Star.
London, England, 1809-05-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ADMIRALTY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, Ma• 2.
This day the Right Hon. Sir W. Scorr proceeded
to the adjudication of the following cases :

THE XING v. WAYTJI.
This was a suit instituted in the instance Court, on the part of
the Crown, by the tlreetsrator-General, against Wayth, late
Muter of a Merchant ship, the Cynthia, for disobedience of
orders of the conveying ships, the Harpy and Pilchard, on a voy-
age from Nevrfooodland to England, and also for insolent lan-
guage. The charges being clearly proved, the Court fined tho
p arty 501. with full costs.
Bolata,Trtunfry master—This was a question of freight, whe-
ther it was due to the Crown or the captors? The Court decreed
the same to be due to the captors.
Two Marias, master—This was an American vessel, laden
with coffee and sugar, bound from Boston to Holland; and the
case cane on on further proof. The Court restored the ship, and
that part of the cargo consisting of sugar and green coffee ; and di-
rected still further proof as to the other part, called Batavian coffee.

COURT CiF_CHANCERY, MAY 1.
TESTAMENTARY CONTRACTS.
COLONEL HARWOOD V. JOHN DORNE TOOKE, ESQ. AND

SIR FRANCIS MIRDETT.

The Loan CimscELtiortbis day gave judgment in
this important cause, with a reservation of an oppor-
tunity on a future day of assigning the grounds and
reasons of such judgment more fully, or of varying,
his decree, if he could find any grounds for so doing.
After some preliminary .observations, his Lordship
said, that as a gift thS note would be legal and good;
or, as an agreement respecting the expected fortune
of the deceased, this Court had not sufficient grotinds
to rescind the contract ; nor did the name of Bir
Francis Burdett, as the intended grantor of certain
annuities for the £4OOO, make any difference in
the case, for Sir Francis Burdett had rot acted
or paid any thing upon the contract. Mischievous
as, such contracts might be in the way of precedent,
his Lordship found nothing in the Plaintiff's bill or
evidence to sustain the relief he now prayed for, nor
did he see that the Plaintiff had a leg to stand do in
this case.—Judgment for the Defendants.

MAY 4.
AYIMARKET ?HEAT RE.•• -MORRIS V. COLMAN.
Sir S. ROMILLY stated, that this case had been al-
ready before his Lordship, who had directed it to
stand over, with a recommendation to the parties to
anoint arbitrators. It related to an alledged advan-
tage given by Mr. Colman, the Manager, to Mr.
Hams, of Covent-garden Theatre, at the expence of
the Hay-market concern ; in consequence of which,
the other partners applied to the Lord Chancellor to
have him removed from the management. Sir S.
ROMILLY said, that in consequence of his Lordship's
vcommendation, his client, Mr. Morris, had ap-
pointed Mr. Ca' •auford, a Gentleman at the Bar, as
his Arbitrator. Mr. Colman, on his part, had ap-
pointed Mr. Harris, of Covent-garden Theatre, to
whom Mr. Morris objected, on the ground that he
could not, from the circumstance of the case, be
perfectly impartial. Sir S. ROMILLY allowed that no
man could be selected more proper to decide tipon
such a business than Mr. Harris, were it not that part
of the Plaintiff's f.omplaint was the improper prefer-
ence shewn to Mr. Harris by Mr. Colman. As the
parties could not agree, he was under the necessity of
calling for his Lordship's opinion Ind order.
Mr. Haar, on the part of Mr. Colman, contended
that it was impossible a more eligible arbitrator could
have been found than Mr. Harris. The advantage
derived by Mr. Harris from the alledged preference
was so trifling, as not to be worth mentioning, and
certainly could never in the least operate on the mind
of Mr. Harris so as to prevent his acting in the ca-
pacity of arbitrator with the utmost impartiality.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had no doubt that Mr.
Harris, if accepted by the other side, would do jus-
tice ; but at the same time, as he was connected with
the ground of complaint, the objection on the part of
Mr. Morris could not be considered as altogether un-
reasonable. If they could not agree before Monday,
he would then give them his opinion.
Mr. HART, after the remark made by his Lord-
ship, agreed, on the part of his client, to appoint
another arbitrator ; but stated his apprehension that
if Mr. Taylor should be appointed, the other side
would still find out some cause of objection.

II AMNtERSLEY AND OTHERS V. SHERIDAN.

Mr. Rir:i.►nns applied to the Chancellor, on the
part of the Plaintiffs, to have a receiver appointed
under the following circumstances. They had lent
60001. and other sums to the Defendant, who mort-
gaged for the payment the produce of 40,0001. 3 per
Cents. in which he had a life interest. The principal,
after his death, was to go to Mrs. Sheridan and her
children, and was vested in trustees for that purpose.
The Plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a re-
ceiver of this produce, in order to render their secu-
rity available.
Mr. ALEXANDER, on the part of the trustees, Lord
Grey and Mr. Whitbread, had nothing to say to this
application, further than to take care that none of
the objects of their trust should be defeated.
Order for the Plaintiffs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 1.
tHE KING V. MORGAN.
The defendant was brought up to receive judg-
ment for giving a challenge to a gentleman of the
name of Laney, in Hampshire. It appeared that some
reports of a disagreeable nature prevailed against a
friend of the defendant, and Mr. Laney, who was a
leading man in a club to which that gentleman be-
longed, procured the members to disband themselves,
and re-unite, omitting him from the number of their
members. The defendant called on the prosecutor,
and behaved rudely in his house, demanding to know
the name of the person from whom he received his
information, and, not btaining a satisfactory reply,
threatened him with a caning.
The Court sentented him to three months impri-
sonment, and to find surety for his good behaviour
for three years.

TUE RING V. BELL.
The defendant was a land surveyor, and had been
employed by a Mr. Fitzgerald, a gentleman of for-
tune, in Hampshire, to survey some estates, his bill
for which amounted to £1669. Mr. Fitzgerald not
being so ready to pay this bill as the defendant wished
him to be, the defendant sent him a challenge, for
which Mr. Fitzgerald prosecuted him by information
in the Crown Office. He was convicted, and then
sent b I his attorney an offer to refer all matters in
difference to arbitration, lumpliag the challenge in as
an item of the accotigt.