Star.
London, England, 1830-06-18 00:00:00

SEAME2:.6 FIND.

Sir M. W. RlDLEV2l;;edforfeat:eio bring in a bill to amend
the 3d William, and the 20th Geo. 11. c. 3tt, relating to the trier.
cliatit seamen's fund. He described that tend, the demand of lid.
per mottli, and spoke of the hardship of callin• on merchant sea-
men to provide a fund that ought to be supplied by the public at
large--(hear.) If they contributed to the fund, the) ought to par-
ticipate in tam benefits of the Greenwich chest. But he thought that
Greenwich Hospital ought to be supported by the public. He trusted
that there would be no objection to a bill, the principle of which
was so obviously just, He concluded with movinz for leave to
bring in the bill.
31r. PEN DARVIS seconded the motion.

Tic CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that if
it were supposed the merchant seamen had no benefit from the chest,
it was a mistake ; if they were in the navy but a day, they were en.
titled to all the benefit of it. He saw nothing unjust in it ; but ii
they wished to place the subject on a new footing—to require a cer.
tarn length of service in the navy before seamen could be entitled to
reward—it might be revised by Parliament. The system had now
existed for many years, and he thought it would not be judicious
hastily to disturb it.
Loid W. PAULETT thought the motion a good one. Many
seamen never had, and never could have, any benefit from the fund.
The Greenwich chest was a good one, but it ought to be supported
by the public.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion—merchant seamen
:aver could derive benefit from it.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, if the subject were thought worthy of
levisiem that might be done; but he considered it would be better

to l'es't one the suhjt et, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
attend to it. (Ilear.)
Sir 31. W. RIDLEY said, with that understanding he would
withdraw his motion. (Hear.)
Motion withdrawn accordingly.
COURT Or CHANCERY.

