Star.
London, England, 1828-03-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GCLUINALL, MARCH 5.
&fore Lord TRNTIRDRII and Special Juries.
DR LA CIIAGMETTE v. Till BANK cIP ENGLAND.
Thia Wotan action of hover, to recover a Bank of
Engfandnete for the sum of 5001. which it was alleged
bad been illegally seized by the defendants, and con-
verted to their own use.
Sir JAMES SCAM:IMT (with whom was Mr. J. PARK)
appeaied for the plaintiif; and Mr. Sergeant BOSAN-
ucET, the standing Counsel for the • Bank of England,
with the assistance of Mr. F. POLLOCK, conducted the
defence.
The facts of the case were shortly these : On the
25th of February, 1826, a Gentleman was allured into
a brothel, where he was robbed of the 5001. note in
question, No. 4356, together with two other notes of
the Bank of England, one for 5001. and the other 501.
The girls• were apprehended, but not until they had
disOted of the 5001. note in question. In the spring of
1527, the note in question was cashed in Paris by an
emlneht money changer. According to the custom in
Pails, Bank of England notes are constantly sold
in this way to the money changers, and they deduct
or 'add the difference of exchange, as it may be
against or in favour of England. M. Duval took
the aete In question' from a Gentleman of respectable
appearance, and as.he perceived the nore was genuiue,
he did not ask the Gentleman's address. In the course
of business he passed the note to a permit named
Emery; Mr, Emery passed it to a money changer named
Oiler, mid M. Odier remitted it to the plaintiff, M. de
la Chaumette, who was his correspondent in London,
for the full value. M. de la Chaumette paid it into his
bailers, Jones, Lloyd, and Co. and when they pre-
sented it at the Bank to be changed, the servants of the
defendants seized it, and refused to give it up, as the
payment had been stopped by the Gentleman who had
been robbed at the brothel.
Lord TENTERDEN, under these circumstances, left it
to the Jury to decide whether the note in question was
changed for a bona fide consideration in Paris, and
whether it came jai) the plaintiff's hands fairly and
honestly, in the way of business. His Lordship said,
that if the 'Jury were of that opinion, the plaintiff was
entitled to recover; but if they were of a contrary opi-
nion, the verdict ought to be for the defendants.
The Jury, without hesitation, found for the plaintiff,
Damages 5001.
ADMIRALTY COURT, Mayen S.
TIE MARGARET.--SALVAGE.
This was a case Of a rather novel kind. It was an
action brought by six seamen against their owners, un-
der the fo lowing circumstances:—The Margaret and
the Ronkwood, two whalers belonging to Mr. Mellish,
left Slietland in company; they afterwards parted, the
former bound frir 'Davis's Straits, the latter for Green-
land. The Rookwood, having no success in the Green-
land fishery, proceeded to Davis's Straits, where, at the
end of September, 1826, she fell in with the Margaret,
who had received some damage in the after-part of
her keel by contact with the ice, and, giving up fishing,
accompanied her to a port on the ea.t side of the Straits.
No repairs were, however, necessary; but the Rook-
wood attended the Margaret on her voyage to
England, till the ships were separated by a storm.-
The plaintiffs, inatiners in the Rockwood, claimed
a compensation for services, and-also on the ground
that their remunerition for the voyage depended
-upon the quantity of oil caught; so that the loss arising
hots their detention was equivalent to a loss of pay to
them. On the past of the owiser, this action was sag-
snatited as an unjustifiable attempt to wort an indem-
nity- where no loss accrued, and no service had been
pet formed ; that it was the custom for consorts to assist
'each other, without a 'view to recompense, ,a fortiori,
when belonging to the same owner ; that the occur: ence
took place after the close of the fishing season, and in
point of fact 60 ships took only font fish afterwards;
and that it would be contrary to established practice,
and detrimental to the interests of parties•circusivAnaced
as the owner to admit the principle contended for.
Atter Dr. Doosow and Dr. SwF-omen- had been
heard for the salvors, and Dr. Lusaiworow and Dr.
NICrIOLL for the owner,
Sir C. Rostssom said he should decide this question,
-.not upon principle, but upon the faces: the principle
would be better decided in a case where there was fuller
evidence. He considered that there had been no specific
service rendered in the present .case, and no specific
danger incurred ; he should therefore pronounce against
the claim of the mariners, and dismiss the owners from
t' e suit.
• ' Dr. Downie applied for the expenses of the seamen,
but the Court refused them.
MAYOR'S COURT.
'IMAMS AND FIANCE ILA I/WWI, WILLIAM IPREMIUUCE
COUNT LINSENGEN, imams OS UNBINDS*, DISBUD.
ANT; CARTER, (TARNISHER.
This was an application mete to the Court, by one of
the four atternies who practise in it, for protection in a
case of some n oment. The public are aware, that in
'the City of London the money of a defendant may be
attached by a creditor in the hands of a third person,
.and that the ends of justice are greatly facilitated by
this mode of retribution. Mistakes, howeveroome-
-tiMer occur, and the following was represented to the
Court as a case in which an attachment could not lie
against Mr. Carter. The eyes of lawyers are now more
particularly directed to the proceedings of the Mayor's
Court, as some of our Legislators very strongly riteim.
mend the universal adoption of she practice of attaching
a debtor's money wherever it is to be found, instead of
the system of impsisonment.
The grounds of Mr. Carter's application were these.:
. An attachment has been made, at she suit of the above-
mentioned plaintiff, of certain money alleged to be in
the-hands of the garnisher, the property of the Count
Linsingen, under the following circumstances : About
the/th of May, 1527, Mr. Carter, as one of the attor-
riles. of the Court, was applied to by Messrs. Bebb and
Ganning, solicitors of the defendant, for the purpose of
putting in bail, and bringing a scire facies ad dispro-
banduni deliton for the defendant in a certain attach-
ment of his money then pending, in which Sir W.D'Arcy
Todd was plaintiff, and Messrs.Coz and Greenwood were
garnishers. Mr. Caster took such proceedings, and
the defendant obtained judgment of restitution of
the money condemned. When this judgment was
obtained, Mr. Carter, by the direction of Messrs. Babb
and-Ganning, issued an execution against the plaintiff's
sureties in that attachment for the sum of 6571. Bs.
One of the sureties paid his moiety in sa.aaction of
the execution, and Mr. Carter handed over the amount
.to Messrs. Bebb and Ganning. The other surety
paid his moiety to Sewell, one of the Sergeants
at Mace of the Mayor's Court, and at the same
time that surety's Attorney gave tiewell notice not
to part with the money until an application could
be made to the Court to set aside the execution
for irregularity. Counsel was beard upon both
sides, and the Court took time to consider its
jadgn ent. Alta which, it decided in favour of
she dlfendant, thereby establishing the validity of the