Star.
London, England, 1827-10-27 00:00:00

MARGATE, Ocr. 24.

By a census taken, the inhabitants of the Isle of
Thanet exceed 20,000, and 12,000 fall to the portion
of this place.
A very distressing event happened yesterday Morn-
ing. As Indiaman, outward bound, h.isted a peculiar
.signal; an undertaker from Northumberland crescent
'went on board, and received a child. 16 months old,
who had lost its life by being chocked by a piece of
carrot. The body was warm when brought on shore.
We need not comment on tire poignant feelings of the
agonized mother, when sbe consigned her boy to be
buried by strangers; but the Captain's orders were im-
perative, and there was ao other alternative than the
usual resource of throwing the infant into the sea.
Another calamity occurred the• same day. A Gen-
tleman and his wife landed at the York Hotel, being
on their way to Ostend, on Sunday. The following
morning he war a corpse.
The Marine Parade is on the Eastern Cliff, and it is
wonderful to see the havock one year has made on that
spot. The seats, recently so distant from the edge,
almost overhang it. The men on the blockade service
say the rain and frost did it.

About ten o'clock on Wednesday night, as a barge
heavily laden was making way towards Pickford's
Wharf, and had just passed the bridge, in Maiden-lane,
a young man named James Brown, who was riding on
the towing horse, was, by a sudden jerk of the animal,
precipitated into the canal, and in despite of every eater.
non used by his companions, the body *as am re.
covered for upwards of half an hour. It was isms&
diately removed to the Union, a Battle-bridge, aid a
surgeon was sent for, but life sits quite satinet.

•.
LAW INTELIAGPMCE.
COURT OF ZINO'S BENCH, Gesserrar, Orr.
Before Leal TIMITSILDIX sod a Breda Airy.
sARIVILs AGAIMiT Tda ROYAL =CHAIM AilivaAliell
This was an action a policy of assurance. The ,
pleadings were opeoediriMr. Reams, and Mr. CAM?.
SILL stated the case. The plaintiff, who was a respec-
table merchant tf the city of Landon, sought to recover
1,7001. for the total loss of a brig called The Salmon .
River, insured from London to Sierra Leone and back.
She sailed from Sierra Leone on the Sd of December,
1826, and in the coarse of ber voyage home she met
with so much tempestuous weather, that she was corn.
pelled to put in at Dover, whence, after repairing, she
proceeded up.the river, and came abreast of the King's •
dock at Deptford at five o'clock of the sifternoon of
Sunday, the 18th of Feb. 1826, where she made fast to,
one of the King's ships in the tier. Mr. Lennox was
the charterer of the ship, which was freighted with teak
umber, which he had contracted with the Navy Board,
to deliver on the 21st of December, 1825, at the dock
yard at Deptford. When the vessel arrived at Dept-
ford, Mr. Lennox was making application for an exten-
sion of the time for delivery, which he afterward. ob-
tained. 'The Captain applied on tke day after his ar.
rival at the dock, but was informed his cargo could not
he delivered, because the bills of lading were not ready;
and he was also told, that from the state of the river,;
which at that time was very much frozen, it wan impas-
sible for him to get into the d'ock. The bills of lading.
came in a few days, but the river remained is a frozen
state until Tuesday, the 27th, on the asoroing of which,
day the Captain applied, and was sold be might tales the
vessel into dock that day. The Captain went to Loa-
don to pay off the crew, giving orders to Mr. Brown,
the second mate, in whose care he left the vessel, to get
a pilot whom he bad engaged, of the name of Powell,
to come and superintend the ge ting the vessel in.—
Powell had promised to be in madames when called
upon, but he was engaged that day, and Brown, not.
being able to get him, procured a waterman of the
name of Braine, who had been accustomed to get yes.
eels into dock. Under his management they proceeded,
but the wind blew very strong, 'and a rope from the
larboard bow to the tier of ships breaking, the vessel
was drawn by another rope, which was fastened to a
capstan oil the dock head, and which was pulled, by
convicts who did not leave off when they were spoken
to, upon the launch way or slip of the dock yard, an/
could not be got off as the water was then falling. As
the tide receded, she fell upon her beans ends and
bilged, and started her lower futtocks, and it was
im-
possible so remove her until her cargo was discharged,
when she became a complete wreck.
The Captain of the vessel, Mr. Duke; Tatum, the
mate ; Braine, the waterman ; and severe other wit.
messes were called in proof of this stn urgent.

