfons to be his agents ; the bills
iii quetlion were received at the Navy Pay-office, by
Balthazar Adams for his brother, to whom he for-
warded them, and who paffed them to the Plaintiff,
having endorfed them per procuration of 0. Ayles
in the ufual way ; the Defendant having, as before
Rated, appointed another agent. Before the bills
were due, the Defendant went to the Navy Office,
and 4U-cited that they fhould not be paid ; in confe-
quence of which, the anion was brought againft
him. It appearing, however, in the fubfequent powers
of Attorney, that he had not authorifed any of them,
except Adams, to endorfe Navy Bills for him ;
Lord ELLIIIIIOII.OUON thought, he could not re-
voke a greater power by a teller, and a yet Sid of
5451. 35. 6d. was given for the Plaintiff.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 30.
BAILLII V. !AMU[ AND ALVES.

A few days fence we gave force account of a tank
(Kaye v. Baillie), detailing tranfations by which
thefe proceedings in Chancery are in tome degree ex-
plained. The prefent application to the Court was to
procure aft order for the payment into the Bank of
England, in the name of the Accountant• General, of
the turn of Sit& 175 Rated to be due from the De-
fendants, George Blithe, and Archibald Alves, his
partner, to the Plaintiff, in her charater as admini.
Real ix of Frafer and Valentine. The entire funs of
141161. 17s. was Paid to have been the total balance
due; but 60001. had been paid by the Defendants.
The prefent Rage of the bufinefs in Court, was on a
fifth ai,fwer made by George Baillie, 13 years after
the deceafe of one of the parties, and is afterthedeath
of the other, on whofe eitate the Plaintiff claimed.
Mr James Baillie, the huiband of the Plaintiff, left, at
the difpofal of his widow and children, a property
to the extent of nearly Soo,oool. (Aka to all the
iocumbrancts incident to Welt India property? which
perhaps amounted to half a million iterling, and re-
duced the fortune of his family to about 300,0001.
The Lady and his infant progeny were incompetent
to the management of thefe complicated affairs, and
they devolved into the hands of Mr. George Baillie,
one of the Defendants in this caufe, and in confequence
of this agency he received the funds in quellinn.
Mr. PIGGOT, on the part of the Plaintiff, contend-
ed for the propriety of the order for the payment
of the amount, 8,1161. 171. into the hands of the
Accountant• General. Mr. Alves, the partner of
Mr. Baillie, did not think fit to refill the demand,
at limit he acknowledged the balance, but contended
that he was only liable to the extent of one-third,
as he had an interelt in that proportion in the part-
nerfhip, to which the money devolved. Mr. Bane,
on the contrary, oppo(ed every confefEon of debt,
to the lilt moment ; but the lorned Counfel trult-
ed, if not from any ditlina p,srfpicuous paffege,'
yet, from the general tenor of the language of the
refpondent, it could be Canty collated, that its ac-
knowledged the ezilicace of the debt to the amount

