Star.
London, England, 1826-11-03 00:00:00

SIMIAN MINING AUOCIATIOW.

Mr. HART was Cooed ht support of the demurrer in
this case. The bill was filed by many persons against
the Directors of the Company, calling upon them to
account for certain nuns of money, and praying that
the Court would order an account to be taken, as
arising them, of all the monies received, and that they
might be ordered to pay back the deposits, with five per
cent. interest. In the early pan of 182$, the defend.
ants caused to be printed a •• Prospectus," stating that
an Association was going to be formed, for the purpose
of working mines in Cornwall. That it was intended
to have 10,000 shares at 501. each, making a capital of
50010001. A deposit of 51. a share was to be paid into
the house of Petting and Co. 6000 shares bad bona
sold, and on these the deposit bad been paid ; another
call had been made of 21. a share, but part of the shave.
holders refused to pay it. This could only be considered
as a partnership suit. The bill was filed by the partners
against their copartners. He did not know tow his
Learned Friends on the other side meant to treat the
equity on the bill ; if they meant to call for the deposits,
on the ground that they were paid on condition of
something hereafter to be done, which had not been
done, they had nothing to do but to bring an action at
common law. If they aunt to sustain their right no

the ground of assignments to them of the shares of
others, he could not but &Intend, that such a deed of
assignment was nothing more than 4, champetry," end
that partneet tad no right,to sell, their interests. They
no doubt could put an end to their partnership, but they
could not sell the:r -shirts. The Learned Counsel, on
the whole, hoped thc.Cofirt would think the assignment
was not legal, setd that the demnrrer was well founded.
Mr. Taroaasa was On the swine side with Mr. H. The Corn•
pany was not established by any charter ;it was therefore not a
*AI body, and could only be looked at in a Court of Law as a
partnership.
His- Houova said, he would take a few days to consider of it.
_
COURT OF KlNG*nese% Novi:masa 11.
T UHF IP: BOLTON.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. Tyler,
who superintends a lodging-house is Leicester-square,
to recover rent due for the use and occupation of
apartments.
It appeared that Mr. Bolton, who is a Surgeon, and
the brother of Mrs. Braham (wife of the celebrated
singer), took the apartments in Leicester-square, for
three years. He paid the rent for sae yfear, but consi-
dered himself at liberty to quit on giving three months'
notice. The defence was founded upon a presumption
that the plaintiff was not entitled to support the action.
The house, it was said, belonged to a Mr. Massey.' I
Mrs. Frances Elizabeth Braham stated, that she went
to reside in the house of the plaintiff in September, 1822,
and having remonstrated against some overcharges,was
told the house belonged to Mr. Massey.
• The Jury, under all the circutnstatiees, found a Verdict for the
Plaintiff foe one quarter's rent—Datuages SW.

JAMEISON V. DRINILAWL.

This was a special action on the case, to recover
damages for the loss of the ship Lively, run down at sea
on the 25th of December last.

It appeared, from the statement of Mr. Sergeant
VAUGHAN, that, the plaintiff was the owner of the ship
Lively, 120 tons burthen, and that on the night of the
25th of December last the ship was coming up the chops
of the Channel, the wind blowing strong to the east-
ward, when she came into contact with the vessel of the
defendant, called the Miranda, of 800 tons. A few mi-
nutes before the accident occurred, the Captain of the
Lively ordered one of his men aloft with a light, for
the purpose of warning off the Miranda from the course
which she was pursuing; and it being, besides, the duty
of a ship, with the wind aft, to permit a vessel coming
against the wind to pursue her own course. He should
be able to shew in evidence that the Captain of the
Lively had taken all the precaution in his power to
prevent the Miranda running him down; but the Mi-
randa, neglecting te notice the light, or to shift the
helm, struck the Lively in the midship, and she soon
after went down. To the negligence of the defendant's
servants the loss of the plaintiff's vessel was owing, and
therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover a com-
pensation for the injury sustained.
The ownership of both vessels was admitted ; and the Captain
and several of the crew of the Lively were called to support the
statement of the plaintiff's Counsel.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET, for the defence, said that
the right on the sea was the same as that on the road,
yet it was equally subject to be modified by circum-
stances. In the first place, this was the cause of the
underwriters and not of the owners; and it was clear;
and so it ought to be, that the underwriters were alone
responsible for the loss, and liable to pay it to the
plaintiff. The case imputed carelessness to she defend-
ant's servants; but it was necessary to prove, in order
to sustain this action, that there was no negligence on
the part of the plaintiff's servants. He would shew
that not only the defendant's servants were not culpable
of neglect to their duty, but that they were active and
vigilant in the extreme. The Learned Sergeant then
proceeded to comment on the evidence for the plaintiff,
and to contrast it with the evidence which he intended
to produce on behalf of his client.
The Captain and crew of the Miranda were then called, who
undertook to prove that there was no negligence on their part, and
that the running down was, in fact, the result of accident.
The Loan Cater Jorrica charged the Jury. that if they thought
blame was imputable to neither party, but that the occurrence was
accidental,they would find a verdict for the defendant.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nev. 2.
SWUM th ()GLUT.

This was an action to recover the value of a bill of exchange for
5001. accepted by the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5001.
!OASIS V. lIIINTUARD.

In this action, which was bronihttsiiecover the sum of 1,3001.
on a policy of insurance effected on the ship Indian Trader, in the
St. Patrick lasurance (lace,
Mr. Sergeant VAuomaix on behalf of the defendant, agreed to
the plaintiff taking a verdiet for 1,0001. subject to arbitration.

Pr