Star.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

Subsetr_ ly, it appeared, . _,OOO/. being a 9,,
instalment, had been paid; but the dbfendants, it was
alleged, now refused to pay any more money. They
had left off working the mines, and the Company had,
been dissolved. The only allegations, the Learned
Counsel observed. which went to attach the defendants
in this case were, that certain of the defendants, Petit.
Moore, Lord Palmerston, and Perring, had signed
the cheques, and acted as Directors to the Com-
pany ; and that at the different meetings held, " the
defendants, or some of them," were present. Now he air.
prehended that thiodesignsi t ion," the defendants, or some
of theist was far too vague for a Court of Equity to
act upon: He contended also, that the defendants, or
" some of them," who had acted at all in the business;
bad acted merely as the agents of the others ; and,
therefore, all the shareholders ought to be made de-
fendants, else the bill could not be maintained. There
was by: no means sufficient evidence in the bill to reach
these defendants, or to entitle the plaintiff to select them
for the specific performance of a contract, which itself
no where appeared distinctly made out. Tke plaintiff
alleged, that, owing to the failure of the defendants
complete their bargain, he was unable to pay the sum
he bad agreed to pay, 'and for which be was liable Ha
be sued, to the original owners of the mines. In reply
to that, he (Mr. Horne) must observe, that Mr. Wilks,
if he acted as agent of the Company, had no right to
charge the mines at higher prices than he obtained them
at ; and, if he had not acted as an agent, he must make
out with whom he had contracted.
The Vice CHANCELLOR said, he could ant find out
that the payments made had come out of the property
of the defendants.
Mr. Holm said, there could be no doubt that the
contract ought to have been written. The record did
not chew a parole contract.
Mr. SHADWELL followed on the same side.
The Vice CHANCELLOR said, that the great die.
culty be had in the case was, that the plaintiff do.
mended nothing that he could not obtain by an salmi
of assumprit.
Mr. CHINO observed, that the plaintiff would be mat
by the statute of frauds in a Court of Law, which to
quired all conttacts of this nature to be in writing.
His HONOUR knew that he was borne out by tbit
highest authorities in iaying that an action of a
in a case of this kind, would fully determine the ti
of the parties.
Mr. SUDDEN supported the demurrer. He obsersA
that if the Court obliged the plaintiff to bring the mil
patties before the Court, it would probably be foeN
that Mr. Wilts was himself a fellow shareholder in thia
dissolved Company, and that the only contract betweesi
them was, that money should be paid as his proportide
of the profit to Mr. Wilks, provided the Company flow
tithed. The Company had been formed upon Mr.
Waits's flourishing prospectus; it was now dead, and if
he chose to sue himself for the remainder of the
121,0001. as one of the responsible and competent par-
ties to the contract, he had no doubt his Honour would
grant a decree in conformance with his prayer. In that
case, John Wilks, jun. Esq. would pay the money,.and
the memberrof tbedefunct Company would be quite
satisfied with that mode of settling the busioesa and
winding up the accounts. The fact was, that the mines
bad not been productive, and so there was an end of
Mr. Wilks's speculation: Certainly, upon such vague
ations and surmises. that Court would not permit
doe responsible and respectable defendants to be singled
M_ _ .

ecalation, ti-e mines had turned out to
NSW! eifitsdaats io'ti4s tin
etailVaiire veopaelry In themselves, its
of the paritateektiaiade wish the ntionir of
They ceiteinVlAltall not, and therefore
not-mOtrißOsenrwith the exclusive
j. the plulntif •had alleged a contract
the- real panic.. who had bought froris hist4.assel
overloaded his bill with irrelevant matter, his plead-
ings would not have beers detriurrable. He was, how;
ever, convinced that the sisal' to the plaietiewoditi
'have been the same. Nine-tenths or the bill wasirrele-

tant.
Mr. HORNS hoped, as that was his Hdadtt's ♦sew;
that he would allow the defendants costs.

His Holton* could not do that, as the defendants had
sot demurred to the bill for Impertinence.