this applicatTonfoleght to retlore to the Plaintiff. The
Defeadant, Geo. Baillie, was happily relieved, during
a few luminous moments, from the fcepticifm to
which he ordinarily fubmitted, and that was fufficient
to produce, on a fair conflration, his recognition of
the claim. All the reit might be confidered as a fort
of pofiliminons preface, to render intricate what in
itfelf was apparent. r. Geo. Baillie Teemed to con-
template this inllitution as a court of inquifition,
whole arbitrary decrees it *was honourable to repel ;
a debt, however, was a legal and moral obligation,
which this Court, whatever might be its.defeas, in
his mind, it would inflrua him to regard.
Mr. ROMILLY and Mr. Haar having followed on
the fame fide.
Mr. [Umtata., Mr. J.aoas, and Mr. PLOWDIII,
for Mr. Gen. Baillie, refilled this demand on feveral
grounds. In the Ertl place, it was maintained, parti-
cularly by Mr. Plowden, that there was here an at-
tempt to procure in the form of a motion, what by
' the rules of Court could only be obtained on a bear-
ing of the merits The Sum here Aced to be
brought into Court, was the whole fum in the ac-
count made up by Mr. Winter—and all which in any
view could be recovered under the Bill filed by the
Plaintiff, if the Ihould be found in the tight, when
the merits of the cafe came to be heard. This fum,
however, Mr. Baillie had nut in his anfwers
ted to be due ; to the reference by which it was afcer-
tained, the Plaintiff was not a party ; it was a tran-
faaion entirely between Mr. Alves and Mr. Baillie ;
the accountant had been appointed by Mr. AlvesMr.
Baillie had never even fern the account, and it bad
never been aced on by Baillie and Alves as a fettle-.
ment of matters between them. In addition to this,
it was contended that Mr. Geo. Baillie having admi-
niflered to the Ohms of Meths. Ballantyne and Fra-
fer in St. Vincent's, and having thereby made himfelf
and his property there refponlible for the acts in his
hands, it would be a great hardthipon him to make him
pay into Court here ; and it would be a piece of injuf-
tice to the creditors there, who might confill ofjudg-
ment, bond, and common contras creditors, to make
them come into a Court of Equity an this country,
where all preferences and priorities would be broken
down, and their feveral rights would be confounded
or done away. There .as another circumflance on
which the Learned Counfel Rrongly retied, as pre-
eluding Mr. Geo. Baillie, even thouli he be ready to
admit the juflice of the balance, and did he lie un-
der no inconvenience of his colonial adminiftration to
the eßates of Ballantyne and Frafer, from paying
away the balances in his hand.—Ballantyne and
Frafer, at the time of their deaths, were debtors to
Mr. James Baillie, the Plaintiff's hulband,in xo,000l.;
their elates were completely bankrupt. And the
Plaintiff, as file Executrix of her hutband, had, in
the year 1796, for a valuable confideration, made
over all her hufband's climes and effeas, to the De-
fendant, George Baillie, and others, as truflees for
the creditors, and for a variety of other purpofes,
which Rill remained to be executed.—lt could nut,
therefore, be the Plaintiff, as Adnairiflratrix to are
eßates of Ballantyne and Frafer, which were blank-i
and greatly indebted to the deceafed Jaines
Baillie, to whom the Defendant, George Baillie, mull
be called on to account, but to himfelf' as foie or joint
aaing Trußee under that deed. As Adminißratrix
to Ballantyne and Frafer, the Plaintiff could only
be entitled to draw after all claims aga.nll them were
fatisfied ; and, as Mfignor of het hutband's property
for the benefit of his creditors, the could not be 'en-
titled is this manner again to draw back fo large a
fum into her awn hands. At all events, if the Plain-
tiff was entitled to recover any thing from the Defen-
dant, Mr. Baillie, it could only be his proportion of
the fum due to the elates of Mr. Ballantyne and Mr.
Frafer, being the extent of two thirds of the debt.
Mr. Tuorarsow, for Archibald Alves, obferved,
that whatever might be the decilion of his Lordthip,
on the balance due, that in the prefent Rage at !call
his client would not be required by any order to pay
more than one third, or the proportion of his interell
in the partnerthip with the other Defendant, George
Baillie.

The LORD CHANCELLOR told him there were feve-
ral points to which it wonid not be neceffary for him
to dire& his attention. The Plaintiff here claimed
to have affets paid into Court, not as the a(lignor of
the property of her hufband, J. Baillie, but as ad
miniarato ix to the eßates of Ballantyne and Prefer,
to which the Defendants were indebted ; send al-
though The was the fame perfou who in a different ca.
pacity had made over her hufband's eßates in truft
to the Defendant and others, that could not prevent
her from claiming, that the money due by the De-
fendant George Baillie to the eßates to which the had
adminiftered, fhould be paid into Couit, where i
would remain fubjed to the claims of thole bed end-
tied to it. The colonial adminiftration, and the truft
deed on which the Defendant had founded, indeed
of favouring his plea, made againd him. As colo-
nial adminidrator to the eßates of Billantyne and
Frafer and as trace under the deed executed by the
Plaintiff in 1796, he ottisLt to have known what fum
he in his individual capacity was indebted to hirnfelf
as acting in thufe two• feparate confidential charac-
ters, yet none of his various anfwers to the bill evinc-
ed a t!ifpofition to make fuch a declaration. The
only thing which [truck his Lordfhip as requiring
explanation was thole which fell Elvin Mr. Plowden
in his outlet ; did the bill claim a general fum, of
which the 8.164 was only a part i and then, had the
Defendant admitted this fum ?

