Star.
London, England, 1810-05-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ADMIRAI:I Y COURT, MAY 10.
This day the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM Scorr pro-
peetled to the adjudication of the following cases :
I.utilla, Jurgens snaster.—rThis vessel, under Pressian colours,

laden with wheat, from Nantz to London, was captured and
brought to Yarmouth.—Ship restored (the cargo having been al-
• steady restored), subject to the captor's expences.
Jonge Frederick, Classen master.—This-ship, under Prussian
colours, laden with cotton, &c. from Ostend to London, was cap-
' tured by the Rolla, and brought to Dover.—Restored, subject to
the Captor's expences.
Charles, Taylor master.—This American vessel, laden with
tobaccce, from New York t&Touningen, was captured by a fri-
gate.—The Court directed the assistance of Trinity Masters in
this case.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 10.
}EARLE V. DIMSDALE.
This was an action for false imprisonment, tried
at the last York Assizes, before Mr. Justice LE
BLANC, and a verdict of £5OO damages was given in
.-favour of the plaintiff.
Mt. RAINR applied for a rule to shew cause why a
new trial should not be granted, on the ground of ex-
cessive damages. The parties were both attornies,
and had been partners. A dissolution of partnership
taking place, the defendant, under a misconception,
arrested the plaintiff for a considerable sum more
'than was due to him. There was another error also
• in the proceeding of his client the defendant, which
the Learned Counsel said he should not undertake so
defend; although he should contend that both errors
were errors in judgment on the part of his client,
and therefore he should humbly submit to the Court
did not call for the heavy damages which had been
given. The writ on which the plaintiff was arrested
had expired ; that it had been returnable previous to
the time of being executed ; and the plaintiff, thus
improperly arrested, was confined from the 15th of
May last to the 26th ; this, however, was three days
longer than he need to have been, as the defendant
consented to his liberation on the 23d. Under these
circumstances, he contended the damages given were
excessive. His cheat, however, did not wish to dis-
turb the verdict, excessive as it was, if the plaintiff
would consent to refer all matters in difference be-
tween them to arbitration, and in that case the de-
fendant was ready to let the £5OO, secured by bond,
stand as the first item in the account against him.
Mr. HURROCK, on the part of the plaintiff, said, it
was impossible for him to give an answer immedi-
. ately to his Learned Friend's proposition, as his client
eesided at York, and he must communicate with him,
on the subject.
Lord ELLENBOROUGU—" Take a rule to shew
. cause, and, in the Mean time, the Court do not say
the damages are excessive, but would suggest that it
is adviseable the plaintiff should consider the propo-
iition thrown out by the defendant."
METCALFE V. BRUIN.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to set aside the
.erdict in this case and enter a nonsuit. He stated
that it was an action on an indemnity bond given to
the plaintiff as Trustee for the Globe insurance So-
ciety. This Society was one of the anomalies of the
I.;w in which the preient day was so fruitful. It was
an association of persons, not being a corporation, and
whose existence he had always set his face against as
far as he was able. They had however got an Act
of Parliament, which enabled them to sue and be
sued in the name of their Secretary. They had suf-
fered their servant, for whose fidelity this bond was
given, to go on, year after year, without examining
his accounts, until he became too deeply involved for
him ever to redeem himself, and then they pounced
upon the security. It was righteous, therefore, for
the defendant to avail himself of any legal and tech.
nical objection in his defence. He therefore now
contended, that as the bond was given in trust for
the whole Society, it must be considered as though
given to the whole Society as it then existed ; and as
the members had been much changed since that pe-
'rind, it was no longer the same body to whom the
bond was given, and the present body could not sue
either by themselves or trustee.
The Court granted a Rid,: to shew cause, and de-
sired they might he furnished with copies of the Acts
relating to the Globe Insurance Company.
VINCENT V. SLAYMAKER.
The cause of action here was the amount of an at-
torney's bill of costs, and was tried at the last Sit-
tirgs at Westminster, when a verdict was found fir
. the: defendant under the direction of the Judge. It
was tried before Lord ELLExacmtouois, when it hav-
ing appeared that the bill of costs for which the ac-
tion had been brought, was not delivered to the de-
fendant, signed by the plaintiff one month before the
action was brought, as the Act of Parliament directs,
the Jury, as above stated, found for the defendant.
Mr. TOPPING now moved that the verdict should be
set aside, and a new trial granted. The Learned
. Counsel stated, that true it was the bill was not ac-
tually
delivered to the defendant in person, but it was
delivered to his attorney milder a Judge's order, and
he contended that such delivery was the same as if it
had been delivered to the defendant himself.
Lord ELLE.NBOROUGIr-11 I rather think that the
Act is peremptory on the attorney, and that we must
follow the 14tter of it, I thought so at the trial ;
there are, however, :Any instances where the act of
the agent or attorney is the same as the act of a
principal. .1-low far that may apply in this instance
shall be eerkt so you may take your Rule at any rate."
4tule 'Nisi granted.

