The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-01-25 00:00:00

WALL IL STUBBS.

• It will be recollected, that in this case a plea of
an Aet of Parliament, with the matters therein cond.:
ta'ned, had b.ecti put in by the Defendant, without
and that this plea was, upon motion, ordered
by the Vice-Chancellor to be taken 'off the file, as
being irregular, and in effect no plea at all.
Afteruards the Defendant obtained an order of
course rvr further time to answer, not choosing to
eur in, his plea, as he did not know the facts stated
in it of his own knots ledge.
Sir S. Komi tr.y now 'noted to have this order set
psi& for irregularity, on the ground that no order
for forther time to answer, ought, under the cir-
cumstances, to have been made without a special ap-
plication to the Court. for that purpose.
LEAcn and Doit'uswELL (contra) argued, that
the plea having beets taken off the tile, upon motion
by the Plaintiff, was to be considered as no plea at
all, or as if no plea had been put in : and that con•
sequently the Defendant having had only one order
for time, ought now to have a second in the usual
course of the Court. But they admitted that if the
.plea had been regularly put in, and argued, and
then adjudged to he frivolous, an order for further
time to answer could not regularly have been made
without a special application.
The VicE-Co.tmCELLO IL—The consequence of
sustaining this order would be, that one who put in
something which he called a plea, but which %ma
nothing at all, would be in a better situation than
one aho put in a regular though frivolous plea. He
was clear, therefore, that in thiscase there ought to
hive been a special appiiration ; and the order was
therefore set aside with casts.

}ETON V. CRICK ETT.
Sir S.I3IVEL ROMILI.Y slid Mr. I.Eacit showed
cause why the injunction in this cause should not be
dissolved. It appeared that a Mr. Wulf had been
the Marshal' of the Admiralty Court, and that a'
Mr. Crickett was his Deputy until the decease
of the former, when the latter became the Marshal,
and • the Plaintiff, his Deputy., at t—itilary of
1001. a year, merely to officiate for him in
CoOrt. In the year 1801, Government laid an
embargo on all ships belonging to Ittissia, Sweden,
and Ligumark. The Court of Admiralty ordet,d,
that the. Nlaushal of the Court should carry the em-

bargo into execution. Mi. Crickett agreed, as at-
leged-in the Plaintiff's bill, that he, the Plaintiff,
shin& perform the tluty as his deputy, and have
half the profits arising (roes the fees 4 &c.' lii -the
year 1803. i when the war agile foraketrint,-ttre was
a sitagai iginhargo ; and in the year 1804, otte on
Spina sllipt.' The Plaintiff did the duty, and the _
trisiii-We divided between him and Mr. Crickett. ! cha,:ced..,
InibtryeatlBos, Mr. Crickett became so infirm, ! The Court thought it was reasonable that the ben
thak he wee not able to do any pert of the duties of I should be discharged.
Msteletf."• tie then agreed with the Plaintiff that he TTORN6YGEVid, hp had no ob.
•, ;The A - .ERAI. said,
as his Client could gain no advantagi
shreild do- the whole duty, and as a remeneraticip? ,jsmtion to this,
to tare one-third of the profits of the situatiothen' "1' mottnuanoe, the Defendaut beitt already
In the year 1810, the Plaintiff resigned his aitia.M prisoner in the kin,s Bench Prison. For the
ktion to Mr. Crickett, who died on the Ist of ; reasons he, had already. assigned, however, he was
Jogast, 'lBll. The Defendant, who was the son i confident the Court would.(tot make the rdle ab-
and residuary legatee of Mr: Crickett, in his au- , solute.
ewer admits the agreement between his father and I The Court, upon an understanding that the hai:
should be exonerated, discharged the rule.
the Plaintilf in 1805, but denied that there was .1
any antecedent agreement between them, except that 1 soma v. STUART.
the Plaintiff was to receive 1001. per anti. for the I Mr. GAZELIE mewed for a rule to show cause',
duty performed by him, and had brought his action ! why a new trial in this case should not be granted.
at law to recover the money received by the De*. i
, It was an action of indebikfus emumpsit, for we.
tendant, as his share of the fees, from the year i and labour performed ,for: the Defendant, by thit
1801 to 1805, amounting to 10,0001. * The Plain-1 Plaintiff's apprentice, who had run away from the ,
tiff filed the present bill to prevent the Defendant i service of the latter, to that, of .the, former. At ,the '
from proceeding at law. An injunction was granted, ',
trial it was objected, first that the action couldladt '
7, „ .
until the Defendant pot in his answer ; he had done .be maintained it alt; and secondly; that tlnt In- 1
so ; and from that answer the Learned Gentleman denture of apprenticeship,bad not been executeg.lte
undertook to show cause why the injunction should the apprentice's fathei,.who hid only signed hiali
not be dissolved. The answer admitted, that all sums name as an attesting witless;' the party being au in; .
of money received by the Plaintiff and the deceased fant, could not bind
,himitelf, tied theiefore .“041,
Mr. Crickett, as fees, were paid into Messrs. Es- • not transfer a right of actin; fOr his sirvice. sr
,But['}
daile and Co.'s bank, in the name of them both, if this were law, no aition.a.
and also drawn out in both names, and equally di-seduction of. an
prentice could ever be maintained. In seduction"
-04 or:
Tided between them; This, they contended, showed Rex v. Evered, Caldecott, ,15,' two iiisticiti..,tatki
the-nature of the contract, and why the injunc- committed an apprentice rot running :lin), TrolikkiS;
Lion shield continue motile partnership account .was master ;he had beett.boun'd apprentice when at:hi:, '
taken.-.
fent, and being of eee, ran. aiwey, alleging epee-
Connsel will be heard to-morrow (this day) on dui i •
wart s, . Ihe t I tl it lid so iiiih intent to'syvid Alp-
same side.. , • made . _ ,„
prenticeship when he: was as Infant,- and its
'
, , . _ . ~.

