Star.
London, England, 1828-09-01 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LANCASTER, Am 28.
HARRISON U. SK01161181( AND OTHERS.

Mr. Elaouustass stated the case. It' appeared from
the Learned Counsel's statement that the plaintiff was
the Captain of a merchant vessel, and* some years ago
had set out on a voyage for South America, where he
had the misfortune to be shipwrecked. A series of ca.
lainities afterwards betel him, and it was not until after
an absence of seven years that he again found his way
to England, where he arrived in a state of complete
destitution. At the time of his departure, he had left
Iris wise in the possession of a public house in Liverpool,
called the Strugglers, which she continued to manage
until the ground on which her house stood was required
by the Commissioners of some of the public improve-
ments in Liverpool. The Commissioners, under the
authority of an Act of Parliament, took the land, and
offered a compensation to the plaintiff's wife. The wife,
who had not for some years heard from her husband,
concluded that he was dead, and in order to enable her
to complete the sale to the Commissioners, she took
out letters of administration, and as ads inistratis she
conveyed the property. Sbe afterwards took another
pUblic house of a better description in Liverpool,
bui the license was, fir sonic reason or other, not taken
out in ler own name, but in itie name of Ann Price,
a young Lady who resided its t'ie house with ter.
Whilst the supposed widow was thus comtort
carrying on the public house, her husband, the plain.
unapectedly found his way home, and having
'sc. stained the new residence of his wife, lost no time
in'repairing thither. It occurred to him, as a matter
of course, that his wife's house and furniture were his'
own, and he proceeded to take possession. His wife,'
however, resisted his right,' on the plea that the house
arid. furniture were neither hers nor his, but the property
of Ann Price, the young female in whose mime the
license had been taken out. The plaintiff then pro-
cured the assistance of sit sailors, by whose aid he soon'
gte•possession of the house. . His trouble., however,
vex not at an end, for the defendants, one of whom
was the chief constable of the district, and the others

petty constables, being sent for, repaired, ten in number,
to the house, and besieged the plaintiff and his com-
rades. Finding that they could not procure an entrance
they got a reinforcement, which attended in consider-
able force, and at length the plaintiff and his friends
were ejected, ..and the plaintiff taken to prison, where
he was detained until. the following morning. It was
for the assault and false imprisonment that the plaintiff's
action was brought. It was proved that several articles
of furniture which were in the house kept under the
Dante of Ann Price,had been in the house of the plaintiff
benne his departure from England.
Mr, Sergeant Caoss, Mt. VJtNABLES, and Mr. AL •
DIMON, severally addressed the Jury for the defebcl-1
anti; and urged that as the house was in reality t'.e
house of Ann Price, to Whom the plaintiff's wile only
acted 's: assistant, the plaintiff bad no right to force into
and continue therein, and had therefore,: upon bis re•
fusal to leave, been lawfully expelled.
Mr. Justice BATIeII/ said; that if the Jury were con-
vinced that the house was Mr. Harrison's (and he could
hardir believe that "the Magistrates would knowingly
have licenied a house forso young a person as Miss
Price), then they could not distinguish her propel ty from
her 'husband's, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a
verdict,
Tbi Jury consulted for a few minutes, and then :T-
-urned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.
COOK v. Davison.
This was an action tor an assault and fake impti•

Nutmeat. •
-111r:SIIOUGHASI stated the case. The plaintiff had
been tearlienter on board the 'ship Cyrus, of %filch the
defendant ad been the Captain, and he had the autho-
rity. at the defendant himself for. saying. that a better
workman bad never gone on bdard a ship. The ship
had% sided horn New Orleans, and during the voyage
the mate had taken a dislike to tee plaintiff, which be
took frequent opportunity of gratifying. When they
bad• arrived at New Orleans, the plaintiff was one day
constructing a hatch; when the mate, professing to be
dissatisfied with the plairt,ff's ter rk, desired frigate alter
it. 'The plaintiff (who bad before Wen told by the de-
fendant. nut Ito take his order a from tbe mate) refused to
cosirply, and that refusal he supposed had led to the out
, • rage test followed. The Captain,who at first had seemed
• pleated with the will kelied afterwards had a conference
with the mate,•.and soon •after Vitae gens domes had
been placated from the shore, by whom the plaintiff had
beeneseized and conveyed to a dungeon.: three yards
and a half square, in a h cis, at the tame time,•29-dthes
individyals•h.d been confined. After •remaining 46. that
place 48 hour, the plaintiff had been carried b.(ore•thb
authoi stars at New. Orleans, and then, upon some comp
grovrtdl/.4.tittba litstebadbeen sent to another.
•

