torment, otherwise his evidence is of mo validity. One of the charges against Governor Picton was, "for the application of torture, to extort confession from Louisa Calderon, a girl under fourteen years of age." An age at which the law of Old Spain does not admit of the torture. On the second trial it was proved that, for the purpose of making out the allegation, that Louisa Calderon, at the period of her punishment, was under fourteen years of age, a false register of her birth had been procured, viz. the 25th of August, 1788; whereas, in fact, she was born on the 6th of September, 1786. It is some satisfaction, however, to know that the guilty priest, who furnished the false instrument, has been removed from his cure, suspended from his sacerdotal functions, prosecuted, and convicted of forgery and perjury ! The King against the Inhabitants of Norton Juxta Kempsey.-Jan. 27. Two justices, by an order, removed Sophia, the wife of Edward Lea, a marine, and their infant child William, from the hamlet of Oversley to the parish of Norton, both in the county of Worcester. The sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this court on the following case. Edward Lea, being legally settled at Norton, was duly enlisted as a private into his majesty's marine forces, from which he deserted, and then hired himself for a year to Mr. Shayle of Oversley, and served a year under that hiring. After the termination of this service he was taken up for desertion, tried by a court-martial, and convicted of the same. The question for the opinion of the court was, whether he gained a settlement in Oversley (which maintains its own poor) by virtue of such hiring and service. . In support of the order of sessions, it was contended that a soldier who had deserted from the king's service was not sui juris, and could not within the words and meaning of the stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 7. be lawfully hired. He could not contract the relation of servant to any other master, the duties of which were inconsistent with those which he owed to the king. Upon the same principle it has been determined in several cases that an apprentice, not being sui juris, cannot contract himself as a servant to a third person, nor gain a settlement under a hiring and service. The case of the soldier is even stronger than that of an apprentice; for the former is guilty of a crime by deserting the king's service; whereas the latter is only hable civiliter and the policy of the law is much stronger against the power to contract a second engagement for service in the one case than in the other. It has been held in Rex v. Westerleigh and Rex v. Winchcomb, that a militiaman might gain a settlement by hiring and service, though he were absent part of the time on duty; the term of his absence having been stipulated for by him; and yet the same objection would have applied to him, that he was not sui juris; for he might have been called out on duty the whole time. Lord Ellenborough C. J. That was the case of a lawful contract with a just exception. The public had a claim upon the militiaman's service for a certain time; and subject to that claim he might lawfully con tract to serve his master. The objection is, that he cannot give the master a control over his service for the whole period which the master stipulates for and has a right to require by the contract. The king's officers might at any time have reclanied him, and taken him out of the service in which he was engaged; he cannot therefore be said to have been lawfully hired into it. John Edward King, a pauper, and his wife, were removed by an order of two justices from South Lopham in Norfolk to Stowmarket in Suffolk. The sessions, on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this court on the following case: J. E. King, the pauper, being settled by birth in Stowmarket, was in the year 1801 a poor boy, at the age of fourteen, in the house of industry for the poor of the incorporated hundred of Stow. In this hundred the directors and acting guardians of the said house are empowered by the act incorporating the hundred to apprentice poor children for seven years. It does not appear that they ever exercised this power: but instead of binding the children apprentices when of sufficient age, they were sent out of the house to their res pective parishes; and the parish officers allot ted thein during three years to particular parishioners, cither to retain them in their own, or to provide them with other service. Some time before Michaelmas, 1801, the padper J. E. King was sent by the directors and acting guardians of the house to Mr. Reynolds of Stowmarket, to whom he had been pre viously allotted by the oflicers of that parish. Mr. Reynolds not having employment for the pauper, told him that he (Mr Reynolds) had procured a service for him with Mr. J. Fox of Coddenham. The pauper made no objection to go, conceiving that he had no Jiscretion on the subject. On the day after Michaelmas the pauper went to Mr. Fox, who received him, and told him that he would give him clothes, and that he was to stay with him a year. Nothing further passed between the pauper and Mr. Reynolds, or Mr. Fox, respecting wages, or the nature or duration of the service. The pauper continued in Mr. Fox's service as a farming servant till the following Michaelmas; receiving his clothes and maintenance, and now and then a little pocket money. On the 25th of September, 1802, the pauper was