Star.
London, England, 1809-11-10 00:00:00

DUFF V. BENNETT.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD moved for a rule to show
cause why the bail bond in this action should not be
cancelled, and all further proceedings staid, on the
ground that the defendant had been unjustly arrested.
: The Learned Serjeant stated, in support of his mo-
tion, that the defendant., who lived at Norton Court,
-near Faversham,
,in the county of Kent, had a com-
, Mission of bankrupt taken out against him in the
[year 1803, and that he had, unfortunately for him-
self, employed the plaintiff', who is an attorney, to
get the commission superseded in the Court of Chan-
cery. That it having been discovered, during the pro-
gress of the suit, that the assignees under the commission
had damn £I7OW from Mr. Bennett's property more
than was sufficient to pay all his creditors their full
demands, the Lord Chancellor ordered that sum to be
returned him, which was accordingly done. That at
various times the present plaintiff had borrowed con-
siderable sums of money from him, amounting to
more than a thousand pounds. That the defendant
being indebted to. Messrs. Slade Add Son, in the way
of business, he drew a bill on the plaintiff at two
months, in their favour, for £55, and which was re-
gularly accepted by the plaintiff ; but on the 25th of
April, the latter tent Mr. Bennett the following letter:

" Dear Bennett 4 am very unwell, and have my troubles and
anxieties very many. Slade will accept your draft at one month
for the £55, so accept one dated sat Monday. on Hams and Co.
and I will sign it and give it him.• He required my name as a se-
corky, and that I pay the interest. lam the last man who would
do an ignoble or dishonourable act, but as matters staid, we
ought to stand on our defence, in case of accidents, (observe the
advice of the attorney to his client, said Serjeant Shepherd)
therefore write the bill on an inferior stamp; if it be discovered,
I can plead ignorance for us both ; If kbe not, and we should be
called on hastily to pay without the means, then we can do as sve
please. You see lam acting in this carefully, but very contrarf
to my principles.—MayGon bless you"
That the defendant had since applied to the Lord
Chancellor to order the plaintiff to give in his ac-
' counts to be taxed by the Master, that they might
come to a settlement of accounts, as he was diss.stis,-
fied with him as his Solicitor : That the Lord Chan-
' cellor granted the object of the defendant's application
on the sth of August last, and when the defendant
came to London do the subject of this reference to the
Master, the plaintiff had him arrested for 4'50 and
~upwards on the Bth, being only three days after the
date of the Chancellor's order. The foregoing facts
were contained in an affidavit-made by.the defendant,
and Serjeant Shepherd stated, that he had a number
of other afsda4its, the contents of which he was cer-
tain would induce their Lordships to grant the object
of his motion, but he would save them the trouble of
hearing them, knowing that their Lordships would
n t countenance a cause under such circumstances
before them, as the subject was already before the
Lord Chancellor in the plantiff's account.—Rule
gr4nted.
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.—" Is the plaintiff an At-
torney of this Court ?
Serjeant SHEPUEItD." Yes."
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.—" Does he live in town?"

Serjeant SHEPHERD.—" He lives in 'fhavies Inn."
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.--" We will see what the
plaintiff will say to the letter and the other matters."

GOODALL V. OGLE.
Serjeant COCKLE moved for a new trial in this ac-
tion, which had been brought by the plaintiff, who'
had been High Admiral to Christophe, Emperor of
Hayti, against the Underwriters of the ship Lord
Bathurst, whereon it was alledged, that the Captain
and crew had committed baratry on a voyage from
St. Domingo tO England. The Learned Serjeant
said, that baratry had not been proved at the trial,
i'as the ship had deviated several times from the in.
'tended voyage. In the first place the ship was not
seaworthy, in:l...much as she had not a sufficient quan-
tity of provisions on board when she sailed. Being
afterwards taken into the island of Bermuda by one
of his Majesty's ships, a Mr. Grogan, who he was
informed was the plaintiff's agent, disposed of part
of the cargo, and then the ship sailed to Baltimore in
America, which he believed to be her original desti.
nation, when the Captain died, and where she took
in a fresh c:rgo and came to England. A long
affidavit of the Captain of a merchant ship was read,
stating the conversations which he had with Mr. Gro-
gun and the Captain of the Bermuda, which tended
to prove, that Grogan was supercargo of the ship.
It was not known that this Captain was in town when
the trial was had, or he would have given the con.
tents of his ailidavit in evidence.—Rule to chew cause
granted.