The damages were laid at 5,000/ Mr. James Moncrieff opened the case to the jury for the pursuer. The rev. Mr. David Dickson, one of the ministers of the West Church, was called to state his opinion regarding the Hebrew language. The Samaritan character consisted of only 22 letters, this was the ancient Hebrew language. The reverend gentleman then explained the Samaritan mode of expressing numbers beyond 400. Mr. Leslie's account of the method of numeration in his Philosophy of Arithmetic was correct. Even the modern Hebrew at one time had only 22 characters. He (Mr. Dickson) would have inferred from Mr. Leslie using the word Hebrew, that he meant the ancient Hebrew. Cross-examined.The Pentateuch is the only book he knows, which is written in the Samaritan. It is the Chaldaic character, in which the rest of the Scriptures are written. This character is what is called Hebrew-the mode of notation in this is the same as in ancient Hebrew till the figures reach 400, after which only one letter is used to express the additional amount of hundreds. Does not conceive Hebrew to be the rudest and poorest of languages. By a juryman. A person might have an excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language, although he declared, that it was the rudest and poorest of languages. Dr. Scott, of Corstorphine, corroborated the statements of Mr. Dickson. The note in Mr. Leslie's work indicated a knowledge of the ancient Samaritan language; nor is there any part of it, which displays ignorance of the Hebrew. Cross-examined for the defender. VOL. LXIV. -Theological students are examined in the Chaldaic, not the Samaritan character. It was not necessary for the Samaritans to have recourse to the reduplicating method alluded to by Mr. Leslie. Dr. Alexander Marcet, fellow of the Royal Society of London, and lecturer on chemistry, formerly was of opinion, and still is, that Mr. Leslie's method of freezing water in vacuo was an original discovery. Some of the facts, on which the process is founded, were known to chemists long before Mr. Leslie's time, but the process itself was totally new. The discovery of Mr. Leslie is analogous to all other discoveries in chemistry. Has read Mr. Nairne's experiment, and knows it to be different from Mr. Leslie's. Did not conceive Mr. Leslie's experiment to be at all a plagiarism from Mr. Nairne's. The combination made by Mr. Leslie, never appears to have been in Mr. Nairne's mind. It is the universal opinion of the scientific world, that the discovery is original. Attempted to perform Mr. Leslie's experiment, but did not succeed; nor does he think any person succeeded in performing it, till Mr. Leslie himself came to London. Cross-examined.-It is not impossible, that a man of profound genius might have drawn the inference Mr. Leslie drew from the facts stated by Mr. Nairne, but Mr. Leslie's discovery certainly displayed great inductive and inventive genius. Dr. Thomas Thompson had repeated Mr. Leslie's discovery on heat about a hundred times. Never conceived, nor at present conceives, the discovery to be a plagiarism. Has no doubt that in so far as relates to Mr. Nairne, the discovery of Mr. Leslie is original. Never 2 E heard a doubt regarding its originality. Dr. Dewar corroborated the statements of Drs. Marcet and Thompson. Mr. Caddel is partner to Mr. Constable, the bookseller. Published the first edition of Mr. Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic. The second was published by Mr. Tait, the bookseller. In the second edition there is the addition of twenty pages and a table. Conceives this to be an enlarged and improved edition. To sell this edition at a shilling of higher price than the former, was decidedly not an imposition on the public. Mr. Tait, bookseller, published a second edition of Mr. Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic: could not express this any other way than by calling it a second edition. Mr. Aitken, bookseller, has been 12 years a partner with Bell and Bradfute. Thought the publisher of the second edition of Mr. Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic, entitled to call it a new edition. Being shown Condorcet's Arithmetic, stated it as his persuasion, that this book was published by Mr. Blackwood as a second edition of the original copies. Cross-examined. Did not know of any author publishing as a second edition the original copies of a work. By the Court.-In consequence of the addition made to the second volume of Mr. Leslie's work, would have called it a second edition. Mr. Miller, bookseller, expressed the same opinion with the former witnesses. Cross-examined. The public would, no doubt, conceive that the second edition was reprinted. Remembers a case in which Manners and Miller published a second edi◄ tion, as in this case, of a work, with the concurrence of the author, without reprinting it. Mr. Forsyth addressed the jury for the defender. The Lord Chief Commissioner having summed up the case, the jury retired for about an hour and a half, and returned the following verdict:-Find in the first issue for the defender to the words"We must look" in the 7th line of page 3rd of printed issues, to "he may" in 21st line, for the pursuer; and the remainder for the defender. The 2nd and 3rd issues for the pursuer, and the 4th issue for the defender. Damages 100%. HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, The Ship Juliana.