Star.
London, England, 1821-10-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER its.
LANGRIDUE V. DY.RVILLS.
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE in London. A verdict was
taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
Court, upon the following facts:
The ship Zenobia, the property of the plaintiff, was
lying at anchor in the river Thames, being bound for
Smyrna. A Norwegian ship, homeward-bound, called
the Caroline Matilda, ran foul of the Zenobia in going
down the River, and did her considerable injury.—
The owner of the Zenobia took Admiralty process
upon the spot, and detained the Caroline Matilda at
Gravesend. The defendant then, as agent of the Ca-
roline Matilda, gave the plaintiff, by letter, au un-
dertaking to the following effect:—" Give up your
claim upon the Caroline Matilda, and. allow her to
proceed on her voyage, and I will indemnify you for
the Zenobia's damage, as far as the sum of £180."
In consequence of the above letter, the Caroline Ma-
tilda was liberated, and immediately departed for
Norway:: the plaintiff subsequently applied for his
damage, but was met by a notice, that he must
prove a legal right to claim compensation against the
Caroline Matilda or her ownets.
Under these circumstances the case went to trial,
and the Jury, at Nisi Prius, found the defendant
liable, as far as his undertaking for £lBO. It was af-
terwards urged before the Court, in 6ineco, that under
the Pilot Act, the 52d Geo. 111. the owners of the
Caroline Matilda could not be liable to the owners of
theZenobia. By the s'2d Geo. 111. the owners of a
ship having a Trinity-House Pilot on board were ex-
empt, while such Pilot remained on board, from
making good any damage done to any other vessel
or vessels. The Caroline Matilda had a Trinity-
House Pilot on board at the time of the accident.
Mr. Pet.xeri (this day), in support of his verdict,
was relying upon the undertaking given
lr by the de-
fendant, when the Court desired to what could
be said by the other side.
Mr. Poccocx then submitted that, according to
decided cases," Tooley v. Windham," and" Morley
v. Nott," a promise to forbear suit here, in law, no
action could lie, was a promise void for want of con-
sideration. In the present case the plaintiff had given
..no consideration to the defendant for his promise as
to the £180: he had abandoned no right, because, in
truth, legal right he never had any.
Mr. Justice Besr said, the defendant's promise''
amounted to the every-day's case at Guildhall—
" Verdict for the plaintiff, damages referred." There
could be nothing illegal in such a promise, unless
there were illegality in settling a suit, and, in that
ease, the Court of King's Bench, which had already
quite enough to do, was likely to be favoured with
a great deal more.
Verdict affirmed for the plaintiff. Damages—
'those really incurred—the same not exceeding £lBO.
OCTOBER 30.
The JUDGES sat this day in the Sessions House,
Westminster.

HATFIELD V. THORPE.
This was a special case, arising out of a will : the
Court had to decide upon two points; first, whether
the will was duly attested ; and secondly, whether
John Hatfield, the plaintiff, was entitled to any estate?
It appeared that a real estate had been devised to the
mother of the plaintiff, who by will left it to her son.
The husband of the last devisee, and the father of the
plaintiff, was one of the attesting witnesses, and the
question was, whether that circumstance did not make
the will a nullity ? The Statute of Frauds, it wascon-
tended, would not suffer a father, who was interested
in the estate through his son, to become an attest-
ing witness.
Mr. COTTERELL argued in support of the will. It
was not void, he contended, unless it came under the
Statute of the 25th of Geo. 11. which regulate; the at-
testation of wills. According to the Learned Gentle-
man's argument, it was not a case within the range',
of that Act.
Mr. READER contended that a husband, according
to the decision of Lord Hardwick, could not be a wit-
ness for or against his wife, and that his interest, in
a case like this, rendered him wholly incompetent to
stand in the situation of a witness attesting her will.
The Court postponed judgment.
BOWATER F. PARR AND OTHERS. _

This was a question arising out of an indenture,
made pursuant to an Act of Parliament, bet%seett the
Commissioners of his Majesty's. Navy, and John
Bowater, by which the latter demised land in Wool-
wich Dock-yard, for the public service. The objec-
tion was, that the lessees had not covenanted on their
atom part. but in behalf of his Majesty, against whom
the lessor could have no remedy.
After the arguments of Mr. Cs ITTY and Mr. LAWES
had been heard, the Lotto CHIEF Justus and the
Judges decided that the defendants could not execute
a counter part of the lease to bind themselves, and
consequently the instrument was bad, ab

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.
Yesterday, George Simmons, a lad only twelve
years of age, was indicted for stealing a coral neck-
lace, the property of James Scott, from the person
of Diary Ann Vernon, a child only three years old.
By the evidence it appeared that the yothrg culprit
was seen to unclasp the necklace by a little girl, who
immediately told the circumstance, and pointed out
the lad who stole it, to the person who had the child
in charge. The Jury found the prisoner—Cuilty.
The parents of the prisoner appeared to be honest
people, and had set a good example before their son.
The CounoN SERJEANT admonished the lad on
the wickedness of his conduct, and told him he should
be severely chastised and kept to'bard labour.
Henry Harris, aged 14, Richard Prendergast, aged
12, and Michael Anderson, aged only 10, were in-
dicted fot stealing from the person of a child a coral
necklace, the property of Peter Wright. The prisoners
seemed to be hardened in guilt, although so young in
age. They accused one another of the theft, but each
asserted his innocence. They acknowledged that they
ran away, but gave as a reason that each thought one
of the others had hurt the child. The infant was ob-
served to be crying very much as the prisoners ran
away from IL—The Jury found them all Guilty.
The masters of. Prendergast and Anderson ap-
peared to give them a character, and promised to
tale them back into their service.
The Court ordered the lads to be well whipped,
and then discharged.. Prendergast and Anderson