Demurrer allowed.
COURT OF KING'S too/tit JOLT Id.
JOHN WALKER O. MARGARET MONM.
This was an action against the printer and proprietcri
of the Chester Courant, for a libel published in that
Paper of and concerning the plaintiff, imputing to him
glaring arid base tergiversation, and apostacy from the
principles which he had formerly espoused in the politic.
of the City of Chester.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Ciinfelt eon.;
ducted the plaintiff's case; and Mr. J. WILLIAM! arid
'Mr. Gamma the defeidant's.
The plaintiff was stated to be a respectable rilverstialth,
living in the city of Chester ; and the defendant, a with*
Lady, the proprietor of the Cletskr Courant. It ap-
peared in the course of the cause that the plaintiff
had formerly espoused what are called the independeic
principles of the city of Chester, but had latterly
changed sides and gone over to the Grosvenor intitest.
Party feeling had run exceedingly high at the late Ches-
ter election. A shopman in the plaintiff's employment,
named Spencer, had, as was alleged, contrary to the
influence attempted to be exerted over him by the plain.
tiff, voted at the last election in favour of the irldtpen-
dent candidate. For this exercise of his elective fran-
chise he was highly complimented by a number of the
freemen, who, in testimony of his lawn uptible integrity,
made him a present of a handsome silver watch, which
was given to him in due form, at a numerous meeting
held for the purpose. This transaction was published*
the defendant's newspaper with great formality. The
object of this proceeding was supposed by the plaintiff
to be that of insa:ting him, and wounding his feelings,
under the mask of paying a compliment to the shopman.
The plaintiflafterwards published in defendant's paper
a statement, the object of which was to vindicate his
character, and to justify the change in his political senti•
ments. This statement contained some severe strictures
on the conduct of a Mr. John Faulkner, clerk to an mos%
ney in the town, who, on his part, published. in;the de.
fendant's paper the libel which was the subject of Elf s
action, in the form of a letter, addressichO the plain-
tiff, and which was signed with Mr. Faulkner's. own
aim.. The letter accused the plaintiff of glaring and
base tergiversation, gross falsehood, a etrattpr attempt
to exert his influence over his shopman, Spencer ; and
stated that he was an apostate and a renegade. It was
imputed to the plaintiff, that prior to this publication,
he had himself published libels in L• e Chester Chrestide
concerning Mr. Faulkner, and other persons of inde•
pendent principles, and had also imputed to the defend•
ant herself that she had Made her newspaper the vehicle
of the count slander.
Mr. WILLIAMS. in a powerful-address to' the hey,
dwelt upon the extraordinary circumstance of the plain-
tiff chusing to try this action in the City of Louden,
instead of having it submitted to a Jury of the county of
Chester, where the parties were well known, and where
his claim to damages might have been justly consides ed.
Witnesses were called, and papers were put in, to
shew that the plaintiff was himself the first aggrsssorj
that he had complained of the tameness of the defend.
ant's paper, which wanted black venom ; that he always
wrote in a different style, such as would make people
pass sleepless nights, and threatened that he would
make Mr. Faulkner smart.

The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions,
fond their •erdict for the pLiintiff—Dimages thee
harthing j and the Learned Judge &Aid he would cer-
tify, to deprive the plaintiff of his costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jut? It.
In the absence of the LORD Cunt Joyner, Mr. Joss
tice Gauguin sat in this Court this morning, and dis-
posed of several causes of no general interest.

♦DMIRALTT COURT, Jinx 16.
THI ROTTZRDAM MiLVAARIN-.4IIALVAGE.

The vessel salved in this case was a Dutch ship with a
cargo worth 7001. stud a detachment of Netherlands
troops on board, bound to Batavia. A few bouts after
leaving Helvoetslays, on the 22d of January last, she
touched upon a sunken rock or part of a wreck, and
lost her rudder. On approaching the English coast,
being ungovernable, she made a signal of distress,
and two fishing-smacks, the Hercules first, and sub-
sequently the Lord Nelson came in sight, and ren-
dered assistance, the latter towing, the former steer-
ing, the Dutch vessel towards Harwich harbour.—
The next day they encountered a storm of snow,
&c. and the wind being adverse to their progress,
they anchored off Orfordness. On the following day
a pilot was taken on board; after which his Majesty's
cutter Scout, Lieutenant Fitsmatuice, came up, and ten-
dered assistance to convey the vessel to Harwich. The
Dutch master, relying on the aid of the fishermen and
the skill of the pilot, refused this tender, and remained
where he was. On the 26th a severe storm took place,
in which all the vessels suffered. The vessel reached
Harwich on the 28th. A tender of 6001. was made
and rejected.
Dr. JZNNKR, for the salvors, submitted that 1,0001.
was not too much for the service perfornied, considering
the immiaent danger incurred by the Hercules, and the
injury actually sustained by the cargo of fish on board
both vessels. The Learned Advocate dwelt upon the
strong testimony in favour of the salvori, afforded by
the certificates given by the master of the Dutch ship,
and the Commander of the troops on board : the latter
declared that the Hercules was in great peril, and added,
"This brave man merits every reward." The actual
loss in the sale of the fish was 1201?
Dr. LIISHINOTON declined adding any thing on the
same side.

Dr. DODSON, for the Dutch owners, was stopped by
Lord STowiti.t., who, with the concurrence of tt e
Trinity Masters, by whom his Lordship was assisted,
gave 7001. namely, the amount of the tendet, and 1001.
for the fish ; this, he observed, would meet the justice
of the case.
THE LEO—PRIZE.
This was a question as to the liability of a prize
agent, appointed under the following circumstances I
I In 1813, his Majesty's ship Magieienne, commanded by

. . .
. sap Bourrte aid Ket.l.44,Jt wAmeimord,:liyl ti t bvitig a I uutous si k:
muld be put chased for 1t1,0061, and' 'hectors be worth 500,0001:
appointed, and other mt.:dation.: made'ltifthe hove claimed the et
woe king of theist; and elk, its pa►t performance of this :contideration of the
alleged contrititytaitiliillsth of April, lEttilost 'mother Other persons? The:
meetiog, at which Peter Moore, one of the defendants, tb►,pjaintiff could a
was present, and acted as -Chairman ; a cheque for tosponsibility. If a
40,0001. was given to plaintiff as the first instalment. with the- real pantie
~firlipsir
Subsequently, it appeared, that 54,0001. being a second not overloaded his b