nothing about her; he saw Captain Rutherford, but never had any conversation with him about the sale of the ship or its condition. Mr. John Bedwell, one of the club, paid the guinea for putting her on the way at Ayles's dock. Jeremiah Mackinlay, a foreman to Ayles, said, he received a guinea the day the ship went off the way: he gave a description of her state precisely similar to that of the other witnesses who saw her at the dock. Mr. Serjeant Shepherd, for the defendant, contended, that when a thing was sold in public under a condition that it was to be taken with all faults, the purchaser was not afterwards at liberty to avoid his bargain, on account of any particular defect, unless a case of evident fraud could be inade out. Those who sell by such a general description were not bound for specific warranty. The broker, in this case, had given such an account of the state of the ship, as he thought he was justified in giving from her appearance: this turned out to be an erroneous opinion, but there was not the slightest evidence of his having acted fraudulently, The case, then, was exactly similar to that of Pickering v. Down, where it had been adjudged, that the contract must decide between the parties, unless deceit had been employed for the purpose of misrepresentation. Here the representation came solely from Woolcombe, and as far as intention went it was honest, for it was founded on his real opinion. Who, then, could be said to have committed the fraud? It did not appear that Woolcombe had acted under any instructions from others; and such a supposition must not be presumed; it ought to be matter of proof, and not of inference. Sir James Mansfield. There certainly was in this case a contract to take the ship with all faults whatsoever; and it had been decided on a former occasion, that such general words are sufficient to cover any particular defect, unless fraud was committed by the seller. Fraud might be committed by the using of any means to disguise a defect, or by the making of a false representation to induce any one to buy. Now, what was the description given in this instance-it was, that the hull and keel were in a particularly sound state, and nearly as good as new. This account was utterly false: it was a gross misrepresentation, and misled the purchaser; for, would any man in his senses have bought the ship if an account of her real state had been given? It mattered not whether the man who drew up this description had done so without knowing any thing about the fact, or whether he really knew it. It was in evidence that the ship was known to be in a very bad condition long before the sale, and that the Captain had refused to have any thing done to her. The general words of the contract could not, therefore, be allowed to protect the seller, where a great defect, perfectly well known, had been concealed, and not only that, but a false account had been put about, which induced the purchaser to make the bargain. The jury immediately found for the plaintiff, Guildhall, Thursday, Dec. 23.Sittings before Sir J. Mansfield. -Special Jury-Sandilands v. the East India Company.-This was an action on a charter party, brought by the Captain of an East India vessel, to recover from the Company who had employed her, the amount of her freight from the East Indies to this country. There were several matters in issue, amounting in the whole to twelve, involving different questions of account and expenditure between the parties; but the main subject of dispute was, whether the Company were bound to pay the freight stipulated in the agreement. The Company undertook to pay a sum certain, in consideration that the ship's cargo should be conveyed in safety from her port in the East Indies to the port of London. It appeared, from the evidence, that the ship performed her voyage in perfect safety till her arrival at Margate, when she was found to be in such a condition that she could proceed no farther, at least without repair: the crew in consequence went on shore, and an inspector of the East India Company, who went down for the purpose of taking proper measures in this emergency, found it necessary to take out her cargo, which he afterwards sent to the London market by small craft. It was impossible for the ship to undergo proper repairs at Margate, so that she could not have carried her cargo to the port of London, unless she had first gone to some dock in the river to be refitted, and had then returned to Margate to re-ship the cargo. The Company therefore insisted by their counsel, Mr. Serjeant Shepherd, (who was assisted by Mr. Adam) that the condition of the charter party had not been complied with on the part of the plaintiff, and therefore that he was not entitled to recover on the agreement. The consideration on his part had failed; he had undertaken to bring the cargo to London, and had only brought it to Margate, from which place the Company had been compelled to convey their goods in crafts, hired on the occasion. Mr. Serjeant Lens (with whom was Mr. Serjeant Best) replied, that this was a most extraordinary defence to be set up by such a great body as the East India Company. They had all the advantage of the outward and homeward voyage as far as Margate. The unfortunate accident of the ship did not keep them back one day from the market: and yet, under these circumstances, they came forward and said, that they would have their bond; all the benefits of the agree ment were to accrue to them, and, for a failure in one small particu lar, they refused to indemnify an unfortunate gentleman, for all his labours and his expenses, employed for their service. This was, in deed, to claim for themselves the strictest measure of justice accord ing to the very letter; but he hoped, that their object was merely to ascertain an important ques tion, and not to ruin the fortunes of his client, who had worked for. their use and advantage. Sir James Mansfield thought the words of the charter-party clear and imperative; the plaintiff was to be paid on consideration of a contingency, which had not been fulfilled. It could not by any pos sibility be construed, that to stop at Margate and at London were the same things. The Jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff, making proper allowances to the Company for different expenses which they had incurred. MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES. Court of King's Bench, Monday, Feb.7.