the ordinary articles provided on such an occasion to the undertaker, but they became the perquisites of the clergyman and the domestics. Certain sums were ordered by Mr. Ward, the steward, to be paid to particular individuals in lieu of these perquisites. The clerk of the parish received 10., the mutes 21. each, the undertaker for his personal trouble and assistance at the solemnization of the ceremony 281., and witness himself 10%. Several turnpikes were passed by the procession in its way to the church. Hatbands and scarfs were always given to those who wore them on these occasions. Some of the servants received one, and some two suits of clothes. Cross-examined by Mr. Casberd.-Witness was no longer engaged in the business of an undertaker, but travelled for a house in the wine and spirit line. An interval of about ten days occurred between the death and the funeral of Lord Peterborough. The distance between the church and the room in which his Lordship's body lay in state did not exceed by the nearest door, above 20 yards; but by the grand entrance it might be about 200. The procession, however, took a circuitous course of two miles, that it might be seen by a sufficient number of spectators. He recollected that for one article alone, the silver gilt nails of the coffin, 85. had been charged. They were of a yellow colour, and their value he was ignorant of. Joseph Barnes, a labourer, deposed, that he had made the shell, and the oak coffin, in which the remains of Lord Peterborough were deposited, and his charge for the timber and labour was 10l. 8s. 3d., which Mr. Dore paid to him; part of this he paid to a man who assisted him. Here it appeared by a reference to the bill, that the charge was about 167. to the defendants. Susannah Rummin, housekeeper to the late Lord, described the dress of the body when laid in the coffin. It was composed of satin and the finest cambric. The servants, who were nine in number, received two suites of clothes each. After some additional evidence on the value of the different articles, as this inquiry appeared to be almost interminable, Mr. Justice Burrough earnestly recommended a reference to some gentleman at the bar, who, as the witnesses had been brought in great numbers, both from Bath and London, might immediately proceed in their further examination, and decide on the general merits of the account. This suggestion, after some reluctance, was acquiesced in by the parties, and the whole case referred to Mr. Abraham Moore. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILD- Shannon v. Brandon.The plaintiff in this case was a young lady residing in Bury-street, in the city, and the defendant a merchant in Goodman's-fields. The parties were both of the Jewish persuasion, and having been acquainted from infancy, an attachment of a tender nature was formed between them at a very early period. Mr. Brandon, about five or six years ago, being about to leave the country, a mutual agreement, regularly signed and attested, was drawn up, in which each party covenanted to pay the other the sum of 500/. in case of a refusal on either side to enter into the marriage contract when called upon. During the absence of Mr. Brandon several letters of a very tender description passed between them, and no interruption was expected to the completion of the contract. The defendant returned to this country, and an interview took place between him and the plaintiff. At this time no change was perceptible in his behaviour towards her, but some months ago the correspondence was dropped on his part. The fair plaintiff sought to obtain an interview, in order to insist upon the fulfilment of the contract, and at length "caught" him just as he was about to proceed to the country, by coach, from the Three Tuns in Aldgate. She was accompanied by a friend, and followed him into the yard of the inn; she accosted him, produced a copy of the bond, and in rather strong terms urged him imme. diately to fulfil the engagement he had entered into. He, however, refused to give any answer at that time, and they parted. The present action was the consequence of this refusal. The covenant was put in, and read. A letter was also produced, which had been written by Miss Shannon subsequent to the interview at the Three Tuns. The style of this document excited much mirth in the Court. It ran thus:" I, Esther Shannon, do hereby require you, Jonathan Israel Brandon, forthwith to become my husband, upon pain of forfeiting the penalty of 500l., being the sum mutually agreed upon, &c." Other documents relative to the case were read, and witnesses called to prove the facts as related. Mr. Sergeant Best, for the defendant, in a very short address to.the jury, said he knew the verdict must be against his client; but he felt it his duty to state, that the breach of contract on his part was entirely owing to losses in trade, by which he was rendered incapable of supporting Miss Shannon in a style befitting her rank in life. Of these losses the other parties were perfectly aware, and he could not help thinking that the present proceedings might have been spared. The jury instantly found for the plaintiff, damages 5007. ADMIRALTY-COURT, JUNE 30. Ville de Varsovie.-Sir William Scott. This is a question of head-money, arising from the destruction of five French ships in Basque-roads in the year 1809. The French fleet lay there blockaded by the English squadron, and it was the object of the Board of Admiralty to destroy them by fire-ships, or any other means that would be likely to be effectual. The service was performed, and head-money was claimed on the part of Lord Gambier for the fleet. It was decreed to him, but distribution of it was prevented by a notice delivered to Lord Lord Gambier's agent, on the part of Lord Cochrane, claiming the whole head-money for the ships actually engaged in performing the service. It has been the constant practice of these Courts to restrain the distribution of head-money within much narrower bounds than that of prize, and it has always been considered as a reward for real actual service, and a meritorious personal exertion. A mere honest wish to share in the danger of an enterprise, however praiseworthy, is insufficient to entitle a party to share in the reward; but in cases of united force for a general purpose, it is considered as a conflict of all with all, for it would be hardly possible, in the confusion of a general action, to distinguish the particular combats of individual ships, removed as they must be by the extent of the line of battle, for mere elongation will not break the unity of a joint transaction. The present must be considered either as a combined or a separate attack. It might happen, that the use of the whole force under Lord Gambier might be improper; that other descriptions of force might be more efficient; or that the commander