The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTILLME.VCR.

CURT OF KING'S BENCH—Werrenterra, Nov. 2.
This morning, as coon as the Court was open, as el-
ierly 'elitism, of deceit garb and simple aspect,
took his seat among the beaches appropriated to Coun-
sel. Whets the Judges arrived (about half past ten
o'clock) the special paper was called ; bat the elderly
gentleman requested to be heard.
The LORD C. JORTICR.,....What have you to say. Sir ?
Applicant.—Then is a conspiracy, my Lord, against
this Court, and against the Royal authority, the secret
of which I will lay before yourLotdship.
The Loan Cater Juseicc.—Have yogi any affidavit ?
Applicanto—The case will not admit of it.
The Loan CHIRP JUSTICR --Thee we cannot hear
it a we eau only hear upon affidavit.
Me. JUSTICR BATLRY.AIid we cannot hear yon at
all niw.
The applicant, who seemed to have a 41 method in
his madam," bowed and departed.

PHILLIPS V. BANDER.

This was en action on a Policy of insurance, in
which the Underwriters were liable for lon by perils
of the. Son. • The ship arrived in October, 1820, at St.
Jobs's, Newfoundland, where she was put into a Gray-
ing Dock to be repaired. By the violence of the wind
she was blown from her lashings, and falling on her
side, sustained the loss which the Plaintiff sought to
recover. To the brat count, in the declaration, stat-
ing the loss to have happened by the perils of the Sea,
there was a demurrer, and the Court had to decide
upon the validity of that count.
Me. Cam en ata. baying been heard against the Court,
The LORD CRIED JUSTICIA was of opinion, the Plain-
tiff was entitled to recover. The question for the
Coma to decide was whether the loss was within the
Maemieg of the policy. It was clearly a loss (Kea-
'Maned by the violence of the wind, which was in his
Lordship's opinion one of the perils of the sea.
Judges BATICT, HOLROTD, and Bear, were of the
same opinion.

lIICHARDSON r. CAMPBELL.
The Court gave jellgatent in this important cue.
The wooden was, whether the transfer of a British
registered ship, whilst abroad and at sea, to a foreigner
was void, for son-compliance with the Register Act,
34 Geo. 111. c. 69, a. 16, which requires that a copy
of the bill of sale shall be delivered at the Custom-
house, wit►ia a reasonable time after the sale. The
Coots were clearly of opinion that such delivery was
Ilecessary. sad held the sale in this case to be void.—
Judgment for the plaintiff.
MURRAY V. TUC BAST INDIA COMPANY.

The Cover also gave judgment in this ease in fa-
vnnr of the plaintiff, upon the three points reserved
for further consideration—l. Whether the action was
barred by the statute of limitations Whether the
plaintiff could sue upon the fourth bill of exchange,
which did not come into his hands until after the death
of the first administrator ; and 3. Whether the de-
fendants where liable to par interest upon all the bills
from the days they were due respectively, or only from
the days of demand. The Court were of opinion that
the action was within time ; that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover en the fourth Mlll, as part of the tes-
tator's effects coming to his bands as administrator;
hnt that interest was only dne from the day on which
demand of payment of the bills was made.—Judgmeot
for the plaintiff.