sent for by Mr. Stutter of Stowmarket, to whom he had been allotted (in the same manner as he had been in the former year to Mr. Reynolds) for the following year. On the ensuing Michaelmas day the pauper went to Mr. Stutter, who gave him a holiday on that and the following day; and having no cccasion for his service, Mr. Stutter told the pauper that he had procured him a service with a relation, Mr. Frost, of Brent Eleigh. The pauper went to Mr. Frost, without making any application to the directors and acting guardians, or to the parish officers, and continued with Mr. Frost till Michaelmas 1803, in the same situation as he had done before with Mr. Fox. The pauper himself made no agreement with Mr. Fox, or with Mr. Frost, respecting wages, or the nature and duration of his service with them; nor was he consult. ed on the subject either by Mr. Reynolds, or by Mr. Stutter, to whom he had been previously allotted; but conceived himself obliged to accept these services, as being under the controul and jurisdiction of the house of industry and of the parish officers of Stowmarket, where the directors and acting guardians had first sent him. Lord Ellenborough C. J. All the parties seem to have acted under the idea that the boy was a parish slave, who might be handed over from one to another and disposed of as they pleased. But there was no agreement by him to either of the services in which he was engaged he submitted to them because he thought himself obliged to do whatever they hid him. If we were to hold this sufficient to give a settlement, we should establish a new head of settlement by allotment. The law gave these directors of the house of industry a certain power to apprentice out poor children; and instead of executing that power in a proper manner as the act directs, they assume to themselves a power to hand these children over to the officers of their respective parishes; who again hand them over to others; and so they are shifted from one to another. And now because the boy has done the work which he was made to do, and eat the meat and worn the clothes which were provided for him, it is argued, that he has adopted so many contracts of hiring to which he was no party, and which were made without any consideration of his will and consent. But the adoption of a contract must be the act of a free agent and at what period of time is he found by the case to have consented or contracted at all? On the contrary, it is stated, that, when told by Reynolds that he had procured a service for him with Fox, the pauper made no objection to go, conceiving that he had no discretion on the subject. And again it is stated that the pauper made no agreement with Fox or Frost, respecting wages, or the nature and duration of his service with them: nor was he consulted on the subject by either of the persons to whom he had been allotted; but considered himself obliged to accept these services, as being under the controul of others. Then can a person who is considered as a slave, and conceives himself to be such, be considered as having adopted the acts of his masters? It is against common sense so to construe his involuntary acquiescence. In the cases alluded to, where the pauper's misapprehension of the contract of hiring has been held not to vary the legal effect of it, the pauper meart to exercise a contracting power, though he mistook the legal effect of the contract which he had made.-Orders confirmed. Chapman against the Governor and Company of the Thames Archway, July 22.Mr. Jervis, for the plaintiff, stated, that it was an action to recover £29 for making a plan of the course of the drift of the tunnel, which the company is now making under the Thames. The company had employed a Mr. Trevethick, a person of skill in mining, to sink a shaft and to cut a drift under the Thames. After proceeding some distance, it became necessary to ascertain precisely the course of it, as it was feared, that when it came out on the other side of the Thames, it would come so near to some warehouses, as to endanger their safety. For the purpose of this survey, Mr. Chapman was employed, and produced a plan, for which he made the present charge. When it was sent in, the clerk to the company returned for answer, that it was incorrect and useless to the company. Several witnesses were called for the plaintiff, who spoke in general terins, as to the accuracy and skill of the plaintiff, and his plan. Mr. Garrow, for the defendant, contended that the plan was altogether erroneous. It stated, that the drift would come within one foot four inches east of Mr. Turner's warehouses, whereas it would actually come about 19 feet 6 inches east of that spot. The plan being calculated to mislead, could be of no. use to the defendants, and they were not liable to pay for it. £700 each. Both places had but one go vernor. been put on board the droger, and afterwards quibo, they generally say from Demerara, saw the wreck. When shipping from Esseand people living at Essequibo, date their let ters as from Demerara. Cross-examined by Mr. Garrow. — He never had seen policies dated from Essequibo. Mr. Trevethick, the engineer to the com pany, who is the inventor of the steam-engine which is intended to run at Newmarket, was examined, and he proved that the plain-chant at Demerara; he knew the sugar had Mr. Kelford deposed, he had been a mertiff's plan was inaccurate, and of no use to the company. After the plan was made, an accident happened by which