-Lord Stowell gave judgment to the following effect. It appeared, that the Juliana some time back sailed upon a long voyage out and home. She first took in certain goods at the port of London, together with a cargo of convicts for New South Wales. She arrived safely at that destination, and took on board live stock and salt provision, with which she sailed to port Jackson. Having reached port Jackson, she discharged this cargo and took in another, which she carried to Batavia, and landed also in safety. A new freight being procured at Batavia, the Juliana sailed for Mixto, discharged a part of her cargo there, and with the rest proceeded to Sincapore. There she took in some sugars for England, and various other commodities for Calcutta, which she delivered at that port, and then she sailed for England. She arrived in the Downs with a full cargo on board; but, unfortunately, she struck upon the Kentish Knock; and the captain and the whole of her crew were lost, except the person who in this cause claimed his wages, and one other individual, who, the court presumed, was to be taken as a witness. These two parties were saved by a fishing smack, which came to their assistance. They had since applied to Mr. Wilson, who was one of the owners of the Juliana, for their wages: but he had refused to pay them; admitting, however, that the present claimant had always performed his services on board ship in a very faithful and proper manner. The answer given on the part of the owners to the claim was, that there was an express stipulation in the contract between the mariners and the owners, that they should not be entitled to their wages, nor to any part of them, until the vessel should have returned to the port of London; and that in the event of the ship being lost, no wages for the outward voyage should be claimed. Upon this stipulation, the owners contended that the vessel never having returned to London, the wages were forfeited. It appeared to the court, that, under the circumstances stated, the voyage in question was a divided voyage; delivery of cargo being to be made at a variety of ports; and that, as such, it came under the general law, the principles of which it was the duty of that court to apply. What contract might have been entered into between the owners of the ship and the freighters did not appear; nor was it material to know; because, an agreement, however qualified, between the owners and the freighters, would not bind the mariners. If the owners had entered into any such agreement, they were undoubtedly wise enough in their generation to secure and benefit themselves by an insurance of the freight, or by some other means calculated to preserve the just equilibrium of their own interests. The common mariner possessed no such securities in his own experience; his general ignorance of business had not acquainted him with the value of any arrangement, by which the payment of monies might be postponed. He was commonly enough totally ignorant and unthinking, and was on these very accounts placed under the tender protection of that law, to guard him against the consequences of such ignorance and imprudence. The court, indeed, was led to believe that many of the subscribers to the articles with the owners, were "marksmen;" that there were but few signers on board. Whether the claimant himself was one of these marksmen, did not clearly appear; the particular instrument, which he executed, was not exhibited: but the owners set forth, that it was framed in the same way as the other articles. At any rate, it was to be presumed that the claimant was not a very expert writer; and the agreements of such persons, so imperfectly qualified to make them, were not to stand exactly on the same grounds, as those entered into by other and more capable individuals. Now there was, between the owners and the mariners, this great distinction-whatever agreements the owners might make with others, they might insure the freight against all misadventures. The law of France, indeed, prohibited the owner from effecting insurance on his freight; but by the law of England, the freight, if insured, was as little affected by the total loss of the ship, as the insurance of the ship itself. The mariner, on the other hand, by the policy of our law, was not permitted to insure his wages, in order that he might be stimulated by the strong incentive of his own interest to make every possible exertion for the preservation of the ship to which he belonged, and to keep with it as long as possible. The mariner, therefore, as compared with the owner, embarked under circumstances of great comparative disadvantage. The owner was certain of his freight at all hazards; for if he did not derive it from the freighters, he could get it under his insurance; and it must be a matter of indifference to him, under which security he took it. But the mariner went to sea on his own single security, and that of the freight. He had nothing else to depend upon, but the freight. Freight, it had been truly said, was the mother of wages; it was the only source of wages. If that was lost, every thing was lost to the mariner; he had no step further to make, in order to escape from the general loss. It had also been the policy, as well as the anxiety of the law, to support the claims of the crews of