Star.
London, England, 1818-07-11 00:00:00

LAW INTPLLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 10.
Sir SAMTPL Ho•\nLLY this morning called the at-
tention of the Court w the case of a bankrupt named
Crowley, who had been committed some time since,
by the Commissioners, for refusing to answer inter-
rogatories. The question to which the bankrupt de-
clined giving any reply was a very long one, and a
doubt had arisen as to the authority of the Commis-
sioners to enforce it.

M. Ross her:: begged leave to interrupt Sir S.
Romilly, as he had an objection to offer which might
render it unnecessary to go into the merits of the case.
By the original statute of 11.theas Corpus the Lord
Chancellor had no power to issue the writ in vaca-'
tion, but the Act of the sth of George 11. supplied
that power in favour of the liberty of the subject. it
provided, however, at the same time, that the writ
should be prayed for within the petiod of two terms
after the commitment of the party. The bankrupt
in this case had suffered an imprisonment of two
years, and had therefore forfeited his claim to the be-
nefit of the statute.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY observed, that he was cer-
tainly not prepared to meet this objection at the pre-
sent moment, but, with his Lordship's leave, the
matter should be again mentioned on Monday.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR directed that the bank-
rupt should be brought up accordingly on Monday
next, when the question might be fully considered.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 10.

TWEDDELL V. TWIIDDULL.

His Honour the Vice CHAsicet.ton.—" !consider
this case very important on public grounds, as it re-
lates to the practice of this Court: It is a bill filed
for the purpose of annulling a settlement made be-
tween a father and a son, alleged to have been exe-
cuted under the undue influence of the faller. It has
been contended, that a father has a powerful influence
over a son, where the latter is of a good temper and
disposition, for which reason the Court ought to
witch the father's conduct strictly. I will, however,
ask, has this ever been done? Let those who have
so contended, prove that they have ever influenced
the decision of this Court. In guardian cases, it is
necessary for the Court to look with jealously, as a
guardian might influence his ward; but here there is
no proof of that kind, as it appeared the settlement
was founded on family attachments. No pecuniary
bargain of an improper kind was made, although it
is alleged the son had been imposed on. The recital
of the deed of settlement is not sufficient for inc to
decide on. I have therefore read the deed itself, and
I must say, that I see nothing in it to j•istify the al-
legation that the father and son stand in the situation
of vendor and vendee. Feeling as I do that it was
a family transaction, I will not disturb the Fettle.
ment. I therefore dismiss the bill without costs.—
This Court has a jealous eye over guardians, but it
holds sacred family transactions."

Bill dismissed without costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY io.
ATTWOOD AND HAINES 4. ARTHUR WILLIS.

