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

L4W IN7 EL LIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, DOCTORS. COMMONS

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 10.

This day the Right Hon. Sir Writ. SCQTT pro.
ceeded to the adjudication of the following caufes:
Sufannah, Donohue, mafter.—This was
a further proof cafe with refpe& to a certain quan
tity of goods which were claimed as Britifh pro-
perty. It appeared that the fhip, at the time of
the capture, was proceeding on her voyage from
America to Amltcrdam, and it was fnbmitted,
on the part of the captors, that this was a fraudu-
lent cafe, inafmuch as the party claiming was
acting as the Agent of the Dutch merchants at
Amfterdam, and that the whole tenor and etre&
of the con cfpondence produced clearly (lowed that
it was Dutch property.
The Court, after hearing the Conflict on the
part of the claimant, was of el contrary opinion,
and accordingly reftored the property, but al-
lowed the captors the ex pence of the further proof.
Neptunus, Kuyp, mafter.—This was the
cafe of a fhip bound from Lifbon to Amfterdam,
when that port was in a Rate of blockade.
The Court reftored the various goods as claimed,
where it was satisfied, from the proofs produced,
that the parties were ignorant of the blockade of
Amfterdam, but rejeCted the other claims.
Jonge Conrade, Johannes, imam—The
Court reftored the property as claimed in this cafe.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, NOV. so.
NOBLE V. M‘NIA HON.
The declaration in this cafe Rated, that the
plaintiff for twenty years back has not been a
foldier, nor belonged to any military corps what.
C7Ct ; yet, that the Defendant, well knowing the
premifes, had malicioufly procured him to be taken
up for a defence, and committed to prifon. At
the trial the Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff
with tool.
Mr. ERSK moved to fet this verdict afide, as
being contrary to evidence. He contended that
there fhould not only have been proof of malice,
but likewife that there was no probable caufe.—
Now though it might appear that Noble did not
belong to the Fifefhire Fencibles, as M'Mahon had
reprefented, yet Mr. Pie, the Juffice before whom
he was carried, !Wore that he had atteited him a
short time before. He now held an affidavit from
Capt. Lowe, of the Fifelhire fencibles, in which
that officer depofed, that Noble had been on the
recruiting fervice for him, and had procured him
a great number of men.
Lord ELLENIORMJCk raid there fhould be
probable caufe, not to the Magifttate but to the De-
fendant, who brought the charge. M'Mahon hid
been proved to have thought fint of getting Noble
arreffed for debt, and upon being told by the per-
lons to whom he applied that it was only defences
they took up, to have aid, " Oh, I'll make a
deferrer of him then."
Mr. ERSKINE dwelt npon the force of his affi-
davit, and objected to the amount of the damages,
and after a long converfation he obtained a Rule
to fhew caufe.

STEETENS V. WHISTLER.
This is the cafe on the Game Laws which we
mentioned yeflerday. Mr. Jußice LAWRIINCE now
read his notes of the trial. The evidence of the two
witneffes was as ftrong as could well be conceived.
- The fervant not only (wore that he law him (hoot
the two partridges in Hurley Bottom, on the
evening of Saturday the 16th of January, but
that he fpoke to him at the diflance of twenty
yards, and told him that he might kill as well
take up his game now that he had killed it, and
that he had feen him out with a gun feveral dif-
ferent days immediately before and after the
16th. The evidence of the Sheriff's Officer was
direst as to the Defendant's having confided his
guilt.
Mr. MILL: Rill preffcd for a new trial. He al.
lowed that the Sheriff's Officer mutt be perjured ;
but the other Wirnefs might be miftaken. There
was not only ftrong evidence offered at the trial,
to prove that the Defendant, from flcknefs, was
not able to go abroad, but a man without any
interell, and whole credit would not be impeach.
ed, fwore p9fitively that be was the perfon who
had committed the a& His evidence was con-
firmed by the affidavits of his matter and feveral
others, Rating that he had abruptly left that part
of the country on Sunday the 17th of January,
and that he had not returned before the end of
Anglia. It was impoffible to have produced this
violas at the trial, and indeed Whittler ,then be-
lieved that the Rory of the two partridges being
flint was all a fabrication. Several perfons who
were prefent when the Sheriff's Officer ferved the
writ had joined in an affidavit that the Defendant
had never confeffed that he had (hot the birds, or
bad held any converfation to that etre&
Lord Ext.ENBOROUG H Paid, it would be infinitely
dangerous, after a Defendant had been regularly
eonviaed, to allow the conviaion to be let afide
by evidence of this fort. This man, who took
upon himfelf the at in violation of the game laws,
run nn rick. as the fix months had expired, and he
could net himfelf be prolecuted. If the two wit-
nefles for the Plaintiff had given falfe evidence,
they might both be itulieted for perjury.—Rule
refuted.