the Thames water burst through the ceiling of the drift. The witness went on the opposite shore, and on the surface ascertained the precise spot merely by his calculations. He then ordered a pole and some bags of clay to be thrown into the river at the place where he conceived the hole in the bed of the river to be, and though there was no eddy or disturbance in the water to mark the spot, yet he had ascer tained it so accurately, that the pole and the sand bags sunk exactly into the hole, and filled it up. The aperture was only four feet ia extent. Other witnesses were called, to the same facts, and the jury, under his lordship's direction, gave a verdict for the defendants. One of the jurymen suggested a wish to give the plaintiff his expenses out of pocket, and each party to pay their own costs; but his lordship said, that if he was entitled to any thing, he was entitled to the whole. The question was, whether his plan had been useful or not? Insurance Policy. Higgins v. Aquilar.The Attorney-General stated, that this was an action brought on a policy of insurance, to recover the amount of fifteen hogsheads of sugar. The policy was obtained on the ship Bacchus, and her boats, from Demerara to London. The only question the jury had to determine was, whether Essequibo came under the jurisdiction and denomination of Demerara? The sugar had been put on board of a droger at Essequiho, to be brought to the ship at Demerara. There was no customhouse at Essequibo; all goods were entered at the custom-house of Demerara; they were both governed by one governor; and he would prove that people living at Essequibo dated their letters as from Demerara. The droger on the passage to Demerara was lost. Mr. Browne, late secretary to the governor of Demerara, deposed, he was well acquainted with the usage of the customs of that island. There was but one custom house, and that was at Demerara. The ships loaded their cargoes from Essequibo and Demerara indiscriminately. There was no shipping place at Essequibo. On his cross-examination by Mr. Park, he said the distance between the two places was fourteen leagnes. He could not tell whether Demerara was on the east or the west side of Essequibo. He had heard that there were bad currents and shoals in the river. The boats that carry the sugars cost from 400 to Mr. Reid deposed he was in the habit of making our orders for insurances for Demerara and Essequibo; he always considered them as one place, and conceived insurances made out for Demerara covered Essequibo. Witness produced bills of lading, dated Demerara, although the articles came from Essequibo. Mr. John Barclay, insurance broker, deposed, that the term "Demerara" had been always used for Essequibo. The witness bad been at Demerara, and had effected an insurance from Demerara, when the goods came from Essequibo. He had paid the forfeiture on a policy of insurance on some of the sugar that was in the same droger when she was lost. Mr. Park, counsel for the defendants, made some remarks on the nature of the evidence adduced, but did not call any wit nesses. Lord Ellenborough observed, that the question for the jury to consider was, whether Essequibo, in mercantile contemplation, was not Demerara ?· In a geographical view it right, and geographically wrong. was not; but things might be mercantilely that cleared out for Petersburgh, generally Vessels went to Cronstadt, yet the policies of insurance covered the goods from Petersburgh. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation', gave a verdict for the plaintiff; the amount to be settled by an arbitrator. Bury, April 15. Davers, clk. v. Chinery.-This was an action of trespass brought against the defendant, for having cut in picces, and spoiled certain posts, rails, &c. of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is rector. of Bradfield, St. George, and had placed posts and rails round a green, opposite his house, high enough for caitle to go under, and for the purpose of keeping carriages, &c. off. The defendant cut them down, and after they were down, cut them in many pieces and spoiled them.-He entered a justification, as having a right of common on the green; but it being proved that he might have taken the posts and rails down, without destroying them, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff damages 30s. CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS. due influence, controul, or custody used by the wife or those about her; that it was a voluntary act of his own. "The learned judge (Sir Wm. Scott) in delivering his sentence, observed, that madness existed in very different degrees, sometimes in such a slight degree as not to prevent the person afflicted with that malady from conducting his own concerns; and that it must be madness proved a great deal beyond that to authorise the court to set aside a marriage so contracted, and therefore evidence must be examined with a great deal of care and attention. Here the learned judge took great pains in recapitulating the evidence; and, after cluded by saying, that he was of opinion that the case was clearly established, that the party was insane at the time the marriage was celebrated, and accordingly pronounced the same to be null and void." IN THE EXCHEQUER-CHAMBER. Iggulden v. May. In Error. June 5. Turner v. Meyers, falsely calling herself Turner, May 6, 1808.This was a cause of nullity of marriage, instituted originally by the father of Jonathan Turner, and afterwards