The proceedings in this case occupied the Court
nearly the whole of this day : the time was princi-
pally employed in the examination of contrary wit-
nesses as to a single fact on which the result of the
cause mainly depended. It was an action on a po-
licy of insurance, dated 25th March, 1817, on goods
on board the Badger, and on the. freight of the yes-,
sel en a voyage at and from St. Domingo to Car-'
thagena, South America ; the loss was averred to
have been by capture. The defence was, that the
plaintiff's broker, who effected the insurance, had
concealed a material fact from the underwriters. The
following arc the principal facts out of which the
suit arose :—On the 23d March, 1817, the plaintiff%
received a letter from their correspondents in St.
Domingo, informing them that the Badger either had
sailed or was about to sail from thence to Cartha-
gena, South America, with a cargo of provisions int
the Insurgents, who, it was asserted, were in posses-
sion of the place : the letter also stated, that a part of
the cargo belonged to the Commodore of the insur-
gent squadron. On the arrival of this intelligence,
in consequence of directions, the plaintiffs employed
their broker, Mr. Hunt, to take to Lloyd's a policy
upon ship and height, with a view to its being un-
derwritten. This he did on the very day the above
letter came to hand; and when he addressed himself
'to various Gentlemen fur their signatures, he found
that recent news had been obtained, vie Jamaica,
that the Royalists were in isossession of Carthagena:
they stated this fact to Mr. Hunt, who was previ-
ously ignorant upon the subject, excepting so for as
the letter received by the plaintiffs gave him intelli-
gence and by that he had every reason to believe
that the insurgents held the place at the date speci-
fied in it. Some conversation occurred between Mr.
Hunt and. Mr. Beverley, Mr. Champion, and others,
upon the point. This, however, was the question in',
4spute—whether at the time of the signature of what
is tailed the slip, on the 23d March, anterior to the,
preparation of the policy, Mr. Hunt had exhibited as
mentioned to the underwriters the letter from St.
Domingo, in which it was said that the Insurgents,
and not the Royalists, were in Carthagena. The de-,
fendant took a line to the amount of 1:200. The loss
took place by capture in part, the Spanish Royal as
i ties confiscating the ship and cargo on her arri-
-4al at Carthagena, contrary to the Spanish naviga-
tion laws, the Badger being a British vessel.
The first witness called by Mr. SCAIILETT, on be-
half of the plaintiffs, was Mr. Hunt, who swore dis-
tinctly, that when he went on the 23d March to
Lloyd's to effect the policy, he did not know that
Carthagena had been retaken by the Royalists ; he
first received the intelligence front the underwriters,
who on that account refused to take a premium of
three guineas, but insisted, particularly Mr. Beverley,
upon receiving five guineas on account of the greater
risk that the Royal Spanish authorities would con-
fiscate the ship and cargo. He had every reason to
believe, that the underwriters saw the original letter
from St. Domingo, consisting of three sheets of
paper, though he would not take upon himself to
say positively that he shewed that ; but certainly
he had never exhibited any other to them, and
he was confident that he took it in his hand.—
He was sure that he had never told any of them that
the Badger was fitted out and loaded fur a voyage to
Carthagena, with intent to supply provisions to the
Royalists. When the los,s was claimed, the Under-
writers required to see the letter from the West In-

dies, 2nd after he had procured it from his pAncii
pals, the plaintiffs; he laid it bE;fore them, and one
of them, Mr. Robinson, read it; as, however, it
contained various other matters, it wets • not made

- -
more public. In confirmation of this stateme:l;, the
witness produced a policy underwritten by some of
the same Geatlemen on mules on a voyage from
Porto Cavallo to Jamaica, at a premium of only one
guinea and a half, though the sea through which the
vessel passed was equally infested with plundering
privateers, and the ♦oyage longer; from hence it
was inferred that the insurer must have taken into

view the risk of capture in port by the Royal Spa-
nish Authorities, and on this account required a pre-
mium of tin guineas. On his cross-examination,
this witness admitted that the mules were warranted

fromjettiron and mortality, and that they might wit
be so deiirahle a prize to privateers as .provisiors.
He swore positively that• the plaintiffs had never
threatened him with an action, or even intimated..
that he had been guilty of neglect, misconduct, or
mistake, in the mode in which he effected the policy.
A witness who had been on board proved that the
Badger escaped the squadron blockading Carthagena,
but was seized and confiscated on her arrival in port,
and the crew imprisoned.
Mr. Seijeant VAUGHAN conducted the cause on
the part of the defendant, and addressed the Jury at
considerable length, detailing the nature of the evi:
dente he should produce in contradiction to the case
made but on the part of the plaintiffs. His first
witness was

