Star.
London, England, 1827-07-11 00:00:00

I

of the autho•, except at the high peril of paying da-
ma•ges for his honour and high-minded integrity.
L•)rd TENTERVIIN, in summing up, said, that every
Man Who wrote a book, was liable to fair and just cri-
ticism, and the only question for the considera•ion of the
Jury was, did the criticism cast upon the plaintiff, of
not, reflections which .were not called for by the. state-
ments contained in the book itselt ? If the J,lry thought
it did, then the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict;
but if they did not think so, the defendants were entitled
to a verdict. He should put the books and the News-
paper into the hands of the Jury, with this single ob-
servation, that it seemed to him, that a man who had
thotight fit to repeat, and publish to the world, the ap-
pellations of " Bear," and " Beast," applied.to men, the,
friends of his early life, was not entitled to great da•
mages from any person who happened to b►ing to his
recollection, that he, in early life, also bore another name.
The Jury having deliberated for a few minutes, found
a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 10.
WAILES 9. GIB AND 011YERS.

This was an action of treipasr, in which Christian
Fiederick Weiles was plaintiff, and John Adair Gee,
William Nesbit, William Macbeath, and Wm. Cooper,
defendants. Gee pleaded that he was " not guilty," and
the other defendants that they had acted as they had
done with the leave and licence of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant '%VIt.Da stated the case. Mr. Wailes
was a person in delicate health, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Chelsea, and the defendants, tin-believed
were attornies, or attornies' clerks, at least Gee was an at-
torney. It appearerithat the plaintiff had had several trans-
actions with Gee, who had obtained a note of hand from
him and his wife, and on the day in question when the
trespass complained of was committed; he had issued
two writs against the plaintiff and his wile, and having
sent far a sheriff's officer, desired him to accompany
the other defendants to the plaintiff's house for the
purpose of arresting them. When this party arrived at
Chelsea, the parties were out, but they watched their
return, and on the door being opened forced their way
into the house, where they so much terrified the plaintiff
and his wife, that they succeeded in extorting from them
a bill of sale of every thing upon the premises. The
Learned Sergeant would nit detail the circumstances
under which this instrument was obtained, as he should
call the sheriff's officer, who was present during the
whole of the transaction. That it had been obtained,
however, by very improper means could not be doubted,
when he said that on an application being made to
Lard Tenterden, that Learned Judge had ordered it to
be cancelled, Gee being unable to shew that it had been
legally obtained. He thought that when the Jury had
heard the testimony of his witnesses, they would consider
that serious damages were necessary to compensate the
plaintiff for the injury he had sustained.
Joseph Warmsley was then called.—At the time of,
this transaction, which was on the 28th of Feb. last, I
was a sheriff's officer, and had two warrants in my pos-
session, the one for 191. 19s. against Mr. Weiles, and
the other for 131.145. against his wife. The writs were
dated the 28th of February, and were brought to me by
Mr. Nesbit; they were both at the suit of Mr. Gee, who
is an attorney. Nesbit desired me to meet him the next'
day at Mr. Gee's office, which is in North-street, Red
Lion square. I went accordingly, and found Nesbit,
Cooper, and Macbeath in the office : they are clerks to
Mr. Gee. We all went to Chelsea by Nesbit's desire ;
he was to shew us the place where Weiles lived. Gee
did not go. Macbeath and Cooper went in a chaise.—
Nesbit, with my assistant and myself, went on foot.--
Weiles lived in Marlborough-sqUare,Chelsea, *here we
all went. After waiting some little time, we saw Mrit:,
Weiles going into the house. Nesbit pointed her out
to me ; she appeared to be a middle aged woman. I
emoted her, but did not take her away t this was be-
fore she got into the house. I afterwards went into
the house, and arrested Mr. Weiles. I was going to take
them away with me, when Nesbit said he dared say the
matter would be settled without, and he proposed to
Weiles and his wife that they should give a security.
This was very shortly after the arrest. He said he un-
derstood they had some furniture in the house, which,
if they would make over to him, should be a discharge
to the action. I cannot say 'why he desired it should
be made over to him. He did not mention Mr. Gee.
Weiles and his wife said they would sign any thing
rather than be taken out of the house. They were both
extremely alarmed and frightened at being arrested.
During the whole of this time the door of the house was
fastened, and 1 had the key. They were in my custody,
and 1 wculd not allow them to go out of my sight. I
cannot illy positively who brought me the key of the
door. There appeared to be nobody in the house but
Welles and his wife. When they had consented to make
over the furniture, Nesbit asked Cooper and Macbeath
if they had a stamp wish them? They replied that they
had not, but that they could soon obtain one, and im.
mediately Started for that purpose. The door was kept
continually lo:ked, except frit- the purpose of letting
these persons out. I did not see Gee there at all during
any part of the transaction. When Cooper and Macbeath
came back, they produced a stamp, and an instrument
of some sort was drawn up. Weiles was asked to let
them have some tea, which he gave them. I believe a
little gin was also produced; Nesbit had asked for
some ; it was all drank. When the stamp was brought,
Nesbit desired one of the others to fill it up, which was
done, and the plaintiff and his wile signed it. They
were told it was a bill of sale,and its nature was pointed
out to them. We remained in the house altogether
for about three hours. Nesbit made use of improper
language to Mrs. Weiles, and beheired himself in-
decently towards her. a

Cress•examined by 11r. Sergeant TADDY.—No violence was
nude use of getting into the house: as soon as the door was a little
open, we pushed in. There was not more than sixpenny worth of
gin. I was anxious to take Weiles and his wile away, but Nes-
bit particularly desired me not to do so.
Siporamined.—Aa inventory was taken of the goods by Cooper
end:Nesbit.

William Thompson, the assistant to the last witness, was next
called, and fully confirmed his evidence.
The summons issued by Lord Tenterden, calling on Gee to chew
cause why the instrunient he had obtained should not be given up
to he cancelled, was then put in and read.

Mr. Sergeant JONES appeared for Gee, and Mr. Ser.
geant TADDY for Nesbit and Macbeath ; Cooper was
undefended.

Mr. Sergeant Jotres submitted, th it as no evidence
hid been given to :hew that Gce was a patty to the,
transaction, he should be discharged.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE contended, that Gee was an in-
terested party, and was liable, inasmuch as he had
adopted the act of the other defendants, as appeared by
the part he took before Lord Tenterden in support of
the instrument they bad obtained.
The LORD CHIEI JUSTICZ was of opinion that this
to shew that he had adopted dm act of the

others, and he therefore held that he could pet be

•
acquitted.
Mr. Sergeant taring addressed the Jury fOr Nesbit
and Mitcbeath. He contended that the defendantshad
beendbilty of no trespass—they had not broken into the
house, nor had they done anything to constitute g tres-
pass. On the contrary, it appeared by the evidence
that Nesbit hid been the means of rendering a kindness
to the plaintiff, and had actually prevented their being
taken to prison. wh ch the officer had an undoubted
right to do. Under these circumstances, the Learned
Sergeant thought the Jury would consider this a case
calling for very trifling, if any damages at all, as it ap-
peared the plaintiffs had suffered no personal damage,
nor sustained any loss by the instrument they had signed,
as it had since been cancelled by order of the Couit of

King's Bench.
Mr Sergeant JONES, for Gee, contended that the part
he had taken when the application was made to Lord
Tenterden, was not sufficient to spew that he had
adopted the act of the three other d-Pendants.
The LORD CHM' JUSTICE summed up very briefly,

. _
telling the Jury the plaintiff had a legal right to recover
for a trespass: to what amount, however, was peculiarly
for their consideration. It did not appear to him to be,
a case calling for any aggravated damages, further than
that Nesbit's conduct had been proved to be most abo-
minable to Mrs. Welles, which ought certainly to weigh

in their minds.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 201.

COURT Ott EXCHEQUER, JOLT to.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL F. FISH AND coLtina.
This was an information filed by his Majesty's At-
torney-General, agaibst the defendants, respectable to-
bacconists, of St. John's-street, Smithfield, to recover a
penalty of 501. for sending'out a pound of segars
a certificate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. With whim Was Mr.
CLARA and, Mr. WALTON, opened the case. He statsd
that previous to the Ist and 2i.1 Acts of the pre-ent
King, every, trader was obliged to get a permit
.for
sending out any quantity of tobacco above lib. weight.
That measure was thought too grievous upon the
traders, and by mere recent Acts they were obliged to
enter all quantities beta een 111 a. and 101 b. in a book,
and send a certificate with it. All quantities under
a pound were to be entered in anther book, fur-
Dished by the Excise for that purpose. Oa the 17th of 1
lest February, some Excise officers were making a search
pa the premises of a tobacconist named Roberts, in St.
&An's-street, Smithfield, nithin 100 yards of the de-
fendant's house. They discovered a considerable de-
ficiency. in Roberts's stock, to bide which a 56 pound
weight aas smuggled into the scale with the tobacco;
that, however, was disSoirered, and during the search a
servant of the defeudenti brought in some tobacco in
parcels, and one parcel containing a pound of segars.,
The tobacco had permits, but the segars had no certifi-
ciAi. 'he Officers of course, examined the parcels,hud,
ending no certificate, seii.d and condemned the gegars.
The man who brought them instautly left the shop. He
(Mr. Scarlett) then called the three excisemen who snide
the search, and *rived the following factts---Nb•entry
had been made atirtsh of,Opound sent ;
they were straw segars, and at the. time of the con.
detonation, weighed exactly a pound with the paper.
One of the witnesses stated that it way an even pound ;
with the paper would make it a good potind.
, Mr. Tne.ssicatt, for the defendant, attempted• by
cross-examination to prove that the pound of segars
seized was nor full pound of tobacco, as laid in the,
information.
The &menet-GENERAL produceddefendantss book
for' small entries, and proved that it had net been
enteredlhere. The facts of the seizure were else" proved,
and that the duties alleged to have been evaded was'3s.
The case having closed for the Crown,
Mr. Tit ESSIGZR addressed the Jury for the defendants.
Nothing, he obsertird, could. be more captivating than
the cool smoothness witli,Which This• ease was opened
by the.Artorney-GeneraL fie bad admitted the re-
spectability of the defendants, who had in fact been in
business earlier than the life of the Advocate who was
addressing them (Mr. 'l'.)' and it woedd be for them to
judge, whether men of such stability conldbe guilty of
detra•iding his Majesty's Blind of Excise of the immense
sum of three shillings! The Attorney-General had not
been able to screw himself up to the belief that the
defendants had committed a fr aud, and had not even
accused them of it, otherwise than by insinuation. The
case in itself was really so ridiculous, that he T.)
could not have addressed them with gravity, if the case
had not been harsh and oppressive towards his clients:
There was his Majesty's Attorney General, assisted by
two of the ablest Crown Officers, solemnly pressing for
a sum of three shillings; and yet the case seemed of so
weighty a nature, that they hardly seemed to be able
to bear it amongst them-,(Laughter.) He admitted
that it was an unfortunate coincidence, but nothing
more; and it was the first time he had ever beard
that no distinction was to be made between inadver-
tency and criminality. The condemnation had been
brought forward to put' a gag, as it were, in their mouths
concerning the weight of the tobacco, but he would
yet overcome that objection;foe-he *Mild prove that
the straw of the segars weighed at Wit fieN an ounce,
and it would thus be for them to detide whether a
pound of segars, including straws,
.were a pound of
tobacco? The Learned Gentleman then called a servant
of the defendant, v.ho proved that a poUnd of segais
had been borrowed from Roberts by defendants, and
that the segars in question were intended as a re-pay-
ment. The segars weighed a pound; including the
straws, which weighed about half an ounce
The ATTORNEY GENERAL however proved, by cross-
etamination, that a pound of segars had always been
entered, both to the Excise and the defendatitecustomers,
As a pound of tobacco. The Learned Counsel then re-
plied for the Crown, that the defendants bad subjected
theniselves to a penalty of 1001. fur not having entered
them as being less than a pound in the Excise book.a-
He had made them a pound both with the Excise and
his customers, and it remained with them to say, whe.,
ther be could now, for the purpose of evading the pe-
nalty, contend that they were not a pound ?
The LORD CHIEF BARON left the question to 0,4
Jury, remarking, hre,vever, that the condemnation had
always been received as conclusive evidence of the
weight or quantity.
The Jury retired, and after an hour's deliberation, re-
turned the following verdict—" We find for the de-
fendants, because there was not a pound of tobacco."
ADMIRALTY COURT, JULY 10.
THE ANN.

This is a case which has been very often before the
Court, and has been argued in a great measure per ant-
rum. It is an action to recover the penalty of a bond
given for the due return of a vessel to the port to which

she belonged. The bond war given by th two owners
of a moiety of the vessel, one of whom is the Capta'n,
to the assignees of the owners of the other moiety, who
have become bankrupt ; and the laver having to .inn t,.
believi that there is an intention to keep the vessel
away from England for an indefinite time. for the 'sole
benefit of the owners in poisession, and to the prejudice
of the co-owners, commenced this suit to recover the
penalty in the bond, which is not of an unusual kind,
being particularly mentioned in the present Lord Ten-
terden's Treatise on the Law respecting Merchant Ships.
Dr. Jesse Aunaws, on this and on the preceding
day, contended, that from the length of time the vessel
had been absent from her port (Whitehaven) prosecuting
voyages from Leghorn to Gibraltar, America, &c. but
never visiting this country, there was no intention she
should ever return—a fact established by the master
and co-owner, who bad said she should never come back
to Whitehaven again. He therefore called upon the
Court to pronounce the-bond forfeited.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, on the part of the absent owners,
stated that the ship had been kept so lting at Leghorn,
owing to the impossibility of procuring a cargo, that
she was at present upon her voyage to Belfast, and]
might be shortly expected at Whitehaven.
Some discussion here took place alto whether the bond was
was not absolutely forfeited?
Lord Srowsu., however, declared that he should gig.,
one month longer, and if the vessel did not arrive at
some port of the United Kingdom within that period,
he should pronounce the bond forfeited. -

TUE A itErHUSA. •
This was a case of salvage. The Atetbitta; 'bound
from Liverpool to Nova Scotia, with a cargo worth.
17,0001. during a severe gale on the night of the SOth of
September, was run on board by the Lewis, amAme-
tican, in the Irish Channel, and sustained considerable
damage in her masts and rigging, though no material
injury was done to her hull. The ensuing day, the Lord
Blayney, a steam-vessel, bouts(' from Dublin to Liier-
pool, with a cargo of horses, black cattle, and sheep,
valued at 1,8001. come in sight of the Arettiu,a, which
had a signal of digress as wt II as a signal for a pilot,
hoisted, and although the wind was loul, towed het
that night into .Liverpool. For this service .501. was
originally tendered, which sum, on the present soil.
being brought, was increased to 1001. this tender was
rejected by the salvors.
Dr. LVSHINOTON and Dr. DODSON, for the mariners
on board the steans-vesel (the owners being no party to
the suit), contended that the services readered by tht
Lord Blayney were of a valuable character; that the
cargo of that vessel was of a perish.ble nature, and that
there was only fuel on board for about an hoot beyond
the period of her.mrival at Liverpool.
Dr. Jamie,: and Dr. PIIILLISIORN considered the

statement to be inflamed ; the service tendered was little
more than towage; and the Lord Blayney was not di-
verted Irom, and but little delayed in, her voyage..
Lord Srowatt. observed that the period ot the year
was a dangerous one, and it .was ma much to say that
the service rendered was not signal. He was of opinion
that the tender was much too small. Heshould give 3001.
IN THE MATTER Or THEIR SLAVES.
This was an appeal from the sentence of the Vice Ad-
miralty Court at St. Kitts, in a prosecution under the
Slave It gistry Act. The case is as follows ! In May,1824,
Mr. Milts, the owner of an estate and negroes at St. Kitt's,
sent the three slaves in question from that island to the
adjacent island of Nevis, under the same Government,
in order to assist in the salvage of a vessel in danger
near the latter island. These staves had been duly re-
gistered, and previous to their embarkation the record
of their -registry had been exhibited to the officer of the
Customs at St. Kitts, but no certificate was taken from
bibs agreeably to the regulations ot the Act 59 Geo. 111.
e. 120, which required that such' a certificate' should
accompanta slave-embarked on board'ship to be sent
to another colony. An officer of the eitstoms, named
Randall, thereupon seized the three craves, and insti-
tuted proceedings byinformation in the Vice Admiralty
Court at St. Kitt's; and, asuo. appearance "fulls en, and'
no claim was Wide on chi pail of the owner, the Court,
without examining witnessesiondentnid thealaves to the
Crown.Alor the violation of the lave and Ifieabsence
of a craiinant, and they have since been enfranchised.
The owner. however, in•the mean time, astride applica-
tion (in July, 1824) to the Custorin.house in England,
praying the interference of the Commissioners, who,
having received a statement of the facts from their
officer, took upon themselves to direct die negroe; to be
restored to the owner, and that proceedings in the Vice-
Admiralty Court should be ended. This mandate be.
came inoperative by the'previous sentence of the Court,
from which the owner asserted an appeal.
The Knao's Any CATE, for the Crown and the re.
spondent, defended the sentence, which was in strict
conformity with the Act of Parliament. The Court
was not called Ilion to inquire into the motives of the
owner in shipping the slaves ; the provisions of the Act
were imperative, and the Court was bound to uphold
the policy of the slave laws.
Dr. Lustuaoros, on behalf of tile former owner of
the slaves, submitted that the sentence was conforMable
neither to the strict letter of the Act of Parliament, nor
to the equitable construction of it. There had clearly
been no intention of Violating the law in this case ; the
slaves had been employed in taking out the cargo of the
salved vessel, and the absence ot the certificate was en-
tirely owing to the hurry and the emergency of the
moment, which did not admit of the necessary delay.l
The reason why no claim was made in the Court be-
low was this—the slaves were worth 2751. and the ee.l
penses of defending the suit would have swallowed up
their value. Mr. Mills therefore preferred applying to
the Commissioners of the Customs, who, though they
had not the jurisdiction they assumed. of slapping the
I suit or of interdicting their officer from proceeding in
his capacity of prosecutor under the,Act, had authority
over him in his capacity of their servant. He (Dr.
Lushiugton) admitted that these Sieve Acts were to be
put in ex-cution with perfect sttictittess; but there
was a difference between doing this, and perverting
their enactments to the prejudicelof:slave owners. The
Learned Advocate then proceeded at some length to
contend, that the terms of the Act did hot comprehend
negroes pot on board a ship,.not tribe conveyed to ano-
ther island, but merely to aid in an emergency like this,
When not a moment was to be lost. The Act, moreover,
excepted mariners.
The KING'S ADVOCATE observed, and was followed
by Dr. Dunsow, that the Act excepted mariners as to
certain regulations, but expressly required a certificate
of registry to be obtained, on pain of the forfeiture of
the slave. Such an evasion of the law might (he did
not say it was so in the present case) be employed for
evil purposes. All he had to say was, th.t the regula-
tions of the law had not been complied with.
Lord SzoweLL—The Act of Parliament requires

► tt I
4

was su
• 'I,
•
• „
• ,
• ,
• .
• . •