Star.
London, England, 1818-11-04 00:00:00

fr

of the claims ofthis paitictilar class of creditors had
been paid, yet it appeared from the accounts in the
possession of the plaintiffs, .and in the answer, that
upwards of £70,000 of the prior creditors had been
paid by Evans and his co-trustee, and this before he
had paid himself on account of his cash advances,
although he was entitled to be paid that and his costs
before any of the creditors were paid any thing.
The LORD CHANCELIrO/I,—" Let a copy of the
bills be delivered by the Ist December."

.COL"RT OF KING'S BENCH.
PARK V. HUDSON.
This was an action of ascumpsit upon a policy of
insurance on the ship William, at and from any port
'or ports in Jamaica to London on freight, valued at
£5OO. The ship had sailed from a port in Jamaica,
with part of her cargo on board, and before she
could receive the remainder on board at other ports,
she was lost by perils of the seas. A verdict was
found for the plaintiff for £5O, at the Sittings in Lon-
don after Michaelmas Term last, the defendant hav-
ing paid £3O into Court for the freight of goods ac-
tually on board, subject to the opinion of the Court
upon a lease, which stated that the William had, on
the 15th October, 1816, got on board part of her
cargo at the port of Amato, and was proceeding to
complete it at Port Maria, in Jamaica, when she was
driven on shore and totally lost. The question for
the opinion of the Court was, whether the owners,
'having entered into contracts for freight at Port Ma-
ria, the underwriters were liable' for the freight in-
sured, upon goods not actually shipped on board?—
The question of fact, as to the execution of the con-
tracts, depended upon the depositions taken, and let-
ters written, in Jamaica. The depositions spoke po-
sitively to the existence of contracts such as above-
mentioned, and the object of the letters was to con-

tradict these depositions.
Mr. R/CHARDSON, for the plaintiff, admitted that
the question as to the existence of the contracts must
depend upon the credit which the Court would give
to the depositions ; but assuming the existence of the
latter to be clearly established, there could be no
doubt as to the plaintiff's right to recover, on the au-
thority of 6 East, 478 ; 7 East, 400 ; 15 East, 3Y4 ;
and 13 East, 323. The letters, he contended, could
not be received for the purpose of contradicting the

_
depositions.
Mr. LITTLEDALE, on the other side, endeavoured
to impeach the validity of the contracts, upon such
evidence as was brought forward; but admitted that
even a parol contract in this case would be sufficient,
for which he cited 3 Campb. 441.
The Court said that they were bound by the effect
of the depositions, which they had no reason for dis-
believing. The letters, if they were intended to have i
any effect, ought to have been introduced on the
cross-examinatton of the witnesses, and could not be
received now. Satisfied, therefore, of the existence
of contracts, the cases cited were decisively in favour
of the plaintiff.—Judgment for the plaintiff.
aw.LOCK v. DODDS.

The argument in this case was in demurrer to a
sur-rejoinder, in the pleadings of an action brought
upon a bill Of exchange. It was first heard on Fri-'
day last, and involves a question of much importance.
The plaintiff is a person who some years ago was
convicted of a capital felony, we believe fraudulent
bankruptcy, but execution of the judgment was com-
muted for transportation for life to Nevi: Soinh
Wales. It appeals, however, that he has returnedto
this country under a license from the Governor:of
that, Colony, and that the Governor is empnweredvi
grant such license by virtue of a Commission under
the Great Seal directed to him, and requiring him to
return a list of such persons as shall have been dean-
ad fit objects of this indulgence to his Majesty's Se-
cretary of State, in order that their names may be
included in the next general pardon under the Great
Seal. Whether the plaintiffs name has yet been!
published in any such general pardon did not appear
on the pleadings, and it is undisputed that such par-
don don from the Crown must be under the Great
to operate its full effect in removing all the corise-
quences of an attainder. The general defence to the
action was, therefore, the plaintiff's incapacity to
maintain it, and the immediate point of the question
of demurrer, whether the plaintiff had a right to tra-
verse the allegation of his being unlawfully at large,
without shewing the contrary by sufficient aver-
menu, the replication having confessed and avoided
the fact of the original attainder.
Mr. MANNING was heard against the sur-rejoinder,
and contended, in addition to that part of his argu-
ment which proceeded on the rules of pleading, that
the plaintiff must still be considered as labouring un-•
der all the consequences of a capital conviction. The
ordinary punishment of transportation beyond seas
might eventually operate as a pardon, but not tilt
the conditions of it had been performed ; and one of
these conditions, and indeed the principal one was,
the remaining in the place to which the convict
should he conveyed by his Majesty's order. The very
terms of transportation, for life, or years, could only
be understood to signify conveyance to some place
where the convict was afterwards to remain for the
given period. The Act of Elizabeth substituting in
cases of manslaughter, burning in the hand instead
of purgation by the ordinary, had always been con-
strued, till a new mode of punishment had been in;
troduced in felonies, not to remove the attainder till
after the punishment had been inflicted. In Lord
Coke's Reports, several instances of this construction
might be found, and authorities in support of the game'
rule might be quoted from all .the text writers. The
consequences of outlawry adhere to the individual
till it is judicially reversed; so the consequences of
an attainder for felony, till a pardon under the Great
Seal can be pleaded. The Act of the 4th of Geo. I.
ch. 2, introduced the system of transportation, in lieu
of those other modes of punishment in consideration
of whith death had been previously remitted. This
had been followed by several others, the most impor-
tant of which, in this case was an Act passed in the
Bth year of his present Majesty, giving to Judges of
Oyer and Teeminer considerable powers with respect
to the exercise of this. power. He apprehended that
the true construction of that Act would spew that it
had not departed from the old and established prin-
ciples of the law of forfeitures.
Mr. Justice BArter observed; upon one part of
the Lear ed Counsel's argument, that if it was Tighe
the plaintiff could not have obtained his pardon ex-
pect by.his death.
Mr. Justice Arrilorr held it to be clear that a man
after attainder, may take or purchase property, and