Star.
London, England, 1826-02-16 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

Slats, namaaanroa, Ann L 7, AND Pram:4s, BEFORZ tux LOUD
CN•NCIILLOR, • reuß HILANT Team, 1826.
' Saturday, February 18—First Seal.
Monday, February 20, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday-.4le.bearlop and Appeals.
Saturday, February 25—Second Seal:
Monday, Febstiry 27, and Tuesday—Re.hearinp and Appeals.
Wednesday, March 1, Thursday, and Friday—Bankrupt Pe-
ddons.

Saturday. March 4—Third Seal.
Monday; March 6, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, and Monday—Re-hearings and Appeals.
Tuesday, March 14—Fourth Seal.
Wednesday, March 15—Petitions.
N.B. Such days as his Lordship is occupied in the House of
Lords are excepted.
Sasso, Camas, rousts DIANCTIONS, AND PETITIONS, 311101 Z vii
Viet CNANCSIAOII., Arran HILLS! MILD, MM.
Saturday, February 111—First Seal.
Monday, February 10, Tuesday, WednesdaY, Thursday, and
Friday—Causes.
Saturday, February IS—Second Seal.
Monday, February 17, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday—Ca uses. •
• Saturday, Mare& 4—Third Seal.
Monday, March 6, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, and Monday—Exceptions and further Directions.
Tuesday, March 14—Fourth Seal.
Wednesday, March 15—Petitions.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Frs. IS.
COOPER V. JONEA.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the Marslurl of the King's Bench Prison, to recover da-
mages for the eseape of a person named Russell. The
declaration alleged that the defendant had the said Rus-
sell in his custody, and that he suffered him to escape,
whereby the plaintiff was damnified. It appeared that
Russell was a debtor upon mesas process, at the suit of
the plaintiff. The debt was 501. due upon a' bill of
exchange. After his escape from the Rules of the Bench,
he was taken again in Chancery-lane, and confined
within the walls of the prison.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.
MORRIS V. BROADFOOT..
This cause occupied the Court near four hours. It was an action
to recover the sum of eight pounds, alleged to be due to the plain-
tiff by the-defendant on a bill of exchange.
Thr ease Trent to the Jury after an elaborate charge from the
Loan Cams ionic; and they found a verdict for the plaintiff.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Firsaumtv 15.
[Sittings after Term in London 'before the Chief Justice and a
Common Jury.]
Chief Justice Bus opened the Court of Common Pleas, Guild-
hall, and prneeedell to trial forthwith. His Lordship expressed
hintself much pleased with the alteration of the Court, for the ac-
commodation of himself and Gentlemen of the Bar.
WILLIAMS, GENT. &C. V. GOODWIN, SRN.
This was an action for an attorney's bill. It appeared
that the defendant's son, some time back had been
charged by one of the Proprietors of the , Alderney
Dairy with: stealing some of their grains. The charge
having been decidedly negatived, the son brought an
action for false imprisonment, which was tried before
the Lord Chief Justice of this Court, and for the costs
which had been incurred in respect of that action the
present suit was commenced. There was a great deal
of contradictory evidence on the question, whether the
totorney had been employed by the father or the son ?
and 'a receipt was put in by the present defendant, ac-
knowledging that the sum of 201. had hien received by
• the attorney, as an advance for part of the expences.
This was explained, however, by a witness for the attor-
ney, who stated that the receipt had been made out in
the son's name, simply for the purpose of exhibiting it
te the cow-keepers when they were applied to for a sub-
scription to assist the sun against the Alderney Dairy.
-On the other hand, the son IIQW swore that the money
was really hi,, and that he had borrowed part of it in
order to make up the advance. It now appeared that
the father had been called as a witness in the ion's action,
and the Lord Oriel Justice was, therefore of opinion,
that by putting him into the box, the attorney had
either acknomiedged that the father was not responsible
for the rests, or had committed a fraud upon the.
Corot, by setting up su:h an interested witness as would
disenttele him from recovering the bill of costs. The
Jury li :vi;ig found as a fact that the attorney acted on
the father's retainer, the Lord Chief Justice ordered
the plaintiff to be nonsuited, but gave him liberty to
move to have the verdict entered for him if the Court
should differ from his Lordship on the point already
stated. In the course of the trial a witness of the name
of Calvert was called, and stated that he was a dealer
in flax and hemp.
Mr. Serjeant Vaosusx—l am sorry to hear, Sir, that you deal
in heasp.-(A laugh.)
Witness—l dare say you are, Sir, for I make ropes to hang
lawyers—(Groat laughter.)
Mr. Setjeanc Valsousits—l hope, Sir, you will keep a little for
• your own use, for you are very likely to want it.
Witness—l shall save enough for you, Sir, at all events.
• The merriment excited by.this little dialogue had not tong sub-
sided, when It was renewed by the following circumstance :—The
same witness, on briug afterwards called up, and asked what had
taken place when the son weft to ask the attorney if he could hare
a new trial ; the attorney answered, be could, and added, that the
Judge was a cursed old foul for not letting the case go to the Jury
—(A loud laugh).
Mr. Williams, who was in Court, most positively
denied this autement ; and though the Lord Chief
Justice very good humouredly told him to he silent, he
-could nottsit down without ligairi vehemently declaiing.
that the statement was untrue.
•' the Loan 'elm* Josirca was surprised Mr. Wil-
lain'. could not, Late tesion.,of moderation from him
. .
op this subject. Hit Lordship lidded, that he remem-
bered once, on a similar occilsiod, Lord Kenyon, on
ceistring out of Court, after a arial;was met by one of
this parties, who said that he had a complaint to make
of {4e other, for that the latter (the d leaned party) had
celled his Lordship a fool, and the Jury rogues; to
which Lord Kcnyon's only answer was—that he for-
•gaiee the mani and he-hoped the Jury would forgive
bias too.—The matter here dropped.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Faa. 15.
• THE KING V. HUDSON.
S was a proceeding arising. from the forfeittire of
a large quantity of wheat flour (between 1400 and 1500
sacks), from Mr. Hudson, an opulent earn factor, re-
sitliog at Hull. This was the case alluded to in some
proceedings which took place at. the Mansion-house
some time since.

