The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-12-20 00:00:00

DECUAUNE ADD OTHERS P. LANE.
Mr. GARILOW opened this case on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, who were the assignees of two bank.
rul►ts ; the one being a separate, and the other •
joint commission, in which it was alleged, but not
proved, there were many flagitious circumstance.,
mid that the Defendant and his father, who were
'perhaps combined to act very dishonestly towards
their creditors. lie observed, that by the late
Act of Parliament, which is usually denominated
Sr Samuel Rpmilly's Act, a Commission of Bank.
nifty produced in Court, superseded the neces.
t y of proving that the party against whom it
Issued, had committed an act of bankruptcy, ult-
imo a Defendant, in an action in which such bank.
captcy was disputvd, should at the time .of plead.
leg' give notice that he should dispute the fact of
an act of bankruptcy having been committed.
Hers the Defendant had originally pleaded with.
eat such notice, but that plea had been abandoned ;
the DeTendant had pleaded de novo, and accompa.
nied the new plea with such notice, therefore the
act of bankruptcy moot be proved. Upon this
there was a question betaven the Attorney.G•ne.
ral and Mr: G ►rrow, a lio should take the buithen
of proving the act of bankruplcy.
Lord ELLENll,iltot'all held, that the construe-
don .to be pat upon toe Act %a.,, that the giving
of notice at the time of delivering In-the- plea,
that the act of bankruptcy would be disputed,
did nd shift 'the ordinary mode of proof; it
only made that proof necessary, which, but for
the notice, the act dispensed with, but which,
with the notice, the act called for. That bur.
then was upon the Plaintiff before the act, and,
the notice being given, the same burthen remained
on the Plaintiff after the act. The Plaintiffs
therefore must, its this case, prove the act of
bankruptcy.
This knocked up the Plaintiff? case in this ac.
don, fur they haul no witness who could prove the
acts of bankrtiptcy in question, except those who
were interested in increasing the funds out of
h•
och the debts were to be paid, and such wit.
messes were not competent, and therefore the
Plaintiffs were nonsuited.

BY COMMON JURIES.
. UWYNE V. JUIMINE.

Mr. GARROW st.tted this t•• be an action for
an injury done to the Plaintili's vessel by that of
the Defendant, while it passed Gravesend Reach.
There appeared upon Ole evidence nu doubt
whatever of the fact of the injury, and the
amount of it was 541.

But the defence set np by Mr. MARVA? Was,
that by the statute of the sth of Gee. 11. c. 20,
it WEIS provided that no foreign vessel (and this
was r Swedish one) could be natigaled in the ri.
ver Thames, without having on board a Trinity
Muse pilot ; such pilot was on board the Defen.
data's vessel, and it was, therefore, in point ofliw
tinder his guidance and direction ; and the action
should be against the pilot, if the vessel was un-
skilfully navigated, ter the Defendant had nothing
to do with her management:
Lord Kt LEMBOROVIIII said, he should not turn
the party roniiii by a nonsuit on this objection,
but save the point (hat it might be moved here.
after, argued bifore the Court, and finally de.
ternimed, so that the party would not have to
come delion agiin with the I.lr:s in another
trial, a !iieh would be the case if the Plaintit was
nonsuited.

rvide•tace was then given of a Trinity House
pilot being on board the Defendant's vessel at th••
iin4 of thi. accident, which, it appeared, might
have been avoided by ordinary cart, in those who
.steered .t, .berc was abundant room to pass on
the starb.iard or the larb:iard side of that of the
Plaintiff, which lay at anchor, while the vessel of
the Deleudant was goisie it► full sail.
It was contended, that as thosu yn hoard the
I)efenilant's vess-1 hailed the• 13'31,11,1N, they ought
to have moved her by the• helm so as to get out of
the way of being damaged; hut Lord El'vibe-
rough held, that while the Plaintiff's vessel lay at
anchor, and there was room to pass it on ci.
Cher side, there was no obligation on those who
had the care of it to move it a single inch—it was
the I),i,i:ess of those who sailed • to :leer cleat
and d e uo injury, because the thing was easy—il
might have been otherwise, if there had been a dif.
ficully in avoiding the danger.
Verdict fur the Plaintiff, damages 511.

