The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-15 00:00:00

;Lab, Intelligente.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAY.
Bayou roc !tarns or ma ROLM.
ZULVETA V. TYRIE.

—,—..... -
This case, which was commenced yesterday, was resumed
this morning. The object of the bill was to obtain an ac-
count of the value of the cargoes of the ships William Met-
calf, Protector, Mary Kee, the Hindustan, the Cyclops, and
part of the cargo of the Governor Harcourt. The plaintiffs
are merchants in London, as is also the defendant; and,
according to the statements of the counsel, it appeared that
the plaintiffs wore correspondents of Carries and Nephew,
merchants, of Cuba, who were in the habit of chip-
ping timber and other goods to the plaintiffs, and
drawing on them for the value of the cargoes. These bills
however amounted to more than the cargoes produced, and
in 1817 the plaintiffs were in advance to Carrias and Ne-
phew to the amount of 13,6181., and in consequence on the
3rd of July, 1847, the plaintiffs wrote to Carrias and Co.
stating the amount of the balance due to them, and requir-
ing that in future the bills drawn upon them should not
amount to more than half the value of the cargo. That
letter was received by Carries and Nephew in August,
1817. In the meantime, on the 13th of July, 1847, Car-
ries and Nephew wrote to the plaintiffs " all the funds we
draw for, and mom besides are exclusively applied to the
collection of the goods we send you. As a proof of this
we point to the fact that when your chartered veseels arrive
they find us prepared for them." And on the 2 stet of August
having received the letter of the plaintiffs of the 3rd July.
they wrote " We will not restrict ourselves to the limits laid
down in your letter of the 3rd ult., to draw upon you for
utie.half of the cargo in each cue." They were on to say
' that there were three vessels loaded, the cargoes of which
were worth 10,0001., and they drew then for 3,11001. on ac-
count of those cargoes, and on the 20th September they
drew for 2,0001. more. The balance, however, went on
increasing, and on the Ist January, 1818, Zulueta and Co.
wrote to Carries and Nephew, that they should for the
present suspend accepting their bills. At that time there
were lying in the bay of alancillino, at Cuba. the chips
already named which had been chartered by the plaintiffs
"us merchants and freighters." Two of these ships were
then loaded, and the others were partially loaded, princi-
pally with Sahuca wood. On the 23rd of February, 1818,
the letter from the plaintiffs, stating that th..y had ceased
to honour their drafts, having been received by them,
Curries and Nephew sold the Sabuca wood fu th. tie vessels
to Mr. John Tyrie, the son of the defendant, who had just
arrived in Cuba, and they have since beeoino insolvent.
For the plaintiffs it was contended that they were equitably
thewners of the cargoes, because they had accepted bills as
against these very cargoes, and because, as stated in the
charter-party, they were the " merchants and freighters,"
and not the agents; and, therefore, that as s on as the car-
goes were on board Carrias and Nephew hail no mar control
over them, and that any one purchasing a cargo Of an agent
under these circumstances, having notice, which defendant
had, had no equitable right as against the owner. Teo
ships arrived in England in due course, end the &field:int,
having had not only the Sabuca wood, but the whole of the
cargoes of five of the ships consigned to him, proceeded to
dispose of them, and the object of the hill was that an
account be rendered of the produce of the cargoes, and that
the defendant pay over the amount to time plaintiff:. For
the defence it was contended that Carrias and Nephew
were the principals and nit the agents, and that they had
consequently full right to dispose of the cargo, and were it not
so there was nut sufficient evidence that the d efendant had any
knowledge of the relations subsisting between the plaintiffs
and Carries and Co. His son, as his ago nt, purchased the
cargoes, and gave bills to Carrias and Co., who, according
to custom, negotiated them on the is and, and though lie
did not accept the bills till they arrived in bunion, he was
liable fur them. It was also shorn that the first notice the
defendant had of the arrival of the William Metcalf, one
of the ships, and the first one which arrived, was a letter
from the plaintiffs, dated 3rd May, 1818, in which the
stated that they had just seen a letter from Fal-
mouth, stating that the William Metcalf had put
in at that port on account of being short of
provisions, and they went on to say, "the vessel was
chartered by ourselves by order, and foe the account of
Messrs. Carries and Nephew, but, as it now appears, those
gentlemen have subsequently consigned the cargo to yea.
We consequently give you this information that you may
have an opportunity of joining with us in the orders to be
sent to the captain by to-night's pose." From this letter
and other correspondence it was argued that the plaintiffs
themselves at that time did not conceive that they were en-
titled to the cargoes of the vessels in question. It was
further contended that by the
.terms of the charter party
the plaintiffs were entitled, not to the cargoes, but to have
the vessels consigner. to their brokers, whichl had been
done, and they had received the freight. And then, with
regard to one of the ships, the Governor Harcourt, a portion
only of the cargo of which was now in dispute, the plaintiffs
had applied for and obtained an injunction against Messrs.
Sieveking, the coreignees of the cargo of that ship, restrain-
ing them from disposing of it, which injunction hail been
dissolved on appeal to the Lord Chancellor. The Sebum
wood on board that ship the defendant claimed as his, he
having bought it for the specific sum of 2311. ; he also
claimed from absolute purchase the Sabuca wood on the
other five ships, but held himself liable to account to
Carries and Nephew for the balance that may he coining
to them from the produce of the remainder of the cargo,
first deducting the amount of the bills which lie hail ac-
cepted as against the cargoes.
. r. Stuart, Mr. Walpole, and Mr. Shailwell, were hoard
fin the plaintiffs; and Mr. Houpell, nod Mr. Kearns, for
tke defendant.
, The case was not concluded.