the running of the tide one and a quarter, and for the slack three quarters per hour, these vessels were approaching each other at the rate of sixteen feet in a second. He mentioned these circumstances, merely for the sake of showing that, in such a state of things, and such a rate of sailing, it was almost impossible that men should be able to give any accurate account of the transaction. It appeared to the master and his brother, that it would be hard to judge of the veracity of men engaged in such a scene, by any accidental discrepancies of evidence. It was a scene of confusion, terror, and alarm; the horrors of which nobody knew, but he who had been present in it. In the case of a house on fire, however alarming might be the progress of the flames, it might be said that a man had time to collect himself, and to meet with fortitude so trying a situation; but in the case of two ships nearing each other with this velocity, the time was so momentary, and the peril so inevitable, that the mind had no opportunity of rallying, and the senses of a man were too much engrossed with the present danger to allow of his observing passing circumstances with any minuteness. In the evidence very few circumstances were detailed, but those which arose between the period at which the alarm was first excited, and that at which the accident took place. Himself and his brother conceived that the blame of that event must rest upon the party which first caused that species of alarm, which first produced in the other party an incapability of managing their own vessel. It was important, therefore, to as certain who did excite it, at a time when both parties were pursuing their course in the full possession of all their faculties. There was one rule which was well known to all seamen, and it ́ was this-the ship which had the wind, which was going largely, and which had the command of her helm, was to take care of those ships that were sailing by the wind. Now, one of these vessels was sailing 11 points from it. As to the Dundee, he (himself) and his brother, found no fault with the sails she had up, though the other vessel was stem. ming the tide. But the Dundee was aware that the Princess Charlotte being in the wind, it was of importance to her, so stemming the tide, to go on steadily in her course. Now, they did think, that the Princess Charlotte was, at the time, going on in that course under a full understanding that the Dundee would "take care of her." It did appear, that only a few minutes before, the Adventure had cleared the Princess Charlotte. It was perhaps important to consider the time at which the Adventure came in a line with the smack and the Dundee. The evidence varied from 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, to 45 minutes; and in the time of five minutes it was impossible to suppose, that the Dundee had not kept a good look-out: if it was a longer time, then a question arose, how far the Dundee was acting with prudence in sailing in the very eddy of the brig's wake; for if the evidence of her own crew was to be believed, she was certainly not more than forty feet astern of the Adventure, which would bring her within the effect of that eddy. She must have known, that, by the circumstance of her being headed by the Adventure, rigged as that brig was, there was one are of the horizon kept from her view, and the danger she was incurring was evident. Had she reflected, that, every moment she remained [On the petition of the proctor for the owners of the Dundee, it was ordered to be referred to the registrar and merchants, to ascertain the amount of said damages.] JAN. 19. in this situation, she was liable to COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, go on board a ship, or any other obstruction which the Adventure might have run aboard of, she would hardly have persisted in following so close. As to the Adventure, it was quite clear that she had not kept a good look-out. It was proved that the master of the Adventure, when they told him that the smack was coming down upon her, ran forward and cried out "Helm hard to starboard!"-a cry that, in a seaman's ear, sounded very much like alarm and fear indeed. The masters could discover, on the other hand, no impropriety in the working of the Princess Charlotte; and if there was, the terror and apprehension of her crew might very well excuse it. The other Trinity Master expressed his conviction, that if the helm of the Dundee had been put hard to starboard at the same time that the brig's helm was so put, she could not have struck the smack; and this, he thought, was evident from their respective courses. Lord Stowell said, these opinions certainly decided his own judgment, which indeed had all along travelled to the same conclusion. He must, in this case, consider that the Dundee was the wrong-doer; and he therefore pronounced her liable for the damages incurred accord ingly. James Mudie v. Edward Thomason and Charles Jones.