Mr. Picooyr endeavoured to fatisfy his Lord(hip
on thole twe points, from the prayer of the bill, and
the foul th and fifth anfwers given in by the Defendant.
His Lordibip faid, he fhould confider till tomor-
row morning what import thofe papers would admit
of. He felt every inclination to determine in favour
of the Plaintiff, convinced that any thing in the an-
Ewers had been relutlantly extorted from the Defen-
dant. He mufl, however, not allow his inclination
to lead him to depart from the rules of the Court.—
He fhould alto at the fame time determine as to whe-
ther the meffenger &mid bp clifcharged. '

Till ATTORNIT 0111MEItAl, V. JACKSON.
The ATTORISY GastRAL faid, 'be had looked into
the precedents, conformable to his Lorsifhip's Oefire,
and that he found two cafes, where it was pot requi-
red, that in bequels to charitable purpofes, all the
parties Lbould be brought before the Court. The one
was the Attorney General •. Shelly ; the other the
Attornef General v. Wyburg.
Mr.Romit.sr, for the Defendant, argued. that thefe
cafes were contrary to the regular praftice of the

Coasts Thee was a Witch shore ancient cafe decided
by Lord Cot entry, chancellor in the time of Charles I.
It was called the Eltt Grinflead cafe, and there the
oppofite doarine was held. His Learned Friend, Mr.
Witham', had taken the_pains to confult the Regiact.
boot on the cafe of the Attorney General and Shel.
ly, and it was found that the decilion turned on a
point different (iron that Rated by the Reporter.—
The whole was thenreduced to a rfifirtra of Lord Mac-
clesfield, as given in a fhort note by Salkeld, and his
k.ardiltip would not think fuch an ininlated pairage,
under fuch doubtful circumtlances, futficient in over,
rule the falutary principles founded in fuhßantial jut:
tice, which had beetifo long itcognifed.

WiDIIIIIIpAIN ;pair St.
THI ATTORWIT piolti•tr v. JACKSON.

We noticed yeßerday ltfti Lordflsip's intention of
giving his decifion on the obje6tion to the deficiency.
ufthe parties in this caufe.
The LORD Cireacst.r.orri4 The queßion is,
the Cuurt can advance in the prefent date of the rt.-
cord as to the parties? In this Rage I mull *fume,
that there were cßates and houfes fubjea to the
charge for which thefe proceedings are had, and fur-
ther, that the proprietors of the one are, and of the
otherare not hefore the Court."—His Lordship then
commented on the three cafes we mentioned yeßer-
day, and cited the following Wage from Lord Re.
defdale's publication :—" When you obit& to the
want of
.parties, it is not necefary you Mould point
out the individuals by name; it will be enough to:
give Come defcription, which will enable him (the'
Plaintiff) to make them parties." His Lordarip,
continued I think this is the meaning of Lord'
Macclesfield, in the cafe of the Attorney General et.'
Wyburg. The Conn has gone a vaR way indc*tt
in relieving under deficiencies of form in cafes
charity. The refult of the doctrine in all the cafesii
at leaft this : that if there be brisught before al'
Court a party who, in refpeet of lands poffefed ttlr
him, is liable to a rent charge not clearly pointed
out, the Court will go on to fayi if the Defendant W'
liable. Whether the Court will charge the Defers.
dant exclufively, or leave him to proceed againi;
others alfu liable, is a different queftion. The Conti!
will not Rop for want of parties under cireumßancen
fo put, and I think it the better way to go on, for
if it Would appear thofe lands Are nut charaeable,
, the information will be dilmiffed."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL—" This point being
fettled, 1 with to apprife the Gentlemen on the other
fide, that I confider invalid one objeCtion they have
taken to the information, viz. that notice of a rent
charge is neccdary to the purchafers. 1 bete
therefore mull infilt on another privilege of charities,.
and on the authority of the tales in Dukes Charita-
bit Ufes of EA Grinllead, end of Woodford Paola'
v. Parker, I affert that no filch notice is required."
The firft Rep in fir ppott of the information was to.
have been the produetion of the will, but by fonts
millake, the Officer from the Prerogative Court
bronght a copy• infiead of the original. On being •
called into the body of the Court, he was incapable
of giving any explanation of the matter to hie
Lordikip.
The ATTORNRY GIINSRAL aid, the will was an-
terior to the fire of London, and it was highly pro.
bable the original had been burnt.
Mr. Ito MI LIA dirt riot know .enough of the hiflory
of the fire of London todetermine if 41 the wills in this
Commons were de(lroyed.
On account of this unforefeen difficulty, the far.
ther hearing was pofiponed.