Star.
London, England, 1826-06-28 00:00:00

►SCE SEVENPEN€E.

hands. The Learned Counsel t!.en called the following
witnesses :

•

Mr. Rudd was then called. Some time ago he re-
ceived an injury from Captain Harvey's horse, on which
he directed his a'torney to write a letter to the Cap-
tain, asking compensati-n for the injury he had sus-
tained; this attorney's name was Burford, who, on
Rudd's giving bin) these directions, said,_" Leave the

matter to me, and I will bring you through the piece."
Rudd complied with this advice, and Burford had issued
a writ; but before the action came on to be heard, Rudd,
with Seaborne, waited on Captain Harvey, to try if he
would come to a composition. This the Captain refused
o do, and exrressed himself very warmly on the action
being brought. He said to Rudd, I supp••se you are
as great a rogue as your lawyer ; he will sell you for SI.
be w ill have )ou in the lurch, just as he did that man
the oth‘r day with the cow; he told hires it would suc-
ceed, and took the cause into court t but it failed, arid
he then left him in the lut ch." Witness was rather deaf.
He could not say positively that the Captain was in a
passion, but that he coke very rapidly and warmly; on
the subject. He never said to the defendant that he had
given no authority to Burford to act as he had done,
but he had certainly dropped some expressions whio
:night have led the Captain to suppose he regretted
having brought the action. Rudd afterwards consulted
Mr. Harmer, who allowed the cause to be non•prossed,
and he was consequently obliged to pay the costs.
J. Seaborne also proved the slanderous words uttered by the
defendant.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAD, for the defendant, admitted
the plaintiff must have a verdict, but thought one
farthing damages would be sufficient to satisfy thejus-
tice of the case. .It was quite clear that the expressions
were not used maliciously, but with the warmth natural
to a man placed in such a situation.
The LORD Oita/ JUSTICE summed up, and observed,
that his Learned brother (Mr. Serjeant Vaughan) had
very properly admitted that the plaintiff must have. a
verdict ; it was for them to decide on the amount .of
damages. • .
The Jury, after a short deliberuion, returned a verdict fur the
plaintiff—Damages 40s. costs 401. . .

ILZMPSON 9. SANDIRL
This was an action for money had and received... Lt
appeared, that in December, 1824,,a_Joint Stock Com-
pany, called " The Bristol Western and Northern
ay Company," wis established. It Val preposed to
raise 16,000 shares, at 501. each. The Confpany was
'dissolved last May, and the plaintiff, finding the defend-
ant had not, in fact, made him' a shireholier, as. he bed
not complied with the required Conditions; now brought
this action to recover the money. '
The defendant not *big able to prove that the shares tiad been
regularly sold, the icy found a vetlict' for the plaintiff for the
4UO guinea..
INSOLVENT DEIJORS' COURT, Jona Id:
Mary Ana /Cation was opposed by Mr.olscnoweist,
on behalf of Mr. James Gill, the insolvent's s
a creditor for 4151.

It appeared in•evidence, eat the insolvent adminis-
tered to the estate and effects of Mrs. Mary March, her
late mother, who, among other things, bequeathed by
ber will a legacy of 1,0001. to the wife of the opposing
creditor, to be paid on the day of her marriage, or when
she attived al the age of 21 years. It was alleged that
the insolvent had misappropiated the.money which she
received in the c Tacky of administratrix : hence a bill
was filed against her in the Court of Chancery.
The insolvent ss as interrogated as to the manner in
which she had disposed of stock vested in the 3 per
cents. She stated, that in February 1824, she sold out
2001. through Mr. Biddle, and s to also sold some in or
about the year 1821. She stated, moreover, that the
property so disposed of was her own, as was also 811.
worth of furniture, which she sold to her daughter Ca-
therine. She stated that she had been unable to pay
Mr. Gill the 1,000 legacy; but he had been tendered
8001. which he refused to accept. .
The Came COIUMSiONIM Inquired of the Learned Counsel upon
which section of the Act of Parliariaent he relied.
Mr. Mscoosvets replied, that he considered he had suffdent
ground to proceed on account of the delay and expenses the insol-
vent had subjected his client to.
The Otter Comausssosaa said, that the Act referred to the put-
ting the plaintiff in an action to vexatious expenses, by setting up a
frivolous defence.

Mr. Macnowati. said, be bad understood that the Court took
cognizance of dilatory proceedings in the Court of Chancery, for in
this case the insolvent had put in, if not false,contradictOry answers.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER replied, that they had
never acted upon proceedings of this•description, and
the Court mild not temand a person under the 18th
section unless the offence was therein set forth. Ile had
no doubt but that there had been something very wrong
on the pail of the insolvent relative to the proceedings
in Chancery, but the case did not come within the pur-
view of the act. The Conic having no Ulternative, she
was therefore entitled to her iischarge.
ADMIRALTY COURT, Jews 27.
TIIt AVM).

Lord Srovizu. gave sentence in this case, which was
argued on the last Court day. It was a question as to
the right of the Ban ship of war to share in the benefits
accruing from the capture of the Biaz.lian slave trader
Aviso, actually taken by the ship of war Maidstone.—
The Learned Judge, alter detailing the circumstances
of the capture, observed that, according to the prize
law, there could
be no doubt that the Ban was a joint
captor, and entitled to share in the proceeds of the cap-
ture; and that where the legislature authorized an ap-
peal to the High Court of Admiralty, he must presume
that it did not mean that the Court should lay dims
new rules. The fact therefore, of an appeal being admit-
ted, called upon this Court to apply the prize rules with
due eanCon and temperance to cases of this description.
In cases under the prize law, the rule respecting con-
structive capture had been carried to an extent which
later policy had condemned. But here was an actual
cooperation; the Ban would have been the sole captor
of the prize but for the superior sailing of the other
ship. She was therefore entitled to share in the bounty
money, and a fortiori to the proceeds of the ship and tsp.
parel. His Lordship inquired what became of the ship.
Dr. LUSHINOTON stated, that by treaty, the vessel
was condemned to the Government, and that by statute,
a moiety of the proceeds went to the Government, and
the other to the•captors.
Lord Srownt..concluded by stating, that under the
circumstances of the original sailing orders, the continual