of the armament might think it necessary to assign particular stations to particular vessels. The question to be considered is, was it the transaction of a fleet associated for one common purpose, or was there a dissociation? It is evident that it must have been the wish of the Lords of the Admiralty to destroy the ships of the enemy which were blockaded by the British fleet. Lord Gambier's letter to Lord Mulgrave, dated the 11th of March, 1809, shows that it had been the subject of conver sation before Lord Cochrane was applied to:-" My dear Lord;The advanced work between the isles of Aix and Oleron, which I mentioned in my last letter, I find was injured in its foundation, and is in no state of progress; that it is, therefore, no obstacle to our bombarding the enemy's fleet, if you should be disposed to make an attempt to destroy it. The enemy's ships lay very much exposed to the operation of fire-ships; it is a horrible mode of warfare, and the attempt very hazardous, if not desperate; but we should have plenty of volunteers for the service. If you mean to do any thing of the kind, it should be with secrecy and quickly, and the ships used should not be less than those built for the purpose, at least a dozen, and some smaller ones." Notice is also given on the 19th to Lord Gambier of the preparations, with a view to enable him to make an attack on the enemy, either conjointly with the line-of-battle ships, or sepa rately, by what other means he should think fit to employ, and also directions to him to employ Lord Cochrane in the service. It appears, therefore, from the documents mentioned, that the general command of the whole enterprise was given to Lord Gambier. Here is a blockade, and what service can be more of a combined nature than that of blockade? The fire-ships formed a part of it; they were fitted out from the fleet, and were manned by volunteers from Lord Gam bier's vessels; the ships that came from England formed a part of the general fleet; and whatever Lord Cochrane's merits may be, they are not of a nature to destroy the rights of Lord Gambier. The service is connected in its very origin, and it will be difficult to show how it was dissociated. It is true that it was effected by the fire-ships, but the inshore squadron was advanced to receive the men from the fire-ships. On the next morn. ing the combined operations were continued. Whether the whole or only a part of the fleet engaged is of no sort of consequence. Lord Cochrane made signal for further assistance, acknowledging thereby that the fleet was in a situation to afford it. Some censures are thrown in the act on petition on Lord Gambier; but the conusance of complaints of that nature, although it formerly belonged to this Court, is now happily transferred to another and more competent tribunal; but still the very charge of neglect implies an admission on the part of Lord Cochrane, that Lord Gambier commanded the enter prise; how else could he be considered as answerable for the consequences? In the present case, the fleet is not removed by elongation, for it was not above five miles from the scene of action. The operation is not by detachment, for all were employed. There was no separate control, for the whole takes its orders from Lord Gambier. All contributed to produce the effect, but with different degrees of activity. The whole service, whether principal VOL. LX. Currey and others v. Willan.The plaintiffs, who reside near Thirsk, in Yorkshire, brought the present action to recover from the defendant, proprietor of the Glasgow Mail, the sum of 2001. being the value of a parcel intrusted to his servants, and for which they had never accounted. The short facts proved were the following:-The plaintiffs being desirous of sending 2007. to London, addressed to Messrs. Smith, of Bow-lane, went to Messrs. Britton and Co. the bankers at Ripon. On making the necessary deposit, a Mr. Robinson, clerk to Britton and Co. put up in a parcel 160. in one pound, and 40%. in two pound Bank of England notes. He addressed them as directed by the plaintiffs, and carried them to Mr. Farrar, the post-master at Ripon, stating that it was a packet of value, and requesting that he would send his boy with it to Borough-bridge, that it might go by the Glasgow U mail, mail, parcels for which were booked at the Crown-inn. Farrar agreed to send his boy, but refused to be answerable for the safety of the parcel; Robinson answered, that that was not a matter of doubt; and the boy, named Sturdy, took it accordingly to Scott's the Crown-inn, at Borough bridge, where he paid 2d. for booking, and 2s. 6d. for the carriage. The package arrived in London, but was there stolen by a clerk of the defendant, at whose lodgings the envelope was found. These particulars were proved by Robinson, Farrar, and the boy Sturdy, called on the part of the plaintiffs. Mr. Scarlett, who was for the defendant, cross examined them, as to their knowledge that a notice was posted in the coachoffice at Borough-bridge, that the proprietors would not be responsible for any parcels delivered to their care above the value of 5l. unless insured accordingly. Robinson admitted that he had heard of the existence of such a notice in general, but not as applied to the Glasgow mail in particular. Farrar was not acquainted with it; and Sturdy, the boy, swore that he had seen none in the office, though it was admitted on all hands that it was pasted against the wall in large charac with the existence of the notice. The object of sending parcels like this by coaches was, to avoid heavy postage, which was charg ed upon every single note; and if parties, for the sake of saving a little money, chose to run the risk, they must abide by the consequences. Mr. Justice Abbott, in sum. ming up, observed, that the object of these notices by carriers was, to do away with their common law liability; but they would still be responsible, unless it were shown that the notice had come home to the knowledge of the party transmitting. If the jury found that that knowledge existed in the present case, either in the plaintiffs, which was not contended, or in the agents they had employed to take the parcel to the coach-office, they would find a verdict for the defendant. The Jury deliberated for some time, and at length returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, 2001. MONDAY, JULY 6. Sittings before Mr. Justice Abbott and a Special Jury. Logan and others v. Willan and others. The following are the facts of this case as they appeared in evidence :' The plaintiffs (wholesale druggists in London) in Feb. 1816 received a letter purporting to come from a Mr. James Worthy, a dyer, of Exeter, with whom they had had some previous dealings; it inquired the lowest price of cochineal per lb.; an answer was sent by return of post, and the consequence was an order for 65 lb., |