-Mt. Hart, on the part of the plaintiff, moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from exhibiting, or selling, or offering for sale, certain medals. The facts of the case were these;-Some time previously to the year 1816, the plaintiff determined to execute dies for a series of medals, which were intended to commemorate the principal events of the late war. The dies for the first part of the series were, with considerable labour and expense, completed in 1819, and the defendants, who resided at Birm ingham, were applied to for the purpose of striking the medals. During this negotiation, the defendants assured the plaintiff that he should be honourably dealt with. The terms of payment having been agreed upon, the dies were given to the defendants; but before this was done, the plaintiff received an assurance, that all possible care should be taken of the dies. It was also stipulated, that the dies should be kept locked up in a box, except when wanted for use; that no medals should be struck, except with the consent and for the use of the plaintiff; that all the medals which might be struck should be sent to London; and that none should be disposed of by the defendants, at Birmingham. The defendants had, however, lately caused a large shield, emblazoned with the most remarkable events of the Duke of Wellington's campaigns, to be manufactured at their establishment in Birmingham, and had also caused to be struck 25 reverses of the medals belonging to the plaintiff, which they had placed as ornaments round the shield. This shield the defendants had brought to London, had advertised for exhibition, and had also offered for sale. In addition to this, the plaintiff had cause to believe, that the defendants had lately struck off a large quantity of medals from his dies, and that they had disposed of some for money, and that they had then in their possession others not ordered to be struck by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the application for the injunction was made. Mr. Hart, in the course of his statement, said, the expense incurred by Mr. Mudie in manufacturing the medals amounted to nearly 10,000l. The Lord Chancellor observed, that the terms of the agreement rendered it unnecessary to refer to any statute, and he, therefore, granted the injunction. MARCH 27. Queen's College, Cambridge. The question at issue related to the Mastership of Queen's college, Cambridge. The college was founded by Elizabeth, the wife of Edward IV., and from her the college received a book of statutes, by which it was provided, that the fellows should proceed to elect a new master within eight days after the office should become vacant: and if they omitted to do so, that the right of appointment should devolve to the Crown. It was also required by the statutes, that the senior fellow should admit the person elected to the office of master, under pain of expulsion from the college. The subject came before the Court upon two petitions. One petition was from Mr. King, a fellow of the college, who prayed that the Court, as visiter, would inquire, whether the office of master of Queen's college was vacant; and if it should be found to be so, whether the fellows ought to proceed to a new election, or whether the right of appointment had devolved to the Crown. The grounds on which this application rested were, that on the 12th day after the death of the late master, Dr. Milner, the fellows, in compliance with the statutes, proceeded to elect a new master, when Mr. Godfrey was chosen by a majority of votes. Immediately after the election, Mr.Godfrey required the senior fellow to admit him to his office, when he was informed, that it was first necessary for him to sign the declaration of faith required by the act of Uniformity. Mr. Godfrey, however, disregarded this intimation, and, as Mr. King contended, went through the usual form of admission, by receiving the keys and a copy of the statutes. The other petition was from Mr. Mandell, who was the opposing candidate to Mr. Godfrey at the time of the elec tion. Mr. Mandell stated, that Mr. Godfrey obtained a majority of votes by voting for himself as fellow for Middlesex, although there was at that time another fellow for that county, and it was provided by the statutes that there should never be more than one fellow for Middlesex at the college at one and the same time. Upon this ground, therefore, Mr. Mandell claimed to be the master of the college. The question for the Court to decide was, whether, by the act of Uniformity, passed under under Charles II., Mr. Godfrey had not forfeited his office. By that act it is declared, that if any master or head of a college shall omit to sign the declaration of faith therein contained, before or at the time of his admission to office, such office shall, ipso facto, be considered void, as if its possessor were naturally dead. The Court was also to decide, whether, supposing Mr. Godfrey to have forfeited his office, the fellows ought not to have proceeded to a new election within twelve days, and whether, as they had not done so, the right of appointment to the office of master had not devolved to the Crown. Mr. Godfrey, in answer to the affidavits filed against him, contended, that