Star. — London, England, 1824-01-29 00:00:00

THE MERCHANTS OF LONDON AN'D LONDON DOCK COVPANY. TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE STAR. SIR—I congratulate commercial men that at length, through the medium of your Paper, the statement ofl the question between the Merchants and the London Dock Company has been made known to them ; and as it is but fair the Directors should also be heard, I have sent you their Reply to the Declaration of the Merchants, which, I hope, your candour will allow to be inserted in your respectable columns. A GENERAL NIERCHANT. Copy of a Minute of a Court of Directors of the London Dock Com pany, held at the London Dock House, the 23d Jrnuary, 1824, Isaac Sorer, Esq. in the Chair. The Directors of the London Dock Company have read, with surprise and regret, certain Resolutions passed at a Meeting of Merchants, held at the Baltic Coffee house on the I I th of November last, BENJAMIN HAWES, Esq. in the Chair ; and likewise a statement, signed by many Merchants and others, declaratory of their opi• nions upon the conduct of the Directors in the matters to which those Resolutions refer—both of which docu ments the Directors consider to be founded upon very erroneous views of the stwject on which they treat, and expressed in terms not warranted by the circumstances, as well as at variance with the spirit of accommodation which the Div ectors have never ceased to evince towards every trade which has fiequented the London Docks. The Directors have always been thankful for any suagestions which could tend to the perfection of the System pursued at the Dock, and %%Lich afforded facili ties to commerce; and they have adopted sncli sugges tions as far as the law permitted, or the safety of the propel ty of the proprietors, placed under their manage ment, Alined. The Directors consider that it would be quite incon sistent for them to repel the charges brought against them, otherwise than by this plain statement. The Law which allows the stoppage of goods in transit:', is of no recent date, and has been acted upon to a great extent under the administration of the highest judicial authorities:--it is the important privilege given by this law to parties engaged in trade, which the Gen tlemen signing the Declaration are desirous the Dock Company shall disregard ; and they impugn the con duct oldie Directors for having paid attention to notices to stop Tallow, which the parties giving those notices allege has not been paid for. It may be remai ked, that some of the Gentlemen signing the Declaration have themselves, anon former occasions, given similar notices, althouga they now condemn the principle of receiving them. During a period of nineteen years, which has elapsed since the opening of the London Dock, the Dock Com pany has, in all its great concerns, veered clear of dis pute with the parties engaged in the Trade of the Port, upon this important subject ; and it is only at this late date that inconveniences, arising out of the naw system adopted by the Importers and Dealers in 'fallow, are encountered. Mercantile men are well aware that there is not a complete delivery of any goods which requite weighing to ascertain their quantity, until after the weighing has taken place, and that such part only as has passed the scale is legally in the possession of the buyer, unless a weight shall have been agreed upon ; or, as is the case in Coffee Warrants, where the goods are taken at the landing scale. By the system now practised in the Tallow Trade, an order given may receive twenty or more endorsements,' and even be passed through the same bands more than once, previously to its being presented at the Dock for a transfer or delivery of the goods ; and when presented, if the Tallows are not weighed so as to give the pur chasers a complete legal title, it is because they do not direct it to be done, in order to save the expense which would be thereby incurred ; and yet they require front the Dock Company some evidence of the goods being placed in their names in the Warehouse-keeper's books. For the accommodation and convenience, therefore, of the Trade, a Transfer Ticket has been given, and it is this Transfer Ticket which the Gentlemen signing the Declaration now wish to construe as subjecting the Company to the liability of delivering the Tallow, in defiance of any notice to the contrary. So desirous were the Directors of preventing any in convenience to Merchants, that they proposed in the very outset of the present question, to deliver the Tal lows to the parties in whose names they stood in the Company's Books, ripen their giving an indemnity, conceiving that such an arrangement could not be ob jected to by persons who considered their claims to be indisputable. Claims to the extent of 132 casks, were so arranged, and the notices given having