The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-11-20 00:00:00

LdiV.INTELLIGENCE.

k 1

•
COURT Or KING'S BRNO!. N0v.49.%

THE EXECWVOII OW AllitittAL VRVII* V. tIitIIZILVWVOII

or LORD OARONIR.
This was an action brought to try the right to
certain prize-money.
At the trial before Lord Ellenhorough, fi verdict
alas taken for the Plaintiff, subject .to the opiution of
rime Court, on a case to the Nino ing effect :—Lord
Gardner was Commander in Chief of his Majesty's
ships at Cork, and upon the coast of Ireland, in the
beginning of the year 11305. In February of that
veer, he gave orders to Captain Lake, of the To-
Faze frigate, to go and look oat for the Jamaica
• norov, &c. and aftorwards she was to cruise six
necks within certain limits. After she had been out
• ome time, she took a prize, and brought her into
Cork. In the mouth of March, 1805, Lord Gard-
ner received orders to take the command of the
Channel fleet, and to deliver up to [tear-Admiral
Drury the command of the squadron stationed at
Cork. Teed Gardner "accordingly directed the
Rear-Admiral to proceed immediately to Cork, and
on his arrival to take under hit command the ships
named in the margin, of which the Topaze was one.
In the order from the Admiralty, Lord Gardner was
directed to shift his flag on boavd any frigate he.
chose, and to proceed in her, with ell dispatch, to.
Pts mouth. In consequence his Lordship made
elteleeWt• the Topaze, and in her arrived at Ply-
mouth... his Arrival there, lie wrote it letier to
Capt. Lake, stating that he had th authority, of the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to direct him
to eroise a week to the westward, in order to protect
the Sotinom convoy.; and after that, to cruise in
pursuance of his former ceders. After the week
bed eapired, the Topaze made two captures, the
One within the limits of the Cork station, the other
without the limits of the station, but after a chace ;
it was_ent found whether the chace began within the
limits of the station or not. The question in this
case was, whether Admiral Drury was entitled to
the Rag-officeeseighth of those prizes, or of either
of them ; and the verdict was to be entered accord-
tug to the judgment of the Court.
Mr. G: realm stated that he had to contend on the
part of the personal representatives of Admiral
Drury, that he was entitled to the flag officer's
eighth in both those prizes. After the decisions of
• DI Asott r. Tucker, 4 East's Reports, '238, and Keith
•v. Pringle, 4 East's Reports, 262, it .zoultk not be
questioned but that a commauder oiler his.. appoittil,
teent was entitled to his share of all prizes taken by
vessels under his command, though acting Order the
orders of hie predecessor. He thought his. learned
friend would concede this point, and also that Im-
mediately on
.Lord,Gardner's giving up his command
te Admiral Drury, be ceased to have aoy controul
over the ships en the Cork station. The question
would, therefore, be, what was the effect of • the or-
der given by Lord ardner to Captein Lake at
Pfy-
Mouth ?, if Lord Gardner bad the power to order
the Topaze to cruise a week for the Snrinstwconvoy,
yet as he ordered her afterwards to. cruise in pur-
suance of her former orders, she mnit'by that be sup-
posed to have been remitted under the aethetity of
the Admiral on the Cork. 'Wien ;m4-ti Ap. Um any.
prizes made by, her eller the week had ezpiretl, 'and
within the limits of the Cork station, he- Must be'
considered as entitled to his share. But should it
be considered that the former order was deterthined
by the efflux of time, and that the order from Lord
Gardner was to be considered as a new order; yet,
as to the prizes made within the limits of the Cork
station; as the Topaze was not sailing under an inde-
pendent commission, the Admiral must be eeticied to
his share as a flag officer.
Mr. HORNER, on the other side, contoured, that
Lord Gardner having employed the Topaze 'to con-
vey him to England, she could not be considered as
under the command of Rear-Admiral Drury, but as
being under the immediate command of hii Lordship.
it was not necessary for him to prove that Lord
Gardner was entitled ; It was sufficient for his pue-
pose to prove, that Admiral Drury was not. The
brat order by Lord Gardner, by which the Topaze
was, after doing other things, to cruise for six weeks,
was an expired order by the efflux of tinie,"and could
net be renewed, by the subsequent order of Lord
Gardner. With regard to the prize • captured oat of
time limits of the Cork station, Admiral Drury could
not have any title.
The Court wished to know, whether it could not
be fouteras a fact, whether the chace of the one
prize did net commence without the bounds of the
Cork station ? and, also, whether there were in
fact, army orders from the Lords Commissioners of
the Admiralty to Lord Gardner, directing him to give.
Capt. lake directions to cruise a week for the Seri.
nate convoy, and afterwards to pursue hilt former or-
ders, as bis Lordship had intimated in his letter to
Capt. Lake? _ _ _

It was answered by the two Learned Counsel, that
every exertioa.bad been made to obtain -information
thescpohttesinikwithent faiCcott*_4o4.lllNY..
had no hopb of beint able to •obtaits a de o-
formation. s.

_ .
The Ctiurt. Were of, opinion, 'that Lord Gardner,
was uet *nutlet to any share, because, after the To-
pare had landed hint at Plymouth, he had nO longer:
any authority over her, lislasilhe had'fresh authority
from the Admiralty ;' but the snob authority appear-
ed. Admifil nritry could not re entitled, except in
privity with the orders; 'and thefefore.' as to the
prize whirl` bad been ciptaill withoirtslie-limits
Lis stationlite bad ne With regard to the
other prize, he was not entitled 'in •consequence of
-tAkrderi given by Lord 'Gardner, which were
ly expired orders by the efflux of time ; but
ins succeeded to the command, he was entitled
lag officer's share of any capture made within
ts. of hia. station.

ELE,Enseaonon, after the Court bad given
ion, remarked, that the case• had been ex.
well argued—very tuteitictly and very dis-

Ka Qs TILE ASSIGNEES Of TIiOMAS CHAPMAN,
A BANII.EtirT. .
Serf sFI BBST iu this tase•nvoyed their Lord-
for a Rule, to shoi cause' Why the two extents
Id bean issued in iid of 'lllessrs. North anti
rn should not be quashed and-set aside, upon
loud that they had been used, or rather abused,
purpose of recovering a private debt) and nut

the first 1
iy,H Certainly
i ‘ by basin
) to the Hs
the limit
Lord
tr, t
its (spin;
i tremely
' tinctly.
1 , Tule. KIM
/ (
I i Mr. S
i.l
ships fos
5 i that had
4'. i • It.inisdei
the grou
for the 1