be ample. The learned counsel for the salvors entreated the Court to remember, that the hull and property were picked up in the tempestuous month of February, and at a distance of 24 miles off the Lizard Point: these circumstances, added to the very laborious efforts of the salvors, entitled them, he contended, to more than a moiety of the value; and when the heavy expenses incurred were taken into consideration, and the great number among whom salvage was to be distributed, it was evident that even such an allotment would be, in fact, less than a moiety.

Dr. Adams observed, that between the opposite counsel and himself there was no difference as to facts; the only question at issue between them was the amount of remuneration to be made to the salvors. He must at once declare his conviction, that the proposed one shilling and three-pence was by no means an adequate allowance. The vessel was abandoned on the 9th, and not discovered until the 13th of February; at that time she was riding with her keel upwards, and a part of her cargo floated out; she had, therefore, been at sea four days in this destitute condition; and, no doubt, in twelve hours more the whole of her cargo would have been dispersed on the sea. The salvage effected by his party was, therefore, proportionably great. It ought also to be remembered, that among the salvors were a King's officer, (Lieutenant Little, commander of the Hind, and his crew of 40 men), besides the others employed, viz. 90 additional hands,

for the purpose of raising her, and towing her into port, which was not achieved but with incredible labour. On the whole, he should conclude with observing, that the Court would not exceed the ancient rule of its practice, if it even decreed salvors a moiety.

Dr. Arnold felt that this was a case visibly distinguished from others of the highest merits, in which the court had rewarded salvors for the absolute risk of their lives, as well as for their exertions. With its permission, he would refer to two or three cases in point. In that of the Trionfo, a Portuguese ship, (adjudged in 1803) that had been run foul of by another vessel, and abandoned by her crew, and, 5 days afterwards, was fallen in with by two of our frigates, whom it occupied 4 days to bring her in ; the value of the cargo was about 16,000l., and the Court held that a third was a sufficient salvage. The Two Brothers, Forman, 1808, was found at sea, driving before the wind towards the enemy's coast (Jutland); the salvors were 8 men and 2 boys; the court gave 700., which was only one-fourth. In the case of the Francis, Pasmore, 1809, where the value was 2,000l., the court allowed salvors only 600l., which was less than a third. The Eglantine, in February, 1812, was found at sea, derelict, by the Cumberland WestIndiaman; the Court did not consider that there was any danger to the salvors arising from the weather at that time; but that great merit was due to them for embarking in a vessel, to bring her into port, that was in so unprotected a state: the salvors

were

were employed 29 days in working her to a port; the value of the property on board was 9,500.; the Court decreed only a third, however.

Dr. Adams replied, that the peril in any of the cases just adduced was not equal to that incurred in the present instance.

Sir William Scott remarked, that, in adjudging all these cases, the court did not feel itself strictly bound to adhere to the grant of a moiety in cases of "derelict." The Court had a right to advert to all the circumstances under which the salvage had been effected in giving those remunerations, and had thought proper to abandon the ancient practice. The present case was one of "derelict" of an extreme nature, and of imminent peril. The vessel was found in an inverted state, her keel upwards, a portion of her cargo already washed out, and the remainder on the point of following. She was fallen in with by a revenue-cutter, under a complication of perilous circumstances, in the month of February, in very stormy weather, the sea running very high, and off a coast of extreme peril, not merely from its natural difficulties, but from the inhospitable character of its inhabitants. It had appeared that one barrel of brandy was found in a barn; it might be matter of wonder that a greater part of the cargo had not travelled the same road. In every point of view the peril was extreme, and the exertions of the salvors were strenuous. Even after the hull had been laid up in dock for repairs, there was great danger of its falling to pieces,

and destroying the workmen employed on its its reparation. Every merit, therefore, was clearly due to the salvors; and under all the circumstances before the Court, it did not feel disposed to diminish the remuneration anciently assigned in these cases; he, therefore, decreed a moiety of the property to the salvors, as it now stood, i. e. after deduction of the 428. expenses from the value of that property; for as to the other expenses, the parties had not given their appearances as soon as they might have done, and their amount had become considerable. As to the cask, of course salvage would follow in the same proportion. Costs on all sides to be deducted from moiety.

