Star.
London, England, 1816-12-31 00:00:00

• 44: ik
rr-
• .
.. 410'. tornuama.
co OF ILINO'S lIIINCit, MICEMBERI. U.
THE KHOO Is. MUCKS. "
iatil
Th; was indictment against the defendaht for
wilful and cnrtupt rijory, alleged to have been com-
mitted by him, in an answer pat in by him to a bill
Sled in the Court of Exchequer.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the ease. He ob-
served, that the only question for the Jury.to decide
w:is, whether the answer put in and sworn to by the
defendant. to a bill filed in the Court of Exchequer,
was false or true, and whethet at the time he swore to
that answer, he WAS not conscious that the statement
to which he wos swearing was false ? The present in-
dictment was preferred by certain respectable under-

writers in the city of .Loticions and the follow ing were
the circumstances under which the defendant became
liable to this prosecution. The defendant and two
other persons. named Roper and Price, were proprie-
tors of a ship named the Vigilante. in 1805, this ship
was fitted out by them for a v.iyage to the South
Seas, where she was to be employed in the whale
fishery. Besides this object of her voyage, however,
there was another; for she was provided with letters
of marque which enabled her to take prizes, if any
should tall in her way. It appeared that at the time of
her sailing she was insured by the deiendant and his
copartners in the sum of £3OOO. Froin the period of
her sailing, to a considerable time subsequently. no
intelligence WAS received of the vessel. In the year 1807,
however, in the month Jely. a lesson of the name of
Anderson. who had been a seaman on board the Vigi.
lante an ived at Sheerness, and immediately wrote to a
man of the same surname, a tailor, with whom he had
lodged, informing him of the loss of the ship, and de-
siring him to acquaint the owners with that circum-
stance. He stated, that the ship having made several
valuable captures, had so thinned her own crew by
manning the prizes, that the Captain was obliged to
have recourse to the assistance of 'some Spanish pri-
snners on hoard to navigate her. These men, with the
assistance of a " Cursed French Cook," who was on
board, watched a favourable opportunity, killed the
mate, took the ship, and carriee her into an enemy's
port, where she was condemned. These were the facts
communicated to the taller by Anderson. who went
down the same day he received the letter to the house
of Price, whom he knew to be interested ie the intelii-
gence, to apprise him of the news. Price was not at
home, but hearing that Mr. Anderson had called, he
sent his wife to him, to learn the subject of his v.sit.
Anderson then shewed her the letter. the contents of
which were immediately made known to the defen-
dant as well as to Roper. The defendant, instead of
honestly ataprising the Underwriters of these circum-
stancee, immediately went and effecied further insu-
rances on the vessel to the amount of 48400. This
was in August, 1807. The deteudants after watels
brought their actions against the Underwriters for the
total loss, and recovered on some policies. The Un-
derwriters, however, suspecting that all was not right,
filed a bill in the Court of Exchequer, calling oe the
defendalts to answer certain questions entchttig their
,-knowledge of the loss of the Vigitante, and pat ticu-
larly whether they were not acquaioted with her loss
previous to the date when the last policies were
effected ? In answer to this bill, the defendant denied
all knowledge of the loss, and asserted, that at the
time he effected the policies, he had no reason to be.
Wye the ship was not perfectly safe, except the suspi-
cions which might arise from the length of her voy-
age ; and in this answer of his cousisted the perjury.
The AT I ORSTEP•GENERAL then called witnesses to-1
prove his case : before the evidence was concluded,
however,
The COMMON SEILJEANT objected to the form of the
indictment. The indictment, he observed, averred the
policies of insurance to have- been effected on the
19th of July, whereas, upon reference to the policies
themselves, teey appeared to have been effected on
the 15th. He also objected, that the indictment
stated the policies to have been effected by the defen-
dant himself; whereas, in truth and in fact, they had
been effected by the procuration of an agent.
Lord ELLENISIRoUGH thought these objections unan-
swerable. and the defendant was found—Not Guilty.
The partner of Hucks, Roper, was convicted on a
similar indictment on Friday :—the same objections
did not apply in that case as in this of Hucks.
DECEMBER 30.—CAVAN W. STEWART.
This v. as an action upon a judgment far 43000,
recovered in the Island of Jamaica. The defence
set up was, that the defendant did not reside in the
Island where the judgment was recovered, and not
having been present to defend the Colonial suit, he
was not liable in the present action.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII ruled against the plaintiff,
holding that he would not allow a judgment which.
might have been obtained behind a patty's back,
ilk
a Colonial Settlement, to be enforced in this country.;
and therefore directed a nonsuit.
THI MAYOR AND CORPORATION OP LONDON V.
BRANDON.
This was an action nominally at the suit of the
Corporation of London, but in fact brought by
Messrs. Splitgerber and Company, against the De-
fendant, who is a sworn London broker, to recover
the penalty of 4500, for certain breaches of the bond
which swore London brokers give the Lord Mayor
and Corporation, upon being swore is for the faith-
ful and honest discharge of tnetr duty. The principal
breach relied upon was, that the defendant being
employed by Messrs. Splitgerber a:.d Co. to purchase
.60 packages of Porto Rico tobacco, which arrived in
this country in September, 1810, by the Lord Coch-
rane, be had made out a false invoice of the commo-
dity, representing it to weigh more than it in fact
did, for the covetous and fraudulent purpose a
charging more brokerage than lie was entitled to.
The ATTouNeY-GENERAL, Mr:TOPPING, and Mr.;
PALLE, appeared for the Plaintiffs ; and and
M
opened upon the first breach was, that a Merchant
named Cohen having imported 70 cases of Porto
Rico tobacco, the defendant was employed by Messrs.
Splitgerber, in September, 1810, to purchase on their
account 60 of the cases, for the purpose of exporting
them to Stettin. The net weight of these 60 cases
appeared upon the Custom House books to be
41,693 lbs. and the invoice, which was delivered to
Splitgerber, by Cohen, in the handwriting of the de-
fendant, represented the tobacco to weigh 53,448 lbs.
thereby making an overcharge of 11,755 lbs. The
tobacco was sold at the rate of one shilling per
pound. Upon the delivery of the invoice, the tobacco
I was seat twice successively to the Continents but re-