been subse quently withdrawn as to 165 Casks, the whole which at this time remains under stop, as respects the Com pany, is 200 Casks. The Directors, considering the question at issue to in volve a principle of great importance, have not taken any step in the progress of this business without being advised by the Company's Counsel, to whom copies of the Transfer Tickets were submitted. Whatever mer cantile usage may have prevailed, the Directors, as, guardians of the property placed under their charge, (not only as respects the trade, but also the interest of their proprietors), have thought it their duty to pursue the coune which they have adopted, for no other object could influence the minds of the Directors but a desire to act with strict impartiality and justice, and to deliver the goods to the proper parties. As regards the future, every buyer must be expected to know the process which gives him a title to the pro petty he has purchased. If any method can be sug gested to afford additional facilities to trade, the Directors will readily take it into their serious consideration ; but they cannot, in the performance of their duty, subject the Company to liabilities for which it receives no ade quate consideration. The Directors are very desirous that the legal question (which applies alike to every I) Eck Establishment or Wharf taking charge of mei ea:tile property) should now he completely set at rest; and they will not relax in their personal exertions to ac con;plish this object, and prevent the recurrence of simi lar difficulties : those in existence, however, certainly not originating with them, but arising out of the prac tice which has lately obtained in the Tallow Trade. The Directors cannot conclude with ou t re marking t.. at they consider the resolutions and declaration which have been forwarded to them, as conveying censure un called for, and undeserved. GRO. ROBINSON, Secretary. Among the bilk reported in the Kentucky Legisla !lr.:, during its present Session, is one for the benefit of Matthew I tvrper—'• a cripple with torrity children." The bill allows him `'to retail spirits without a license." LAW INTELLIGENCE. _.-...c-. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY U. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. HAWES AND CO. V. WATSON AND CO. This was an action of trover, brought by the plain tiffs, who are soap-manufacturers, to recover from the defendants, who are wharfingers, the value of 79 casks of tallow. The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice, at the London Adjourned Sittings after last Term; and on the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs, an the 25th of September, purchased of Messrs. Mo— berly Iliad Bell 300 casks of Russia candle tallow, at 40s. I per cwt. and among this lot were 100 casks imported in ' the Matilda, and which were then in the warehouse of the defendants, and for which Messrs. Moberly and Bell handed the plaintiffs the following transfer note: " London, Sept. 25, 1820. " To Messrs. Vi'atson and Co. " Please to weigh and deliver, transfer, or re-house, to the order of Mtssrs. B. and T. Hawes, one hundred casks yellow candle tal low (ex Matilda), H. M. charges from the 10th of October to be paid by the bearer. " MOBERLY and BELL." And the defendants, upon the receipt of this transfer note, transferred the tallow into the names of the plain tiffs, and charged Bs. 4d. for so doing. The plaintiffs upon receiving the transfer notes of the other two hun dred casks, accepted Messrs. Moberly and Bell's hills at six months after date, for 1,444. and 2,880 L In a few clays afterwards the plaintiffs sold drier or four lots, amounting to twenty-one casks, and their orders to weigh and de:iver were obeyed by the defendants; but on the 15th of October, Messrs. Moberly and Bell hav ing stopped payment, the defendants refused to deliver any more tallow to the plaintiffs' order, alleging that they had received orders to that effect from Raikes and Co. of whom Moberly and Bell had originally bought the tallow, the price of which, except 2001. was paid. A verdict was found forthe plaintiff. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL this day moved for a rule calling upon the plaintiffs to shew cause why that ver dict should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The Learned Counsel contended that it had been laid down in the case of " Hanson v. Meyer," 6 East, 614, that where goods were sold per the cwt. the delivery was not complete until after the goods were weighed, and there fore the light of stopping them in transitu remained in the vendor. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—.- But you admit that the defen dants assented to the plaintiffs, delivery order in one or two inAances. Mr. AT CORNEY-GENERAL.