Salmon v. Atkinson and others, -This action was brought against the defendants as coach proprietors, for having refused to convey the plaintiff, a respectable attorney at Bath, from Liverpool to Holyhead, after he had taken his place; and also to recover expenses paid by the plaintiff for a chaise, in consequence of such refusal. Between Liverpool and Holyhead there are three ferries; the first over the Mersey at Liverpool, where the passengers are paid for by the coach proprietors; and two others at Conway and Bangor, where it seems the proprietors refuse to pay for the passengers. But the question in the present case seemed to be, not so much whether the pas

sengers

sengers or the proprietors ought to pay for the passage over these two ferries, as whether upon the present occasion the defendants' coachman, who was also a proprietor, was not in collusion with the ferrymen and postmaster at Conway, to make the passengers pay an illegal demand; the fare for the ordinary foot-passengers, being 1d., and for a horse and rider 2d., while 6d. was demanded of the outside coach passengers, and 1s. of the inside passengers.

Hawkesworth, the defendants' agent, proved, that the plaintiff had taken his place from Liverpool to Holyhead, under the name of James, in the beginning of September last. The proprietors, he stated, paid the passage over the Mersey, but not the other ferries.

Selwyn, the plaintiff's clerk, proved, that he went to serve the defendants with the writ in this action, and travelled by the same mail. In the course of the journey, he had learned from the mouth of the coachman (the defendant Atkinson) the particulars of the transaction, which he (Atkinson) related as follows:-A tall thin gentleman came by the coach to Conway, and having made great objections to pay the fare of the ferry, which he said positively he would not do, one of the boatmen obstructed him when he endeavouring to mount the coach, whereupon Atkinson said to him, "You have said a great deal about the ferry; to save your word, I'll pay for you;" to which Mr. Salmon answered, "If you do, I w'ont pay you again," when Atkinson replied, "Oh! then

was

I'm off" and accordingly drove off, but pulled up 7 or 8 yards further off, on Mr. Salmon's hailing him, and turned round to the guard asking what he should do, the guard said, "drive on ;" the guard being his master, he did drive on. When the witness returned by the same coach, Atkinson further stated, “that it was always usual for the passengers to pay the ferry; if they did not, he drove off without them, unless they had baggage, which might be stopped by the ferrymen; upon one occasion four passengers refused to pay at once, and he drove off without them he should have driven off without witness, if witness had refused to pay."

The defendants endeavoured to show that the passengers always paid the ferry, and that the coachman had not prevented the plaintiff from getting up to pursue his journey. They first called Jones, who had been the ferryman for seven years; he stated that the passengers always paid. the ferry, he never received it from the coachman. The coach stopped half an hour at breakfast, and he usually demanded his fare when breakfast was over, just before the passengers mounted. The plaintiff refused to pay ou the occasion in question, upon which witness extended his arm to prevent him from mounting on the coach, but there was nothing else to prevent him. The coachman said he would pay to save the plaintiff's word, he having sworn he would not pay. Plaintiff said, "If you do, I won't pay again." The coachman said, "What are we to do

now?"

now ?" and the guard replied, “ Drive on, you must not keep the mail all day." Plaintiff was four or five yards from the coach. Witness could not say he was near enough to hear what passed between the coachman and guard. He then went into the Harp, eight or ten yards off; by this time the coach had passed on, having staid its full time, if not

more.

On cross-examination he saw, that the ferry-charge for footpassengers was a penny; for a man and horse two pence; but the coach outside passengers paid sixpence, the inside a shilling. The coachman never went off without the passengers paying, for they always paid, though he had known difficulties arise. He usually made his demand after breakfast, when the coach was going off. He went himself to the magistrate with Mr. Salmon. Did not recollect four passengers being left behind.

Mr. Roberts the post-master of Conway, related the circumstance of the altercation about the fare, much in the same way as the preceding witness. The plaintiff had said he would never pay such a dd imposition.

