Star.
London, England, 1822-11-23 00:00:00

iIS

1

LAW INTELLIGENCE•

;VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER' 2.
lILANCIIARD V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Some time hack a person of the name of Blanchard
applied to the Court to giant an order directing that
the East Luba Company should pay over to him the
sum of i.:60(), to enable him to provide for the
passage of sixty Lascars to India. The Counsel for
Mr. Baxter upon that occasion stated, that the Las-
cars had been engaged to work a vess:,l from India
to England, upon the understanding that they were
to be shipped to return to their own country at the
expense of the owners of the vessel, within three weeks
after their arrival here. The vessel reached this coun-
try in safety, and the profits of her freightage were
deposited in the hands of the East India Company:
A dispute existed between Mr. Baxter and Mr.
Blanchard respecting the tight of ownership to the
vessel, and a cause was now. pending in the Admi-
ralty Court to decide this question. The East India
CoMpany refused to pay any money out of the fon&
in their possession, either to Mr. Baxter or to Mr.
Blanchard, until the question respecting the title of
ownership should have been determined ; in the
meantime the Laiscars, for want of the money neces-
sal yto provide for their passage, were compelled,
contrary to their inclination and the agreement under
Which they had been engaged, to remain in this
country. Under these circumstances, Mr. Baxter
prayed that the Court would direct the East India
Company to transfer out of the funds in their hands,
the stun of £6OO, for the purpose abovementioned.
The Court acceded to the motion.
Mr. HORNE, this morning, informed the Court,
that since Mr. Baxter had obtained the order for the
tran,fer of the £:300, he had engaged with the Cap-
tain of the ship Melpomene for the passage of the
Lascars to India, hut he now refused to draw the
funds from the East India Company to pay the Cap-
tain. The Melpomene was expected to sail imme-
diately, and his client (Mr. Blanchard) was extremely
'anti-rigs that the Lascars should sail in it, as they
were highly dissatisfied at being detained in this
country, which they imputed to the instrumentality
of Mr. BlanchatJ, and had actually beset his house
in consequence. lie therefore moved that the Court
would over-rule its former order, and direct that the
sum of 1.:600 should be transferred by the East India
Company to Mr. Blanchard, to be appropriated by
him to the securing the, passage of the Lascars to

their own country.
Mr. BELL who appeared on the part of the East
India Company, said that his clients considered them-
solves mete stake-holders, and they were willing to
dispose of the fonds in their hands in any way which
the Court might direct.
Mr. RosE, Counsel for Mr. Baxter, admitted that
that Gentleman did not intend to send the Lascars
to India by the Melpomene, as he had at first pro-
posed, but it was his intention to send them home by
a ship of his own, which would sail in about a
month. In the meantime he would maintain them

at his own expense.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it was evident that
Mr. Baxter wished to avoid carrying into effect the
order which the Court had made upon his applica-
tion. He would advise Mr. Horne's client not to
press for an order upon the present occasion, but to
pay for the passage of the Lascars by the Melpomene,.
and then to apply to the Court for an order, which
would enable him to rei tubut sehimself for the money
which he had expended.
Mr. HoaN s; said, he had no doubt his client would
act upon the suggestion of his Honour.
DAVIS V. TILE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.
Mr. HART moved that the Court would direct the
defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of £172, being
the amount of his taxed bill of costs. He would
state the circumstances of the case. Some time since
the Duke of Marlborough made an application to
the Lord Chancellor for the discharge of the re-
ceiver of the rents arid profits of his estate, who had
been appointed by the Court. Upon that occasion
the Lord Chancellor declared that he would not per-
mit the receiver to be discharged until after a cen-
t tin sum of money had been paid into Court. The
money was paid, and the receiver (the plaintiff) was
discharged. The Lord Chancellor subsequently di.
rected the defendant to pay the receiver his r osts,
and referred it to the Master to ascertain their
. amount. The Master allowed £l9B .as the amount
of costs. This sum the defendant refused to pay, and
a writ of sequestration was in consequence issued
against him. The defendamt thereupon petitioned
the Court that the Master might be directed to re-
view his taxation of costs. The Court granted the
prayer of the Petition, and upon reviewing the costs,
the Master struck out one item of £26, which re-
duced the amount to £172. To obtain from the
Court an order directing the defendant to pay this
sum, was the object of the present application. The
process of sequestration had been suspended since the
presentation of the defendant's Petition. He (Mr.
Hart) apprehended that the plaintiff was entitled to
the costs of the process of sequestration, and also of
the present application.
Mr. WRAY, for the defendant, contended that his
client ought not to be made to pay the costs of the
process of sequestration, because the plaintiff had not
given him notice of his intention to take out the
writ, but, on the contrary, had declared that he
would not do so.
Mr. HART observed, that his Learned Friend stated
those facts from affidavits which had been filed upon
some former occasion. He apprehended that it was
irregular to refer to such affidavits without having
given notice of the intention to do so. If, however,
the Court thought the facts which he had mentioned
material, he hoped the case might stand over until
his client could prepare an answer to them.
-The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that if the
writ of sequestration had been taken out under the
circumstances stated by Mr. Wray, the plaintiff had
acted against good faith, and could not claim the
costs of that process. It certainly was irregular to
refer to affidavits which had been flied on a former
occasion, without giving notice to the other side. lie
would direct the case to stand over to the last day of
Term, and in the meantime the defendant must in-
form the plaintiff whether he meant to refer to any,
and what affidavits.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
The VICE.CHANCELLOR, addressing Mr. Bell just
beiore the rising of the Court, said, " You seem to