--I say that Itaikes and Co. had a right to stop in transit?: as between themselves and Moberly and Bell, and if that right existed, then the defendants would not be justified in delivering the goods to the plaintiff.; after having received notice fromßaikes and Co. not to do so. Mr. Justice BEsr But here a strong fact in this case which there is not in tl:e case of " Hanson v. Meyer," namely, the acknowledgment of the defendants, which puts all this doctrine aside. _ Mr. Justice linyt.Ev—ln the case of di Hanson v. Meyer" did not the goods remain in the seller's name? Were the goods in this instance standing in ltaikes and Co.'s nAmes in the defendants books ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the fact of the goods having been transferred into the plaintiffs' names in the defendants' hooks did not, take away the right of Itaikes and Co. to stop in transitu, and that that right was not forfeited until the goods should have been weighed. JUDGM ENT. Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT.-1 think after the party has paid the money on such a note as that given in evi dence on the present occasion, we should be enabling the defendants to du that which I am sure they have no desite to do, to cause an innocent man to be lo.ing his money, if we were not to say that the plaintiff was en titled to recover. To treat this as a case of stoppage in transitu, would have the „effect of putting a stop to a very large portion indeed of the commerce of the City of London. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—This appears to me to be per fectly different from the ordinary case of vendor and vendee. In the case of vendor and vendee the justice is, that the vendee shall not have the goods, unless he pays the price; and it is justice and honesty, that if the vendee cannot pay the price, the vendor shall have his goods back ; but if the question arises not between the original vendor and the original vendee, but between the original vendor and a purchaser from the vendee, that purchaser having paid the full price for the goods, then where is the honestp and justice, and equity of the case? The honesty is, that that vendee who has paid the price shall be entitled to have the possession of the goods. And I think, when Messrs. Raikes and Com pany signed that delivery order, " transfer, weigh, and deliver;' that, according to the settled course and usage of trade, enabled Moberly and Bell to go and sell the goods again ; and there are many cases which hold, that if the first vendor does anything which can be considered as sanctioning the sale by his vendee, that destroys all right to stop in transitu. There are many cases certainly to that effect, some of which I have been casting my eye upon while the case has been going on —the case of Stoveheld v. Hughes, in 14 East, and many other cases to that effect. Mr. Justice EIOLROYD.—I think the note given by the defendants makes an end of the present question. After that, I think the property was in the plaintiffs, and it was kept by the defendants as the plaintiffs' property, for v.hich the plaintiffs were to be liable to the charges from the day mentioned in that note, that is from the 10th of October. The case is very different, as it ap pears to me, from the case cited, of " Hanson v. Meyer;" in that case there was a sale of a large quantity of starch at such a price ; the order was to weigh and deliver a part, and that having been delivered, but not the residue, the great question then before the Court was, whether the weighting and delivery of part was not in point of law transfer of the property as to the whole? The Court held that it was not, and rightly so held; besides, there was the circumstance that the price could not be ascer tained of the whole before it was weighed, and it was to be paid for by bills; but the delivery of part there was not a delivery of the whole; part being weighed and part delivered, the order was coni plied with pro tanto, and the property in the residue remained thereloresurcharged until something further was done. It was not a delivery of part for the whole, nor did the consequence follow by the operation of law that it VIM a delivery of the whole, so as to deprive the vendor of his right to stop in transitu. But here, on the receipt of this note, directing him to weigh and deliver, the wharfinger sent an acknowledg ment to the persons who had bought the goods and paid for them, that they had transferred them to their ac count, and the persons who had bought them were sub ject to charges from a certain period. I think, there- Aire, they hold them as the goods of the plaintiffs, not withstanding there was not au actual weighing of them, that they were in the possession of the plaintiffs by means of the defendants, the wharfingers, they having given them the note that they were transferreJ to thern in their books, and that they were therefore entitled to recover them. Mr. Justice BEST.