the form of admission was The Lord Chancellor, after de tailing the facts of the case, and declaring that Mr. Godfrey ought to be considered, at the time of the election, as de jure fellow i Middlesex, decided, that accord ing to the intention of the sta d tutes, and the constant usage the college, the admission of the master was not completed by the delivery of the keys, &c. In this view of the case, it was evident, that Mr. Godfrey had signed the declaration of faith, required by the act of Uniformity previously to his admission. His lordship stated, that he would hear any ob servations from counsel on question of what ought to con stitute admission. If no applica tion were made to him on this point before Saturday, it must be understood that Mr. Godfrey duly elected master. The King v. Clement.-This was a proceeding upon obtained by Mr. Denman, for cause to be shown why the pro not completed by the delivery of ceedings in the Court below the keys, &c., until some subse- should not be removed by certioquent ceremony was performed rari into this Court. The matter in the chapel of the college. in question was, the fine of 500 This ceremony he had gone imposed by the judges in April, through several days after he last year, at the Old Bailey, for a had signed the declaration of contempt of Court, in publishing faith before the vice-chancellor of the college. a full account of the proceed. He therefore ings on the trials of Thistlewood lated the provisions of the act of orders of the Court, forbidding maintained, that he had not vio- and Ings, contrary to the express allegation that he was not en- proceedings against those two Uniformity. With respect to the the publication of any of the titled to vote as fellow for Mid- prisoners, until the trials of six dlesex, Mr. Godfrey asserted, that others, included with them in the it had been the immemorial usage same indictment, for the same of the college to maintain two crime, should be terminated. The Attorney-General showed fellows for that county. the cause against the rule, and contended, that every court of record had an undoubted legal right to make such orders, with respect to its proceedings, as should prevent any impediment to the ends of justice. In the discretionary exercise of this right, the order in question had been made, for suspending the publication of the evidence and proceedings until the trials of the whole eight persons included in the same indictment should be terminated. The defendant, in contempt of the Court, had violated the order, by publishing a full account of both trials in the Observer Sunday paper, of which he is the printer, publisher, and proprietor; and, in aggravation, of his offence, he had published in the same paper the very order of the Court which he had vio lated. The Court, in consequence of this contempt of their order, did, upon the motion of Mr. Attorney-general, make another order, for the personal at tendance of Mr. Clement on a subsequent day, that he might answer for his misconduct, and show cause why the Court should not punish his contumacy. This order was served at the Observer publishing office, in the Strand; but Mr. Clement did not attend, as required, upon the following Friday, the 28th of April; and the Court, for his offence, and such contemptuous non-attendance, fined him in the sum of 5001. The learned Attorneygeneral observed, that Mr. Clement had stated in his affidavit, that on the day upon which the order for his attendance was made, he went out of town, and on that and the two following days he had travelled through VOL. LXIII. several parts of the county of Kent, and arrived in Feversham in the evening of the 28th; and on the next morning, and not before, he saw a newspaper, stating the order for his attendance, and also an account of the conviction of Thistlewood and Ings, and of the fine imposed on himself by the Court. But in this affidavit he did not state that he had not absented himself from his office, and left town, for the purpose of eluding personal service of the order for his appearance. He had therefore no ground to complain of injury, by the fine being imposed in his absence, as he was aware of the contempt he had been guilty of, and might have been present, if he had chosen to offer any thing in palliation or excuse for such contempt. Headduced several authorities to show that the Court had a legal right to punish by fine, persons contemptuously violating its orders. He could not anticipate what kind of arguments his learned friend on the other side had to offer in vindication of the defendant's conduct, and if any should be offered, he hoped to be allowed the opportunity of reply. He was followed on the samé side by the Solicitor-general, Mr. Littledale, and Mr. Gurney; and it was contended, that, if Mr. Clement felt he had any reasonable grounds of palliation for his offence, or against the justice and quantum of the fine imposed, the proper place for him to seek redress was the Court of Exchequer. Mr. Denman, on the part of the defendant, denied the legal power of the Court below to 2 E |