Star.
London, England, 1809-11-09 00:00:00

PRACTICE.

Mr. LAWES moved for a rule to shew cause why
a defendant should not be discharged out of the cus-
tody of the Sheriff, being arrested upon a defective
affidavit, for debt ?—The affidavit upon which the
defendant was held to bail, was made by a person in
the custody of the Warden of the Fleet Prison, be-
fore a Commissioner appointed to take affidavits, and
the defect in the affidavit was, that in the description
given therein of the deponent, he was stated to be
,4 late of Dyot-street, St. Giles's," without mention-
ing that he was 4, then of the Fleet Prison, and late
of Dyot-street, St. Giles's."
The Court, after some consideration, held that the
affidavit was defective, as being contrary to a,rule
of Court, which requires that the precise name and
place of residence of the deponent should be given,
and thereupon the rule was granted.

BLACKET •1. SMITH.

Lord ELLENsosouon said, that a case had been I
delivered to him in a manner perfectly unusual, and I
it must be struck out of the paper ; it purported to
be something which had come on at Guildhall, Lon-
don ; was an action for money had and received ;
and the case stated that it was agreed that a verdict
should he given for the plaintiff; but there was no
name of the Counsel, nor any thing else to denote that
it had been prepared for the purpose of taking the
opinion of the Court after argument; it was, in short,
a mandamus by the attorney, to the Judges of the
Court of King-s Bench, to hear an argument upon a
case, of which they had no historical account. The
course here taken was so wholly devoid of modest►,
that it could not be entertained by the Court. His.,
Loidship said he had taken the trouble of looking
over his book of nisi print, but he could find no trace
of any such case, although there might be such a
thing called on at Guildhall, of which he had taken
no note ; it was, however, absolutely impossible to
suffer such a matter as this to stand for argument, or
to keep a place for that purpose ; nor could it be ex-
pected that the Judges should afford their diligence
in obedience to the mandamus of an attorney, before
the case was put int 6 its right shape; when put in
due forth it might be argued ; but not on the uncere-
monious sentence, ,s it is agreed that a verdict shall
be given for the plaintiff." Ordered to be struck out.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. 8.
PARSONS V. SCOTT.

Mr. Serjcant BEsr moved for a Rule to shew cause,
why the verdict obtained in this cause should not be set
aside. It was a case where an action had been brought
on a policy of insurance upon a ship trading from
Portsmouth to Lisbon. This vessel had reached the
port of Lisbon a short rime before Marshal Soult, at
the head of the French troops, took possession of that
city, and, with many other British ships, captured,
and soldiers put on board to take possession of the
property. An agreement for ransoming the vessel
was entered into between the Captain and the French
General. The valuation was to be made by two
French Officers. The valuation Was made at £6OOO,
and the ship, having been 'berated, we 3 permigod to

Vetnit to England. lt :arrived at Portsmouth on the
19th of April last, and on the Ist of May followirg
the Plaintiff gave notice of abandonment, and he sup=
sequently obtained a verdict for total loss.
Mr. BEST contended that Plaintiff was not entitled
to recover, and chiefly rblied on the ca.,e of Bam!)ridgd
v. Neilson, as set forth in 10th East's Reports, 3294
It was there laid down that as long as the ship was
under the controul of the Captain the Plaintiff could
not recover, whether the Owners were apprized of
that fact or not; hut even was there any doubt upon
this point, he thought there could be none as to the
validity of the objection to the legality of the reco-
very. The ship had been ransomed from the enemy
by the Captain, in vi(lation of the Statute George 3d,
c. 25, declaring such ransoms illegal —That Court
was no place to decide upon the prt.priety or imia
prier), of Acts of the Legislature ; hat the wisdoM of
this provision of the Act was obvious, from this cir-
cumstance, that had the Captain abided by it, and
not thrown away so much money in ransom, the pro-
perty would have been mated from the hands of the
enemy, and Marshal Soult would not have been ena-
bled to carry off six thousand pounds, British property,
with him, as it was notorious that Lord Wellington
.was in possession of Lisbon a few days after.—kule
granted: