Star.
London, England, 1818-11-12 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER

'Ate Vice-Ctuoicet.z.on was occupied in hearing
the arguments of Counsel in the case of the Attorney
General v. the Corporation of Bristol. , The question
at issue was respecting certain charitable bequests,
and involved only dry points for argument, wholly
uninteresting to a general reader.

COURT OF KM'S BENCH, NOVEYLBER

CARR V. CLARE..

SCAILT7T moved to set aside the nonsuit in
this case. It was in action brought by the Plaintiff,
a farmer; against the Defendant, to recover damages
for the seduction of his daughter, and the loss he had
sustained by being deprived of her services. The
cause was tried before Mr. Baron Wood at the Nor-
thampton Assizes. It appeased, that the plaintiff's
daughter had been placed as a servant in the family
of a Mrs. Shaftoe, at Annandale. The plaintiff; in
1815, removed from Annandale to Bishops Auckland,
but he requested of Mrs. Shaftoe that his daughter
might retnain in her service, until he should be set-
tled and able to receive her. Two years after that
request the young woman was seduced by the defen-
dant, who had married-the daughter of Mrs. Shaftoe.
The Learned Judge at the trial directed a nonsuit,
on the authority of deckinns in the cases of Pother-
gill v. Sparks, and Dean v. Field, in which it was
aid down, that if a daughter were not in the service
of het father, he could not sustain an action for loss
of her services. Mr. Searlett submitted, that this
case differed from Fothergill v. Sparks. The daugh-
ter in that case was more than '2l years of age, and
Lord Mansfield held • that she wets released from her
father's controul. In Dean and Field, although the
daughter was under age, she•had declared her deter-
mination not to return to her father after the seduc-
tion. In the present case it was understood expressly,
that the daughter was to return to her father. He
contended on all the points that the plaintiff was en-
titled to support the action.
Chief Justice Aanorr said, that the law was well
laid down, when it was determined, that a parent
could not bring an action for the seduction of his
daughter, in the character of a parent. He must do
it in the character of a master. In the present case,
the daughter was not in the service of her father, but
in that of Mrs. Shaftoe, who alone was entitled to
bring an action.—The Court refused to disturb the
nonsuit.

PIZ/ISOM V. WILL A N--(CA RR lER s.)
This was an action against a carrier, for the loss
of some cloth. The Jury gave a verdict for the plain-
tiff to the amount of twenty per cent. on the value of
the cloth, though it had not been entered at \VA,
lan's

Mr. ScAntrrT now moved to set aside the ver-
dict, oit the ground.of the construction to'he put .on
datend.int's notice, which was, that he i'vould not be
aii.,werabic to a zrealci amount than 54 uadess gobs

were entered and paid for accordingly ; not would he
pay more than 51. for any damage done to parcels of
less than 281 b. weight: nor more than 20 per cent,
for any damage done to any parcel above that weight,
unless entered and paid for accordingly. The case
of Tate v. Willan, (2 East), which turned on a notice
like the present, was deckled in Mr. Milan's favour,
the Court having held that the notice formed a part
of the contract, and that it ought to have been stated
in the declaration. In Clarke v. Gray, (6 East), in-
deed, the Court came to a contrary decision on the
same point, holding that the carrier's connect was
only to liquidate any damages that might* be sus-
tained.—Mr. Willan, who thought it very hard that
he should suffer by the alteration of the law within
so few years, especially where his own case had es-
tablished that law, insisted that Mr. Scarlett should
move to sef aside the verdict in the present instance,
relying on the former case.
The COURT said they should introduce still greater
uncertainty, if they were not to abide by Clarke and
Gray, which had been decided after two arguments,
and un great deliberation.—Rule refused.
BL:LICELY v. Lonn-4GVA RANTER)
The defendant had given a guarantee for his son,
in the following terms--.., Gentlemen, as you hesitate
to make an assurance for my son, under an appre-
hension that he may become a bankrupt and you be
losers, being desirous for the interest of my son, I
agree to guarantee you, should he become a bank-
rupt, to pay any loss you may incur by him." The
son afterwards committed an act of bankruptcy, by
being imprisoned more thaietwo months for a debt
Atmore than 1001. but no commission having ever
issued against him, the plaintiffs in the present action
were nonsuited, on the ground that the defendant's
son had never been a bankrupt within the meaning of
the guarantee.
Mr. Topptso now sought to set aside the nonsuit,
on the ground that the son had been strictly a bank-
rupt, within the terms of the statute 21 James, c. 19.
s. '2. and the evident meaning, of the guarantee was
to indemnify the plaintiff. against any loss by the in-
'solvency or bankruptcy of the defendant's son. He
4;Ontended, that the effect of the guarantee could not
.dtpead on the suing out of a commission against the
:defendant's son; for, a commission might have been
out, as happened sometimes, though the bankrupt
was fully solvent, and able to pay 20s. in the pound ;
in which ease,. the guarantor could not have been
called ; and, in the present instance, though no corn-
tisiision had issued, the son bad been strictly a bank-
rupt within the terms 21 James; c. 19.
Chief Justice Asaorr observed, that the declara-
tion averred that the son had become a bankrupt
which he thought ivas not the case millets a docket
had been struck against him. if the guaratee were to
be taken as an instenment of a larger construction,
as a guarantee against the inability or insolvency Of
the ofefendent's son, the declaration should have con.
tained a count to that effect. He Was far from saying
that the guarantee would hive borne any such coo
struetion. The son might have been sent to prism;
and yet have been perfectly solvent; but the Court
would not throw out the least hint that the guarantee
would bear,any other construction than that which
had been put upon it at die trial. They did not assert
that it would not, but by no means that it would.—
The word bankrupt had a technical meaning ;
liahi-
lity to become a bankrupt was one thing ; actually
being a bankrupt was another.—Rule refused.

NEWMAN C. BENNETT.

This was in action against a music-master of Chi-
chester for hiving beaten the plaintiff, one of his scho-
lars, because the boy, a chorister of the Cathedral,
had gone to sing at a catch-club, notwithstanding
evress orders to the contrary.
The plaintiff had a verdict far £5, which Mr. Gtnt-
NET now sought to set aside, because the Learned
Judge who presided at the trial had refused evidence,
that it was asual to forbid the choristers of other ca-
thedrals to sing at catch-clubs, and to chastise them
when they were disobedient in that respect ; as also
that catch-singing disqualified them for singing ca-
thedral'rnusic.
The Cover concurred in thinking that this evidence
would have been too gene, al, and refused to disturb
the verdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 11.