The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-11 00:00:00

Ain STATESMAN

LAW INTELLIGIENCH,

Wm.-- ~

COURT OF CHANCERY, JuLit 16.
glr Samna. RoMILLY this morning called the Oa
tention of the Court to the case of a bankrupt stained
Cowley, who had been committed some time since,
by the Commissioners, for refusing to answer inter.
rogatories. The question to which the bankrupt deg
dined giving any reply was a very long one, and a
doubt had arisen as to the authority of the Commis-
sioners to enforce it.
Mr. RoiE here begged leave to interrupt Sir S.
Romilly, as he had an objection to offer, which might
render it unnecessary to go into the merits of the
rase. By the original statute of Habeas Corpus the
Loki Chancellor had no power to issue the writ in
vacation, but the Act of the sth of George 11. sop.
plied that power in favour of the liberty of the sub-
ject. It provided, however, at the same time, that
the writ should be prayed for within The period of two
terms after the commitment of the party-. The bank-
rupt
in this case had suffered an imprisonment of 'two
years, and had therefore forfeited his claim to the
benefit of the statute.
Sir S. Rom t r.r.-e observed, that he was certainly not
prepared to meet this Dejection at the present Mo-
ment, bat with his lordi.hip's leave, the matter should
be again mentioned on Monday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed that the bank-
'opt should be brought up accordingly on Monday
best, when the question might be fully considered.

BALL V. OLIVER.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" The question hers is,
whether the mother of the Olivais was married or
not ? The Plaintiff proceeded in the Ecclesiastical
Court to try that question, end he relinquished it,
and his bill was dismissed here. This application
then is, that his cease may be reinstated here, co as
he may get an answer from the mother. The Cowl
cannot do this. Let the Defelidatits make an affi-
davit that they do not know where this lady is, and
then there will be nothing left for me to determine
but the question of costs."

VICE.CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, JOLT 10.
TWEDDELL V. TWEDDELL.
His Honour the Vice-Citarscw.on—"r I con.
sider this case very important on public grounds, as
it relates to the practice of this Court. It is a bill
filed for the purpose of annulling a settlement made.
between a father and u son, alleged to have been ex-
ecuted under the undue influence of the father. It
has been contended, that a father has a powerful in.
iluence over a son, where the latter is of a good tem-
perand disposition, for which reason the Court
ought
to watch the father's conduct strictly. I will,
however, ask, ha,s this ever been done? Let those
who have so contended, prove that they have ever
influenced the decision of this Court. In guardian
cases, it is necessary for the Court to look with
jealousy, as • guardian might influence his ward ;
but here there is no proof that kind, as it appeared
the settlement was founded on family attachments.—
No pecuniary bargain of en improper kind was
made, although it is alleged the son had been im-
posed on. The recital of the deed of settlement is
not sufficient for me to decide pit. I have therefore
read the deed myself, and I must say that I see
nitthing in it to justify the allegation that the father
and son stand in the situation of vendor and vendee.
Feeling as I do that it was a family transaction,
will tint disturb the settlement—l therefore dismiss
the bill without costs. This Court has a jealous eye
over guardians, but it holds sacred family trans-
actions."
Bill dismissed without costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCR. Jvt v 10.
ATTWOOD AND HAINES V. ARTHUR WILLIS.
The proceedings in this case occupied the Court
nearly the whole of this day : the time was prin-
cipally employed in the examination of contrary wit-
nesses as to a single fact on which the result of the
cause mainly depended. It was an action on a po.
licy of insurance, dated 25th March, 1817, on goods
on hoard the Badger, and on the freight of the ves-
sel on a voyage at and from St. Domingo to Cartha.
gem', South America ; the loss was averred to have
been by capture. The defence was, that the Plain-
tiff's broker, who effected the insurance, had con.
cealed a material fact from the underwriters. The
following are the principal facts out of which the suit
arose :
On the 23d March, 1817, the Plaintiffs received
a letter from theircorre.pondents in St. Domingo, in.
forming them that the Badger either had sailed or
was about to sail from thence to Carthagena, South
America, with a cargo of provt4ions for the Insur-
gents, who, it was asserted, were in rossessinn of
the place : the letter also stated, that a part of the
cargo belonged to the Commodore of the Insurgent
squadron. On the arrival of this intelligence, in
consequence of directions, the Plaintiffs employed
their broker, Mr. hunt, to take to Lloyd's a policy
upon ship said freight, with a slew to its being en.
derwritten. This he did on the very day the above
letter came to hand ; and when he addressed himself
to the various Gentlemen for their signatures, he
found that recent news had been obtained, via Jamaica,
that the Royalists were in possession of Carthagena :
they stated this fact to Mr. Hunt, who was prevl-
oosly ignorant upon the subject, excepting so far as
the letter received by the Plaintiffs gave him intelli-
gence, and by that he bed every reason to believe that
the Insurgents held the place at the date specified in
it. Some conversation occurried between Mr. Hunt
and Mr. Beverley, Mr. Champion, and others, upon
the point. This, however, was the question in dis-
pute—whether at the time of the signature of what
is called the slip, on the 23(1 March, anterior to the
preparation of the policy, Mr. Hoot had exhibited
or mentioned to the underwriters the letter from St.
Domingo, in which it wasissid that the Insurgents,
and not the Royalists, were in Carthagena. The
Defendant took a line to the amount of 2001.
loss took place by capture in part, the Spanish
Royal Authorities confiscated the ship and cargo on
her arrival at Carthagena, contrary to the Spanish
Navigetion Laws, the Badger being a British vessel.
The first witness called by Mr. SCARLET, on be-
half of the Plaintiff, was Mr. hunt, who swore dis-
tinctly, that when he went on the 23d March to
Lloyd's to effect the policy, he did not know that
Carthagena had been retaken by the Royalists; he
first received the intelligence from the underwriters,