Chief-Justice Abbott.-He was perfectly justified in saying so.

The witness proceeded to state, that 30%. had been taken off his salary to pay for the ferryage of the mail-bag. He had formerly been allowed 77. 10s. for the same purpose, but he had never paid any part of it to the ferryman. General Lloyd was the proprietor of the ferry; and, he believed, had a remuneration for a term of years, for carrying over the bag.

Chief Justice Abbott here intimated that the ferryman, postmaster, and coachman ought all to be indicted.

Roberts, a shopkeeper, gave a similar account of the transaction, and stated that he did not see any one hinder the plaintiff from mounting the coach. After the dispute was over plaintiff went down the street.

jev. Robert Williams said, that the ferryman prevented slaintiff from mounting, but the coachman did nothing to prevent him.

Chief Justice thing but driving off.

Abbott.-No

Another witness of the name of Williams stated, that a person came to plaintiff, and said, the coach was waiting for him. He answered, he would be bothered with it no longer.

On cross-examination, he said, the coach was out of sight, and he only heard a person shout. The road turned round a corner close to the post-office, where the coach stood during the dispute.

Mr. Scarlett, for the plaintiff, having commented on the circumstance that neither the guard nor the person who shouted were called to give evidence, and having stated that the plaintiff had followed the coach up the hill out of Conway, and had made a second attempt to mount, which the coachman resisted, unless the plaintiff would pay for the ferry,

Chief Justice Abbott summed up, and stated that the demand of 6d. or 1s. for the passage of the ferry was an illegal demand; that if the plaintiff had been left behind in an attempt to resist the payment

payment of a legal demand, or in an attempt to resist the payment of an illegal demand, if the coachman was not in collusion to enforce that demand, the defendants were justified in driving on. But if, from the evidence that had been given, the jury thought that the coachman was leagued with the ferryman to enforce the payment of this illegal demand, the defendants could not justify leaving the plaintiff behind, but ought to have waited till the plaintiff had gone before a magistrate.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 21. 17s., being the expense of a chaise, which the plaintiff had been obliged to hire from Conway to Holyhead.

PREROGATIVE-COURT, WEDNES

DAY, DEC. 9.

Musto v. Sutcliffe.-The tes tator in this cause, Mr. Timothy Sutcliffe, deceased, was one of the Quaker persuasion, and married in 1803 a Miss Osborn, himself being 25 years older than that lady. It appears, that soon after their union, the deceased became jealous and suspicious of his wife; and accordingly, under the influence of those feelings, had made a will, dated in the year 1804, by which he cut her off without a shilling, and left the whole of his personal and freehold property to his nephews and nieces. His will was deposited with Mr. Musto, his brother-inlaw, residing in Essex. But shortly after, finding that his suspicions were totally groundless and unfounded, Mr. Sutcliffe's

affection for his wife returned; and the peace and harmony of the parties were completely re-established; the best understanding prevailing between them down to the day of his decease, which happened on Nov. 5, 1817. In that interval deceased frequently expressed to Mr. Sutcliffe, as well as to many of his friends, his fixed intention of altering the will; and on one occasion made a particular appointment with Mrs. Sutcliffe to accompany him to town, whither he was going to receive his dividends: and after transacting his business at the Bank, to proceed into Essex, in order to procure the will from Mr. Musto, for the purpose of making alterations in her favour. Many domestic contingencies, however, happened to prevent Mrs. Sutcliffe from accompanying him, or even, as in that event he had directed her, from following him to town. Mr. Sutcliffe returned home to their residence at Henley-uponThames, without going on to Essex; and on that occasion the proposed journey into that county was postponed until his next going to receive his dividends. which he took twice a-year. Soon after, on the morning of the 4th of November, 1817, the deceased was taken extremely ill; and the parish schoolmaster, a Mr. Chapman, was sent for, to take instructions for making out a new will, which was that now on behalf of Mrs. Sutcliffe. The depositions alleged, that on the arrival of Mr. Chapman, deceased was extremely ill and debilitated; be was informed by Mrs. Sutcliffe of the nature of those dispositions