Mr. Sergeant Bowsaw/IT, for the defendant% eon.
tended, that after the arrival of the vessel on the 18th
of February at Deptford, a competent crew were not
kept in ker. The Captain, by engaging Powell, • to.
'solar pLot, manifested that he thought a pilot was ne-
cessary. It was too shorts time before high water when
Braine began his attempt: in the beginning of it the
vessel got aground, her head was turned in shore, see
she was not lifted off until a quarter of an hour t:efdre
high tide. The Captain on board the Discovery then
called to them to put out a good rope; the:answer from
the vessel was, that they had not a good rope on board.
Instead of being taken out to the middle of the river,
the vessel was so near the shore that she was necessarily
drawn across the slips of the dock, and the persons on
board, instead of conducting themselves in an orderly
manner, were squabbling, fighting, and knocking each
other.down. In the midst of it the Captain came back
from London, and went to the capstan, where the con-
victs were polling. He saw what was doing, and be
did not order them to desist. On his arrival tee con.
victs were under bit command, they were to obey his
order, and they would doubtless have been glad of re.
laxation ; bOt receiving from the Captain no directions
to stop, they thought it their duty to go on, and their'
act was the act of the Captain. The accident was owing
to unskilfulness, want of proper ropes, and disorderly
conduct. If this was proved, the plaintiff's case was
totally destroyed. In addition to this, after the vessel
was heaved upon the slips, there was a want of proper
care to prevent a total loss.
William Stone examined by the ATTOUNIT GeltritAL•
—Witness was master shipwright of the dockyard. The
brig was first mooted on the outside of the lower part
of the upper tier of ships. Vessels freighted fer the
dock are occasionally discharged there. Witness ob-
served the steps they took after the vessel came on the
lower side of the Discovery and took the groond. They
ought to have moved her before th-y did. Their whole
proceedings seemed unaccountable. Witness woold
have brought the vessel at an earlier part of the tide
below the entrance of the deck, and then the flowing tide
would naturally have carried her in. She was brought
down instead of up the stream. As they had a ripe
from the vessel to the shore witness desired them to
bring another rope to fasten to the capstan to assist
them, so that they might heave on shore as well as on
board. Witneas told them unless they exerted them-
selves, the vessel would be aground. He saw the cap.
rain, but had no particular communication with him
till the vessel got on the slips. He then advised the
captain to apply for lightesmen to assist in floating her
the next tide. Brfote that, however, she took damage.
The captain ought to have heeled her inwards, as at
low water her inclination would not then have been so
great as it was, and the damage might, to a great ex-
tent, have been avoided.

Cross-examined by Mr. F. POLLOCK —Cargdes of
wak were generally discharged within the docks; bet
the last vessel was pardy discharged to th. river.

Captain Xirkhans, of the Discovery.—The men we*
shifting the vessel round between twelve and onse
o'clock; the tide was then two hours flood. They run
a rope out to the starboard quarter of the Discovery.—
Witness told them to heave out another rope, and they
did so to the jetty head, near the mouth of the basin.
In heaving this rope tight, it broke. Not having an off
rope, and the helm not being properly attended:to, sbe
steered in shore, and grounded on a mooring anchor at
the bead of the Discovery. Witness was satisfied that no
pilot or seaman whatever bad the command of her. Wit-
ness said, " Why don't you get a good rope off to the tier,
and warp her down between the two ropes ?" The
answer was, ," there was not a good rope on board."
Witness then went on shore, and observed them. A rope
had been taken to the'eapstan. The convicts pulled the
'rope, and she grounded on the slips. A rope had
broken before. Witness said, " you ate on the slip,"
bdt no notice was taken. Mr. Douglas
them to get oat a rope to the tier of ships,
her astern. They did so, but the rope -
Witness saw two of the men ses board
_ _

fighting. In his juaiginept
the cent. of
the want of a rope to keep bar in the
Win not being properly attended to.