. . ••.!
prejitdice. -It was objected. in thatl•Ciaej#t 1 ;
infant could not make any Contract hise BOl, '
avoidable for his benefit ; :tut Ltill ''4insiel 16%,
it had been adjudged that an infant may, bin tttk
Self 4011i:even benefit Lee Mr. Justice 4ft
sail Supposfrif tceledentures'irAllitre,Te le:ttl o r
not coneeive that the apprentice's sunning awayebald
avoid them ; had he served regultgly, and during
such service declared his intentiAli. sa depart, .it
:might have been different ; ivere he would' make use
of his offence, in order to avoid the punishment the;
attends it ' • but it was too late to do it . before a
Justice when charged with a crime ; and:Wiltelond
Mithuist, 'indices, agreed. So here Ai' apprentice ,
had bound bimself for his benefit, end atinditiog he'
could put an end to the appretiticeshipit cook' +Da I
be by the crime of running away. The 'stat.-13 Gee;
111. c. t%, provides, that if any apprentice shall
absent himself from his mastees suffice • before the
term or kit apprenticeship Shill expire, he shall, after-
wards be compelled to make up the time.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII.---TheArewnd upon which I
directed a nonsoit was, that this was an action of.
contract, In which there was no privity beevecee the
parties. The authority upon which► the action was
hreught, was a case which, wills all iheirespeet I
entertain for the Judge who decided it, cannot be
supported by any principle of law. ' lf,svas the
case. of Eades v. Vantleput, '25 Geo. 111. R. R. cited
in 5 Enst 39, which was en notion brought for the.
wages earths by the P18;1041'4' apprentice, who had
been improperly impressed, and compelled to serve
ou hoard a ship of war.; .and the Court hold, that
the Plaintiff might recover.. iltst then tbo,Defendeat
was, Captain of a ma;; of wse,, wkwoulliotihibte in
an ;Action for work and labour, : rifled►
tO,k, sere,
the Defeuthwt was (..eitkPiio el ii" ggslapitsitips. bit

COURT OF KING'S BENCIT, JAN. 41.

This being the first sitting day in Hilary Term,
Fir St wo.v LE Lit. tNc attended in Court, at ten
o'clock, for the purpose of hearing bail justified.
At one eclOck the other Judges caste down to-
Westininster-hnli, in procession, and from thence
proceeded to their respective Courts.
Mr. Justice Dame it did nut take his seat, being
poufined to his house by indisposition:,

original port with a full Citge. • Upon'
both these grounds it was contended, thatit wasiiet,
protected by the lies:mm*4=la new trial was moved
for.
I A rule, unless.cause shown.' was granted; and it
wa.i ordered, that a4p,py it Ow:licence should.,be
left with the Judges., ;7, •••••

. . .
turn, but in vain. The action had now been pend- ' and became
, lug three yams, .aad cossatamtly,„it Nuts .1141410nea,Iro app
it shOultlNii biintgbt to a conclusion, or, is tiff evesat,l ac coraitig tq
that the bail, as bail had been put in, should be dis• ed from its