Star.
London, England, 1829-01-19 00:00:00

.

• LAW INTELLIGENCE.
&lei? OP lariTriENCri, YAW 17.
Tit 11110 V. ALEZANDIM Waite.
Mr. BIiaDRICIC stated that this was an indictment pre
fatal against the defendant for wilful and corrupt per.
jrary. alleged to have been committed in. an affidavit
Sled in the Court of Chancery, in support of a bill filed
lg*inst Frain-, Living, and CO. the East India Com-
pany. and Simon Samuel.
The bill in Chancery and the affidavit were then put
id and read.

Mr. Charles Frazer said that he was one of the owners
of the ship Alfred, which, in January, 1827, was freighted
by the East India Company. In February, 1827, they'
applied to Mr. Simon Samuel to advance a sum not
exceeding fl:teen thousand pounds on the security of
the Alfred, which at that time was mortgaged to Fry
and Chapman, and Mr. Samuel was to pay off that
mortgage. This was money thereafter to be advanced.
Fraser and Living owed Mr. Samuel about eight thou-
sand pounds at the time, but•for that he had security.
The defendant supplied an anchor and ca►le to the ship
in March, 1827, at the instance•of Frazer and Living.
Nothing was said about the mortgage of the ship, nor
that it was ever to be paid for out of the freight; was
never present at any meeting between the defendant and
Mr. Samuel; the latter never used these wprds in wit-
ness's presence—id What are you afraid of? Do you
want security in hand for every thing you do? You
know the ship is chartered by the East India Company,
and you will be paid out of the freight;" did not kno*,
that Mr Samuel and Mr. White were at all arequainted;
the money advanced by Mr. Samuel neier exceeded
the fifteen thousand pounds; it was at one time about
tureen thousand pounds.
Cto.s-examined by Mr. GURNEY—In Mare!), 1828,
Frazer, Living, and Co. were in debt to the amount (of
about 80,0001. PaiJ Ss. in the pound. Became bank-
rupt in June last. Owed then about 60,0001. White
was almo t every day at the counting-house, while the
ship was fitting out. Mr. Samuel came there about,
two or three times a week; would not swear that he
_
and White did not meet there.

George Charles Pratt Living confirmed Mr. Frazer's
• testimony.
Simon Samuel said, be was acquainted with Frazer
and Living, and lost money by tit in when they cont.
pounded with their creditors. He continued to give
them creJit, for which he genet ally had security. They
• apiilted to him t. 9 advance them money in the beginning
of 1827. Witness refused unless he had the control of
their vessel the Alfred, wl.ich eras finally assigne.l to'
him. He advanced about 13.0001. or 140001 Was
still a cteJtfor for the advances made. Bever in hits
life had ay y conversation with the defendant before the
Alf ed sailed. The first c. nversation he bad with him
about the mortgage of the Alfred was alter her art ival,
when he met him at Lleyd's, and he said, " Here's a
pretty piece of business; the Alfred's arrived, and I
hear she's mortg4ged to y'ou." Witness tlld him. every
body knew that. He never before knew that White
supplied t'te a-ichor 'art .1 cable.
H re ti.e case for the prosecution was closed,
Mr. Guatt*Ney acidiesed the July for the defendant,
and contended that the Jury could trot believe that the
defendant had been at Fraser and Living's counting
hou•e every day, without becoming acquainted with the
• lot secntor, aitcl Using conversenbn with him.
A nun.ber *of highly resce:table witnesses Were called
to -peak to 'tfie defendant's •charactrr.
Tl:e Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
COTTEN V..IAMEII.

•
This was an a tion of trespass; and ihn declatratiob
vet both that tt.e defendant broke into the platAbirs
house and aria fel his goods. to the value of 200 L and
upwards. The defendant pleadedthat the plaintiff ***
a trader, and t, on the petition of the plaintiff, a
Commission of Bank' uptcy issued against hint, and the
-gees& were legally taken by the messenger under the
Commission. Tile plaintiff replied, that he bad not,
committed an act of bablciuptcy, and that was the
question which the Jury had to try.
Mr. POLLOCIL awed, that the plaintiff had been ea-
ployed to build some houies on thedefendant's lands at
Wt rifling, and that the defendant' bad advanced him
about 1,1001. to provide the materials. The defendant
di...covered that the plaintiff was sanding the lead, stones,
sash. frames, and other materials, about to his other
erediiors; with a View 'to pay them, and to have Mr.
James to find his t etviedy as he could ; and he contended.
• subject to the opini nof Ms Lordship, that the attem; t
to defraud one creditor for t;:e 'benefit of the refit, was
ant act of binktuptcy. Mr. James sued mit the corn-
rni-sion in October last, and if he could prove the ac
tempt which he had mentioned on the pact of the plain.-
tiff, it would be fully sufficient to support the Com
trisaion.

Mr. Pot.Loce and Mr. DENktAN then -called soil's'
witne.,e., who, however, entire]) failed iu m. king out'
any act of harikrop.ey by the phtntifF Tim acts tfp
. which they sp,ke having been doors, not .by the delete
dam, but by others, without his authoiiiy.
S r J. Sae a LETT add' eased the July for the .plaintif4:
and observed that this s as a clam fur very serious da--
niage‘. The plaintiff • as a man in perkctly solvent eir•
cu nig 411C.CW The defendant.perin acted him to enter into
&serum:act with him for building 201tou'as On a piece°.
_land which he hAd at Woithing. The plaintiff was to
have a lease of .tt e land 914 houses for a certain period.
• and he was to build the houses at.his own expense, ex-
cept as to the Welt efiAla foe the !nicks, which were found
on the laud. 11ut, to assist the plaintiff in carrying
this plan•iido effect, the dekndaut was to advance,.
at impious times, s.m. to the lamount rf 6,0901. at
or before December, 1827. The houses *etc t, be
finis,,ed in June, 1828, and in June.. 1819, Mr. Jymes
was to
,be repaid ; and the•et,re, it, instead of the
1,1001 Mr. James had advanced-the *Mole 80,000/.
he would not fv.ve been entitled to a farthing Wine
the month of June, 1829. The plaintiff had em•
bathed his whole privity in this speculation; but
when he advanced a considerable May the etycii-
_..

tion of his part of the contract, tlfe defendant teful

to supply him With the money whieh helves hoend
to supply by the agreement, pretending that be was'
not bound* to make the advances without security..,
But in the 'agreement 'there was not et word said
about security, nor was there any occasion fdr any;
for the house, were stifficient security.. The
tiff built six f the houses, but, finding it imphsti-
ble to .go oh With the reit, eking to this breach
of the contract, he ordered *me of his property
to be sernoeict frtim thesis Wages, nOtldr'the purpose
ofgiettig it'to :otfiers, but in Order m securc it (cir
*ll in proper.places, where it now teivaided. The de.
lendant, a professional mani then -sued-but ‘,thesifilds.,
Mission, and the Goinnsissionerrdeelared the plaintiff a
r' trrtpt ;`but if the CurlaisfitsiMmtverd Bantedieelvere!
iften to Snd men .baOlcrirpis on stSch ertsfenee Os 'flits,
ho mast say 'hat the rooster the Tribunsil was put
and to thv better. The defendant, bootee', =sent ,th
lese.,eager ity.ti the plaiirtiff's hobie, end Arejst. tiff this,
prlffite pipers, who hattfite daughters
residing with him, had the pleasure of having the mos

Ai.,_