Star.
London, England, 1803-11-15 00:00:00

prive the plaintiff, alto was a roteigner, of the ;me.
reit of the large fum awarded from the date the
verdia, during the whole of which period he had ail•
ed in contempt of the authority of that Court in de•
lying it. mandate.
Mr. EIIiKINF, for the Defendant, difelaimed all
id.a of cranemning the authority if the Court, of
wit;cl; he profelt,:d hinitelf one of the moll firenuous
ta.?r.. Neither had his client any intention to
retain from the Piaintiff a tingle farthing of the rum
awarded to him. In evidence of this he read an affi-
davit by the attorney fur his client, from which it
appeared that ha had prufelfed himfell ready to pay
tilt whole 11>tm dem ?mid by the Plaintiff, provided the
payment of it lhould be previodly entered upon re•
cord. It had appeared on trial that his client had
already, in c rvequenee of mil-conceiving the order
of the Pla;iitill, bcc•, robjeeed in double payment of
the fum in tptellion. It was therefore by no mean,
unnatural, or could it he deemed an authority of that
Court, that the Defendant was anxious to be fecured
againti a third claim -of a fimilar nature, the Plain.
tiff being an alien enemy.
The Cum paid was ordered to be entered on record.

Novastatt 14.
This morniug the two Grand Juries for the county
of ttliddlefez were (worn in before Mr. 'office Gums,
who made a Ihort elegant Addrefs to them p.evious
to their entering upon the difcharge of their very
important duty.

LORD NILSON V. TUCKER.•

Lord ELLINBOROUGH delivered the judgment of
the Court in this cafe. His Lordfhip obferved this
was a writ of error, brought on a judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas, and which is reported bj
Boranquet and Puller. This was en anion for money
had and received. The Defendant Mr. Tucker, was
only a Rake holder, to whom the money in difpute
had been paid, the real queflion being between thofe
two noble and gallant Admirals Lords St. Vincent
and Nelfon. The queftion for the decifion of the
Court was, whether the Plaintiff was or was not en-
titled, on the true conftruetion of his Majefly's Pro-
clamation of the 25th of January, 1797, and alfo
on the true conflruetion of the fall Prize Ad, as Chlet
Flag Officer on the Mediterranean Ration, to (bare
in fome prizes that were captured by Capt. Digby ?
His Lordlhip delivered a very elaborate judgment
on this cafe, taking into confideration every part of
that Proclamation, and of the Prize AR, that had
the finalleh bearing on the queftion ; and the refult
of the whole was—the Couit were of opinion, that
Lord Nelfon, having become by devolution the Com-
mander in Chief upon that Ration, at the time when
thefe captures were made, was fully entitled to (hare
in thole prizes that had been taken by thefe (hips of
war, which had been fent out to cruize by his Noble
Predeceffor. within the limits of the Mediterranean
Ration. As Lord Nelfon, when he fueceeded to the
command, did not revoke the orders for cruizing that
had been given by Earl St. Vincent, he might be
confidered as having virtitally consrmed and renewed
thole orders, in confequence of which the captures
were made; and therefore the Court were of opinion,
that the money now remaining in the hands of the
Defendant. (which we uncle:gland is about 53,c001.)
fhould be paid to the Plaintiff. Lord Nelfon, and that
the judgment given by the Court below Lhould be
re verfed Judgment for the Plaintiff.