The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-11-18 00:00:00

TEIF STATESMAN.

LAW INTB I. LIG LINCE.

- *.

COURT OF CHANCLAXI..,„,
Friday; Nurentber
•
TYTHEI. „f
RtLEY V. FOWLER AND OTHERS.
The LORD CU iNCELLO ißliflOeil that haitad
applied to Baron Thompalto to learn-whether it
was the practice of the Courtof Exchequer tik'
allow the consolidation of tytlitt,,, mot ca
relating to the sante Oulter,'ditlioutlistiunet
course before answers were putlb.rmr,
%ion upon his own mind had beewthasuchkwis•
the practice as stated by Sir S. ft fly. But
Baron Thompson had replied, that ha had no
notion that the consolidatioo of causes under such
circumstances, could be perthitled if matters of
course, though this might be allowed upon special
reason stated.

Mr. HART argued, that the practice contended
for on the part of the Defendants, who objected to
the payment of their full tythifs, was contrary to
the reason of the thing ; fur it was impossible to
know before answers put in, whether tVb defences
would be the same. Some might plead 'parish mu.
due's; others firm moth's's, &e. and the thirty.
two Defendants might have twenty different de.
[cams,

Sir. S. Romti.r.v referred 1119 Lordship to the
case of Fife v. tlro( k, in Pecre Rc.
ports, in favour of the practice fur which he con-
tended.

The Lotto CuAncgt.Lon said he would look at
the case, and apply again to Baron Thompson.

DALTON E. SIR J. INNEI KERR.

Mr. HART, for the Plaintiff, stated, that a
Deed of Separation had been executed between
,;ir James Lines Kerr, and his late wife, by
which she had the right of devising certain pro-
perty by Will, which she did to the Plaintiff,
oho filed his 8.11 in the Hulls Court for an ac-
count. The Defendant, after taking all the time
which the Court would allow to put in his answer,
tiled a cross bill, alleging that the deed in guts.
lion was contrary to the instructions given to the
person whi. drew it, and offering to prove this.
The original cause was to be heard on Monday ;.
but Mr. Hell had obtained, as a matter of course,
an order to enlarge publication to the last day of
term, that the depositions taken under the cross
Lill might be read by way of defence to the origi-
nal. Mr. hart contended, that as the Defendant
had before taken advantage of all the delay in the
original cause to which he wai entitled, he ought
1
not to have had more withou special reason as
mu
signed; and he therefore u to discharp the
-...i
order.
Sir S. Rourr.r.y and Mr. BELL observed, that
there had been no unnecessary delay on the part
of the Defendant, who had used every diligence
in bringing forward the only defence he had,
which was by cross-bill, and that it would be
hard if he should be deprived of that defence.
The LORD CUANCELLOR said, that the question
was, whether the delay should have been allowed of
course. He had some doubt as to the practice in
that respect, and would inquire into it. In the
mean time, he recommended to Mr. Hart to take
the costs of this application, and a peremptory
' undertaking to try no the fist day of the Sit.
tings after Term, to which Mr. Hart agreed.

COURT OF KING'S Br.scu.

• Friday, November 17.

_ .
This was a day for special argument, in which
the matters they riderred to, although very !camell
in every respect, were yet not of general interest
to the public.

SERJEANT V. WHITE.
This was a question upon the Post:horse Duty.
It was an action fur the penaltftof 101. against
the Defendant, who was .cher#4 with • that sum,
for not baying paid the appropriate duty upon
chaise-horses travelling from 13ishopsgate.street
to Itomfurd, and back again, the distance of 74
miles ; the sum which it was contended he should
have paid, was 6s. and he bad paid 3s. 6d. con.
tending that he was not liable to pay more ; the
question depending upon the various and complie.
cated provisions of the several Post.horse Duties.
The Court, after complaining, as it had too
often reason to complain, of the defective provi.
sions of these statutes, in -which there are too
many repugnancirs, were clearly of opinion, in
this case, that the Defendant had not paid the pro.
per duty. as imposed by law, and therefore gave
judgment for the Plaintiff.

BLACILET V. SMITH.
This was a question between the West India
Dock Company and a merchant, upon the reason-
ableness of the charges of the Company, in re-
spect to wharfage, &c. on goods belonging to a
ship in their docks, while it remained there to
load, preparatory to going on an outward vo.sage,
it being contended by the merchant, that the 6s.
Bil. per ton, which was paid to the Company, was
all they were entitled to, in this caw, and that
they were nut to charge any thing for stores be.
longing to the ship, even although she should re.
main six months in these. Docks, taking in her
cargo for an outward-buund voyage. On the
part of the Company it was admitted, that they
should not charge for stores, such as nere imme.
diately necessary for the ship, n bile she remained
at the dock ; but as to those stores which she
might want for use during her voyage, and which
were put on board in their dock,they were entitled
to charge the same as for any other goods wart",
and merchandises.
The Court intimated a desire to know whether'
ithe parties wished to add to the case the fart as It
stood ; whether the claim of the merchant here ex.:,
tended to the whole of the stores which the ship
might want for the whole voyage, or was confined,
to that which the ship might want in these ducks.
If the latter only, the Court inclined to think
that the Company could not make any charge
beyond the Gs. 8.1. per ton ; hut, if the former,
they thought the merchant asked leo much, and
therefore, should pronounce judpsisant foe
the Company, with liberty to add to the case the
fact, if it was so, that the merchant claimed only
an exemption for stores fur the ship..deFieg her
stay in these docks.

,t)

_ <.