Star.
London, England, 1821-11-15 00:00:00

COURT of COMMON "'LEAR, NOVEMBER 14:

The Court sat in banco until twelve o'clock, but
no case of any importance came on. At twelve
o'clock Chief Justice DALLAS sat to hear Nisi Prins
cases. The following was the only defended case
among them :
THE PILOT ACT. .P=ARSON F. BROWNFIELD.
This was an action to recover the penalty of £5O
under the Pilot Act, from the defendant, for having
piloted the brig Paris down the River Thames, he not
being a licensed pilot.
Mr. Serjeant Lints, in stating the case to the Jury,
observed, that the Act in question was passed for the
better secnrity and protection of vessels in the river,
and for preventing improper or unskilful persons
from navigating them. The defendant, who, it would
be proved, was a waterman, and not a licensed pilot,
had taken charge of the vessel ; and, though a regu-
larly licensed pilot had come on board, and produced
his papers, the master refused to deliver the charge
up to him. He (Serjeant Lens) understood that the
defendant meant to rest his case on a section of the
Pilot Act, which exempts from its operation colliers,
and all vessels sailing for Norway, the Baltic, or the
Cattegat ; and that the brig Paris did not come under
the Act, as she was trading to St. Petersburgb,whither
she was bound from the river.
The CHIEF Justice asked, would not that bring
her under the denomination of vessels bound for
the Baltic?
Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, that that was the point
at issue. He then called
Baswell, a pilot, who proved that he saw the
brig Paris proceeding down the river. Witness went
on board, and saw the defendant at the helm. Wit-
ness produced his papers to all on board, but the
charge of the ship was refused to him.
On his cross-examination,witness said that the vessel
was bound for St. Petersburgb.
Oi the part of the defendant, Mr. SerjeantVaUGHA N
called Mr. Nelson, the owner of the vessel, who
proved that she had traded to the Baltic for the
last five years, and that she was at that time bound
for St. Petersburgh.
Chief Justice DALLAS held that this brought the
vessel within the exceptions to the Pilot Act, and
directed a verdict for the defendant, which was en-
tered accordingly.
' Mr. Serjeant LENS observed, that the action was
brought to have the opinion of the Court on the case,
in order that if it should be as it now turned out, an
application might he made to Parliament in the course
of the next Session.

---- -----
There being no other business before the Court,
it rose at one o'clock.

PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 14.

LE MANN AGAINST CONSAL.

In this case certain witnesses who had travelled up
from Wales in order to give their testimony appeared
at the Bar, and attracted, by the singularity of their
appearance, considerable attention. The habiliments
of the females were particularly grotesque. An In-
terpreter having applied to the Court, by their desire,
for permission to be sworn as witnesses on behalf of
one of the parties (a pauper), took the opportunity of 1
stating, that the parties, before the oaths were taken,
were desirous of having some allowance made to '
them for their expenses. These had been already
considerable, and were likely to become still more so,'
by reason of the delay to which the prosecution of
the cause might subject them.
•

The COURT directed the Interpreter to acquaint
the witnesses, that the party on whose behalf they
appeared, being a pauper, could furnish no funds;
and that it was quite impossible for the Court to un-
dertake for compensation. It was for them to decide
whether they would take the oaths or not—a course
which, for the ends of justice, it was evidently very
desirable should be taken; but the Court thought it
would be highly unbecoming and improper, if they
should now return to their homes without giving the
evidence which it. was in their power to do.
The witnesses, by means of the Interpreter, ex-
pressed their apprehension of being detained in Lon-
Zinn, at great expense and inconvenience to themselves,
unless their charges were defrayed.
The Proctors 'on both sides, and the Examiner,
undertook to exercise every possible diligence;, and
the witnesses, with some apparent reluctance, at length
consented to take the oaths, which were administered
to them in the Welch language.

FORBES AGAINST GORDON.
In this case the Court was prayed to admit an alle-
gation, propounding, together with the will of the
late J. Forbes, Esq. of Fitzroy-square, London, two
testamentary papers marked A and B ; the former
being described as, a codicil to the said will, and the
latter undated. It appears that Mr. Forbes died in
the night of the 20th June, 1821, leaving behind him
personal and freehold property to the amount, it is
supposed, of £500,000, and upwards. The will,
dated May 2, 1820, duly executed in the presence of
three witnesses, disposed of a property in value about
f.:220,000 specifically. The value of the residue was
not known even to the testator. Paper A was dated
Iseof March, 1821. Paper B, without a date, was
handed over by the deceased to his Solicitor, Mr.
Hutchinson, as containing instructions for a new will
or a codicil (that being a matter of dispute) which it
was his intention to make, and by which he meant to
alter and to add to some former bequests. This in-
terview between the deceased and Mr. Hutchinson
took place on the 12th of June, 1821, eight days be-
fore testator's death ; but important business calling
his Solicitor to the Continent, the codicil in question
could not be immediately prepared. In the interval
of this Gentleman's absence, Mr. Forbes died, and
the Executors felt it necessary to try the question of
the validity of one er both of the two codicillary pa-
pers, inasmuch as they went to make a very import-
ant alteration in the disposition of the residue.
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr.MARISHAM opposed, and
Dr. SwABEY and Dr. Prum.rtaoax contended for the
admission of the allegation.
• Sir JOHN NICHOLL, without giving any decided
opinion as to the merits of the testamentary papers
A and B, but deferring that to a future stage of the
case, thought there was that matter pleaded in the
(allegation which made it ever to be admitted.
f Admitted accordingly.

- •..