I
•
A
1 I

as then calted to.
ships, and beans
e soon broke.—
quarrelling, and
the accident was
mom. and the
If a person of
•

conspctent skill had bad the conducting of the vessel, it
would net have happened.
John Douglas, Master Attendant of the dock.—Pro-
per measures were not taken to dock the vessel, and the
ropes broke. Merchantmen find their own pilots. Them
ought to have been a pilot on board.
Mr. Murray, barbour.master.—The vessel was regeV.
lolly moored, head and stern, to his Majesty's
That was good mooring. Witness had seen vessels dis-
charge at every tier of the King's mooring.
Cross-examined—Vessels more frequently unloaded
in the basin. The vessel would not have been allowed
to moor where she did, if she had tot bad timber for
the dock-yard.)
Mr. Hawkes, a ship-surveyor, surveyed the brig en
the 29th of March ; 1,000/. would have repaired her.
Lord TINVIRDIIOI..-What do you say, Mr. Campbell,
MI to the mooring ?
Mr. CAMPBBLL—The words of the policy are, " If
she has been moored and anchored there."
Mr. Murray recalled—Numbers of vessels were'
Moored to chains laid down. This brig was made fast]
to the King's ship, and was also fastened to the moot-
ing chain, which, was fastened to the mooring anchor.
' m Tatum, the ate, recalled—The vessel had a rope
oni from the bow to the mooring chain. She was not
moored to stop—not moored in such a-nsanner as she
would have been if she bad had to deliver her cargo
there.
Lord TENTERDEN..-I own I am of opinion that the
vessel must be taken as Moored and anchored ; if not,
she remains ten days in peril, and either way there was
an end of the cause.
Mr. CAMPBELL said something in reply; and we un-
derstood his Lordship to say he would not step him,
but would reserve the point.
Mr. Caernas.t., in reply, said he could not help feel-
ing alarmed at the intimation of his Lordship; but if
he could thew it was ill-fonnded, his Lordship would,
with his usual candour, review his opinion. As to the
defence made, of the vessel having arrived in port when
the accident happened, it was necessary, in deciding
upon contracts, to see the sense in which words were
used, for that might be true in one which would be in.
correct in another sense ; and the question was, whether
the vessel had been mooted twenty-four hoots in safety
after her return ? It was from Sierra Leone to London.
The port of London commenced at Gravesend, but the
place where the vessel was to be discharged was the
terminus ad queue, and this was in the dock-yard at
Deptford. The river was so full of ice, that, although
the vessel could get opposite the dock-yard on the ISth
of February, it was impossible to attempt getting into
it until the 27th, during which interval she was neither
moored, in the sense of the policy, nor could she be so
moored until she reached the dock, her place of destina-
tion. Whilst in the elver, at Deptford, however near to
it, she had not reached her destination, and there could
not be any mooring within the meaning of the policy.
With respect to the delay, it was impossible to contra-
vene the laws of nature; the dock was hermetically
sealed, and they were obliged to lay opposite. The
contract with Government provided that the timber
should be delivered on the 31st of December, but time
was me part of the essence of that contract, Government
waived the objection they might have made, land the
defendants could not take advantage of it. If the ves-
sel could have entered the dock on the 19th, 20th, or

