Star.
London, England, 1821-11-29 00:00:00

LAW IYTELLIGENCE.

ERALS, inneautuns, APPRALS, •ND rrnrsors, ZITORZ THE LOLD
CHANCILLOIL, APIMR MICHARLMAS TRISH, 1821.
Wednesday, December 8, First Seri; Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Monday, December 10, Second Seal; Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Friday, December 14, Third Seal; Saturday, Monday, and
Tuesday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Wednesday, December 19, Fourth Seal; Thursday, Petitions.
N.B. The Loan CHANCELLOR bears Bankrupt Petitions to-day
and will &lily, until the First Seal.
sears, causes,
wows, •SD PETITIONS, 111/011R TEE SICR-CHANCILLOS, ATTICS
MICHAELMAS TIMM, 1821.
First Seal, Wednently December 5, Motions; Thursday, Fri-
day, and Saturdat; Causes.
Second Seal, Monday, December 10, Motions; Tuesday, Wed-
nesday, and Thursday, Causes.
Third Seal, Friday, December 14, Motions; Saturday, Monday,
and Tuesday, Causes, Pleas, Demurrers, Eiceptlons, and Fur-
ther Directions.
Fourth Sral, Wednesday, December 19, Motions; Thursday,
Petitions.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER s&
DAVIDSON V. THOMPSON.
This was an application made by Mr. HART, on
the part of the plaintiff, praying that an order might
Ire directe,l to issue for the payment of a sum of
money, claimed to be due to him as part owner of a
vessel which he had been charged with for repairs.
The facts of the case are shortly these :—The defen-
dant was owner of two-thirds, and the plaintiff of
one-third shave in the vessel, which had gone through
six voyages; but in preparing for prosecuting the
seventh, she had undergone sundry repairs, and to-
wards which the applicant was alleged to be charged
properly with £l,OOO.
On the other hand, Mr. HEALD and Mr. Macula
contended that the plaintiff had himself permitted the
repairs to be done, without expressing any objection;
and that he was consequently not entitled to any relief.
The LORD CHANCELLOR decided that the motion
should be dismissed, on the ground that, as the plain-
tiff had allowed the repairs to be done, without put-
ting in any declaration that he would not share in
the expense, or given any idea that he had given up
his claim to the profits that might eventually accrue,
he could not rule that the money ought to be paid.
The question here ought to be decided not only wick
a view to the present, but to future cases; and being
unacquainted with the rule on which the Court of
Admiralty decided such i.oints, he should, in the
event of saying nothing further in the case, dismiss
the motion with costs: for though the vessel might
certainly be more valuable at the conclusion of the
voyage, from the repairs that had been done ; yet
she might also, from circumstances, be so much dila-
pidated, from wear and tear, that she would not be'
so valuable. It was clear that the plaintiff had no
tight to say be would have the ship valued at the
moment she was about to sail, without entering into
a recognizance to share mutually in the voyage; and
with this view, if he said nothing more on it, he
should make an order in the terms he had mentioned,
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 27.
COOK V. COLLINGRIDGE AND OTHERS.
Th VICE-CHANCELLOR gave jtidgment in this case,
which has {lready been fully reported in this Paper.
It was an application to the Court to set aside a sale
which had been made of the plaintiff's share of the
property left to him by his father in the coach-making
concern, carried on in Liquorpond-street; the plain-
tiff contendin , that the sale, in consequence of being
made by private contract, was disadvantageous to
him, and that the whole property ought to have been
sold by auction. The VICE-CHANCELLOR ordered
that a reference should be mach to the Master, to in-
quite whether it was not more beneficial to the estate
of the tale William Cook to confirm the sale in ques-
tion, •,\ Lich had been made by his executors; Also to
consider whether the business, since the termination
of the late partnership, had been carried on on ac-
count of the plaintiff's share in the estate; andwhe-
ther he was n .t entitled to claim a sale in the whole
of the partnership property.
WINTER V. LORD ANSON AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff in this case bad sold a certain portion
of freehold land to a person of the name of Mozeley,
for the sum of £1483. At the time of the sale he re-
Iceived the sum of £485, and a bond for the remain-
ing £lOOO, which has not since been paid. Mozeley
afterwards mortgaged this freehold, andahen became
a bankrupt, leaving his bond of £lOOO unpaid. The
assignees of Mozeley redeemed the mortgage, and
sold this freehold, together with other estates, to Lord
Anson. The application now made to the Court was,
to order that either the bond should be paid, or that
Mr. Winter should have a lien on the estate which
he had sold.
Mr. SHADWPLL contended that Winter, by taking
the sum of £485, in the first instance, in part pay-
ment of the estate, had waived his lien upon it, and
he could only come in as a common creditor.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR ordered that the Master,
should inquire whether any contract had existed as to
Mr. Winter's hating any right of lien on the estate,
in case of the bargain not being completed.
COURT9F KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 25.
THE KING r. JONES.
This was an application against the Marshal of the,
King's Bench prison. A Rule to answer affidavits
was obtained last Term by Mr. COOPER; Mr. Gus-
NET yesterday put in Mr. Jones's reply.
The questions arising for the opinion of the Court
were six in number:
Ist. Had the Marshal dealt unfairly with Colonel Edward
Bayley in a quarrel between that (ientlemsu and a certain
Colonel Meade.
241. Had the Marshal countenanced riot and irregularity in
the management and conduct of the King's Bench coffee-house?
3d. Was it an abuse of the Marshal's power that he suffered
two turnkeys, named Peckbun and Colville, to let out (for
their own benefit) certain rooms in the prison?
4th. Was it contrary to the Marshal's duty to permit two
prisoners, named Elsworthy and Bannister, to get as turnkeys
and to have " the run of the key?'
sth. Did the Marshal sulficiendy do his duty in visiting the