--I think with my brother Hol royd that the paper which has been given in evidence puts an end to the question, if there was any question in this case; but in fact the question is put an end to by a case, not only a Nisi Prius deci , ion, but which re- . ceived also th e sanct i on o f t h e C ourt—t h e case o f Harman and others v. Anderson and others—that is .precisely the same as the present. Lord Ellenborough in that case, when at Nisi Prius, The goods having been transferred in the name of the purchaser, it would shake the established principles still to allow a stoppage in transits; from the moment the defendants became trustees for the purchaser, there sea= an executed delivery, as much as if the goods had been delivered into his own hands. The payment of rent in these cases t. a circumstance to chew on whose account the goods are held ; but it is immaterial here, the transfer in the books being of itself decisive. lam clearly of opinion, that the assignees are entitled to recover." Then, "in the ensuing Term, the Attoiney-General, afterwards Lord Chief Justice Gibhs, expressed his acquiescence in the direction of the Judge at Nisi Prins but moved to reduce the damages on an affidavit, stating that as to one parcel of the butters no transfer had been made in the defendant's books to the bankrupt before the bankruptcy, and that the right of stopping in transitu therefore still subsisted when the vendor interfered." That, therefore, cannot be considered as a mere Nisi Prius decLion ; it is a oecition which received the sanc tion of one of the most distinguished lawyers in West minster half, when moving for a new trial, and has seen sanctioned Ey the Court. But it appears to me, if we coasider the oa which the stoppage in transits is built, it cannot be extended to such a case as this ; if it could, it would destroy that commerce which is now carried on through the instrumentality of Dock orders. The vehdee has a right to the goods the mo ment the contract is made and executed ; but there exists in the vendor an equitable right which he may exercise at any time before the goods get actually into the possession of the party, provided the exercise of that right does not disturb the rights of third persons.— Now it appears to me impossible that it can be ex ercised in this case without dist u rbi n g the rights of third persons ; for it has been transferred, not only in the books of the wharfinger, but there has been an acknowledgment on the part of the wharfinger that he holds it for the purchaser. It is said there is, les change of property here; if there is not, I do not sea how there can be, until the tallows are actually melted down and converted into candles. If the AttorH ney-General is right in this, till the very time when it is brought into use, though it has passed through a hun dred hands, and been paid for by all, if it is not weighed, the vendor, if he is not fully paid, has a right to stop in iransiln. It appears to me that we should disturb an established principle, and a necessarily just principle, if we held that tha: could be done in such a case as this. I apprehend it cannot be dune except where the rights of third parties are not disturbed. It was originally an equitable right, and was so spoken of, and is still spoken of as an equitable principle.—Rule refused. At twelve o'clock the Court rose, and the CHIEF Jus- TICE proceeded to sit at Nisi Prins. MORTON V. NESBITT AND ANOTHER. This action was brought by Captain Alorton, a mili tary officer, against the owners of an East Indiamaa, named the Apollo, to recover a compensation in da mages, for a loss sustained by the negligence of the de fendants servants. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration, that having become a passenger on board the Apollo, at Minims, the ship was lost by negligence, and thereby he was put to the expense of finding a passage home, which amounted to 1201. It appeared that Captain Morton took his passage early in 1823 on board the Apollo, of which Captain Tennant was Master, to be conveyed from Madras to England. The passengers consisted of 26 persons, most of whom were military officers. April 16th the ship arrived off Table Bay, at the Cape of Good Hope. The weather was fine, with a breeze from S.E. the ship sailed at the rate of three or four knots; on tacking to weather Robin Island and the Whale Rock, the ship struck upon Green Point, a rock well known in the charts; she was stretching across Table Bay, with her head to the land, at the time the accident happened, and the object was to bring the ship to the anchorage. The Captain and Chief Mate were off the deck at the time, and the witnesses imputed negligence; when the Captain came up, he said the Mate, who had charge of the