Ilse, and did 004 INOCause the proper orders and papers
had not arrived, then the underwriters would indeed
bare been discharged, but they were not discharged
because the ice blocked up the dock. The order came
on the 23d, and it was admitted that the 27th was the
earliest day it was possible to attempt getting io. With
respect to the defence of negligence, Mr. Braine was a
nautical man who had devoted himself for the last nine
years to docking vessels. The sailors employed, on
board were eiperienced men, although they were not
the.original crew, who were by the act of GOD disabled
in the sickly climate of Sierra Leone, and there were 16
men on board, being a greater number than the original
crew. There was an esprit de corps in the evidence for
the defence, but it was clear the vessel grounded from
the badness of the weather, which occasioned the ropes
to break, and not from carelessness or want of skill.
Lord TIN TERDEN said, there were two questions of
fact—whether the vessel was detained at the mooring
chain for an unreasonable time, and whether persons of
competent skill were employed to carry her into dock?
If, atter her arrival in the riser, the delay was occa-
sioned from an uncertainty where she was to deliver her
cargo, the policy would be avoided ; but if the state of
the river prevented her delivering her cargo os entering
the dock until the 27th of February, then there was not
such a delay as would excuse the underwriters. If there
were no unnecessary delay, the Jury would then have
to consider whether persons of competency were em-
p!oyed capable of taking her into dock ? Braine a as
said to have been in the habit of taking ships into dock
as a pilot. Was he a fit person for that purpose? If
persons of competent skill were not on board, the de-
.tendanta were entitled to a verdict: if there were, the
underwriters must answer for the loss.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1,7001.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, Omr. 26.
SttMgs before Michaelmas Term, before Mr. Jorice Gant= and
Special Juries.
WAGON AND OTHERS V. HAMMOND.
Mr. Caownea opened the pleadings. This was an!
action on a bill of exchange for 3001. drawn and ac-,
crepted by the Cornwall and Devonshire Mining Corn=
patsy, dated the 17th el March, 1826, and made payable
two months after date. It was endorsed to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case. The plaintiffs
were bankers in Cornwall, and in the course of business
had the bill in question paid to them on account of thel
Cornwall and Devonshire Mining Company, of which
the defendant would Le loosed to be a member. The,'
bill was originally drawn by order of the Directors,'
with others, to the amount of 8001. for debts incurred:
In the working of mines. The Learned S.rgeant said,'
he wonld prove that the bill was drawn by the orders
of the Directors, and he should then wait to see what
answer could be made to the case.
Witnesses were then called, who proved the partner-
ship of the defendanr, by his signature to the deed o'
settlement, and payment of the call made on him by the,
Company ; it was also proved that a valuable considera-,
non had been given for the bill, which wasthen put in'
and read. It appeared to be drawn by the Mining
cashier, and accepted by the seprey to the Cirpapy.:
The ATTORNEY GENZILAT4II,1mO,ll were
geantblartawavitaa and Mr. ALM) addtesked the Jot y.
for the defepdant. He made a statement of theartmet
facts as those disclosed a few days since in thia Coutt, in
the case of " Ellis v. Schmeick And anotherrin onto
to shew that the Company was a bubble, and had o;
sinated in fraud. Having dwelt fur some considerable
time on this subject, he stated that be should test his
defence on four distinct points vapor, which, he c
eeived, would deprive the.plnintiffs of any right to rte
cover. In the first place, he contended that unless it could
he shewn that the defendant had a real interest in the
Company, be could not be considered a partner of it,
and consequently coald•not in any point of view be held