Mr. BROUGHAM wished to know what was to be done with
the adjourned debate ? (" Go on, go on.) It was easy to say
"Go on." Against that he protested at so late an hour. (" No,
no, no.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied. that this
was most inconvenient. for he had postponed the Sale of Beer Bill
purposely to make way for this question. (" Hear, hear," and "Go
on, go on.")
The order of the day for the resumption of the debate on Sir C.
Wetherell s resolution was read at half-past ten o'clock.
Mr. FERGUSON said, he should vote in fleeter of the resolu-
tion, though he did not agree in much that had been urged in
support of it by the Honourable Member fur Plymptoro He
believed an honest and pure motive had dictated the bill, but
it hail not been made out to the house that there was an abso-
lute necessity for an additional Chatittery Judge. He could not
say that the proposition was a " noisome and pestilent" soca.
sure; but from the efforts made lately by the Chancery Judge
to get through business, he could not admit that a fourth Judge
was necessary. The arrears hod been reduced one-third in
one Term and Sittings. That being the fart, as far 1.3 cri-
tic= went, the present judge:, if they did their duty, were sof&
cknt ; then, it' they were insufficient, the insufficiency ought in he
made manifest to the house.—(hear.) If the resent judges were
competent to bring up the arrears, then why have the fourth
judge ? He had formerly considered that they could not bring
up the arrears ; but three Chancery Judges had lately proved
the contrary. Then, why incur the great expense of a fourth
Judge? The Master of the Rolls did not disguise his opinion
that a fourth judge was unnecessary. He must, therefore, oppose
the new appointment till that was proved, which was not now
apparent, that a fourth judge was requisite; and if that were
established, then he would never sanction the appointment of a
fourth judge, except dispatch and reductien of expense were secured
for the public—(hear.) The court of privy council was a court,
as now systematically established, that could not be long endured
in this country. There must be a high court of appeal, composed of
the most eminent of the chief judges of the land, who should decide
both in law and equity in the last resort. The House of Lords
must rid itself of its appellate jurisdiction, which Lord Hale had
called an usurped jurisdiction. A bill for that purpose must ori-
ginate with the Lords themselves, and he thought the time must
come when they would see its necessity. He thought the present
bill ought to make the Vice-Chancellor independent of the Chan-
cellor, and in that way diminish the number of appeals, which were
a great impediment to justice. The present equity judges were
performing their duties so well that the arrear was fast diminishing,
and there was not now a single bankrupt petition before the Vice-
Chancellor. If the arrear should again increase he would then
consent to the appointment of an additional judge.
Mr. H. MISS said, if experience had shown that the arrears
of the Court of Chancery were accidental, he could then understand
the opposition to the present bill ; but as all the history of the Court
of Chancery proved that arrears were frequently arising, and though
they might sometimes be diminished, they as constantly increased.
He thought the appointment necessary. In the early part of the
present century the House of Lords was deluged with appeals from
Ireland, and the appeals front Scotland also increased, as did the
business in the Court of Chancery, which made the appointment of
a Vice-Chancellor in 1013 absolutely necessary. The number of
causes for the next three years after that appointment in the Court of
Chancery, excepting bankruptcy and lunacy, were 2,470. The
number of causes in the last three years, with the same exceptions,
were 3,339 ; and a similar increase took place in bankruptcy and
lunacy petitions. It was true a diminution of the arrears had taken
place since the beginning of the present year, but it could not be
concluded that the diminution would be permanent, because the his-
tory of the Court of Chancery proved the contrary ; and within the
last few weeks an increase of arrear had actually occurred, and the
appointment of a new judge was absolutely necessary, sinless the pe-
riod of buffering of the suitors was to be prolonged. His hon. friend
had appealed to the opinions of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice
Chancellor, but he would appeal to the facts contained in the
rolls of the Court. The appointment of the Vice Chancellor had
been equally opposed, but no one would now say that it was not
necessary ; and the equity business had since increased much
more than one third, which made the appointment of a fourth judge
now equally necessary. The vast increase of business in Chancery
might be judged from a single fact : in 1740, the money in the
hands of the Accountant-General was 1,290.0001. at present, the
amount invested in the name of that officer was between 30 and 40
millions. The delay of a cause between the setting down in the
Master of the Rolls Court and the hearing, was at present three
tering ; and in the Vice-Chancellor's Court the delay was Pk terms.
This caused an average delay of four years and a half in obtaining
final judgment after the cause was ripe for bearing ; and it any of
the parties died, or became bankrupt, proceedings de usvo must be
commenced, by which the delay might be nearly doubled. Ile
thought it' the bills before the house were rejected, the time would
conic when they would witness an arrear productive of disappoint-
meat to the public, and misery to the suitors of the court.—(Hear,
hear.)
Sir. SPENCE said, his honourable fiieusl had a holly mistaken
the facts of the case. In the Vice Chancellor's court, lestead of I
curets being on the average four and a halt' 3 eats in paesing through
the court, three years should be deducted from that duration.—
(Hear, hear.) He wished the subject to be discussed on the facts
on record, on which he had fowled the settled °pillion, that the
present Bills, in their present state, should not pass. The great
delay of a cause in Chancery at present, takes place in the Regis-
trars' and the Misters' offices, which were so choaked with business,
that it was, under the present system, impossible to get any cause
out of their offices a; ithout enormous delay. The first remedy for
delay in Chancery should be applied to these offices. The Bill
before the House did not diminish the useless labours el the
Registrars, which might be done to a degree that would enable
them to dispatch ten times the amount of business they were under
the present system able to perform.—(" Hear," from the Solicitor.
General.) He rejoiced to hear that cheer from his friend ; for if he
were to effect that great improvement, he would do hints. it humor..
tal honour, and be fur ever remembered with gratitude by the suitors
in Chancery. The bill for regulating the business of the Master's of-
fice was equally deficient. lle hoped regulations would be adopted
which would prevent such charges being seen as 9231. fees on the
sale of one estate. Unless fees for copies in the Master's otiice were
abolished, he thought the charges in that office must in many cases
amount to a denial of justice—(hear.) Let a bill be brought in to
correct these great evils, and when that shall be done, let an addi-
tional judge be appointed, if necessary. There is at present a come
plete waste of the time of one of the masters, who only sat to hear
affidavits and answers sworn before him—why should nut the officer
who filed the answers and affidavits administer the oath ? There
was scarcely an officer belonging to the Court that might not be
materially amended both as to efficiency and expense, and if some
treasure for the purpose was not soon brought forward, lie should
feel himself compelled to propose a general remedy fur the evil he
had stated--(hear.)
Mr. BATLEY said lie had made inquiry amongst the most emit
neat solicitors, and they were almost unanimous that a new judge in
equity was unnecessary. The Chancellor should devote his time
more exclusively to the business of his court. It was a new thing
for a Chancellor to devote his time to cabinet councils. Lord Hard.
wick had refused to attend then), and so had Lord Eldon in the
first years of his chancellorship, nor should the Chancellor be called
on to attend but on questions of international law. He should
oppose the appointment of a new judge.
31r. R. GRANT suggested that the debate should be adjourned,
as many members wished to give an opinion on it, which was
obviously impossible at that hour of the night
Mr. BROUGHAM concurred in the suggestion, and regretted
that the debate had not been adjourned at ten o'clock, In which
case some real business might have been got through.
Sir R. PEEL said, he thought it was better to allow the busi.
ness fixed for Friday and Monday to stand as at present, otherwise
all confidence in their arrangements would be lost. (Hear, hear.)
The debate was then adjourned to Tuesday.
The Common Law Fees Bill was committed, eel ordered to be
read a third time on Monday.
The ether orders of the day were disposed of, end the House gel.
journed at One o'Clock.

