Star.
London, England, 1829-08-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT- OF CHANCERY, Au.. 4.
FAtiNTLEROY.—HUME V. HOLLAND.
The' LORD CHANCELLOR stated that in this ease as
.ipplication had been made to him for a new trial. The
issue in it had been•tried in the Court of Common,Pleas,
whether Marsh, Stracey, and Fauntleroy, at the time of
theii bankruptcy, were indebted to the trustees of Colonel
Billie and his family in any and what sum of money ?
Fauntleroy and the two plaintiffs (Messrs Hume and
Voodthild), were the trustees of Colonel Billie. He died
in 1824, and afterwards his widow and children became
entitled to the funds, of which those parties were trus-
tees. After the Colonel died, Fauntleroy made a forged
power of attorney, sold out the whole of the stock, and
credit was given in the books to Marsh and Co. for the
dividends, as if the stock still actually existed in the names
of the trustees at the banking-house. Against the ac-
count of the receipts of the dividends, amounting to
1,4031. payments were made from time to time that re-
duced it to 1,100/. and•this was the sum sought to be
claimed by the-issue at the time of the bankruptcy. The
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas had stated,
in his report of the trial, that the lapse of time between
the trial and application eo him for his notes had been
so great, that he had quite forgotten how he had
left the case to the consideration of the Jury ; resort
therefore had to be made to the-short-hand writer's notes
for the purpose of ascertaining the fact. It appeared
from this source of information, undisputed on both sides,
that the Learned Judge had taken a most erroneous view
of the case, and that he had left it, notwithstanding he
had been corrected by the Counsel, under that most er-
roneous conception, to the Jury, so that they could not
fail to come, as they had done, to an unsatisfactory con-
clusion. The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had
assumed that Fauntleroy had received the dividends from
time to time, and that he was, or his firm were, to be
taken as having disposed of those dividends, which was a
gratuitous fiction, as in truth no stock existed on which
dividends could have nor had, in point of fact, been re-
ceived. If a verdict at all was consequently necessary
for the guidance of the Court, it was imperatively requi-
site that there should be a new trial. The parties then
might either take an order for a new trial, or agree upon
a special case ; or thirdly, if all consented to it, he (the
Lord Chancellor) would dispose of the case finally in
judgment without the assistance of a verdict at all.
The Counsel said they would consult with their re-
spective clients, and let his Lordship know how they
would act.

JUDGMENTS.

His LORDSHIP stated that he should give judgment in
Chatfield v. Martin td-morrow ; Green v. Ward on Mon=
day; and Strutt v. Purch on Tuesday.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. Aim 4.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR heard bankrupt petitions,
none of which possessed any public interest.
ADMIRALTY COURT-11/mA,', Ago. 4.

1112 SNIP BUZZ 07 BRD/11/01.

Sir C. ROBINSON gave judgment in this case this
morning. This was a suit on a bottomry bond, and the
principal question was, whether or not an owner could
gi vett bottomry bond (for provisions furnished to the
vessel) without the concurrence of the Master ? The
Duke of Bedford left Bombay in March, 1827, hay-
ing a large number of passengers. The vessel, however,
met with bad weather, and put into the port of Algoa,
in the Cape of Good Hope, in great want of provisions.
The holders of the bond, Messrs. Nesbitt and Dixon,
supplied them with provisions. It appeared that the
Duke of Bedford had already been mortgaged to Messrs.
Cockrell, Trail, and Co. for more than its actual worth,
and they now disputed its validity, on the ground that it
injured their interests in having priority to their claims,
and that an owner was not competent to give a bottomry
bond without the Captain acquiesced in it. On the other
side it was contended that by law the Captain was com-
petent by himself to give a bottomry bond, if he thought
it requisite, without the consent of the owner, and that
the owner was also possessed of the same right,
without the consent of the Captain. Also, in answer to
the asseveration, that the interests of the mortgagee
would be injured by it, it was urged that the mortgagee
had an interest in the amount of freight for passengers,
which freight could not be claimed till the condition (that
of taking the passengers to England) had been performed;
that the passengers could not have been brought without
provisions, which could not have been obtained without
the bond; and that consequently the interests of the
mortgagee would in equity be rather improved than in-
jured. The Court was of opinion, that by the principles
of our own maritime law, and those eminent writers of
other countries on the law of bottomry, the owner was
competent to give a bond by himself, as well as the Cap-
tain, and that therefore the bond must be pronounced
legal. With regard to the other question, whether the
mortgagee was injured by the bond, it was clear that the
passengers were as much a charge upon the ship as the
cargo and the freightage (4,0001.), for those passengers
could not have been retained if they had not been brought
to England. The Court could not therefore give any
priority to the mortgagees on that account. The bond
was therefore pronounced legal, with costs.

EXECUTION OF STACY, THE MURDERER,