WILCISE V. KEATS.
Mr. GARROW Slated, that the Plaintiff was an
ingenious m.iti, who had invented a machine by
which labour was much abridged in the tuanufac--
(tire of beaver hats, in that process which con-
sisted in pressing them and forming them in
moulds, into a hard substance, by which oue man,
working %%kis this marline, equalled the tabour
of a dozen, besides doing the thing much more
neat ly. The Wendell t - Wks "i 'halter, uho bed
agreed to give to Ilse Plaintiff 2501 for the use of
this machine. The agreement was a written one;
but unfortunately it having been left lit the De-
fendant's hands, he had destroyed it, and there
was not a copy of it, so that it could Pot be
peeved in evidence ; but lie should go upon the
quantum mcruit, and chew that the Plaintiff de-
served to have the above sum fur this machine.
it appeared by the evidence of Mr. William
Pritchard, who had hems the Defendant's fore.
man, that this machine, made by the Plaintiff, was
used by the Defendant ; that an agreement bad
been entered into between them, by which the
Defendant was to pay to the Plaintiff Mi. for the
use of this machine ; that it was used for tea or
twelve months ; that the Defendant had said, that
be hail destroyed the agreement, saying the matter
between him and Wilcox was settled.
lint on his cross-esamination by Mr. Gurney,
the witness said, That the Plaintiff had actually
received of the Defendant, about 2801, on ac_
i count of the use of (hi. machine ; that at first
this machine spoiled eves/ bat that was put un. I
dee ii. Ts r........ •I. - • • ••. .

•z • -

_ failed hi the attesept ;
altered by *mother person,
harm than good ; that
norm in which the Plaintiff
was prodL _of harm iiistead of good,
was a waste of both labour and mone•.
Lord ELLIIN mu stouc; u observed, that although
the Plaintiff might tie the inventor of this ma-
chine, it did not follow that lie was entitled to
any reward for that invention ; fur an invinition,
to deserve.rneard, must be useful ; here it seemed
to be mischievous. This agreement which had
been spoken of was eut of the question, ',remise it
was not before the Court ; the Plaintiff must,
therefore, go upon the quantum oneruit ; and, if
the labour was good for nothing, he descried no-
thing for his labour.—Plaintilf tionsvited.

DMI DS V. DARBY.
Mr. Pt RIC stated this to be the case of a ssilor,
who elaimed about 171. fur wages, as a sealiait,
at the rate of 41. 10s. per month, on a voyage
(rain St. Domingo to London, in a vessel cal.
led the Hind, of which the D fending was Cap.
lain. There was nu doubt of the Plaintiff haw.
ing this claim ; and indeed the Defendant had
himself offered to ;Ay the money, provided the•
Plaintiff would give him a release ; but that the
Plaintiff would not do. lie would have been
blameable if he had; fur he had another action
against the Captain, for a desperate assault, and
which would be tried immediately after the pre-
sent one.
The services of the Plaintiff; on board the ship
were proved, as well as the rate of wages.
On the put of the D.fendant, Mr.
contended, that his client was absolutely absolved
from this demand.--That while this vessel was
of St. Domingo, she was attacked by a power.
ful French privateer. That tho action I ,sted two
hours before she was beat off, and then she lay
too, repaired her damages, and prepared fur a
second action, and continually kept in sight.—
That on this occasion, the Captain allowed one
half of the crew to go below for refreshment,
while the other half remained upon deck to keep
a good look out. That a person of the name of
Fetter, was ordered particularly, to keep a good.
look out; he refused; upon which it b •case
necessary to fasten him to the ring.bolt, to ph.
vent mischief. That, on this occasion, th.• Plain.
tiff came from below, and was commanded by
the Captain to assist four others in their eh.
deavours to secure this unruly person, who
mask a desperate resistance. That the Plain.'
tiff affected to do so; bAt alteared to assist ra.
Cher than oppose this Ititralleer, and disputed
the authority of the Captain, who, to p.eserve
the ship from destruction, ordered his pistols to
be brought ; when they were brought, the Plaintiff
still persisted in disputing the authority of the
Captain, after the Capt tin had told him he should
blow his .brains out if he did, upon which the '
Captain fired at the Plaintiff, who fall and was
supposed to be killed, but he was afterwards taken
into the cabin, and his wounds dressed by order of
the Captain. That this was an act of necessary
vigour to prevent mutiny, by which the ship
would have fallen a prey to the enemy. This'
was an answer to this action fur wages, us well as
it would be fur that of the assault ; fur there was
a clause in the articles of the ship, on which the!
egreetaent fur the wages depended, that those I
who should be guilty of mutiny, or should wit.
folly disobey orders, should forfeit all wages and
every thing belonging to them on board the'
ship.

