Star.
London, England, 1819-02-13 00:00:00

MORO 19. DE LA TORRE.

This case is one which has occupied much of the
time of the Court in arguing. Three different mo-
tions had been made, and the case only remained for
the )udgment of his Lordship.
'the LORI) CII ANCEL con now gave judgment. Witli
respect to the first motion, which regarded the sum
of j:38,000, his opinion was, that it might be car-
ried over to account without prejudice. With re-
gard to the payment of the dividends, which was the
subject of the second motion, he considered that,' as
to the order pronounced, there was nothing in that
order :which interfered with giving the notice to the
Bank t and after the Bank had received that notice,
it was not in its power to pay the dividends to any of
the parties. As to the third, and most important
:notice, it appeared w him the only. point to be con-
sidered was, whether he could take off from the three
esecutors the restraint which had been imposed as to
suypart of the fund of 484,000. As to a very large
portion of it, he waritilly convinced that he could
not take off the restraint; but he would, before the,

next Seal, endeavour to ascertain upon what part of
the fund, if any, the restraint could be taken off. In
the present state of the cause, he could not direct any
issue as to the £84,000.
COURT OF ICING% BENCH, FEBRUARY Is.
•
JOHNSON D. GLOSS.
Mr. GURNEY sheaved cause against a rule obtained
by Mr. SCARLETT, to stay proceedings upon an un-
dertaking given by the defendant, on his paying the
sum of £lO4. It appeared that an Innkeeper in the
county of Surrey, named Cooke, had been made a
bankrupt, and the Commissioners permitted him to
remain in the Inn, to manage the business. He went
on contracting debts, and the plaintiff being. a credi-
tor, obtained judgment and execution against him.
He was proceeding to sell the goods, when the defen-
dant, who is an Auctioneer, came down, sent by the
Assignees, to sell the property for the creditors. The
plaintiff's Attorney would only give the goods up on
receiving an undertaking from 'the defendant, in
which he consented to pay not only the plaintiff's
debts, but all the costs. He subsequently refused to
abide by the undertaking, on the ground that he had
been imposed on. The defendant offered to pay the
debt, amounting to £lO4, but it was contended he
ought not to pay costs. Mr. Gurney argued that
no advantage had been taken, and that the action
brought on the undertaking ought to proceed.
After Mr. SCARLETT had been heard in support of
the rule, the Court made it absolute, observing, that
the plaintiff would be extremely well off if he re-
ceived the £lO4.
An Attorney, who had continued an action against
a defendant, after he knew the plaintiff was dead,
waj ordered by the Court to pay the costs.
Several writs of Mandamus, directed to Corpora-
tion Officers, were discussed and disposed of.
This being the last day of Term, the Court sat to
a late hour.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY
ID

)LE V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE A4SURANCE COMPA%Y.
On the '2Bth of last month, Mr. Serjeant LENS
moved for a Rule to shew cause why a new trial
should not be granted in this case, which was an
action of covenant on a policy of insurance by the
Royal Exchange Company, for the sum of 1.4,500
on the ship Ajax.
On the lath of November, 1810, the ship Ajax,
bound from Quebec for London, in going down the
river St. Lawrence, struck and sprung a leak. In
consequence of the injury which she sustained on that
occasion, the Captain, with the consent of one of the
owners, thought it advisable to sell the cargo. When
the cause was tried whether the Captain had a right
to dispose of the cargo, the Jury found that the mas-
ter had acted throughout the whole transaction, bona
fide, for the benefit of the parties concerned. The
'Special Jury's verdict stated that, contrary to all ex-
pectation, the vessel having been sold and brought
to Quebec, was repaired for £1.56, and sailed with a
new cargo for London the next summer. The two
objections to the plaintiff's right to recover were,
Ist, That there was no authority to affect the freight ;
2dly, That even if the• circumstances in which the
vessel was placed, did amount to a total loss, these
should have been duo notice given of it.
- The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in delivering the judg.
ment of the Court, observed, that after giving all
the attention which was requisite to the cases referred
to by the Learned Counsel, who, on a former day,'
had so ably argued this cause, and also after refer.
ring to other cases which seemed likely to influence
the judgment of the Court •in this cause, its judg-
ment should after all be, in a great measure, deter•
mined by the particular facts before the Court. His
Lordship then noticed various cases from which h
was on the entire to be concluded, that the right to
sell may, by possibility of circumstances, exist in the
Captain of a ship acting solely on his own authority.
In answer to the inquiry whether the owner, who in
this ease was present at the sale, had a right to sell
without consent of the insurers, his Lordship ob-
served, that if, on a broad question, circumstances
justify the selling, he did not think it important whe-
ther the owner or Captain sells. In the case of " Mills
v. Fletcher," Lord Mansfield told the Jury, that if
they thought the Captain sold for the benefit of the
party concerned, they ought to find a verdict for to-
tal loss. As to the distinction which, in the present
case, had been started on the words" with a view to,"
and " for" the benefit of the owners, his Lordship
thought that it was a distinction without a difference.
What had been said concerning the Underwriters'
exclusive title to the risk, appeared also fallacious.
In the case of " blacartney v. Able," Lord Ellen-
borough held, that the freight was lost to the In-
surers ; this decision applied to the present case, in
which the freight was in the greatest peril. In the
case of " Anderson v. Watts," the ship bound from
London to Quebec was, from stress of weather, so
damagason, bicaued, as to prevent her from going to Quebec
that sese, in the month of November, the
ice blocks up the River St. Lawrence. In that case
,1 the Court held that the voyage was only retarded,
land that, therefore, the freight should not have been
sold. The circumstances of that case. however,
were in direct opposition to the present one, except
in the conclusion of Lord EllenborouBh, which
applied in favour of the verdict given in this.—
As, therefore, the cases cited for the defendant in the
present cause either failed or told against him, bis
Lordship was of opinion, that the case of " Mills and
Fletcher" should determine the one now before the,
Court. It would not therefore be requisite to dis-
turb the Judgment of the Court for the plaintiffs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEBRUARY 12.
SIR WATKIN LEWES V. JOHN HORGAN.

