The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-12-23 00:00:00


LAW INTKLLIGENGS.
. .*
„ COURT OF CIIMCCERV.
fritify Dec. 22.
4 !. h
c OCKEREL V. SAltatit.
Mi. HEART stated that a new claimant bad star

up, asserting, that he was next of kin to the late
Mr. Barber. It wiH perhapi be recollected, that
a great deal of litigation has taken place, betb at
law and iu equity, to ascertain who were the
via* heirs of a Gentleman of the name of Bar.
bFr, who had acquired a considerable fortune in
and very soon after his returns died in Lon.
a It. The came haul been sent to a Jury to decide
between the claims of different parties. An ap.
plication for a new trial was afterwards made,
which the Lord Chancellor refused to grant.
Mr. HART having stated, that a petition had
been presented by the fresh claimant to be allowed
to prove his ease, requested that the bearing might
be postponed to give him time to prepare the best
evidence..;—Orderad.

MURT OF KING'S BENCII, FRIDI T, Dcc. `21..

Slu rag: before Lord ELLz.vnounrcre and Spe.
cia? Jut ler, in Guildhall, London.
LF.r. Ann_ ANOTHER V. WALKER kV, -OTlltaf.
.11111 ATXURZIEY.GF:VBRAL stated this to be one
elf tibiae au (160101 IS 'actions of which so Malty had
occurred of late, for net delivering a quantity of
Aix, according to contract ; the untie of which
had arisen out of tha fluctuation of that article,
and that of hemp, in price, in the market.
After a very long dicussiun of this cause, it
was agroed to leave it to the arbitration of Mr.
Gibson, an intelligent gentleman, one of the
Jury.
LIVING r.
This was an action to recover the difference he.
tween the price at which the Plaintiff had sold to
the Defendant a large qsantity of tallow, and the
price at which the Plaintiff was compelled to sell
it, in consetteencc of the Defendant refusing tit
take it.
It appeared, that the Plaintiff hail sold his cots:
modity to the Defendant at given prices, for which
be was to take a bill at three months, of the Dn.
fondant's own acceptance. The Ditfendant offered
such hill to fhe Plaintiff, who he,itatetl, saying,
he did not know the Defendant sufficiently to rely
on that security only ; therefore wished him to
draw a billy and get the acceptance of some other
person, which the Defendant peremptorily refused,
a< he had a right to do, insisting tin the terms of
this cuutraet.—During this dispute between these
parties the price of the commodity • fell in the
market, and then the Plaintiff offered to take the
Defendant's bill ; but the Defetidaut then said, he
would not take the tallow, alleging that the Plain.
tiff had rescinded the contract, by his own refusal,
and only wanted to get more for his fallow, more
than the then present market price for it. And he
sthled, that, if the article had risen in the market,
he should have brought as action against the Plain.
tiff, for refusing to deliver it up according to the

contract. .
Upon this char case the Plaintiff was, of course,
svosuitt.4l.

14 ALM'S V. SOAVIV.
Mr. SPANIIK stated, that this was an action by
the Owners of the, ship f•
_ye -111tte, to recover damages
for an injury occasioned by the running against
her by the Defend ins', ship the Francis.
Thu ATTORNEY-GBNISAL haring statedAito
to a orthe transaction, the eatiscafterwards occu-
pied a considerable portion of the day from the
contradietovy nature of the evidence.
The Plaintiff is the owner of a ship celled the
Fame, • Wast-Indiaman. Thu Defendant is the
owner of a coal-skip called thu Francis; aid the
action was brought to recover compensation fur
tits injury which the Plaintiff's vessel had sus-
tained by that of the Defendant's running against
it is the river Thames. There was no doubt of
the injury being done. The only question was,
who was to blame for the accident; and there
was, in this case, what almost constantly occurs
ott'oecasions of this nature, a great deal of coo:
tradictory swearing. But five Witnesses for Vs'
Plaintiff swore positively, that those who wets
in the Fame did all they could to avoid the acti..l
dent, and hallooed out twice to those who were
in the Francis, that they would strike the ship if
they were not careful ; to which warning they
were inattentive, and they did strike against the
Fame while aground, into which situation she
gut, by her aptness to gut out of the way of
the Francis.
On the part of the Defendant two witnesses,
when were on board the Francis, inure they did
ant hear this ; and several others swore that the
Fame had come up the River before the tide ,w o.
sufficiently high for a vessel of her burthent and
that she was le a wrests positivist at the time
eldest happened.
Lord ELLENBOROC6III observed,.that many:per.
sons entertained very invasion opinions an the
settjuet of rights of the River, and of the
'They supposed that if a person's carriage walk
open the wrong side of the read, they 'might roe'
against it ; or a vessel in a wrong position while
navigating, they might run it down with impunity.
:That was nothing like law ; fur in all matters el.
this nature, a kind aid neighbourly. attention was
to be shown to others ; and although a person
should happen to boon the wrung side of the road,
or iu a wrong position in sailing, nobody had a
right to do him an injury If he could avoid it.
The law only excused a person fur an injury
when be bad done every thing in his power to
avoid it, and the person who received this injury
was in a wrong position. It was not to be ell.
dured, that if a person tumbled down ou the wrong
side of the road, another should
_say he bad a
right to ride °ref him.
Verdict for the Plaits tiff.—Datnages to be settled
out of Court.

•

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL,
Fricfas, Dec. 22.
BIC/OCE lla JAMSS MANSFIELD.
GOODALL V. DOSIIINS.
This was an actioa as a policy of issurance.