'fn prove this case, he called * person of the
name of It-ed, the chief-mate of the vesel ; bat
he gave his evidence• in such an intemperate mintier,
as to induce Lord Ellt•nburou4h to admonish him,
lest it should he th iught that himself was the
chief cause of the disturbance un b ►ard on this
.wcasion. This, however, had only a temporary
etfeet upon him; he broke out again into great
violence of tune and gesture, so as to 'hake it
evident he had identified himself with the cause
of the Captain, who, it appeared, hut actually
shot the Plaintiff in the head) and apprehended he
had killed him, and took another pistol, swear_
1114 he would do the same thing to any other per-
son on board who dared to dispute bis authority.

Lord ELLENBOROUGII said to Mr. Garrow, he
had no doubt of the complexion of this case, and
h►• was confident that someihing would occur to
Mr. Garrow to recommend to his Client to dis.
peso of this and the next cause.
Mr. GA*ROW said he undirstooll his Lordship
perfectly. lie then had tho honout of conferring
privately with his Lordship ; after which it was
agteed, on the part of the Defendant, to give the
Plaintiff a verdict in this cause fur the amount of
his wages '26l.—and in that of the assault 501.
which were uttered up accordingly.

On Saturday, the Reading coach ran over the
Nlaidenhead waggoner, on Sinailburry.green, and
broke his thigh in so shocking a manlier, that it is
thought amputation muss talc-aspirate.
A few evenings since, Messes. Sills and Co. of
Hataborough Wharf, had 13 boxes of tin piate
stolen net of a barge between London Bridge and
Blackfriars.
Swsmomeo Lane.—Ou Sunday evening, a
young lady elegantly dram!, went to the ruse-
&nee of Mrs. H. in Kennington, where, after eta-
(paring of a servant if her mistress was at home,
and being informed that she wurthek absent, told
tier that she had that day arrited'hi- town, and,
wished much to have seen lier,iottirt consequence
of her disappointment, desired she aught ho al.
lowed to leave a few lines for heft.*[ the same
time handing the girl a letter, which s)ta said was
of great importance to Mrs. H. She was rea-
dily shewn into the parlour, where, after beteg
furnished with pen, ink, and paper, she feigned to
be much (Aped with her journey, and requested
she servant to call a coach to carry her to her in.
tended place of residence, which mhe stated to be
at a relation's in Oxford street. /This riviest the
girl' weakly complied with, when the fatigued vi-
sitor, its the mom time, walked off, rarr) ill( with
her a slumber of silver 'Hopes, of stinfeepot

Tag TUT AN. .-
iminiiermimpionsummasimmasaimar -•--
LAW INTELUGgNGE. ter it for the better; het
and that anti! it Wed alien
COURT OF KING'S BENCII, TUZSDAY, Dim. 19. it mast bare dune more I
the sae of it, in the form
Sittings before Lord Eacersionercr, in Guild- left it, was productive of
Anil, London. . was a WIWI of both laboui