•
COURT OF COMMON PLIAS, MAY to.
LANFREDE T. SAUNDERS.
This was an action brought by the. plaintiff; 'wild
Is a housekeeper in Craven-buildings,.Drury-laai;
against the defendant, who is an equestrian; and scot
to Mr. Saunders, so long known as an abibiter of
horsemanship in all parts of England; fci-fecOvex'
eleven pound:, the price of lodgings let td'die'defen-
dant, while performing at Astley's Pavilion: ,
The plea set up by the defendant was; Ifs being
under age ; this was admitted on the *part of the
plaintiff, whose case was rested on the ground of the
lodgings ,being necessary for the defen&nt, wlio re-
ceived agl4 a month for his performance.
It was proved, however, that the defendant was
under the guardianship of a perseth name Young, and
was an apprentice to his father. A lodging was
provided for him in Tottenham Court-road, but hav-
ing a chere amie to support, he thought it proper to
occupy the lodgings in Craven-buildings.
Of these circumstances the plaintiff was aware,

and ran the risk of getting payment for his rooms,
contrary to the advice of Mr. Young, the guardian.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff was nonsuited.

ROYAL ACADAMT.

bUBLA MAr 1.

Catiticir..—A variety of routine business
wit transacted at the Common. Council yesterday.—
The most material was a motion by Mr. GIFFARD,,
for rescinding a former Resolution of the Council in
favour of .the Catholics. Messrs. GunttESS, Hcr
TON, NEVILLE, &C. opposed the iniitiOtt with warmthYl
....;After some further discussion, a ballot was de-
manded, when.there appeared, •
ror Mr. Giffard's Motion 41—Against it 42—Majority I.
Mr. WILLIS then made his promised motion for a
Petition for a Repeal of the Union. He was follow.
ed Mr. M‘Kiirztc, who said he was instructed by
his constituents to.support the Petition—but objected
against the manneptin.which Mr. Wthus's was drawn.
He would vote fora comittee. Mr. KING acceded
to the propriety 41'04 suggestion, when, after a
speech from Mr. CRAVEN, Mr. Wacts withdrew his
Petition, and moved for a Committee. _ _

The motion having been seconded, Mr. GIFFARD
asserted that this country was never more prosperous
than since the time of the Union—that commerce and...
agAculture flourished—that credit was established
upon a rock too firm to be shaken—that the measure
was not only salutary but indispensible.
After a few other observations, the question was
called-for, when the Sheriff declared the Ayes had it.
Mr. GIFFARD, however, demanded a ballot, when ,
there appeared—

For the Committee 42—Against it Se—Majority 4.
Upon the numbers being declared, Mr. GIFFARD
congratulated the Assembly that there were 38 honest
men Among them, who would 'support the measure
of Union, and concluded by observing, that the coun-
try was 38 times better off than when that measure
was enacted.

A Committee was then appointed, consisting of
Messrs. WILLIS, KING, CRAVEN, JOHN REED, and
BucHANAN.

Mr. WILLIS then moved that it be sent to the
Board for their concurrence, which being carried,
Mr. OXLEY moved for a ballot, for the purpose, he
said, of stifling it altogether.
Mr. GlFFmtv seconded the motion.

The ballot having been granted, there appeared—

Ayes 54r—Nnes 41—Majority Is.
The object-of the Anti. Petition w•as thus defeated.

BIRTHS.

At Edinburgh, on the sth instant, the Lady of Lord Vi,count
Glentworth, of a daughter.
bit the Gth irstant, at Plymouth-Dock, the wife of Captain
Wolley, R. N. of a son.
Wednesday, in Portman-square, the Lady of Alexander Baring,
Esq. M.P. of a son.
At Cranstoun-hill, on the 2d init. Lady Janet Buchanan, of a
daughter.

MARRIED.
Tuesday, at Bisham Church, Lord Bolton. to the Hon. Maria
Carleton, eldest dAughtzr of the late Lord Dorc:letter.

DIED.

Friday last, at his bathe in Highbury-place, Islington, the Rev.
Wrn. Parry, D. D.
Saturday morning, In Saville-row, the Hon. Mrs. Gunning,
wife of George Gunning, FF'I•
Wednesday, at her mother's house in Piccadilly, Lady Eliza--
beth Villiers.

At Rutherglen, on the 27th tilt. aged 76, the Rev. David Wal-
ker, 37 years minister of the As,ociate Congregation at Pollock.
Shaws.

At the Manse of Coylton, on the 25th ult. the Rev. Dr. David
Shaw, minister of that parish, in the 92d year of his age, and 41st
of his ministry.

IBM!