Mr. Champion, who had signed the policy in
question, as agent for the defendant. He spoke to
what passed at Lloyd's, when lkfr. Hunt presented
the slip for signature ; he, produced a letter on half a
sheet of foolscap, written recently, and with pale
ink, as his letter of orders, and the witness was quite
sure that Hunt offered nu other to the underwriters;
had that from St. Domingo beea teadered in three
sheets, he should have remenibei ell it. When 1-lunt
first offered the i isk, Mr. Beverley said that Cartha-
gena was in the hands of the Royalists, but the for-
mer added, she would he well received, for theta oops
were in a state of starvation. Beverley, the witness,
Mr. Robinson, and several others, put their initials
upon what Hunt produced as his letter of orders,
with the sums for which they were willing to sub-
scribe opposite.
Mr. Rubinson was not sure whether Hunt or some
other person said, that the ship would be well re-
ceived by the Royalists, but it was in his healing,.
He would not take upon himself to swear that the
letter from St. Domingo had not been produced to
the underwriters on the 23d of March, but he had
no recollection of it. Mr. Hunt delayed fni• souse
time before he claimed the loss, bud at last produced
the Captain's protest, and Mr. Beverley (the first
name on the policy) required to be !hewn the letter
of orders shewn by Hunt on the 23d of March; the
latter denied that he had had any, but after ~one
days exhibited the letter from St. Domingo, s% it ch
the witness read ; Hunt denied that he had shewn ca
the 23d of March a letterof orders from the plaintiffs.
Mr. Benjamin Blaydes, another io,urer son this
policy, confirmed the above in some particulars, but
his memory of the transaction was not distinct.

Mr. Llo'yd, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Nl‘Ctillurn, Mr.
Beverley, and Mr. Blanchard, also gave evidence, in
terms more or less strong, that Mr. Hunt had nut
produced the letter from St. Domingo at the time the
slip was signed, nor until after he claimed the loss.
The detendant's case having been closed, Mr.
ScAitizn• commenced his reply by some remarks on
the inconveniences to which Judge, Jury, Sui:ors,
and Counsel were exposed in a Court so ill construe.,
ted : not a County Town in England was so ill pro-
vided in this respect as the metropolis, and the long
existence of the evil, after repeated remonstrances,
was a disgrace to the City of London. He then en-
tered into a comparison of the evidence on both sides,
pointing out the various circumstances confirmatory
of Mr. Hunt's account, and the probability that the
witnesses for the defendant were mistaken in the ac-
count they had given of what passed at Lloyd's.
Mr. Justice A/MOTT went over the whole case, oh-
serving, that if the defendant's case %%ere true, the
plaintitfs, through the agency of their broker, had
been guilty of a gross fraud upon the Underwriters ;
his Lordship, however, could not believe, under all
the circumstances, that any such intention had existed
on the part of Mr. Hunt. or his employers. The .
former had spaken with as much distinctness and po-
sit'veness as was possible; and there were many parts
of the case for the defendant that confirmed his tes-
timony very importantly. There seemed no reason
for charging him with falsehood, either in his acts
or in his evidence, while it was easy to explain the
discrepancy of the testimony against him, by sup-
posing only the mis•bearing or omission of a single
word. It had been said that the broker was an inte-
rested witness, but surely he was not liable to so
much suspicion as the Underwriters themselves, some
of whom had been called to contradict him.

The Jury, after a short consultation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, A:200.

The award made by the arbitrators in the cause be-
tween the Earl of KINGSTON and the Countess Dowa-
ger of KINGSTON, has been set aside by the Master.
of the ROLLS, in Ireland.

The Court of Delegates cf Ireland have given their
sentence in the case of the I)e.tnery of St. Patrick's,
and have declared the Rev. R ICHARD PONSONBY duly
elected.

The Assizes for Northampton terminated yester-
day afternoon. Seven persons were cast for Death,
three of whom were left for Execution, being part of
a gang of housebreakers, who have for eight years
past infested the county. Several more were ordered
for Transportation and Imprisonment for different
periods. From Northampton their Lordships pro-
ceed to Lincoln, where the Assizes commence on
Monday. On their way thither they dine, as well as
the Gentlemen of the Circuit, with the Right Hon.
Earl BROWNLOW, at Belton, near Grantham, the
seat of his Lordship.
A person, on Sunday evening last, got up to the
llag..taff on the Pier at Ramsgate, and unfortunately
losing his hold, fell to the ground, by which he re-
ceived material internal injury.

In a notice which we inserted on Thursday, of the sudden
death of a Ticket Porter of the name of Bott, it was stated, than
he went to bed on the preeedbig night somewhat intoxicated.
Ills friends are anxious that it ►hould be k.town, that there is
uo ground whatever for such an imputation.