watch, had run the ship ashore, and it was further stated that he did not exert himself to get her off; on the contrary, he refused to avail himself of the assist ' ance offered by several boats which came off on healing distress guns fired ; the passengers were safely lauded ; the next day the weather grew bad, and destroyed the ship ; the plaintiff not only lost part of his baggage, but was obliged to go over land to Simon's Bay, and take a passage in another ship to England. Under the above circumstances he sought to obtain a return of the expense he had incurred, in consequence of the loss of the ship by negligence. The representation on the part of the defendants was, that all was done by the Captain; and Officers of the ship which could be done ; at the time the ship struck there was a fog, not uncommon off the Cape, which had the effect of making objects appear at a greater distance than they really were; these had been what the Captain termed an illusion in the atmo sphere all day, and at the moment the ship touched the rock, he thought he was a mile and a half from land ; the fog or haze obscured the low land but left the high land visible, apparently at a great distance.—A number' of seamen proved that the Captain had done all that, could be done.—After the cause had occupied the atten tion of the Lord Chief Justice nine hours, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 1201. DEPOSIT OF FOREIGN BONDS. PORTALIS V. AGASSIZ AND CO. It will be recollected that this was an action for the recovery of a bond for a Prussian Loan, deposited with the defendants, as a security for an advance of money by the broker of Count Portalis, without authority from the Count. The Jury had found for the defendants. 11• Ir. ATTORNEY•GENERAL obtained a Rule to chew• cause why a new trial should not be granted. TILE KING V. RUSSELL. Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a Rule to remove the trial of this question to another county. It was an in dictment against William Russell, Esq. and twelve o here; for certain constructions in the river Tyne, an I as the Special Jury would be struck from Coal-owners And Gentlemen interested, this motion was made up in affidavits that an impartial trial could not be Obtained. The LORD CUM' JUCTICE—Is there anj► partkulaz County to which you wish to have it removed? Mr. 13 no uo n Nl—We would swish the County of Ytnl. The LORD CUILF JUSTICE—Take a Rule, and let the County of Yot k he named in it. The Ltnin CHIEF JUSTICE poqpoiled further motinns to-ruoTow, and sat Nisi Pi ius with a Soecial 1:1 y. ARCHES' COURT, JANUARY 28. CURLEW V. IIIoIitNTON. From the sentence of the Court on the question of admitting Mrs. Thornton's allegation in this ever, which was pronounced last tesri ,, , an ap7eal was asserted. It was to-ii iy announced that the .triLfar was withdrawn. Dr. HoaxAav prayed the Court to decree i:s probate to CI- • .1. 'Fhe Cent/ir said, it had perused the evidence of the won,•,.e; who had been examined on the cundiait propounding the Will, the due execution of which was very fully proved by the attestitig and other witnesies; and dieter:lre the Court pronoun;:ed run ts %With- y and eff,:ct, by decreeing probate as pr..yetl. [We understand that an appeal has been entered in France, from the sentence of the French Court, winch some time since prouuunced theColenel to have died, as to his property in that kingdom, intestate.) COMMO . U CIL. The LORD 7slairort held a Court of Commin Council yesterday, at Guildhall, which w•as fully attended. The Court, pursuant to their standing orders, pro ceeded to the annual election of Officers. A Petition from the Guardian Society for a donation in aid of their funds, was presented by Mr. Alderman KEY, and was referred to a Committee. TUE COAL TRADE. Mr. SOUTHGATE brought — up a report from the Corn and Coal Committee, to whom it had been referred to inquire into the mode of delivering coals in the river, and the cause of the high price of that article. The re port, upon the motion of the worthy Deputy, was read. It set forth that the Committee had received a Memorial from 103 coal-merchants, complaining that the number ofcoal-meters had not been increased in proportion to the increase which had taken place of late years in the con sumption of coal, whereby the public generally, as well as themselves (the Memorialists), wet e considerable losers. They stated, that in consequence of the number of meters being insufficient, it frequently happened that ships were compelled to wait ten, and in some instances twelve days, before they were discharged. The Com• mince had called before them and examined several coal -meters, who denied that the present number cf their body was insufficient, and asset ted, that the delay which was complained of in the discharge of ships was caused by the want of a