The ATTORSIT-GENZRAL stated, that. by the Corn
Laws persons were allowed to import foreign wheat,
and while British wheat was at a certain price ro deposit
it, under bond in such warehouses under the care of his
Majesty's Officers of the Customs as they thought
prpper. Large quantities had been deposited in big
Majesty's warehouses, when the owners, as a matter of.
indulgence, were permitted byihe Legislature to take,
out any portion of it, on the COndition that an eqtrira-:
lent qn4ntity of the best fine Wheaten flour should 141
subspituicd pt sent in, (Or eveij fire bushels taken out.
If flour of'an iderior quality. were *tit in it '
was table
to forfeiture.

A great timber of iituNiet, chiefly Mr. Hudson',
men, were crilled, who swore, that in "no stage of the
process was' any Whit, or anything of the kind, intro;
ducted. They had never knoten of such a thing. o.le
10f the witnesses admitted that the value of the flour
sent in was 455. when the prim of the. best fine wheat
WAS 5.55. and 66g. the quarter in the cowntry. One
witness swore, that he had made puddings of it, and
never would wish to eat better flout, when it was sent
in. Another attrihnted the deterioration of the quality
of the flour to the bad warehousing.
The ATTORNEY-GNNRRAL said, he meant to impute
nothing of the nature of fraud to Mr. Hudson. He did
not know but that he might have purchased it. The
Jury had nothing to do with the consequences of their'
verdict in any way. The simple question was, whether
this sour was of the finest qualify ? and the def'endant's
own witness had proved that it was not. _
The Jury, without any hesitation, found a verdict fur the Crown.
COURT OF ARCHES, Fll3. 15.
HANHAM AGAINST HANHAM.

This case again came before the Court. It related to
the admissibility of one of the articles of the libel (in a
suit by Mrs. Hanam for a divorce, on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion a Moro, on the part of her husband).
and of one of the exhibits annexed to Mr. Hanham's
defensive allegations. The case will, therefore, be to
be heard afresh, if the parties persist in bringing it
before a public Court. The details are of a very in-
delicate nature.
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, FD. 15.
SHIP TRINIDAD.

This was a case of claim for salvage. The ship
Trinidad of Glasgow, bound from the island of Trinidad
to Glasgow, had struck upon the Skirweather sand, in,
the Bristol Channel, and showed signals of distress. A
boat, built for the express purpose of aiding verse's in
distress, put off from Newton Cottage, on the coast of
Glamorgan, to its assistance. The vessel was got off,
the sand, and afterwaris proceeded to Bristol. The!
owners offered the boatmen, seven in number, 1001. for
their services; but this tender they rejected, and de-
manded 4001. On the part of the salvors, it was
contended, that the Master was wholly ignorant of the
coast, had admitted he had obtained no o )ser ration for'
three days, and that be was in the most intricate and
dangerous part of the channel, when the boat, with
much risk, reached the ship. On behalf of the owners,
it was proved by affidavits, that the vessel had got off
the Skirweather sand, and was under easy sail, when
the boat arrived, and that the seamen wished to remain
on board, and did so, until a regular pilot arrived, who
conducted the vessel into Bristol. The value of the
cargo, which consisted of colonial produce, was esti-
mated at 17,0001.

Lord SrOwsu, addressed the twn Masters of the
Trinity House (Captains Brown and Young), by whom
his Lordship was assisted—a practice formerly optional
with suitors to require, but now adopted as a matter of
course—stating that they were better able than he to,
understand the technical merits of the case. The Court
had been in the h ibis of looking to the amount of the
sum due for salvage with more liberality when the
property saved was great, Lhasa when it was smAll and
could less bear the expense.
The Gentlemen who assisted his Lordship considered the sum of
1001. to be sufficient ; and Lord Srowstt entertaining the same
•pinion, pronounced accordingly.

SLAVES SEIZED AT TORTOLA.
This case was an appeal from the decision of the
Vice-Admiralty Court of Tortola, which -decreed that
the slaves should be restored to •their owners, the
Messrs. Hill.

His LORDSHIP this day gave judgment. He 'aid, ,hat
with respect to the 46th Geo. 111. it certainly did pre-
vent any slaves from being carried from any of his
Majesq's Coloaiei to any place not under the dumin;ozi
of his 11lajesty, with this proviso, that maters might
be accompanied by slaves who are employed in domestic
avocation about the persons of their masters. It was
not proved that the eight slaves in question were carried
for the purpose of being treated as slaves on the estate
of those Gentlemen. He, therefore, was unwilling to
be the first to prevent that practice of slaves accompany-
ing their menus for domestic purposes. He would
confirm the decree .of the Court below, and was of
' opinion that the slaves should be restored, and that each
party should pay their own cons.