L.l U' REPORTS.

ROLLS COURT, JUNE 17.

YATES v. FAIJILIE.—The Master of the Rolls gave judg-
ment this morning in this case. The bill was filed by a gentle.
mar. of the name of Yates, who claimed to have an interest in
a returned cargo of a ship called the Mercury, consigotti by
51actionald and Co. of Liverpool, to Arnold and Fairlie, of the
Mauritius. Macdonald, who was ore of the persons who signed
the bill of lading, was a partner with a person named Waring.
Previous to the transaction with the plaintiff, Macdonald and
Waring carried on business as merchants, and as such had opened
a cotrespondence with Arnold and Finite; in the course
of which they acquainted them of their intention, in a short
time, to consign to them a ship called the Mercury, laden Kith goods
for their account, and requesting them to purchase goods for the
sup,ily of the returned cargo, telling them they should be supplied
with money for the purchase of it out of the proceeds of the outward
cargo. Upon the tatth of this Arnold and Fairlie purchased a
hon.eward cargo. In the meantime Macdonald and Waring wanted
an advance of money from the plaintiff, which he was willing to
accede to, upon one of the partners of Macdonald's house being
made a party to the bill of lading, anti also upon instructions being
given that WOW. should be paid out of the first proceeds of the

outward cargo. Nothing, however, was mentioned to the plaintiff)
of the previous correspondence which had taken place between Mac-
donald's house and the house of Arnold and Fairlie. Instruc-
tions to this effect went with the bill of lading to Arnold and
Fairlie, who, previously to the arrival of them, had laid out their
money in the purchase of a returned cargo, under the understanding
that they were to be reimbursed out of the first proceeds; they,
therefore, declined to pay any attention to those instructions. Mac-
donald and Waring shortly afterwards became bankrupts, and the
plaintiff, conceiving he was entitled under the commercial law to be
paid this 6,0001. commenced proceedings against Arnold and Fair-
lie In the Mauritius, where, after considerable argument, it was
determined that Messrs. Arnold and Fairlic had a right to reimburse
themselves for the money they had laid out ; but in that decision
a reservation was made of the right of Yates to any surplus
which might remain after Arnold and Fairlic had been satis-
fied. Yates being dissatisfied with that decision filed his bill in this
Court for an account of the proceeds of the outward cargo, for the pur-
pose of being paid out of the surplus, if any. When the cause came on
fur hearing the Court was strongly of opinion that the general com-
mercial law made it incumbent on the consignees. Arnold and
Fairlic, to apply :he proceeds of the cargo according to the instruc-
tions which accompanied the bill of lading; the Court, however,
directed a referee to the Master, to inquire whether the co::.
signet, accepting and acting upon a consignment, is not
bound by the conditions expressed in the bill of lading ac-
companying such assignment. Three French lawyers were
consulted, who were of opinion, upon the general proposition, that
the consignee was bound by such conditions. The opinion of other
French lawyers were taken upon the said question, all the corns-
pondence that had taken place between the parties being laid before
them; on which they were of opinion, that Arnold and Fairlic had
a right to reimburse themselves. The Master coincided in that
opinion, and reported accordingly. To that report exceptions were
taken, which were argued yesterday, and the case stood for judg-
ment this morning.—His HONOUR was clearly of opinion the
cision of the Master was right, and ordered the report to be con.
firmed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Juwr 17.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY took his seat in Court this morning, at nine
o'clock, for the purpose of swearing in the Nresuninster and 3lid-
ellesez (hand Juries. There being only 17 gentlemen present, the
others who had been summoned were not in attendance, and for
whom no satisfactory excuse was offered, were fined 201. each.
31r. Justice BAYLEY expressedhis regret at so thin an attendance;
but as there was no case of any difficulty likely to come before
them, and it being only necessary for 12 to agree to the finding of a
bill, he did not think it advisable to postpone entering upon the bu-
siness. The gentlemen present were then sworn.
BOROUGH OF Yzoviz...—The ATTORNEY.GENERAL moved
for a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to com-
pel Jennings, Esq. late Port-reeve of the borough of Yeovil, to
deliver up to the gentleman who had been appointed his successor
the mace and other insignia of that office, which he positively re-
fused to do.

Lord TENTrIIDEN—Take a rule to show cause.—Rule granted.
NEVILLE V. DUNBAR......The plaintiff in this case is a gereral
in the army, and the defendant a gentleman at the bar. It was an
action of ejectment, but at the suggestion of the Court the matter
in dispute was tefared to arbitration. The arbitrator made his
award in favour of Gen. Neville. On a former thy, Mr. Dunbar
obtained a rule to show cause why this award should not be set
aside, and a new reference had.

