Star.
London, England, 1820-11-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF. KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER 31.
JACOBS V. OAUNTLETT.
This was an action of trover, to recover from the
defendant the sum of £250, under the following cir-
cumstances, as stated on the part of the plaintiff:—
The plaintiff was a slopseller, and the defendant the
Master of the cartel ship Angerona, chartered in the
year 1815, to carry American prisoners home to their
owb country. On board this ship the plaintiff had
sent out bales of goods, consisting of clothes, to the
value of £250. The ship arrived at Boston, where,
a few days after, the plaintiff's son landed, but found
the Angerona had set sail ; and when he next saw
the defendant, he was told by him that the goods bad
been sold for a quantity of tobacco, that might be
worth about £5O. The Captain had agreed to take
the goons out to America as a matter of favour, and
the plaintiff had not the Captain's receipt, but the
Mate's. This was the statement made by Marcus
Jacobs, the plaintiffis son.
A witness of the name of Cousins stated, that he
hid been in company with the parties on the 11th of
March, 1816, at the Globe Tavern, Portsmouth,
*hen the defendant said he had exchanged the goods
for tobacco, and when that should be sold the goods
would be paid for. For the defendant it was contended
that the goods, if sent, must have been smuggled, as
by the laws both of England and America, no goods
were allowed to be sent out in cartel vessels, which
were only to convey what was necessary for the voy-
age and the support of the prisoners. In the present
case there had been a surplus supply, and cm account
of the expense of obtaining leave to land and dispose
of that surplus in America, it had been sold to the
Captain for £269 ; although two years ago an order
had been made by Mr. Justice Bayley, calling upon
the plaintiff for a specification of the goods alleged
to have been sent out, he had not yet made the re-
quired specification.
J. Cropley, Searcher at the Custom-House of the.
Port of London, proved, that in the whole of the year
18150 no vessel, of the name of the Angerona, had
cleared out from that port, laden with merchandize
for America.
J. Beuchin, the owner of the ship, stated, that she
had sailed froth London, on the 19th of May, 1815,
in ballast, and that consequently no entry nor clear-
ance was necessary, as would have been the case had
she been laden with goods or merchandize. He did
not know that the vessel took out any merchandize,
and had made oath to that effect, when he had paid
for the lights, the onlx.payment hehad been required
to make, as the ship had sailed in ballast.
Mr. ustice BAYLEY here put it to the plaintiff,
whether the action could be maintained ? as it had
been decided in numerous cases, that no action could
lie for goods illegally shipped.
Mr. GURNEY, upon this, consented to be nonsuited,
observing, at the same time, that it was a most un-
righteous defence.
OLD BAILEY.
Yesterday, C. Goodwin was indicted for Waking
and entering the house of J. Wells, in the day time,
and stealing therein a time-piece, a shawl, a table-
cloth, and other articles, his property, on the 15th
of October, 1819.
It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses,
that two days before that stated in the indictment,
the prisoner went- to the prosecutor's house with a
bundle of keys, and told Mrs. Wells that he was sent
by his master, Mr. Extile, a locksmith, to repair a
lock. Mrs. Wells expressed surprise how Mr. Extile
could know that the lock wanted repair, and the pri-
soner said her'husband had met Mr. Extile in Gray's
Inn-square, and he told him to send a man. She,
however, objected to have it done then, and desired
him to call again. On the 15th the prisoner went
again to the house, in the absence- of Mr. and Mrs.
Wells, and pretended for some time to be mending
the bell-wires in the passage. When Mr. and Mrs.
Wells came home, they found that their parlour had
been entered, and the goods mentioned in the indict-
ment stolen. Nothing was heard either of the goods
or the prisoner until the 19th of August last, when.
in consequence of a great number of burglaries and
robberies having been committed, the Police of Hat-
ton-Garden were employed to detect the offenders,
and, in the course of -their enquiries, they received
information which led them to st house in North-
street, Pentonville, where they found two women,
named Goodwin (the prisoner's wife) and Griffith,
and also a great quantity of valuable property of
various descriptions: among the rest were the time-
piece, shawl, and table-cloth, stolen from the prose-
cutor. They took the women into custody, and they
were tried at the last Sessions on several charges of
robbery, and acquitted. On enquiry, it was ascer-
tained that the prisoner was in the house when the
officer knocked at the door, and that he escaped by
leaping from the window. He it was who had taken
the house, and Arne with the goods. The time-piece
was found on the mantlepiece, and there was another
time-piece in a box, in which a great number of
watches and other valuable articles were found. The
women, after their acquittal, were of course libe-
rated, and the officers watched them to a house in
Ironmonger-row. After waiting some time they went
in, and found a numerous party carousing in celebra-
tion of the acquittal, and amongst the rest the pri-
soner Goodwin. The company, at sight of the ofil.
cers, ran off to various parts of the !louse, and the
prisoner was found under a bed in another room.
He made a desperate resistance, in which the women
joined, and in the scuffle the bannisters on the stairs
gave way, and the whole party were precipitated to
the bottom. The prisoner, however, was secured.
Mrs. Wells positively swore that the time-piece and
the shawl were her property.
The p: ironer made a long defence, in which he
displayed considerable ingenuity, and called the fol-
lowing witnesses :
Mary Griffith, a single woman, said she was sis-