who on that account refused to take a premium
three guineas, but insisted. particularly Mr. Bever-
ley, upon receiving fire guineas on account of the
greater risk that the Royal Spanish Authorities would
confiscate the ship and cargo. Ile had every reoson t.
believe, that the underwriters saw the original letter
from St. Domingo, consisting of three sheets
paper, though he would not take upon himself ti
say positively that he showed that; but certatoly he
had Over exhibited any other to them, and he w•
confident that he took it in his hand. He was sun
that he had never told any of them that the Badger
was fitted out and loaded for a voyage to Cartha.
gena, with intent to aupply.provisions to the Ro:
Mists. When'the loss was claimed, the underwriter.
requited to see the letter from the Vest Indies, and
after he had. procured it from his principals, the
Plaintiffs) he 4aid it before them, end one of them, Mr
Robinson, read it t as, however, it contained varies
other matters, it was not made more public. In cor
firmalion of this statement, the witness produced
policy'under.written by some of the same Gentlemen
on mules on a voyage from Porto Cavallo to Ja.
maica,.at a premium of only one gninea and a hal
though the sea through which they passed was eqoall.
Wrested with plundering privateers, and the voyage
longer t from hence it was inferred that the Insurer
must.have taken into view the risk of capture in par'
by the Royal Spanish Authorities, and on this
count required a premium of five guineas. On
cross-examination this witness admitted that
mules wet• warranted from jettison and mart/ilk)
and that they might not he so iterira hie a prize le pri.
vateers as provisions. He swore positively that
Plaintiffs had never threatened him with at, action,
even intimated that he had been guilty of neglect
misconduct, nr mistake, in the mode in which he
fected the policy.
A witness who had been on hoard proved tl
the Badger escaped the squadron blockading Carlini..
gene, hut was seized and confiscated en her arrival
in port, and the crew imprisoned.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGUAN conducted the caule ou
part of the Defendant, and addressed the Jury
considerable length, detailing the nature of the
deuce he should produce in contradiction to the case
made nut ou the part of the Plaintiffs. His first
nese was

Mr. Champion, who had signed the policy
question, as agent for the Defendant. He spok,
what passed at Lloyd's, when Mr. Hunt present
the slip for signature ; he produced a letter on hi
sheet of foolscap, written recently, and with
ink, as his letter of orders, sod the as ituess was qt
sure that hunt offered no other to the underwrite,
had that from St. Domingo been tendered in ti
sheets, he should have remembered it. When lii
first ()Kited the risk, Mr. Beverley said that Carthl
gene was in the hands of the Royalists, bet
former added, she would be well received, foi
troops were in a state of starvation. Beverley,
witness, Mr. Robinson, and several others, put
initials upon what Hunt produced as his letter of
ders, with the sums for which they were as
subscribe opposite.
Mr. Robinson was not sure whelher.Hunt or ,
other person said, that the ship would he well reed'
by the Royalists, but it was in his heating.
would not take upon himself to swear, that the
ter from St. Domingo had not been produced if
underwriters on the 211 March, but he had no
collection of it. Mr. Hunt delayed for some
before he claimed the lots, but at last produced
Captain's protest, and Mr. Beverley (the first
on the policy) required to be shown the letter o
ders shown by Hunt on the 23. i March ; the!,
denied that he had had any, but after some dap
hibited the letter from St. Domingo, which the
ness read ; Hunt denied that he had shown on
23d March a letter of orders for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Benjamin Blaydes, another insurer upon
policy, confirmed the above in some particulars/
his memory of the transaction was by no meat►r

tine,.
Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Marshall, Mr. M'Cullum,
Beverley, and Mr. Blanchard, also gave evident
terms more or less strong, that Mr. Hunt hai
produced the letter from St. Domingo at the time
slip was signed, nor until after he claimed the lou,
The Defendant's case having been closed,
Mr. ScattLErr commenced his reply by some
marks upon the inconveniences to which .11.
Jory, suitors, and Counsel were exposed in a Cot
so ill constructed ; not a county-town in Engl
was so ill provided in this respect as the Metrope
and the long existence of the evil, after repeated
monstrances, was. disgrace to the city of Londo'
lie then entered upon a comparison of the evi'
on both aides, pointing out the various circumot
confirmatory of Mr. Hunt's account, and the
babitity that the witnesses for the Defendant
mistaken in the account they had given of
passed at Lloyd's.
Mr. Justice Annoy went over the whole use,
serving, that if the Defendant's case were tru(
Plaintiffs, through the agency of their broker,
been guilty of .a gross fraud upon the underwri
his Lordship, however, could not believe under
the circumstances that any such intention had
jilted on the part of Mr. Hunt, or his emyloyc
The former had spoken with as much distinctnetn
positiveness as was possible, and there were
parts of the case for the Defendant that con!.
his testimony very importantly. There seemed
reason for charging him with falsehood, either '
acts or in his evidence, Is hile it was easy to th
the discrepancy of the testimony against him,
supposing only the mishearing or omission
single word. It had been said that the broker
interested witness, but surely lie was not habit
much suspicion as the underwriters themselves,
of whom had been called to contradict him.
The Jury after a short consultation found
dict for the Plaintiff, 2COI.

Thursday a mare, the property of Major Ya\
a 'Wager of 200 guineas, performed 100 maps ,
hours, as follows :—She went 10 miles in the
hour, and 29 in three ; half the distance leaf
formed in five hours and forty minutes. Thk
was then fed, and she started to do the last 50
in six hours. She was kept steady at nine
hoar, and the match was won cleverly them minim
L teithin the time.