Mr. CAMPBELL this morning showed cause against the rule. Ile
felt confident the Court would never sanction any further litigation
between those parties, when it was informed the inquiry that had
taken place occupied more than two years. Mr. Dunbar, too, had
been most fully heard, as on opening his case he made a speech
which occupied four successive days, and he had taken also five
other days examining a single witness. (Laughter.)
Mr. Dvxnatt, in support of the rule, was heard at very great
length. Ile complained in very strong terms that his case had not
been fully investigated.
Lard TENTERDEN—In my opinion, the proceedings that have
already taken place have been most vexatious, and we should not
be doing justice to the parties unless we discharge the rule, and
that with costs.

The other Judges concurring, the rule was discharged with costs.
TUE KING v. MALT AND FOUR OTIIERS.—The ATTOR.
NET.GENERAL prayed the judgment of the court upon these de.
fendants, who were convicted of a conspiracy to defraud.
On their names being called, only Malt and Hodgson appeared.
The ATTORNET.UENERAL hoped the Court would estreat the
recognizances of the absent parties and their bail.
Lord TES TEIIDEIi—I think we should rot be justified in doing
that, as it appears front the affidavits that the notice to come up for
judgment was not left in the dwelling-house, but was pushed through
the keyhole.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL—TIiat was the only means we had,
us the houses have been closely fastened since the trial.
The defendant Malt said, he bad received no notice at all to attend.
Lord TENTERDEN—WeII, never mind, then you are here
without notice. His Lordship then directed, that the defendants
should he brought up on Friday sennight, to receive judgment,
and in the mean time ordered that those present should be com-
mitted to the custody of the 31arsital of the Illarshalsea, and, if
possible, that the absent ones should be served with notice to
attend.
MANDASII:STIIE PATTEN MAKER'S COMPANY.
Mr. Curwood applied for a mandamus directing the 31aster and
wardens of the corporation of panel) makers to call a general mem.
bly of the company. for the purpose of electing another master and
wardens, to appoint auditors of tittraiecounts, and also to allow the
members of the company to inspect the books and papers. The
learned counsel said the corporation of apatten makers' was incor.
porated in the 2211 year of king Chatles the Second, by royal char-
ter, at which time all persons carrying on the trade of patten ma-
kers, within ten miles of London, were declared free of the com-
pany, and the company thus Incorporated were authorised as a body
to buy and sell lands out.
Lord TENT EIIDEN.— I suppose your application is for the Com-
pany to admit some person to the freemen of the Company. Who
arc they bound to admit ?

Mr. 'Curwood.—They are bound to admit all persons, sons of
freemen, being patten makers, those serving apprenticeship to patten
makers, and all others who obtain a majority of the votes of the
members of the Company. But that was not the object, the present
application being to get an inspector of the accounts, and also calling
upon the Company to elect another Master and Wardens the mode
in which those now filling that office had been elected having been
irregular. The Court granted a rule to thew cause.

TUE KING V. PATRICK.
The defendant appeared to NCCiVC the judgment of the Conn,
having been found guilty of perjury in his examination as a bank-
rupt before the commissioners.

Mr. Sergeant BUSSELI. moved the judgment. and was heard in
aggravation.
Mr. Cuit wool) was heard in mitigation.
Mr. Justice BAILEY, in delivering the judgment of the Court,
animadverted upon the enormity of the crime committed by the
defendant. The sentence was, that the defendant be imprisoned
one month in Newgate, and be transported for *even years.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Juxie 17.
WORMWELL AND OTHERS V. HAILSTONE. —This was an
action brought by the plantain against the defendant, in his cha-
racter of clerk so the trustees of a turnpike road in Yorkshire. The
cause was tried at the last a•sizes at York, when the plaintiff's reco-
vered a verdict, and an execution had been subsequently issued
against the personal property of the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant JosEs was heard at very considerable length yes-
terday against the execution, and Mr. Sergeant Wrr.DE in support
of it, after which the Court took time to consider tiw question.
On their Lordship taking their seats this morning,
Th.. Lord ('M.4 3....t1,•. after havine mitered al eonaider
length into a consideration of the provisions of the Turnpike Act,
as well as advetted to the arguments brought forward by the learned
counsel on either side, proceeded to state that the court was already
of opinion that there were no clauses in that act warranting the con-
struction which had been put upon them by the learned counsel
(Mr. Sergeant Wilde). They thought that it could never be in-
ferred from those clauses that the clerk to the trustees was personally
liable. The court had, therefore, come to the conclusion not to
grant a rule against the execution, but restraining the executing of
it to the prejudice and injury of the person and effects of the clerk.