The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-11-09 00:00:00

-~•~s-~~

warm terms calleJ glum Mr. Parry to say where were
his rums, his gins, mid his brandies ! fur which lie had
received those, as they now appeared to be, forged
bills? Mr. Parry answered, that the were all safe ;
and they were actually at that time in the %Vest In-
dia Docks. No more passed at that time, but in a
short period Mr. Parry delivered to Mr. tie
Tastet the bills, which, by the present action, the
Plaintiff sought to recover. Mr. Parry . then ab-
sconded, and a Contmission• of ginkrupity was
sued out against him and his partner • ender this
Commission the transaction between Mr. de Tastet
end Parry was brought to light, and the assignees
considering that an undue preference had been given
to Mr. de Tastet by Parry, broeght their action of .
trover to recover the money so paid to him for the
general benefit of the creditors. On the trial his l
Lordship distinctly stated to the Jury his opinion,
that, from the cifcumstances in which Parry stood
at the time of his delivering up the bills to Mr. de
Tastet, namely, with a capital charge hanging over
his head, he could not be considered as acting from
a desire to give Mr. de Tastet an endue preference, ;
but under the operation arising from the fear of pro.'
secution. In this judgment the Jury coincided, and
therefore found a verdict for the Defendant. What
he (the Attorney-General) had now to contend was,
that although Parry could not be said to have given
in undue preference to Mr. de Tastet, yet, as Mr.
de Tastet had received the hills in question, as an t
inducement to defeat the ends of public justice, he
could not, in law, be considered entitled to retain
possession of them.
The COURT asked, first, if there was any proof of
the forged bills being given up to Parry, or of any
actual threat of prosecution being held out to induce'
him to take the steps which he afterwards did ?
The Avrontrt.it-Geneass. hating stated that be
knew of no such evidence,
The COURT unanimously declared their opinion to
be, that the conduct of Parry, in giving the bills to
Mr. de Tastet, could not be considered as an sedge
preference of one creditor over another, bat as so
act arising from an apprehension of dapger, whkb,
although not threatened, did certainly 41i441 and an-
der the influence of which he acted, •
Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON MIAS, Nov, 8.
cor.cnarrea V. WADISY.
Mr. Serjeant LEms moved fora role to show mute,
why a verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial granted in this case, which *man action on the
warranty of a horse, and Ittd been tried at.
Gloucester before Mr. Baron Wood. It appeared,
that the sum of '271. had been paid for a florae, which
died five weeks after the purchase, and on beirig
afterwards opened, was found to hare died of con.
sumption. Two witnesses, who were farriers, were
produced by the Defendant, but the amount of their
evidence simply was, that it was a common cal* for
horses to die suddenly, without any apparent pre.
existing cause.—The Learned Judge had stated to
the Jury, that there was nothing here but conjoettire
on cue side, against
_positive evidence on the other;
notirithstawding *hick the Jiffy had foutadipt the
v.
pefettdent.— Rule frented.
GUINON V. 1. azcst O 1111V411ANVIL

COMPANY. • •
The Sottorton-GtvestAL moved, to itet aside a•l
verdict in this case, and for a rule to show smote
why a new trial should not be granted, or op.
suit entered. The action had been tried before Sir
V. Glass, and a Special Jury, at Guildhall, and the
circumstances were shortly these :—The Defendauts
had instated to the Plaintolla cargo of sugars, bound
from Liverpool to Calais, bat the vessel having met
with very bad weather soon after sailing, was com.
pelted to put back and return to Liverpool. After a
period of some delay the assured came upon the,
underwriters for a total loss, and the two points in
the question were, whether this Plaintiff was justi-
fied in abandoning the voyage altogether ; sod if he
was so justified, whether he had abaudoned in rest- I
amiable time? 1

The CHIEF Justice obserted, that it was difficult
to come to a decision without the production of the
correspondence which had passed between the parties
on the subject. It was quite clear, however, from
what had been laid door by Mr. Justice Ashburst
and Mr. Justice Buller, that the Plaintiff had a right
to abandon, nor could this right be •prejudiced by
any conduct of the Master of the vessel, unless it
could be shown that it was subsequently approved
of by the owners. It was the duty, however, of the
assured to make his election at once, and as there
was some uncertainty from the absence of the let-
ters upon that point, the rule might be taken iu the
mean time.

THE STATESMAN.

eee+~^ W