Star.
London, England, 1821-11-29 00:00:00

ARRANGEMENT o BUSINESS.

The COURT requested (to obviate the necessity of
late sitting) that short cases only might be opened by
Counsel. Matters which were likely to run into
length might stand over (without further expense)
until the adjourned argument day, which would be
on the 10th January, 1822.
BISHOP V. HALLETT.
This was a motion to set aside a Commission
granted by the Court to examine•witnesses at Buenos
Ayres. The parties to be examined were three Gen-
tlemen named Dyson, Nonell, and Wild ; and the
subject matter was a cargo of goods shipped some
years since from this country to South America.
Mr. GURNEY obtained a Rule to shew cause why
the Commission should not be set aside. The Rule
was granted upon an affidavit produced, which al-
leged that the Commission had been sought for delay,
and that two of the witnesses (Mr. Dyson and ano-
ther) were actually in England.
Mr. SCARLErT now spewed cause against Mr. Gur-
ney's Rule, and, in his turn, produced an affidavit.—
That affidavit stated that Mr. Dyson only had arrived
in England ; that he was in such bad health as
to be utterly incompetent to business; That he had
left all papers and documents with Messrs. Nonell
and Wild, who were still in Buenos Ayres ; and that,
in fact, he could throw no light upon the transaction.
Mr. GURNEY (in reply) endeavoured to shew that
all the material facts of the case were in the know-
ledge of Mr. Dyson.
The COURT thought that, upon Mr. Scarlett's affi-
davit, the necessity for the Commission still existed,
and decided that Mr. Gurney's Rule should therefore
be discharged.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER N.
READ V. ISAACILL.

POLICY Of INSURANCE ON THE SHIP VITTORIA.
Mr. Serjeant 'laxity applied to the Court in this
case to have the rule of consolidation opened, under
the peculiar importance of all the interests concerned.
The Court was aware that £13,000 was depending
upon the result—eight thousand pounds on the ship
Vittoria, and five thousand on her freight. The under-
writers had undertaken to consolidate the whole of
the actions, and to try them upon one issue. It was
understood that Mr. Read had received, on the 16th
March, 1821, a letter from the Captain, dated 28th
September of the previous year, and informing him
that be had sold t►e ship by public auction, and he
should have the whole of the other particulars in a
lbw days. h was char, therefore, from the receipt
of such a letter; that Mr. Read had known of the

'fate of the ship on the 16th 116 sch, •nd might tl en
have made an abandonment if he pleased. In ap-
plying to have the consolidation Rule opened. it was
not the intention of the parties to try over again the
so-worthiness of the ship ; but the Captain's right to
sell at Calcutta, under all the peculiar circumstances
of his situation. Upon any terms the Court imposed,
they wished to try that question; they were ready to
pay into Court the whole 'um of £19,000 in issue,
and he trusted that the Rule would be opened owing
to the very great importance of the issue to the mer-
cantile world.

Mr. Serjeant Laws opposed the applicatinn, which
he said was, in fact, to grant a new trial without the
least appearance of surprise, or a change of facts in
the case. They had already had every opportunity
of developing the whole of their case on the former
trial, and yet they now came forward upon new
groundd which they might have, if they pleased,
urged on the trial, to call for a new hearing of the
same facts, on the ground, not of any misrepresen-
tation, but of having been misunderstood at the trig'
Mr. Serjeant TADDY (in reply) reiterated the
im-
portance of the issue, and urged again that the ques-
tion of law as to the right of the Captain to sell, had
not been adequately pressed upon the facts as dis-
closed, which appeared in some way to have been
misunderstood by the Learned Counsel on the trial.
He knew his motion was one of indulgence, and as
such he prayed •it, upon any terms that the Court
pleased to impose.
Lord Chief Justice Dazx.as, after some prefatory
observations upon the ill consequences arising horn
taking cases on the paper out of the course, which in
this instance gave the plaintiff an advantage which
otherwise he could not have obtained until the next
Terns, proceeded to state, that if there were anything
in the reasons urged for orening the consolidation
Rule, which went to the jostice of the case, he shoild
be most anxious to give the parties the advantage
now sought in their behalf. The facts of the case
had been, however, thoroughly sifted by a Special
Jury, composed partly of underwriters, and partly of
commercial men who were ship-owners, who thought,
as their verdict sheaved, that the Captain had, in
point of fact, sold the ship for the benefit of all the
parties in the cause. How, then, could the Court,
upon the reasons urged, grant the application? The
Court were always disposed to open a consolidation
Rule, where permitting the verdict previously had
to stand would be productive of injustice; but the
Court could not come to such.a conclusion here, nor
now permit the Rule to be opened upon a mere point
ot.form, involving only the particular time when the
notice of abandonment was given. The law of aban-

donment had been already Etid down in that Court,
and they would adhere to the adjudication upon that
point, for the reasons given when it was pronounced.
The Court could not in the present case accede to the
application for opening the consolidation Rule.
Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice BORROUGH
were of opinion, that to open the consolidation Rule
in this case would be productive of injustice.
Mr. Justice RICHARDSON said, that the circum-
stances involved in the application this day were af-
ferent from those previously made, when he had the
misfortune of differing from the rest of the Court.--
He was of opinion with his brethren, that this appli-
cation ought not to be granted.