Star.
London, England, 1827-07-25 00:00:00

Octane, and again set sail on the 31st of Octilber...ll.l
came Melt to Liverpool on the 14th of Februarr,l9ll‘
The six months from August to February amostated ter
7501. The plaintiff had received 1101. and forthebalanee
the action was brought.
The ATTORNEY GTNERAL, in stating the at" said
that the vessel was forced to put in at Glbaiter for,
provisions, and the weather became so b.d *At sbe wail
detained there sixteen days. The vessel, in fact, shared
the same fate as his Majesty's ship the Thetis, whist
was detained the same space of time. The defendant
complained of this detention, and because he thought
the vessel remained in Gibraltar too long, he refused to
pay at all.
The charterparty, and a letter dated February, 1826,
from the defendant, giving op the vessel to the plaintiff
were proved.
Mr. Tnessienta, for the defendant, submitted • that
he ought not to pay for these 16 days; for if the vessel
had been properly victualled, there would have been no
occasion to have put into Gibraltar at all.
Lord TINTERDEN—There is a provision in the chew-
terparty that the pay should cease during such time as
the vessel should be in harbour for repairs, but not
during such time as she was in harbour for provisions.
Tire plaintiff must recover for the whole time.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 6401.
DIBLITHWAITE D. ARCO AND CO.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
Portuguese merchant, to recover froni the defendants,
who are gold refiners in the City, the sum of 2,3081.75.1
the price of 598 ounces of gold bullion.
From the evidence for the plaintiff, it appeared that)
Mr. Thos. Hurst, who was a partner in the house of
Longman and Co. was in the habit of selling to the de-
fendants, among others, gold bullion, consigned to bins
(Hurst) by the plaintiff. Oa Saturday, the 4th of Fe-
bruary, 1826, Mr. Hurst having landed the bullion in
question, which was consigned to him by the plaintiff,
sent a clerk named Jones to dispose of it to the defend-
ants; and Mr. Jones (who swore that the defendants, at
the time of the sale, knew that the bullion was the pro-
perty of the plaintiff) having sold it to the defendants,
and ascertained the price, asked for payment, at the
suns of 1,50 W. of the proceeds of the bullion was to be
applied in taking up the plaintiff's dishonoured bill, then
in the hands of a Mr. Duncan. One of the defendants
told the clerk to call at three o'clock, when a cheque
for the amount would be ready; but when Mr. Jones
called at three o'clock, Mr. Abud postponed giving the
cheque until twelve o'clock of the following Monday,
and on Monday he declined to do so.
Mr. GURNIT addressed the Jury for the defendant%
and stated the grounds upon *kith they thought they
were justified in refusing to pay this money. Mr.
Hurst, in November, 1825, gars to the defendants a
written guarantee for the payment of any goods which
they might supply to Hurst and Robinson, of Water-
loo-place, Regent-street, booksellers, to the amount of
10,0001. and as those Gentlemen at the time of their
bankruptcy were indebted to the defendants to the
amount of the guarantee, and as the defendants bad
- dealt with Mr. Horst upon the full conviction that tho
bullion was his property, be (Mr. Gurney) submitted
they were justified in withholding payment for it.
Evidence having been given in support of this defence,
Lord TENTCRDIN—Have you any evidence, Mr.
Gurney, to chew that this loulliouwas not the plaintiff
property?
Mr. GURNEY—No, my Lord.
Lord TIINTERDIN—Then you have no defence, for
you have received the bullion, and paid nothing for it.
As the evidence now stands, the bullion is thc plajnr
tiff's property; but even supposing it to be rbeproperty
of Hurst, I don't think you would be justified in with-
boldiag payment. Your course must he an action agaiitAt
Hurst upon the guarantee.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2,3081. 7s.
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Jut.r 24.
CAPTURE OP PALEMBANG.
Lord Seowaz. said, that in this case he had looked
over the papers, and was of opinion that the captors
bad a claim on the East India Company for the sum of
. 6,000 and 10,000 dollars. Indeed it was admitted that
those sums had been received from the Sultan of Palem-
, bang, but no legal evidence was adduced to prove that
the captors had any claim to the mm of 23,000 dollars,
which was disputed, and justifiably disputed, as not
baying been paid on account of the captors. The Court,
therefore, ordered the sum of 16,000 dollars to be paid
owed for the benefit of the captors.
Dr. LUSHINGTON inquired whether the Court meant
to pronounce for interest?

The Kneo's ADVECATE submitted that it was not
case for interest. The captors had claimed a much larger
sum than was now allowed them.

-- -
Dr. LtratttwoTow•said, the East India Compaq had
for many years retained the possession of property which
belonged to others; and upon the ordinary prtnciplescd
justice the captors were intided to interest.
The Comm ordered that the East India Company
should pay the interest, from the period that they to.
ceived the sums of 6,000 and 10,000 dollars.

Till SLAVS GRAM.
In this case, which was felly argued during the
Term, Doctor Jeriner was now heard in reply, and
after adverting to the various arguments adduced by
the Counsel en behalf of the appellants, submitted that
the municipal law of England did not supersede the
law of the Island of Antigua, and that the fact of
the Slave Grace having resided in England, did not
prevent her from relapsing into a state of slavery upon
her return to Antigua. He concluded by asserting, that
this was the first occasion where the Court was called
upon to say, that because a master voluntarily brought
his slave to England, that slave, without her own know-
ledge, or without bet claim to freedom being ewer as-
serted by 'wolf or as, one else, had become free to
such an attest, that upon her return to her own country,
:helm that protection and right to support which she
bad enjoyed from her birth. He confided in the justice
of the Court not to sanction a principle which would
lead in the mist frightful consequences.
Dr. Doctscm having been heard on the same side, the
case now stands over for the judgment of the Court.

IRISH LAW APPOINTMENTS.
Dual.', JULY 21.—This day, at the rising of the
Caret, John Doherty, Esq. K.C. was sworn in before
the Lord Chancellor as his Majesty's SolicitorAieneeal
for Ireland. This appointment has been long expected,
• Mid has given very general 'satisfaction. It is the ge-
Miters) opinion that Mr. Doherty will fill the office to
‘ZZhe has been promoted with credit to himself and
tage to the country. The other expected law
arrangements are, that Lord Plunkett, the present At•
.• terney-General, will succeed Lord Manners, and that
Mc. Wallace will be Attorney-Geueral.