Star.
London, England, 1827-07-04 00:00:00

THWAITIS L TOSTZR.

In this ease a rule was obtained a few days iinee,
calling on the plaintiff's attorney to spew cause why the
judgment that had been given in the action should not
be set aside, on the round that he had not given the
defendant proper notice of trial? The defendant, in his
affidavit, stated that the attorney had in the first instance
given him notice of trial, but had subsequently coun-
termanded it ; that after having given this counter-
mand, he pr,,ceeded with the cause, and carried it into
Court, where he obtained a verdict:The defendant went
on to state in his affidavit. that he believed he had a
good defence ti the action, sad had he been apprized
of the intention of the plaintiff to carry it into Court, he
had little doubt but he could have effectually answered
. the case.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE this morning shewed cause
against the rele, and produced the affidavits of the at-
torney and his clerk. The latter swore that he had
served the notice of trial, and that he had never served
any countermand, but, on the contrary, a continuance
of the first notice. The attorney swore that the coun-
termand which had been produced wai not in his hand
writing, or in that of any of his clerks, nor had he ever
sanctioned any countermand whatever, and if any had
been served on the defendant with his name attached, it
must have been forged.
Upon the strength of these affidavits, the COURT
discharged the rule.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY. Jinx S.
THIL EsTsaY CAIRN/.

This was a suit brought by the owners of the fishing
smack Minerva, to recover from the owners of the brig
Betsey Cairns damages for the loss of the former ves-
sel, which was sunk by collision with the latter. The
Betsey Cairns, a collier, in ballast from London to
Shields, on a night in December last, met on entering
the Wold, the Flora, a Dutch galliot, with the Minerva
in tow, this vessel having last her rudder. The Betsey
Cairns lulled to avoid the Flora, but bore up immedi-
ately afterwards, supposing the vessel astern of the
Flora to be at anchor, there being no light on board,
acid no sail set. The bows of the two vessels came con:
sequently into contact, and the Minerva was run down.
Very conflicting evidence was given by the persons pro.
sent, some deposing that the witid was in one direction,
some in another ; some asserting that the night was den
and starlight, others that it was dark and foggy.
After hearing Dr. LusutNotos anJ Dr. DODSON for
the owners of the Minerva,
Lord Stolen'. (who was assisted by Trinity Masters)
declined hearing the other side, and decided that this
was not a case of damage, but an unfortunate acci-
dent, owing, in, a great measure, to the absence of
proper persons on board the Minerva, and to there
being no light and no sail set in that vessel. He there-
fore pronounced that the other party were not to blame:
they had effectually vindicated themselves. He dis-
missed them, but without costs.

This was a case of salvage. Three small vessels
Itad salved the Commerce when upon a sand off Har-
wich. The cargo was worth 5,00 W. and the tender
was 1001.. which the salvors refused, as insufficient.
Lord STOWiLL declined hearing Counsel on either
side; he bad read the papers, and he thought the ser-
vices rendered had been short, and not laborious. He
pronounced the tender fair ; but he, nevertheless, con-
demned the owners of the Commerce in the salvors'
costs and expenses.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jurr S.

DOS, ON THE DISMISS 07 TM! ST. ICATHSSINS.B DOCK

COM lA NT, V. SA RI RAN T.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the D.
rectors of the St. Katherine's Dock Company against
the defendant, to recover possession of some premises
which had been conveyed to the Dock Company. The
premises in question are situated in a place called Dark
Entry, in the precinct of St. Katherine's, and, were for.
merly in the possession of a Mr. Robinson, who con.
veyed them to the Dock Company, for the use of the
intended docks. Sarjeant, 'the defendant, occupied a
pan of the premises, and paid eight shillings per week,
for the same. A regular notice w4s served upon bits
on the 19th May, to quit on the following week, but he
refused to leave the premises. An action of ejectment
was therefore brought.
For the defence, it was contended that the defendant
bad no right to leave the premises until he had received
sr liberal compensation, and he grounded his claim upon

the Act of rulitunent, which states, that the tenanti at
will, as well as the owners and occupiers of the lan4, are
entitled to a remuneration for the loss of their premises,

Sm. On the other side it was argued, that if tenants at
will refused to give up premises atter they had received
notice to quit, by the Act of Parliament the Magistrate
of the district had the power to issue his warrant, and
turn those persons out of the premises.
The LOAD Cum Bosom was of opinion that persons
who held possession of premises which were required
for any improvement of the description alluded to, were
not entitled to any compensation for the loss of those
premises, unless the term for which they had contracted
to occupy the premises had not expired.
The Jury, therefore, under the direction of the Learn-
ed Baron, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.

In the eleventh century the learned seen of Spain
were divided in their preference for the Latin. or the
Mosarabic ritual. The spirit of chivalry which then
prevailed, permitted not the difficulty to be enlightened
otherwise than in leaving the decision to two noble
knights. Don Ruiz de Mai tanzi, knight of theMosarabic
ritual, overthrew the Don Quixote of the Latin ritual;
but as the laws of chivalry decided not positively, tha t
a ritual must be proscribed because its knight was un-
hot sed, the two ri uals were subjected to the fiery ordeal,
it not being considered possible that the sound of one
should perish in the flames. Both, hoe ever, were con-,
sumrd, and the dispute remain: d undecided. By degrees
the Latin ritual got the preference, and if any blight
alter wards presented iiim%elf to maintain the Mesarabic,
it was the knight and not the ritual that was thrown
into the fire.