Sir W. OwEs moved the Court on the part of Sir
Watkin Lewes, that all the, papers in this cause, in
the hands of Messrs. Routledge and Hardy, the late
Solicitors of Sir Watkin Lewes, might be delivered
up, as it was-impossible for Sir Watkin to put in his
answer to the interrogatories exhibited by-John Mor-
gan, and prayed for further time till the papers were
produced, to enable him to put in the said smewer.
This motion was made upon the affidavit of Sir
Watkin Lewes and Sir John Peshell, who stated,
that repeated applications had been made to Mears.
Roudedge and Hardy for the papers, but which they
refused to give up, upon the ground that their costs
were not paid. The affidavit states that Sir Watkin
Lewes pet the_cpwstion to Mr. Rnisdedge, when he
=CI with him, if it would be cones to Mr.
ge to advance the fees
.09a,rieres So Court*,
lit usual for all iespictabl*
4 tik 414
Mr. flaudedge replied it ...big

glected the business, and called on Sir Watkin Lewes
to pay every fee necessary in this cause; and Sir
Watkin Lewis being kept out of the possession of his
estates, and large sums of money due to him, was
not capable to advance any further moneys to his
Solicitors, in consequence of which Messrs. Rout-
ledge and Hardy have withheld the papers.
Sir Watkin Lewes stated to the Court, that the
Lord Chancellor had lately decided a case of a simi-
lar nature—Ross against Laughian, 1 Vary and
Beams, 349, that a client was not to be injured by
the Solicitor detaining the papers in his possession.—
Sir Watkin Lewes also prayed that all affidavits in
this cause might be filed.
Baron GRAHAM said he was sorry for the afflic-
tions of Sir Watkin Lewes, but could not, with any
propriety, in this stage of the business, grant any
further time.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEB. it.
ALLIRBY V. MORGAN.

Thomas Morgan, Esq. was opposed by Mr. Pox.-
LOCK, for obtaining goods to the amount of £278,
under false pretences, from Mr. William Allerby.
The insolvent was described in his schedule as
Thomas Morgan, late of Archangel, in Russia, mer-
chant. Mr. PoLLocc now contended, that this de-
scription was not sufficient to bring the case before
the Court, but the objection was over-ruled. On
examination, the insolvent said, he was a Russia
merchant, and had been arrested in London in 1815.
His letters were stopped at the Post-Office, and he
was deprived of all his books and papers. His bro-
ther, Mr. Charles 'Morgan, was a merchant, residing
in Bishopsgate-street. There had been a running ac-
count between them for many years, to a considera-
ble amount, but at the time of his arrest, he did not
know exactly how their accounts stood. He drew a
bill to the above ariount upon his brother, in favour
of Mr. Allerby, which had not been honoured.
Mr. Allerby now proved, that the insolvent, in
1815, ordered goods of him to the above amount,
which were delivered in June the same year. He
drew upon his brother, Mr. C. Morgan. Mr. Allerby
at first contented himself with making an inquiry in
the neighbourhood, and finding that Mr. C. Morgan
was a respectable man, he had no hesitation in giving
the insolvent the goods; but on application being
made for the money, the payment was refused.
Mr. Adam Hamblin, managing clerk to Mr. Al-
lerby, proved his having delivered the bill at the
counting-house of Mr. C. Morgan ; he was at first
requested to call.again, but the second time he was told
that house had already advanced so much to Mr.
T. Morgan, that they could not honour any more
bills for him.

Mr. Wm. Bell, clerk fo Mr. C. Morgan, said that
gentleman was at the time in Russia, and he did not
think proper to honour the bill, as he had nn instruc-
tions to that effect. He could not recollect the state
of their.accounts at the time, but believed there was
a balance in favour of Mr. C. Morgan, to the amount
of 12‘2000. This was the alleged fraud, and the
Court pronounced the Insolvent entitled to his dis-
charge, time hting no other opposition against him.