Star.
London, England, 1821-06-20 00:00:00

HUNTER V. HUNTER.

This was an action upon a bond for £2OOO.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case. The parties, it
appears, are uncle and nephew ; they are both apo-
thecaries, and both, at present, residents in Tower-
street. The plaintiff; Mr. John Hunter, is the uncle
of the defendant ; the defendant, from his childhood,
was educated by his uncle, and in due time taken as
an apprentice. Mr. T. Hunter's indenture expired in
the year 1810, and at that time a compact to the fol-
lowing effect was made between his master and him-
self—that Mr. T. Hunter should serve Mr. John
Hunter, as an assistant, for the term of seven years,
at a rising salary, from £.lO a.year to £100; and
that at the expiration of that period he should have
a claim to a shale in the business. In case, however,
that no partnership took place, Mr. Thomas Hunter
was precluded, on pain of forfeiting £2OOO, from
setting up as a practitioner in physic within two miles
of his uncle's residence. The object of Mr. John
Hunter was to retain his business in his own power,
with a view to share it eventually between his son
and the defendant : and Mr. Thomas Hunter, upon
the conditions stated, executed the bond upon which
the present action was brought. In the year 1817,
the defendant's seven years of service were at an end.
A partnership was proposed between the uncle, the
son, and the nephew ; but Mr. T. Hunter declined
any participation unless he was allowed one half of,
the profits ; the remaining half the other partners
were to divide between them. To those terms Mr.
John Hunter refused to accede ; and the defendant,
who had obtained great influence among his uncle's
connexion, continued for some time to act as an as-
sistant: on a sudden, without assigning any cause,
he withdiew himself from the plaintiff's house; :led
shortly after set up, a few doors off, in opposition.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in the commencement
of the case, strongly recommended arrangement.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. SCARLET? con-
ferred, but no terms could be agreed upon.
The real struggle was, whether the defendant
should or should not remove.

Mr. SC A 111.ETT was willing, if Mr. T. Hunter would
evacuate, to refer the question of by-gone damages.
The LORD Cotes JUSTICE observed, that every
fresh breach of the contract would afFord ground for
future action.
After several witnesses had been examined, it was
resolved that a verdict should be taken for the da-
mages in the declaration, subject to a reference, which
might give the parties an opportunity to compromise.

JUNE 19.
MANSFIELD AND ANOTHER 'V. NATHAN.

This was an action on a policy of insurance, effected
on the ship Ap,enoria, from London to Quebec, and
thence to Bridgewater.
The case was in substance this :—The plaintiffs
chartered the vessel from London to Quebec, for tim-
ber, and home. There was a clause in' the charter
party, that they should furnish money for the use of
the ship on her voyage, and accordingly the Captain
received at Quebec £2OO, for which a bill was drawn
upon the plaintiffs by their correspondents in that
city. The plaintiffs then effected a policy on their in-
tcrest in that advance of money, in the event of a loss.
The ship was in fact lost on her homeward voyage,
and this action was brought to recover upon the
policy the amount which the plaintiffs had paid on
laccount of the ship.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the plaintiffs, con-
tended, that although, if a ship was lost on her voy-
age, the owners could claim no freight against the
charterer, yet where the latter had made an advance
on account of freight (as this must be taken to be),
that freight so advanced could not be recovered
back, and consequently the only remedy which the
plaintiffs had was upon the policy.
Mr. SCAELETT, for the defendant, contended, that
the plaintiffs had no interest which they could insure
in this manner.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said there was no doubt that
freight advanced could not be recovered again after
the ship was lost, but he thought there was a wide
difference between money advanced on account of
freight, and money advanced (as in this case by the
plaintiffs) for the use of the Vessel on the voyage.
Under such circumstances his Lordship directed a
nonsuit, but gave the plaintiffs leave to move the
Court.—Nonsuited.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE te.
CHAMBERLAYNE V. YATES.

The plaintiff is a schoolmaster at Islington ; he
brought his action against the defendant, a victualler,
in the same neighbourhood, for having uttered VAOrds
calculated to injure bim in his profession. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages One Farthing.

Mr. TuRNIR, the Bank Clerk, who some time since
was apprehended upon suspicion of forging to a large
amount, with intent to defraud the Bank of England,
was on Monday night removed on a litter from St.
Bartholomew's Hospital to Newgate.