Star.
London, England, 1802-11-30 00:00:00

charaCter, fenteileed him to I 2 months imprifcm-
ment in Maidttone Gaol, and to (land in the pillory.
Ifaac Benham and John Siggins were brought
up to receive judgment, for'refifting Revenue Of-
ficers, and endeavouring to prevent their feizing a
quantity of fpirits fecreted on board one of his
Majefty's Packets.
Mr. WILSON, for the Crown, obferved, that the
(hip had been feized and reflored, yet the Ciptain
had thought proper to make an affidavit in favour

of thefe men
Lord ELLFNBOROLIGH faid, he hoped the Port-
Office would be informed of it. The obliru6tion

of Revenue Of on board a flip, where there
were no means of retreat, was a more aggravated
offence than when committell-unibore ; and it was

neceirary failors, who were guilty of it, thould
know that they would be treated with the utmost
leverity.—They were fentenced to twelve months
imprifonment in the Cafile of Norfolk.
Robert Bradley, for affaulting a Revenue Officer,
was fentenced to eighteen months imprifonment iq
York Cattle, and John and Thomas, his fons, for
affifting him, to nine months.

THE KING V. WATERHOUSR.
The judgment of the Court was moved for,
againft the. Defendant, Samuel Waterhoufe,for wil-
ful perjury, in an action brought by his brother,
William Waterhoufe, againft a Mr. Skinner, and
tried at Chelmsford, in I Soo. The queftion wasp
whether five quarters of oats, fent by Mr. Skinner
to Samuel Waterhoufe, were fo fenc on his own

account, or in part performance of a contrail, to
deliver zoo quarters to 'V% illiam Waterhoufe with-
in a limited period ? The Defendant fworei that
they were delivered on account of his brother, and
that he never had any dealings with Mr. Skinner ;
in confequence of his (wearing to this fact, his bro-
ther had a verdi&. was afterwards indiaed

for perjury, and, on the evidence of a contrary
aatement by Mr. Skinner, was found guilty.
Mr. SHEPHERD addrefred the Court, at confides..-
.1131 e length, on his behalf.
The Court committed him to the King's Bench
till the &ft day of next term.

THE KING V. ROWED.
The Defendant, Captain Henry Rowed, of the
Union cutter, was brought up to receive judgment,
for affaulting a Mr. Harbin. The circumstances
f the assault, and the animofity fubfifting between
the parties, have already been fully detailed on a
former occafion. The Profecutor refided at Sea-
ford, and frequently invited the Defendant to his
houfe. The Profecutor grew jealous of the De-
fendant's attention to his wife, and from what he
related in his affidavit, he feemed to have good
reafon to be fo ; the confequence was, the Profecu-
tor and his wife feparaied. The Defendant, on the
other hand, became irritated againft the Profecti-
tor, for having reported that he had lived butler
to a Gentleman, and that his, the Defendant's wife,
was his Miftrefs. Urged by refentment, he one
day, onthappening to meet the Profecutor, rushed
againft him with the whole weight of his body, and
insulted him with offenfive language. It was for
this he had been found guihy.
After the Court had, with great patience, heard
a number of affidavits read, by which both parties
completely expofed themfelves, the Defendant was
fentenced to pay a fine of sole and enter into fecu-
rity to keep the peace for three years, himfelf in
2001. and two fureties in tool. each.
NOVEMBER 29.
WILLIAMS V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
In this cafe, of fo much importance to the 114-
ping interest in this country, the Court this day
gave their opinion. The Plaintiff was proprie-
tor of the fhip the Princefs Amelia, chartered to
the Eaft India Company. At Bombay, a jar of
paint or varnifh, calledrhogan, was put on hoard of
her. This is a fubftance of the malt inflammable
nature, but the people belonging .to the Princefs
Amelia, being unacquainted with its name or
qualities, it was not hung over the gallery, but
flowed in the hold. After the (hip had been a
few days at fea, it took fire, and in an inftant fet
the whole (hip in a blaze. Every attempt to get
under the flames was ineffthnal, and it was with
great difficulty that the lives of the crew were
faved. The declaration ftated, that the rhogan
had been put on board without due notice of its
nature being given. At the trial Lord Ellenbo-
rough was of opinion that there was no proof to
make out this neceffary allegation, and therefore
nonfuited the Plaintiff'.
His Lordfhip now obferved, that a motion had
been made to fet afide the nonfuit on two grounds:
1. That the declaration contained a negative pro-
pofition, and that the burthen or proof therefore
lay upon the Defendant. 2. That if it was in.
cumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove want of no-
tice, that he had adduced fufficient proof. In
fupport of the firit obje6tion it was urged, that if
the Defendants, inftead of the general iffue, had
put in a fpecial plea, they mull have affirmed that
wue notice was given, and that at the trial they
would have been bound to eflablifh what they had
affirmed. But there was a rule of law, that where
it is the duty of the party to have performed any
particular thing, it will be prefumed that he has
done his duty, and that it lies wiih the other party
to prove the negative. His Lordthip mentioned
a cafe from Roll's Reports, where the Plaintiff
alledged that the Defendant, a Clergyman, had
not read the 39 Articles, and as it was the duty of
the Clergyman to have read the 39 Articles to
qualify him to hold his benefice, the Court laid it
down that it fhould be prefumed he had read the
39 Articles till the, contrary was proved. In
criminal cafes the fame dokftrine prevailed. Upon
an information againti Lord Halifax, for not
delivering up the Rolls of the Exchequer, it was
held, that on the part of the profecution proof
mutt be adduced that he had refufed to deliver
them up. Here if the fervants of the Eaft India
Company had negleaed to state the nature of this
fubflance, thereby endangering the lives of his
Majesty's fubjeds, they would doubtlefs have been
guilty of a high misdemeanor ; the law would
thus intend that they had done all that could be
required of them. The Court was unanimously
of opinion, that fufficient evidence had not been
adduced. It appeared, that the only two perfons
_ .