prison?
6th. Was the Marshal's residence (genenilly at Pinney,. and
occasionally in the country) such a residence u was consistent
with the situation which he filled?
The Loin CHIEF Jusrtca this morning delivered
the judgment of the Court upon the above points.—
With respect to the first charge—that of personal
misconduct:to Colonel Bayley—their Lordships were
of opinion that the Marshal stood fully justified.—
With respect to the second charge—the conduct of
the coffee-house--it appeared that Poole (diet-ogee-
house keeper) had been dismissed, and there was no'
reason made out for imputing to the Marshal that fire
had used superfluous delay in the reformation of the
irregularity. Looking at the third and fourth

charg•c_-the allowances of rooms and privileges to
turnkeys and others—the Court was unwilling, in the,
internal regulation of so large a concern, to fetter too
far the discretion of the Marshal ; they ordered there-
fore that the Master of the Crown-office should visit

the prison, reporting the actual practice which might
exist, and stating his opinion as to theexpediency of
such practice. Upon the fifth and sixth points Of
charge—the visitations and residency of the Marshal
—their Lordships had come to this decision :—They
held the Marshal—looking at the practice which had
obtained in his office—liable to no blame for the

course he had pursued; but the Act of Parliament
they took to be imperative ; and chat Act expressly
said that the Marshal should reside in the prison or
in the Rules. The order, therefore, that the Court
_ _

would make was, that Mr: Jones should comply with
the provisions of the Act, and that he should state
to the Court, on the first day of next Term, what
steps he had taken in compliance with the order : in
making that order, their Lordships were far from
casting the slightest imputation upon the conduct of
Mr. Jones, whom they took to be (both in his public
and private character) a very excellent and merito-
rious officer. The only remaining question in the
matter would then (the Lord Chief Justice said) be
the question of costs. If any complaint as to the
management of the prison had been laid before the
Court, and duly sustained, no doubt the complainant
would have been entitled to his costs ; and the same
advantage would equally have been due to the ac-
tual sustainer of personal injury. In the present case,
however, all the matters which personally concerned
Colonel Bayley had been answered, and fully an-
swered, by the affidavits of the Marshal ; the affi-
davits of the Colonel had not been framed with quite
so much candour as might reasonably have been em-
ployed; it was impossible to doubt that the whole
application had arisen out of Mr. Jones's refusal to
give Colonel Bayley (without proper security) the
Rules of the prison; and the Court, under such cir-
cumstances, would not be justified in giving the ap-
plicant his costs.