by the husband himself, against Hannah Turner, his wife, on the ground of his insanity, previous to and after the solemnisation of such inarriage. This case was argued last term, and the judgment of the court was postponed till this day. It appeared then, from the libel exhibited, that the parties were married by licence on the 14th of September, 1803, at the parish church of St. Mary-labonne, and that the parties cohabited toge-making several other judicious remarks, con ther as man and wife but for a short period, when the husband returned (leaving his wife) to his father's house in the country, with a view of obtaining a reconciliation with his father, he having contracted marriage with. out his knowledge or consent. From the evidence of the witnesses, which was read to the court, it further appeared, that the husband had laboured for several years (particu Covenant by the plaintiff, as assignee of larly in the spring and autumn) under a de- the original lessees, against the defendant, ranged state of mind, and had frequently been as assignee of the original lessors, on a lease under the care of medical gentlemen; that for 21 years, granted the 29th Sept. 1783. latterly he resided with his father, who never The covenant which gave rise to the present entrusted him with the conducting of any action was as follows: " That the said J. D. particular business, conceiving him not to be (the original lessor), his heirs and assigns, capable of so doing. It also appeared, that at the end of 18 years of the said term of one day he obtained permission of his father 21 years, or before, upon request to him or to go and see a lamb-show; but it was on them made by the said J. S., E. F., and condition that his godfather accompanied him; S. S. (the original lessees), their executors, that, as soon as the show was over, he left &c. and at the costs and charges of the said his godfather and horse, and took the stage J. S., &c. their executors, &c. shall and for London, where, immediately upon his will make, seal, and deliver unto the said arrival, he met with this lady at the west end J. S., &c. aud their executors, a new lease of the town, who then went by the name of of the said 27 perches of ground, with the Miss Lee, and told her that he would marry appurtenances, for the like fine or consider-, her if she would have him; that he could notation of £5. 8s. for the like time and term live without her; and accordingly married her on the second or third day after. It likewise appeared in evidence, that when in town he dressed himself in regimentals, and assumed the character of an officer. Sometimes he represented himself as having a commission in the Prince de Condé's army, at other times to be a captain in the Guards to his Royal Highness, and at another time he represented himself as an officer of cavalry belonging to the Prince of Hesse Cassel's guards; that he also wrote very incoherent cards and letters, which were produced and read and finally, it appeared he was guilty of many wild and foolish acts. On the part of the wife, evidence was produced to prove that the party conducted himself in a decent and becoming manner during the time the ceremony of marriage was performed; this fact was corroborated by the testimony of the clergyman, clerk, and other persons present; and it was contended by her counsel, that there was no evidence before the court of un-' of 21 years, at the like yearly rent of 63. 98. payable as is aforesaid, with all covenants, grants, and articles, as in this indenture are contained." The question raised by the pleadings upon this covenant (Vide 7 East,. 237) was, whether a perpetual renewal was reserved by it to the lessees and their assigns, or only one renewal, the plaintiff alleging that the covenant in question had been introduced in various other cases before then successively made and executed on renewal from time to time granted," and assigning as a breach the defendant's refusal to grant a new lease with "such covenant for renewal as is contained" in the lease of the 29th Sept. 1783. The Court of King's Bench having given judgment for the defendant in Hilary term 1906, thereby deciding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new lease including the covenant for renewal, this writ of error was brought upon that judgment. - Judgment affirmed. July 23. 4s: ld. 25. Old. 30 4 1 1s. 04d. 2 1 04 Aug. 6 19 20 1 196 68 59 30,08 58 71 61 With thunder. ,74 20 82 Fair 72 Fair 65 Fair 70 Cloudy 71 Fair With rain at night. With rain in the evening, and thunder. The Average Prices of Navigable Canal Shares, Dock, Stock, and Fire Office Shares, in Aug. 1808, at the Office of Mr. Scott, 28, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars, London. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal, £655 per share, dividing £42 per ann. nett.-Leeds and Liverpool £178, dividing £8 per ann. nert.—— Grand Junction, £127 to £132, the last half yearly divid. was £2.-Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Union Canal, £35 for £96 paid.Huddersfield, £18 per share,-Kennet and Ayon, £24.-Ellesmere, £54,-West-India Dock stock, £156 per cent. dividing £10 per cent. nett.East-India' Dock, £120 per cent. dividing £5 per cent. nett.-London Dock, £116 per cent. dividing £5 per cent.-East London Water Works, £50 to £52 10s. per share premium.-West Middlesex ditto, £18 to £21 per share premium. -Globe insurance, £116 per cent.-Albion ditto, at par, to £2 per cent. premium. |