Star.
London, England, 1821-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COVRT OF CHANCRRY, NOVEMBER 2.
The LORD CiawcztLoit was occupied in hearing
appeals from the dotisions of the Master of the Rolls
and the Vice-Chancellor, which comprised no matter
of interest. •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 2.
This morning, as soon as the Court was open, an
elderly Gentleman, of decent garb and simple aspect,
took his seat on one of the benches appropriated to
Counsel. When the Judges arrived, about half-past
ten o'clock, the special paper was called; but the el-
derly Gentleman requested to be heard.
LORD CHIEF JusucE.—What have you to say, Sir?
Applicant.—There is .a conspiracy, my Lord,
against this Court, and against the Royal authority,
the secrets of which I will lay before your Lordship.
LORD CHIEF JusTics.—Have you any affidavit?
Applicant.--The case will not admit of it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Then we cannot hear
it : we can only hear upon affidavit.
Justice BAyLay.—We.cannot hear you at all now.
The applicant, who appeared to have a " method
is his madness," bowed and departed.

MURRAY V. KING AND Tarraxt,L.
This case came before the Court upon demurrer.
24r. Murray'is endorsee of a bill of exchange for
4.1,300, drawn by Mr. Tuffnell upon Mr. John Tyr-
rell, and. endorsed by both defendants to the plaintiff.
At the time when Mr. Murray gave value for the
bill, he took as collateral security from Messrs:King
and Tuffnell a bond, in the penal sum of £2;000, to
be forfeit in case the note %ere not paid by Mr.Tyr-
rell within one month after the time of its becoming
due. At the appointed day, the bill not being paid,
Air. Murray declared for the forfeitare of his band ; but
the defendants put, among other pleas, on the record,.
first, that the bill had not been duly presented to Mr.
Tyrrell; and second, that sufficient notice had not
been given to the defendants of its dishonour. The
replication alleged, in general terms, that the accept-.
ance to the bill was not the signature of Mr. Tyrrell;
but the two above-mentioned pleas were demureast
to, and in that shape the matter now stood for decision.
The COURT was of opinion that the words of the
bond were imperative as to forfeiture in case Mr.
Tyrrell should fail to pay within one month after the
bill became due. Under those circumstances, the
plaintiff was relieved both from presentation to the
acceptor and from notice to the defendants.
• Judgment (in demurrer) for the plaintiff.
MURRAY U. EELISTON.
This was the question between Mr. Murray, the
bookseller, and Mr. Elliston, of Drurplane Theatre,
as to the performance of Lord Byron 's Marine Fa-
hero. The matter came before the King's Bench in
the form of a case directed by the Lord Chancellor,
to try whether, for his performance of that tragedy;
a.iy action could be maintained against Mr. Lihstou?
On the case being called,
Mr. ADOLPHUS sail that he was ready on the part
of the defendant, but that he saw no t:ne on the part
of Mr. Murray.
The Loin CHIEF JUSTICE asked who appeared
for the plaintiff?
Mr. ADOLPHUS said that the case was signed by
Mr. Shad well.
LORD C 111 ErJusT tc F.—Perhaps the matteris settled.
Mr. Anounus had received no intimation.
The LORD C.I!'"F Jas•tvice.—You are to contend,
Mr. Adolphus, that no action will lie for the per-
formance.

Mr. ADOLPHUS was ready so to contend.
No one appealing on the pit of Mr. Murray, the
case was struck out. At the end of the day', leave
was asked by the Attorney in the cause to re-enter it.

RICHARDSON T. CAMPBELL

The Court gave judgment in this important case.
The question was, whether the transfer of a British
registered ship, whilst abroad and at .ea, to a fo-
reigner, was void, for non-compliance with the Re-
gister Act, 34 Geo. 111. c. 68, s. 16, which requires
that a copy of the bill of sale shall be delivered at
the Custom•housc, within a rrasonable time after the
sale. The Court were clearly of opinion that such)
delivery was necessary, and held the sale in this caw
to be void.—Judgment for the plaintiff.
DOE TX DEM. SHEPHERD W. TOWNSEND.

The question in tlits case was, whether a devise of
lairds by a testator to trustees, first to erect a tomb
to his own memory, and neat to keep in repair the
tombs of his father and mother for ever, was void by
the Statute of Mortmain, 43 Geo. 111. c.lOB, as being
a devise to charitable Lists?
Mr, MANLY argued that the devise ras void, and
referred to several authorities in support of his as-
gument.—Mr. G. CROWS, contra, was stopt by
The COURT, who were of opinion that the devise
was not void in all events, as it respected tie .testa-
tor's own tomb, and in a Court of Law, as the re-
maining suf.jects of the trust were ancillary to the
first, judgment must be given foy'the defendant.
PJIILLIP3 V, BARRER. .

This was an action on a policy of insurance on the
ship —. The policy was fur one year. The cause
was tried before Mr. Justice Ba.sT, at Guildhall,when
a verdict was found fur the plaintiff on the first
count of the declaration. By the words of the policy
the ship was to be protected from all perils of the
sea and in port, and from all other hurts and damages
which might happen to her." The vessel sailed from
England to St. John's (New Brunswick), and deli-
vered her cargo: afterwards she was put into a
graving, or dry dock for repair, previous to her voy-
age homewards ; and on the 16th of October a vio-
lent storm arose, by which the ship was overturned
in the dry dock, and much damaged. For this has
the insured brought the present action against the
underwriters. At the trial Mr. Justice BEST held
" that, on the second count of the declaration, the
plaintiff could not recover, as it alleged the loss to
be by perils of the sea, which it was not.
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the underwriters, now demur-
' ied to the first count, which set out the manner in
• which the accident happened ; which allegation, he
contended, did not bring it nititin the risks protected
by the policy. He cited the case of Thompson v.
Whitmore, 3d Taunton, in support of his argument.
' The COURT, without hearing Mr. CHITTY, who
was for the plaintiff, decided that there was no doubt
the plaintiff ought to recover. The ship was pro-
tected by the policy in port and at sea,' and in a
graving dock ; and the Court held this to be a sida.