Star.
London, England, 1809-12-16 00:00:00

r

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COUtr OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 35.

HUGHES V. WRIGHT.
Mr. Gannon- stated this to he an action brought
by the owners of a vessel, called the Diana, against
the owners of another vessel, called the Hayle, to re-
cover the value of the former of these two vessels,
which had been run foul of and sunk, through the
carelessness or unskilful conduct of those who naviga.
tel the latter.
It appeared in evidence that both of these vessels
were employed in the carriage of coals from Shields
to London. They were both tacking. up towards
I .ondon with the tide, but against the wind, when the
Diana having lain to, the 1-layle was observed sud- •
deal y to stand down bef we the wind, and notwithstand-
ing every possible warning used by those on beard the
Diana, the Ha* did not alter her course, but strata
the Diana,ntid-ships, by which, in two or three mi-
nutes, there s.-ere three feet water in her hold, and
shs afterethrds 'slink. By continua care and attention
on the part of those on board the Hayle, at the time
• the signal IVas made to them from the Diana, the ac-
-eident m;ght have bccrt avoided. • No endeavour on
the part of the Diana could have availed, she lying
in the water an unmanageable. log.
Mr. -PAanz,• for the defendant, contended that every
effort had been used by the' Hayle consistently with
her own safety. She. had, a few minutes before, been
struck by a Dutch or other foreign ship, by which
her course had been changed, and slte had been rem.'
dead for some minutes unmanageable. She had
dropped or raised her sails so as to occasion her, as
far as was hi the power of those on board, to lie to ;
but the place where the Diana was situated being ea-
t tunely dangerous, there being a sand bank on one
and a shoal on the other, and there being a great
Leuty vessels in the reach ; to have let down that
anchor would have exposetithemselves and others
to this same cr greater danger than that which the
Diana had eniountered.
Evidence was adduced to this effect ; but none of
fie witnesses could state the name of the foreign ship,
nor coilid it be shewn that any inquiry had been made
after her.

This latter circumstance Lord Eutsnottouun
theue.t extremely suspicious.
The :ury found for the plaintiff's.
st:cuci V. CORSAIC.

Mr. Ganitow stated this to be an action to recover
from the defendant, the plaintiff's third part of a ship,
purchased with 4 sum of money which had come into
his hands on account of the plaintiff, of the defendant
himself, and of a third person of the name of
With this money, arising from the sale of goods be-
longing to these parties, a purchase had been made
by Corsan of a ship called the Thames, on account
of Messrs. Philgill, Burke, and Corsan. But the de-
fendant refused to make over to plaintiff his share of it.
Mr. Pamir:, for the defendant, contended, as he
after4ords shewed in evidence, that the three persons
who had been named Philgill, Burke, and Corsan,
were general partners in trade, and that, on a fair
counting, the plaintiff was a considerable debtor to the
dekndant. He also argued, that the purchase of the
ship in question had been included in the French cap-
tors, who were alien enemies to this country, with
whom, theroforc, any transaction that might have
taken place was illegal, and in consequence of which
the plaintiff could not be entitled to recover. So
much were the Commissioners on the defendant's
Bankrupt Estate satisfied of this, that they-had refused
to allow the plaintiff to prave his debt under the Com-
mission, in ceuiegotence'of which he brought the pre-

sent action.
Gmtnow, in reply, contended that it was suf.
Scient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, that money
had been recelved by the defendant on account of the
plaintiff. He referred to a case where an Insurance
Broker had received certain sums on an insurance
which was obviously illegal, but which plea of Mega•
lity the Court was of dfinton the broler could not set
up against his employer.
Lord ELLENBOROMII was of opinion this did -not
apply. Here the defendant transacted the business
• a his own account, and it being illegal he might be
called on to restore the property to which he could
spew no legal title.
The blaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. IS.
st:l.GEss Y. WILLIAM ON.

This was an action to recover a compensation in
damages for an assault and cruel punishment inflic:ed
on a seaman, by the defendant, who is Captain of the
Ocean E,ist lndiaman.
It appeared that the plaintiff sailed under the com-
mand of the defendant, as boatswain's mate. Be-
tween the Cape of Good Hope ;end • Madras (the
place of the ship's destination), a dispute occurred
between the plaintiff and a seaman named Middle-
ton, in consequence of which Middleton nude a
complaint to the Captain. The plaintiff was then
ordered to attend Captain Williamson on the poop.
On las appearance, the Captain seized him, accord-
ing to the statement of the witness, by the hair,
and beat him unmet...ldally with a rope three inches
in circumference. The plaintiff, who is an old mem,
h(Tvod tiie defendant not to kill him, but to spare
his..lite, in consideration of his wife and children.
In,tead of feelin!.; c,rapassion, the defendant exclaim-
ed, 4, D—n youi wift: and children !" and continued
heating him with the rape until he was tired, when
he kicked hi:A the ladder, and the plaintiff
rende shift to crav:l below in a dreadful situation.—
The next nirriiiag !lc made an application to the stir-
cf the ~hip for assistance. His back exhibited
a id Ari,e.,l%,nce, in consequence of the blows ; his
hard o much bruised; and the injury he had
veeived confined him to his hammock.
It was stated, that the surgeon lend refused to give
II:rn proper assistance, because the plaintiff had re-
e,-Std- beating from the Captain, but it appeared
that medicine had been sent some days after. The 1,
ca-: ou the whole ~was described to be a most barba-
rous act ct injustice and tyranny. The strictest
sk ought to be kept up on board a ship (said Ser-
i 'Ala S11;11'111::;n, who was Counsel for the piaintici..) ;
hit if a Captain, who should be the father of his
crex, i, found guilty of oppression and cruelty, a
Bri:Oh Jury will make him. pay damages, as some
ai..,l:cment to the man whom he has injured."
Mr. Stteaut BEST contended in behalf of the de-
'Llidatat,_hat Burgess had condu‘ted himself wvialds

his Captain with insolence, in a sate 4 intoxication;'
which had pmduccni proper chastisement. ThP sur-
geon of the ship also stated, that the blows inflicted
on the back.of the plaintiff appeared to have been
occasioned by falling down the hatchway, and that
the injury which he received was not of a dangetous
description. Three foreign sailors on their exanyna;
tion stated, that they had seen the plaintiff beaten on
the poop, but they denied, in contradiction to the
plaintiff's witnesses, that the Captain,had given the
blows ; on the contrary, they asserted, that the plain-
tiff had been struck by the Chief Mate at the order
of the Captain. The case on the whole, abounded
with contradiction ; but the weight of truth appeared
to rest with the plaintiff; and the Jury, after having•
retired from the box, found a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, £l3O.