real o amble for au, debts incurred. Secondly, he con-
tended that the denature Oa deed. such as that Zilch
the ffafireitaat had deed, which was merely pinspec-
dee, was net solfigieat to maim a man a partner,.
' Thirdly, that the members of a Mining Association
"were not joint tenants, but only tenants in common;
pad that. mansequently, the act of any tine would not
be binding on the whole. lf, therefore, a party en.
dearoured to recover against an individual of a Com-
pany, upon any document signed in the- name of the
whole, it would be incumbent on him to prove that
the patty against whom be was proceeding had given
his express consent and authority to the transac-
tie°. In the case of a bill of exchange, it would be
neressary to provistbat the party had individually autho-
rised its being &ewe. in support of this argument, the
Learned Counsel instanced the eases of the Honourable
Societies of the Inner Temple and Sergeants' Inn, of
'the former of which he was a member, as examples of
cases Where many persons were joined together for a
specific purpose. The members of these societies.
however, would be very much surprised to find that.
they were liable for the act of any one of thews The
members of a seining association were in a precisely
similar situation, and could net lie held to be indiviit
dually responsible. Fourthly, he contended that if that:
members of the Company were not considered in the
light be had just described, but were held as liable for
the acts of each other, then he should insist that the
plaintiffs could have no right to recover on the bill in
question, as it appeared to be security for a stirs) 01
money given by a greater number of persons than
six. By a statute of Ann, relating to the Bank of
England, it was enacted that it should not be lassfisl
fur any body of persons, consisting of a greater nunr
ber than sig. to borrow, o+ e, or take up any money
on a bill of exchange, at a less period than six months.
Now the Company consisted of more that, sir perions,
and the bill was drawn at less than six moaths. It was,
thetefore clear upon the face of it, that it bad been
ir-
tegularly drawn, and consequently could not be re-
covered on. In cases where a partnership existed, and
the number of persons composing that partnership was
unknown, if a bill of this kind drawn by them had been
received for a valuable consideration, the person taking
it, not knowing that thee were more than six persons
concerned, it bad been held, that the bill would not be
void, and that the party might tecover upon it. But it
had also been decided, that where the number of per-
sons appeared on the face of the bill, or where the
party taking the bill'knew that there were more than six
persons, then the bill would be void. The Learned lien-
airman would prove that the plaintiffs must have been
aware.nf there being more than six persons in this
Company; for be would proJnce a newspaper which
they would be proved to be in the constant habit of
reading, in which was an advertisement with the names
of upwards of a dozen directors. He submitted, diet
on this ground alone the defendant would be entitletlto,
' a verdict. In the next place, he contended that the do-1
cement in question was neither a bill nor a note—to
save been either of these, it must have been signed by
each individual of the Company, or by some one person
specifically appointed by them. This was not the case
here, however; the bill was accepted by the secretary
in the name of the Company. Now, it was necessary
that it should have been tither in his*own, as specially
appointed, or else in the name of each member. In
conclusion, l:e insisted that the company was a bubble
and a fraud from beginning to end ; that Messrs. Magor
and Co. were notihe real plaintiffs in the case, but that
the directors were; and that this was an endeavour to
throw the burden lions their own shoulders, and cast it
upon the unfortunate shareholders. He should prove
teat the defendant, on being called on by the directors
Ito make a further payment, refused to do so, on the
(pound that the Company originated in fraud; that the
lavecturs brought an action to enforce payment, and that
the defendant was unsuccessful in that cause. It was
upon that the present action was brought, which he
repeated was at the suit of the directors. Under these
circumstances, he thought the plaintiff could have no
right whatever to recover.
A number of the lirest Briton rend Cornwall Adver-
tiser, dated the 29th of April, 11325, and containing the
advertisement alluded to, was then put in and read.
It was agreed that the evidence given in the defence
of the case of " Ellis v. Schmeick and another" should
be received in this.
The defendant's attorney proved the action against
the defendant to have been tried in the King's Bench;
but in cross-examivation admit ed that the facts of the
case were not gone into, and that the case went off on
a legal objection.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE having replied,
Mr. Justice GASELIER summed up, leaving it to the
Jury to say whether they believed the Company to be
a fraud and a bubble, and whether the directors sseie
the real plaintiffs m the case.
The Jury having retired for a short time, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for the lull amount claimed 3001.
giving it as their opinion, that the Company was a timid
and a bubble, but that the plaintiffs were not cognizant
of it, and that Messrs. Magor and Co. were the teal
plaintiffs in the case?
SECONDARIES OFFICE, OCT. 26.