sufficient number of craft to carry the coals from the vessels. Another set of wit nesses attributed the high prize of coals to the duty which was paid on their importation into London, and the high charge for labour in the river. The Committee finally were of opinion, that the present number of coal meters was not insufficient, although they recommend that, for the sake of experiment, and to remove all doubt on the subject, the number should be aug mented to 130, by filling up the vacancies now exist ing, and appointing 12 new meters. The Committee were also of opinion, that the duty of 3s. 4,1. per chal dron, which was paid on the art ival of coals in the port of London, and not elsewhere, was exceedingly burden some and oppressive; and they recommended that the duties upon coal should be equalized all over the country. —lt was important that it should be known, that the present price, so far from being excessive, as compared with that of former periods, was really reduced in the proportion of 25 per cent. below the war prices. The Committee felt bound in honour to state that thei e had been a reduction to that extent. It ought also to be stated, that during the I:tit two years the coal-merchants had reduced their charges on coals in the pool flout 12s. to 10s. As it had happened, however, that this cir cumstance had been kept quite secret, no person having felt the benefit of it within his own family, the Com mittee thought it tight that it should not be allowed to remain any longer unknown, but that the Public at large might derive advantage from it. Another im portant fact had come. to the knowledge of the Com mittee, and had been alluded to in their report—namely, that one of the Gas Companies had suffered their stock of coals to be so exhausted, that a considerable district of London must have been left in total darkness if a coal-merchant, on the spur of the moment, had not.been able to supply them with a large quantity of coals. The worthy Deputy then moved that the report be printed, and that a copy be given to every momber of the Court. Mr. Alderman Wool) moved as ail amendment, that the Committee do forthwith till op the vacancies and appoint the number recommended in their report. Mr. Deputy licarria seconded the Amendment. Mr. Discos and Mr. AM ES opposed, and on the ques tion being put the LORD Maven( declared the original motion carried.—A division nas then demanded and grantzd, and there appeal ed —For the Or igi nal Motion : ,ix Aldermen, 122 Commoners, two Tellers; Total, 150. For the Amendment : four Aldermen, 62 Commoners, two Tellers ; Total, 63.—Majority, 62.—The Com mittee to whom it etas referred at tl:e last Court to in quire into the nature, .duties, and emoluments of the Office of Principal Land Coal Meter, presented a long Report thereon, which was agreed to. The Court men proceeded to the Election of a Prin cipal Land Coal Meter, and the Ballot being taken and cast up, the numbers appeared:—For Mr. Bumsted, 106.—Mr. Dickinson, 87.--fit. Chapman, 33; whereon Mr. Bumsted was elected. They then went to the Election of Wicklayer, and the Ballot appeared as follows :—For Mr. Cat twright, 128. —Mr. Lee, 91. whe:eon the LORD MAYOR declared Mr. Cartwright duly elected.—The annual account of the Commissioners of Sewers was presented and or dered to be printed. We desire to direct the attention of our respectable Reader:, k% hose SonsorWards are abont ente: ing the wide ficld of Commercial Enterprise, or who are destined for the Judicial or Military Establishments of the East Indio Company, or of Government, the University, Public Odices, or any scientific pursuits, to the subsequei.t A vertisement, as worthy their peculiar attention: COMMERCIAL FINISHING ACADEMY, No 5, Cateaton-street, con ducted by Roma. llamas and THoftAs Jotiusitu, A. B. from Little Tower-street —Messrs. Rogers and Joh..son (the former, from an experience, the result of nearly twenty years' practice I preparing young Gentlemen for the various departn tents ul Commerce, many ot which were spent in the Academy, in Little Tower-street, when conducted by his relative Mr. Boutbower; the latter a Graduate of the University of Cambridge, and sixteen years Master of the Eng lish, Classical, and Mathematical Departments in the same Esta blishment), beg to announce to Parents and Guardians that their present System Words a most valuable oportunity for young Men o acquire a complete and rapid information in any branch of know ledge, whether Mercantile, Scientific. or Prolessional. Prospectuses may be obtained, gratis, of ;%Ir. Bower. Power.of-Attorney-Office, Bank ; at ;11r. Iltchard.,on's, Cortihill ; at Jr. Ebers's, Old Bond street ; and at the Bouri.ling - Iluuse, 70, A!dermanbury.—Refer ences given, if required, to Mercantile and 13ankinz-houses of the brat eminence. 1 .r ~4 • 1. 4 i 1 ~: