Star.
London, England, 1827-04-24 00:00:00

that certain timter euglit to be cut down for the neves%
nary repairs of the tenements on the lunatic's estates,.
Report confirmed.
Another prayed for an order, referring the matter to
the Master, to inquire whether it would be for the be-
nefit of the, lunatic that the Committee should be at
liberty to enter into such compromises and agreements
as might be necessary for satisfying the parties at whose
suits the lunatic was detained in custody, and for ollw-
ta;ning his liberty ?
Toe LORD CHANCRLLOR thought this object most
desirable, and therefore directed the reference.
Another Petition prayed on behalf of Messrs. Collin
arid Co. who were the Solicitors of the lunatic before
the commission issued, and who had advanced the sum
of 201. to Sir Gregory for his personal use, at a time
when he was in great distress, that they might be at
liberty to carry in their bill of costs for taxation, and
have an inquiry whether that 201. should be paid ter
them.—Order made.

A fourth prayed that Mr. Cotbet might be at liberty
to carry in his bill of costs to be taxed, for all business
he had done for Sir Gregory since he had been admitted
to see the lunatic under the order of the Court; the
5001. being to be deducted from what might be found
due to Mr. Corbet, which had been advanced to him in
order to enable him to prepare for the trial of the traverse.
His LORDSHIP said, it was impossible any tuch ge-
neral order of reference could be made in favour of Mr.
Corbet. The order permitting him to see the lunatic
expressly meant that his transactions with him should
be restricted to the subject of the lunacy ; and if a re-
ference for this part of the business he had done could
be made, his Lordship would only do that, atter hav-
ing seen the bill of costs, which be directed Mr. Cotbet
~to deliver to the Secretary in Lunacy.

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, thAt he would sit
here again on Wednesday, and take bankrupt cases first,
and subsequently the remainder of the lunatic petitions,
His Lordship also direct2d a notice to be posted up in
Court, intimating that motions intended to have bees
made before him to morrow (the seal), should be made
before the Master of the Rolls, if his Honour sat; and
if not, before the Vice Chancellor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ATAIL 93.
HALLIDAY V. ENDERBY AND COL
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants, the owners of the ship Rambler,
compensation for his services in navigating that vessel
from Port Jackson to England in 182 S. It appeared
from the evidence that the Rambler left England is
May, 1823, upon a whaling voyage, the terms of the
contract being that the crew should be paid by a pores
Lion of the profits. The plaintiff was at this time chief
mate of the vessel. The Rambler proceeded off the
Friendly islands, and one whale was caught. Soon after
this two of the crew deserted from the vessel, and the
Captain and four men who had gone ashore in pursuit
of them, came in collision with the natives, and unfor-
tunately perished in the conflict. The plaintiff, on
learning the fate of the commander, assumed the com-
mand of the vessel, and carried her to Port Jackson,
where he communicated what had occurred to the
defendants agent. They conferred together as to
what was best to be done, and they agreed that it
would he most adviseable to abandon the further
prosecution of the whaling voyage, and to carry a freight
to England. The defendants agent informed the crew
of what had been resolved upon, and they consented
to the arrangement., and the agent contracted with them
for their wages for the voyage to England, and hired
additional hands, to make up a crew of 24 men. In
Ju1y,1825, the vessel sailed from Port Jackson, with a
freight of about 7001. She touched at St. Helena, and
remained ten days, and took in an additional freight to
the amount of 261. When the vessel arrived in Eng-
land, the defendants paid the crew their wages, accord-
ing to the terms agreed upon by their agent at Port
Jackson, but refused to remunerate the plaintiff for his
services. _ _

The defendants' case was, Oat the plaintiff had for-
feited all claim to compensation by abandoning the
original voyage without authority, and by misconduct-
in g himself in other respects.
Evidence was called, which established that a crew
of 15 men was sufficient to navigate the vessel from
Port Jackson; that SO hours instead of I() days was
sufficient to enable him to do all that was requisite at
St. Helena, and that during the voyage he was fre-
quently intoxicated.
Mr. SCARLET, the plaintiff's counsel, contended, in
Ireply, that the, defendants had themselves sanctioned
the abandonment of the original voyage, by paying the
crew according to the contract which had been entered
into by their own agent. With respect to the other two
points—namely, the alleged unnecessary delay at st.
Helena, and the intoxication of the plaintiff...not hay.
ing received the slightest information that they were to
be brought tot ward, he was not prepared with any evi.
dente to controvert them.
The LORD CHIEF Junin' said, that there were two
questions for the consideration of the Jury"—first,
whether the plaintiff had acted without sufficient au-
thority? and secondly, whether he had miscoaducted
himself during the voyage? If they shouldidecide in
the affirmative, they would find for the plaintiff, leav-
ing the amount of compensation to be settled, by con-
sent of both parties, by arbitration out of Court.
.The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff .

,
i
A 1,
f . I
, . k
4
1 t
I
. I
I 1 ;
i I
•

40j,
1.
I
I .
ii