Mr. Cao-w—TSiaa, the Secondary, having summated
a Jury of respectable ttadeinnen to attend -upon a is: it
of inquiry, stated that he had summoned them in con-
formity with Mr. Peel's Act. Julies are, therefore,
henceforward,to be chosen as Juries at Nisi Pries are.
The Secondstiy is determined, however, that the change
shall be attended with as little inconvenience as possi-
ble to the Gentlemen summoned.

Datemws“. V. EARL AND WIIITEIVICIC.

This was rather a singular case of assault. The da-
mages were laid at 1501.
Mr. Bramwell, a Gentleman of considerable pro-
per ty, is the owner of about thirty houses at Tunbridge
Wells, which houses he lets out to lodgers in the season.
As some of the houses were unoccupied, he hired the
wife of Baal to answer any inquiries that might be made
about them, at the salary of 101. per annum. bitse,
however, found a more profitable employment in the
capacity of cook, and he was compelled to engage an•
other person, the condition annexed to the payment of
the salary being completely disregarded. Her husband,
however, insised upon the payment of the demand,
which was resisted, and he took out a writ on the 4.11
of May against Mr. Bramwell. At a quarter past ten
o'clock that Gentleman heard a loud knocking at his
door, and when he opened it; in rushed the twu defer
dams, neither of whom is either a Sheriff's of a police
Wilms and collared him, saying, " You are our pri-
'Man" "For what?" said Mr. Bramwell ; "to wuich
they' replied, " For a considerable amount." They then
called aloud for a Sheriff's officer 'named Hoskin& out
be did not arrive for some time, and When he dM, in-
stead of walking in at the hall door, re mounted in at
'the window. AU this was the more alarming, u the
house was in almost total darkness at the time. 'But
'the apprehension for personal safety was not the only
matter of annoyance. 'lt was rumoured about Tunbridge
Wells, which is'asgossipping tnd calumniating-a little
place as caw be found, that Mr. Bramwell's circum-

... :

• • •

Watts acre no beast than *up should be. An on-
iprecedented act was. committed in tbaiminediate ee-
simed bi Kistg's taxes, in seasequence ts( this report.
cad farailies were etteid o tab. up their. abode in she
houses of a man who li.ad wired hismielf toile dtagged
:boat for the paltry sae of la due to tisa paOr %%Oman
who was appointed so witch his preasioraa. so %bet, in-
stead of secais,ing $l3Ol. ea wee as she eseclusirus of
the season, he found himself mower of ao move than
.501.4froms the produce of kis SO Woos. Who defeadaoss
adsaiswei that they had 110 aetherity for toacbiag
Bramwell,. sad abe,iberiE's °dicer, when he arrived,

wesslelnost isitempam alt.
It was atillaeseedy proved that Mr. Bramwell was,
when this, 'mentalism; y proceeding was resorted to
against him, perlectly sober. There was no defence.
The SECONDARY, in nsonairsg up, mated it was se-
knowledged these was no authority for entering the
plaintiff's house and seizing his person; and the case
was greatly aggravated by des fact that the aggression
had been committed under theselour of right. It was
evident that any report don the eakulated to throw •
blemish upon a man's solvency, would deter families
from residing on his premises, as they mast be on con.
stant apprehension of some annoyanee or other.
The Jury assessed The damages at 1001.
After thew case was disposed of, sine of the Jury asked
the Secondary whether be knew why die defendants did
not attend to their defence?
Mr. CROWT*III said, that the distance was coander.
able, and they were probably poor.
A Juryman wished so be informed why as assault,
which had been cemnskted at such a distance, was tried

in the City of London
Mr.CnowTsaa said, that the Attorney.Cieneral made,
the thing as sonvenient es pcherble to hatneelf. *ad had
it tried where he piqued.
The Jery observed, vet y naturally, tint such a prat-
lice must be ruinous in a long cause.