THE ZINC V. GEORGE WADDING.

The defendant was .conviCted at thelalt Kent
Affixes before the Lord Chief Baron, upon an in
ditiment for perjury. He is one of thole who, on
the trial of the cafe of The King e. Hart and
Others,wem called for the Defendants, who fwore
that they had been at Hart's houfe on the night
when he was accnfed of having beer. prefent at the
refcue of fame !snuggled fpirits from the revenue
officers, and whole evidence Mr. Garrow expohd
with fo much dexterity, by atki.ig them all fepa-
irately what they had for flipper r'
Mr. MARRY/1T? moved for a lICIV trial. His
firft objeaion was, that the leading Counfel for the
Crown, in his opening, had Rated that the Defen-
dant had been committed by Lord Kenyon at the

Judge to tate thcfe fleps exprenly provided that
they never fliould be given in evidence. The Jury,
therefore, ought never to have been informed that
fuch proceedings had taken place.
Mr. CARLOW faid, that if he himfelf had been
the Counfel alluded to, he fhould have remained
fluent, but for the fake of his abfent friend, Mr.
Serjeant Shepherd, he-muft obferve, that the fait
of Wooding having been committed by Lord Ken-
yon was notorious to the whole county, and that
the Learned Serjeant only mentioned it, from his
ufual candour, to warn the Jury againtt allowing
it to have the lea(' influence upon their minds.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH obferved, that this cir-
cumftance ought not to have been dated.
Mr. MARICVATT then hated feveral objections to 1
the indienient, all of which were declared to be
frivolous. Mr. M. likewile übje&ed to the charge
of the Learned Judge. The Chief Baron, accord-
ing to him, began thus--;" Unfortunately, Gen•
tlemen, I have fpent too much of my life in trying
fmuggling caufes, both when I was Attorney Ge-
neral, and fince I came to prelide in the Court of
Exchequer. In nineteen out of twenty, I have
ohferved that the defence is retied upon perjury.—
Unhappily, perjury in behalf of a fmuggler, is
reckoned almolt always complimentary. This
language, the Learned Countel contended, was
calculated to prejudice the Jury agaiuft the De-
fendant.

Lord
ELLENBOROUGH raid, he thought it was
fcarcely refpeatul to die Learned Judge alluded
to, to infinuate that he wifhed to irritate the Jury
againft the defendant. He made no doubt that
the Learned Judge was fully juflitied by the cir-
cumflances of the cafe in every remark he made.
Mr. MARRYATT took nothing by his motion.
WILLIAMS V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

The Plaintiff was owner of the Princefs Amelia,
a (hip chartered to the Eaft India Company.—
While iv their fervice a quantity of combuaible
oil wiuput on board of hcr, and this taking fire,
fhe bled' up. This action was brought for her
value, and in the declaration it was Rated that the
Defendants well knew- the nature and effects of
this oil. In fupport of this allegation, fcarcely
any evidence was offered, fave that every thing is
put on board there fhips by the Company': orders
and by the Company': fervants. Lord Ellenborough
nonfuited the Plaintiff.
Mr. ERSKINE now moved to fet afide this non-
fuit, upon the ground that the heft evidence had
been offered, of which the nature of the cafe ad-
mitted. The Chief Mate, who took the oil on
board, had perifhed, and no other perfon whom
the plaintiff could call, was cognizant of the trail-
faction. He reprefented the cafe as one of pecu-
liar hardfhip, although the Directors, being truf-
tees, perhaps were not to be feverely blamed for
(landing upon the rigour of the Law.—Rule to
thtw caufe granted.