merchantmen on the general freight of vessels. The time of payment might, from various mo tives, be postponed; but where voyages were divided into various ports of delivery, that claim was held to attach to such freights in almost every case; and the courts of maritime law had been much in the habit of supporting this title against all attempts to invade it. Such attempts had usually manifested themselves in the shape of renunciations of those rights, which He the law had conferred upon mariners-without there being any compensation made to them for such surrender. It was hardly necessary, his lordship continued, for him to state cases in support of the position-that the Admiralty court did not allow such stipulations between the owners and the mariners to protect the owners, in certain cases, from the payment of wages. It had been stated by lord chief justice Holt, that this was a point upon which the Admiralty court, and the courts of common law, were divided. (lord Stowell) could not find the authority for that position, because the doctrine he now laid down appeared to him to have been a doctrine extensively recognized in both courts; and to this effect was the case of “ Buck and Collis," in Brown's Parliamentary Reports, case 6, f. 137. In December, 1692, the respondent, owner of the ship called the Royal James and Mary, and Appleby, as captain of the said ship, entered into a charterparty with the East India Company for the James and Mary to make a voyage to the East Indies out and home. It was, amongst other things, agreed, that the company were not to pay any freight, until six days after the ship should have returned to the port of London, and made a good delivery of her cargo; and that if the ship should be lost, the master and mariners were not to expect any other satisfaction, in the way of wages, than what might arise from impress money and demurrage. The ship proceeded on her voyage; and having delivered part of her cargo at Fort St. George, went on to Bengal, but in her passage up the river she was lost. On their return to England, a suit was commenced by the sailors against the captain, for wages due on the outward-bound voyage. The owners refused to defend him, and he exhibited his bill (both against them and the mariners) in chancery, for injunction and relief; and for payment of certain monies by him advanced during the voyage. This injunction was at first granted, but afterwards dissolved by that great master of law and equity, lord chancellor Somers; his lordship deeming, that he could not stay the sailors from proceeding for their wages, and that if they recovered in the Admiralty, the captain would have his remedy against the owners. Lord Stowell then proceeded, in a very elaborate sentence, to cite a variety of authorities and adjudged cases, in order to show that mariners had a right to their wages, notwithstand ing they might have entered into a stipulation of the kind alluded to. Among others, he quoted a dictum of the lord chief justice, sir Nathan Wright, to this effect; and the decision of the House of Lords in the same case of "Buck and Collis;" and he referred to the cases of "Morrison and Hamilton," "Appleby and Roberts," and the sentence of the Court of Session in Scotland in the case of the Glasgow. He observed, also, that the Scotch courts, which, like the court of Admiralty, proceeded on equity, had expressed their strong disapprobation of these stipulations between mariners and owners, and an opinion of their inhumanity and illegality. Finally, lord Stowell decided, that that article of the counter plea, which set forth the stipulation between the owners and the mariners must be rejected, as the court was not disposed to lend its sanction to such a principle, or to allow that such a stipulation could be sustained. PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 26. In the Goods of His late Majesty King George III-Sir John Nicholl gave sentence on the first stage of the proceeding instituted on behalf of the individual describing herself as, and claiming to be, princess of Cumberland. This, he said, was an application to the court for its process to call upon the king's proctor, to see the last will and testament, or testamentary schedule, of his late majesty, bearing date the 2nd of June, 1774, propounded and proved in solemn form of law. In order to found the process of the court, the proctor for the party appearing in support of this application, had alleged that his late majesty did execute a certain will, or testamentary paper or writing, under his royal sign manual, in the manner required by law; that such will, or schedule, bore date on the 2nd of June, 1774; that thereby he bequeathed the sum of 15,000l. to his niece, Olive, the daughter of his late majesty's deceased brother, his royal highness, Henry Frederick, duke of Cumberland; but that he did not, of such his said will, appoint any executor, or dispose by it of the residue of his personal estate. Affidavits were brought in proof of the hand-writing, of the royal sign manual, of the signature of the late Mr. Dunning, subscribed to this instrument, and of that of the earl of Warwick, also subscribed to it. There was no affidavit in regard to the sig nature of the late lord Chatham, by whom also it was signed. But the affidavit of lord Warwick's subscription set forth, that the body |