Star.
London, England, 1802-06-18 00:00:00

LAW EA CE.

COURT OF FXCHtlcLurp, Jr:NE 16.
AttNIAKII V. TUN...TALL

The Plaintitt in this CAft; :VAS a plib.;C:ltl, and
h•td brought .t ya; lava :teni again 4 the Di:fen
dant, hi, diltillev, to recover three pen titles fit
giving receipts without dATTlrt.—+i:t app..!ared that,
according to the (liana' of the nude, the Dtitil.
Icr's ClerK had etuettd the p.tyttwitts in a little
busk kvin_ by the poblicatt. whit h wcre as follow:
—tic bid—By calk—, one of theft: 11.1,1 hen
en-
teteJ by the Clerk, and two tethers by A Lid in the
houfe, who, it did not appear, had any authority
to take money.—The Jury found a verdia for the
Plaintiff upon the &HI count only.
Mr. DAU'iCEY then I.lld,lit filiMiticontendherv-
af:er before the Court, that the receipt of a .Bill
wt. wit the receipt of CAA, within the meaning
of the A. of Parliament.
'l*;:e Chief Baton faid, he was inclined to think
it was, but he would refe) ve the point fur the fu.
tut e confideration of the Court of Exchequtr.

PRI ROGATIVE COUR r. Duci 0 ICS COMMONS. JON t 16.

-
(Mote the Right Hon. Sir W. WYNN i.)
tloonc v. SE i H. 6 was a cptettion re-
fpe.qing the validity of the lad will and teitament
of Mr. Thomas I..tome, of Comb Farm, near
Greemrich, in the county of Kent, &crated. It
appeared di it etc .leceafed, by his will, dated
May 03, ißot, had divided the.whole of his pro
perty equally I:v.:went Mrs. Jane Moore (one of
the deceafed's fillets), and a Mils Skinntr, who
lived in the capacity of houfekeeper with the de-
ce.e.ed, except tome new furniture, which he di-
reeled Ihould he left to Mils Skinner folely. This
paper was oppoliA by •Mr. George Moore, the
brother of the rctlator, together with his three
riders as the next of kin. It was fuhmirte,l, on
behalf of the parties propounding the will, that
from the teitimony of the three fuhfcribing wit-
neltes, the vaiidity of this paper was fully Oa-
blifircd, and the therefore they were ':ntitled to the
probate if it.—The Learned Judge, after hearing
the Connie] on the part of the next of kin, was of
opinion that the will was futEciently proved, and
accordingly pronounced for the fame.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, DOCTORS' COMMON%
TUESDAY, JUNE 15.
This day the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM SCOTT
proceeded to the AdjudicAtion of the following
Caufes :

Providentia, Mit!lei Mager.—This was a fur
ther proof ...Are with repeet to a cargo of timber
claimed as Pruffian property, which was' declined
at the time of the capture from Nawte to Anther.
dam. It appeared that the (tip had been already
condemned, and it was fohrnitted on behalf of the
captors, that the claimant's name was made ate of
for the purpofe of furnithing the 'port of Amster-
dam with this commodity. On .the part of the
claimant it mis contended, that there was full and
fufficient proof that the property was purchafed on
the foie account and rifk of the neutral.
The Court was of opinion, under all the circum-
Itances.of the cafe, that the proof was unfatisfac-
tory, and therefore condemned the cargo as good
and lawful prize to the captors.
Negotie mai Zeevaurt, Dockfon.—.The Court
reftored the various parcels of goods as claimed
in this cafe, except as to one parcel of goods which
flood condemned, unlefs further proof was brought
in within the prefent month.
Auguftina, De Brock.—This was a claim for
a quantity of goods which was going from one
enemy's port to another. The Court in this cafe
condemned the property.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, JUNE io.
CAREY V. REARSLEY.
This caufe was tried before a Special Jury. It
was an aaion againtt the Defendant for pirating
a book during the t riflence of the copy-right of the
Plaintiff.—Both paitits are hookfellers, and the
Plaintiff, Carey, has publifhed an Itinaary, in
which he has given the roads and crofs roads of
England, with the relative lituations and didances
of towns, a great part of which, as he alferted by ,
his Connie), was compiled from an aaual furvev.
The Dtlenchtit had alfo publilhed a fimilar work,
in which the Plaintiff alferted, that he had pirated
all the improvements which he had obtained at
fuch great expence, and cordequently that he in-
jured the fale Of his book. To floppot t this tate a
witnefs was calLd, who proved that he had fur.
*eyed feveral 'toads for the life of the Plaintiff's
book, and poimed out feveral paffirges which were
*fledged to be pirated. In all thefe p4ffages, how.
ern, there were material alterations in the Defen-
dant's book.
Lard Eu.ssannotton. after a great deal of
cnnverfation with the Plaintiff's Connie!. Paid, if it
went to the jury he ,fhoold direa them to fay,
whether the copying was with au intent to injure
the Plaintiff's property ? He confeffed, that to
him it appeared there was no piracy ; not one
pafrav liad been produced in which thfre was not
a ustterial alteration, and in molt cafes a meliora-
tion, 134th works to him fcemed an expanlion of
Paterfon's Book of Roads,,and as the form and
mtenuer was varied in inch works as the prefect,
it was a variance of the fuhllance ; the names of
tau towns, their relative flotations, and diflances,
were Materials common to both of them ; and pi
racy might as well be inferred from two authors
nfing the fame alphabet as from this circumstance.
Plaintiff nonfuited.

uson, 71. STAFV•
The plaintiff is a manufatiarer of foip in Lon-
don, the defendant a cudomer of his, refiding in
Norfolk. The point in difpute was this: the de-
Endant, after taking two hogik,:a.ls of fisap, told
the plaintiff's clerk, who came lot tt freffi order,
that he was willing to take two hogibeads more
in two months, btu he muff be allowed dikount
on his pmmpt pnytoent for that order). the clerk
&id, he cniilJ not cake it upim hisokl, to allow
thisilat was cure there Weald be no diragreentent
on •ho col,;.it. The staimitsum9ted. the fecood