-Rex. v. Mary Anne Clarke. -The Attorney-General prayed the judgment of the Court upon this defendant, who had suffered it to pass against her by default, upon an indictment for publishing a libel upon the Right Hon. William Fitzgerald, Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, in a pamphlet, entitled, a Letter to that Gentleman. The libel was read by Mr. Dealtry, Deputy-Clerk of the Crownoffice. It accused the prosecutor of seducing his friend's wife, procuring the husband to be sent to an unhealthy climate, and of other matters (not fit to be mentioned in a public paper). The defendant then put in the following affidavit, which was read :— Mary Ann Clarke maketh oath, that she feels great concern at having been betrayed into a violation of the law: that she hath been intimately acquainted with the prosecutor and his father for many years that his father introduced the prosecutor to her previous to his going to college, as from the situation in which this deponent then lived she might do him much service in his progress through life. That deponent did render him many and essential services, and a great degree of intimacy subsisted between her and the prosecutor's said father, to whom she also rendered many services, and with whom she was in the habit of cor- as a friend and visitor, where he had been previously a constant and almost a daily one, and estranged himself from all friendship towards her; and instead of the reward she had been promised, he and his father refused to return her papers which had been deposited in trust, and the prosecutor's father assured her he had destroyed them, and had burnt the said letter containing the promise of provision. And this deponent further saith, that the letters which she now hath in her possession, in the hand-writing of the said prosecutor and his father, clearly prove the truth of the above matters, respecting their correspondence with, and obligations to, this deponent, both before and since the proceedings in 1809, during a period of about fourteen years. That deponent repeatedly remonstrated with him on these matters, but finding those remonstrances unattended to, and being vexed and disappointed in her expectations, and treated with contempt, ingratitude, and indifference, she, under that influence, wrote and published the letter which is the subject of this prosecution, and which has been very little circulated. "That this deponent at first pleaded not guilty to the indictment, but being advised she could not defend herself under that plea, withdrew it, and suffered judgment to go by default, and thereby wholly submits herself to the consideration of this honourable Court. That this deponent hath two daughters, one of them approaching the age of womanhood. That she hath hitherto, under many adverse circumstances and misfortunes, given them an education, and brought them up in honour and virtue, And that should this honourable Court, in its wisdom, deprive her said daughters of her protection, they will be left totally destitute; and she humbly hopes, that these circumstances, and the state of her health, and that in the present case, she has been actuated by no views of a political nature, but solely by the treatment received from the prosecutor in his private capacity, will be taken into the consideration of this honourable Court. Mr. Mr. Attorney - general, Parke, and Mr. Scarlett, then addressed the Court in support of the prosecution. The Attorney-General characterized the libel as the most flagrant that had ever appeared in a court of justice, as it accused the prosecutor of nothing less than felony. There was no doubt that it was as directly meant for an engine for the purpose of extorting money, as if she had commanded a sum to be put under a stone, under threat of the like revenge. Revenge, indeed, was stated to be the motive of the pamphlet; and the public is always the bar to which these libellers drag their victims. "As yet," said Mrs. Clarke, "I have shown up no one who did not richly deserve to be exposed to the public; this is the only revenge I am desirous of taking on those by whom 1 " I am ill-treated; and having brought them before that tribunal, I rest perfectly satisfied that impartial justice will be administered." "This hint," she proceeds, have just thrown out by the way, as a caution to those who either do not know, or require to be reminded, that it is not my disposition to sit down quietly under the studied injury of ingratitude, and the neglect of promises given to dupe or cajole me, by men who never meant to perform them, or who think they may at any time be broken with impunity. For the benefit, therefore, of all whom it may concern, I here announce my intention of submitting to the public, in a very short time, two or three volumes, which may be followed by others as opportunity shall suit, or circumstances require." So that the whole world were at the mercy of Mrs. Clarke's opportunities and circumstances. The Attorney-General hoped the sentence of the Court would, at least, teach her to hold her hand, and to refrain from the publication of future libels. Mr. Brougham then addressed the Court in mitigation of the defendant's punishment. Before the Court pronounced judgment upon the defendant, Mary Anne Clarke, the AttorneyGeneral thought it his duty to intimate that he had to pray judgment against Wm. Mitchell, who had suffered it by default, under an indictment for printing the forementioned libel. At the same time the Attorney-General believed him to be the ignorant agent of other persons whose names he refused to give up, and he had nothing to urge against him beyond the mere fact of his being the printer of this atrocious libel. The defendant said that he was seventy years of age, and had never receiv ed any profit from the sale of the libel. Mr. Justice Le Blanc pronounced the judgment of the Court upon both defendants, who, he said, had acknowledged themselves guilty, the one of being the author and publisher, and the other the printer and circulator of a libel against a private individual, of so foul a nature, that the Court would not repeat it; the charges, if true, would render the prosecutor unfit for the situation he holds, or, indeed, for any other. There was no doubt of the libellous tendency of this publication; and there could be as little that the motive in which it originated, and which induced the threat of those other volumes which the defendant, Mary Anne Clarke, stated herself to have in meditation, was the desire to raise money by the purchase of their suppression. His Lordship hoped this would be a warning to the world, how they formed hasty and imprudent connexions; and for the defendant herself, he trusted the solitude and confinement to which it would be the duty of the Court to sentence her, would induce her to review her past life, and repent of those errors which had brought her to her present situation. was always painful to be obliged to visit the sius of the fathers upon the children; but in some cases the separation of the latter from the former might be attended with beneficial results: whether that might be the case in this instance, it was not for the Court to inquire. Taking all the circumstances into its consideration, the Court did order and adjudge, that the defendant, Mary Anne Clarke, should be committed to the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea (the King's Bench prison) for the space of nine calendar months, and at the end of that period enter into security to keep the peace for three years, in a recognizance, herself in 2001. and two sureties in 100%. each, and be further imprisoned till that security be given; and that the defendant, William It |