Star.
London, England, 1810-11-10 00:00:00

Mr. Serjean
in this ease.

and Smith, the Mt
the•lact Election. h
summoned as a wimess
miitee decide in fayot►. Sitting Members,
that the-petition was frivolous and vexatious, milt.
subjected the petitionerlo the ,payment of the costs of
the-Sitting Members. Hutton received. fifteen
•,day from CI agent, and

seventeen pipe*
which Crornpi.
,as brought to
‘t, as was al-
)y the first.—
defendant had
as the Court
he ought to re-
setting aside .the

ADMIRAL NEWT/VIC* V. CAPTAIN JA_NVIMIN.
Mr. Serieant 13esr movedfor a Rule to spew cause
vly the verdict in this case should not be set aside,
and a no-niuit entered.

It may be in the recollection of our Readers that!
this action was tried during the sittings after last
Trinity Term, before Lord Chief Justice Mansfield,
at Guildhall, London. -It was an action to recover
a ,proportion of a sum of money received by Cap-
tain Janverin, of the Pluto frigate, for the freight of I
a quantity of specie, which, by the order of Govern-
meat, he had taken to Gijon, in Spain. This demand
rested on the universal and invariable custom of the
navy, andit was in that instance for the first time op.
posed ; ,for though disputes had arisen at times rela-
tive to the different Admirals on the same station, '
the general principle had always been admitted. It
was alledged on the trial, that the Flag Officer on a
station was entitled to receive a certain quota of the
freightage paid to Captains under his command.—
The plaintiff commanded at Portsmouth, and the de-
fendant was a Captain within his jurisdiction, and in
consequence of Government deeming it necessary to
send a supply of specie to Spain, the Lords of the Ad-
miralty tranernitted an order to Admiral Montegue,
directivg-hirn 'to dispatch either the Soleby or Pluto
frigate .on the service. The Pluto, commanded by
the defendant, was accordingly sent, and the money
for the
.freightage *as paid. The plaintiff demanded
the' cnstotnary allowance, but the defendant refused
to comply with the requisition, and therefore the ac-
tion was brought.
Sir Roger Certis, Lord Hood, Sir R. Strachan,
and Sir R. Bickerton, were examined as to the ge-
neral usage in such cases, and they all declared, that
during their services, they had always received, as a
thine. of course, their third share of the freightage al-
lowe'd to the Captains of vessels under their eom mends.
A verdiet was then given in favour of the Plaintiff,
subject to a future decision on the part of the Judges.
Mr. Serjeant Besr, in making his motion this day,
strongly contended against the admissibility of the
evidencenf usage, as in point-of fact no officer had a'
• •.right to demand freightage ; it was merely a boon
--granted by the King, and this he declared himself
able to prove from documents which were in his pos-
Session. By them it appeared, that on the Bth of
March, 183,7,-the Lords of the Treasuty, under the
direction of. the Law Officers' of the Ceowe, sated,
in a .correspondence with the Lords of the Admiralty,
that " Naval Officert generally •had no right to
freightage." This correspondence took place in con-
sequence of some of the King's money being stopped
for the ,porpose of answering a demand of freightage,
to which the officer -conceived he was entitled. How-
ever, " in consideration of the care and trouble which
develved oit the Captains of men of war, who took
specie on board, the Lords of the Treasury proposed
it) allow them 10s. per cent." The answer of the
Lorde of the Admiralty to this•letter, 'stated " that
their Lordships having taken into consideration the
allowance proposed to be given toCaptains of men of
war ; they agreed with the Lords Of the Treasury,.
that such Commanders could not have any claim for'
freightage on epecie,asr any other articles shipped on',
boatel she.:if vessels for the public-service. But if his.
Majesty should, in consideration of the usage, allow
one half per cent. to Commanding Officers who should
hare .the care and custody of such property, the cfa-'
(erg of the navy would receive it with great respect
'and gratitude," He particul.trly directed the atten-'
tion of his 'Lordship to the expressions in this letter—,-*
" The Commanding Officers who shoukf have the
care aild custody of such property." It could not be
contended that Admiral Montague came under that
description ; he was not on board, but remained with-
out the slightest risk ()bilis ,tation at Portsounule—
Tee,Learned Serjeant then
merit of freightage, signed •
signed by the Lords of
it should be paid without
the same. Under these
hivelient seat; entitled
• Illeonglit it his duty to
Rule granted. •

near f.r his attendance from Cr..mpton'
it "was' foUnd that he' had received sever
from theiitent of the SjOnglifyntbers,
ton yittoSliged to pay... Tike ettion Av:
receiver- the. second
,loptutifirlindant
ledge:ds. having.' - , b:
t!'lie plaintiff` was n.* the d
iubliAnaed by, • "' s, .and
list 4 no criterion Co ju • -'mach he
'alive, they sal* no gon. onnds for sett
non-suit. • Rule refused. -