prison, where he had been kept 12 Jays longer. It had
only been when the vessel was actually undo r sail tsi
return to England that the plaintiff had been released,
and perhaps the release had only thee taken pl4ce bdc
cause the defendant was aware Via tere• was claw
which made it highly penal in the Captain of a British'
ship to leave a British :seaman abroad. It was tri
red
color damages for false im'pritonment that this 'action
Was brought.
Witnesses were called, who proved the case as stated
by Mr. Brougham.
In cross-eraminatien, Mr. Wll.Ltastaelicited that the
plaintiff had refused to assist in wealth* the'deck when
desired by the mate. It was also Nosed that the plaintiff
had been carried before a Magistrate; who lied heard
the case; but the witness added, that there Vies libt
much liberty or egriality in America Ilaughtei), and
that the complaint of tite.Captain was 'the bnly thing
that was attended to. • 2'.

Mr. WILLIAMS contended that there was no proof of
ill will on the part of the defendant; whose paiticipa-
tion had not been an active one, and who WAS only- to
be blamed far not having prevented what in the first'
instance he had not originated.
The Jurrfound fill. the plaintiff—Damages 151.
sqLsoteatrO OTHERS S. ANDERTON.

Tn;s was an action of trove., brought to recover the
value of five bales of good% which had been Shipped-by
the plaintiffs at Liverpool on board the ship Monarch,
and had fallen into the possession IT the d •tendant, and
been detained by him rooler 1 singular circurn-
s.ances. In the sear 1826. the Nldnarch was freighted
by the plaratiffs and other merchants at Liverpool ter
Sloth America ; her cargo consisted of haberdashery
.nd carpet goods, including the five bales which were
sought to be recovered by the present action. She sailed
from Liverpool on the 11th March, for Buenos Ayres.
It was not then k town at Liverpool that the Emperor of
th • Brazils had, on the 18th day of Fens oat y preceding,
declared Buenos Ayres and all the ports on the river
Plate t., be in a state of blockade. On the 23J of May
the Monarch fell in with the I'aranga, a Brazilian fir-
,gate of 60 guns, and after a short engagement was
captured and carried into Monte Video. At the time
of her capture she was within four or five miles of
Monte Video. The Par anga a few days afterwards
Thoer.eded id) the M:rnsich, with several other ireste.s,
towards Rio Janeiro, where the intention was to hive
the Monarch condemned, on the ground of her having
endeavoured td icrice the blockade. Five of the crew
of the Monarch, including the. Captain and two Mate-,
Were suffered to 'email) on board, and there were also
placed there 22 Brazilian soldiers and sailors. The ship
proceeded ithtil she had nearlyreached Rio Janeiro,when
the five English sailors took advantage of an opportunity
afforded them by only- 7 of the Brazilian soldiers beingat
the time on deck, seized aid bound them, and then shut
down the hatches and confined the rest et the israzi-
bans below. The latter were allowed to come sip -one
by one, and in that order were secured. The Arnie of
the Brazilian crew, except t4a seamen, were then put on
board the long boat, and being provided with provisions,
were started Ix Rio. Ile Monarch and her crew steered
for England, and arrived soon afterwards at Liverpool,
with the whole of her cargo in as safe a condition as
when she left t' at port. The cargo was afterlards
deposited in the warehouse of the defendant: Tire
Captain and crew of the Monarch naturally expected
some recompense from the owners of the sproperty
which they had saved in the manner described, but
as none was granted, they set up a claim for salvage,
and instructed the defendant to retain in his possession
five of the bales of carpeting until salvage • was paid.'
All the rest of the proper ty was restored to the plaintiffs
and the other owner. The defendant in this action was
only a nominal defe-idant, the real defendants being t
Captain alt./ tour saiiors of the Monarch. It. was now
contended, on the part of the defer:dant, that as the
Monarch, at the time of her capture, was not seeking to
violate the blockade cf Buenos Ayres, I er 'capture by
the Paranva was illegal; and her recapture, therefore,
was to be regarded as the reeal.tureot a vessel from an
enemy in time of war, in which case salvage was al-
ways allowed.
A variety of legal questions arose, and it was deter-
mined that' they should form the subject of a special
case for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY desired the Jury to had whether
the Monarch had left Liverpool with the intention of
breaking the blockade ?
The Jury answered the question in the negative.
A nominal verdict was then taken fot the plaintiff—
Damages 1,300 i. subject to a case.