The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-03-07 00:00:00

WILLIAMS 4. SHFE.

This was an action on a Policy of Insurance on
a vessel and cargo at and -from Lisbon to Liver-
'

!41-. ERSKINE stated, that the ship procrede on
hei voyagc home, during which she sprung a leak,
an i in a heavy gale of wind was driven on shore, on
tli coast of where she was reduced to a
wreck. The captain finding all possibility of pre-
s,rving the ^c.sel ineffectual, abandoned her to the
t 'uderwriteis. On the return of calm weather, le-
reral small crafts were sent to take out the part of
her cargo which had not been destroyed. During
the time she remained in this situation, she was ob-
served to be on fire ; the Mate, who was on shore;
saw the flames issue from her sides, he immediately
went on hoard, and found no one there but the
cabin-boy, who was asleep. The vessel was entiroly
consumed, and several malicious persons raised a
rcport, that she had been set on tire designedly.
This, the Learned Counsel observed, was with-
out fon:dation ; and he would take it upon him to
vindicate his client against such an assertion.—He
wished the case to be fully investigated, and had no
difficulty in believing, th.it the .fury would discard
.dl belief or such an ;mention, when the evidence re-
lative to the transaaion was laid before them.
George Murray was then examined, on the part of
the Plaintiff, respeaing the making of the policy,
which, he stated, had been regularly transaaed.
Mr. Gaitiow observed, that his Learned rriend
had stated the report which had taken place on the
ship's takiilg tire. It was certainly a circumstance
that imparted a strong suspicion on the part of the
Underwriters, therefore it was proper they should
make every enquiry upon the occasion.
The question then was, whether there was any
ground for that suspicion they had imbibed. The
burning had since appeared to be accidental ; and,
he was glad to say, his client was saistied. On
this representation, the Jury gave a verdict for the
CROSSL EY V. LEDWICH.

This was an a.lion upon a promissory-note for
451. which the Defendant had given, as a security
f r a third person, to the Plaintiff.
Mr. Gaitßow opened the case with stating, that
a person of the name of Best had applied to the
Plaintiff for certain goods, which he obtained, t:► the
amount of 1001. It was, however, soon after disco-

vered, that the same person had been dealing, with
an intent to commit a fraud ; in consequence of
which, application was made to a Magistrate, and a
Police Officer was dispatched to take him into c usto-
dy, who conveyed hint to the house of the Plaintiff,
where he was to m.tke restitution for the property
he had obtained, lie then told the Plaintiff, that
he had not as much money as the goods were worth,
but that he would give up a time-piece to him, va-
lued at 451. which was nearly finished and should
br put into his possession. Mr. Crossley had no
objedion to the proposal, provided it was imme-
diately put into his hands ; hut he would not take
the word of Best, nor trust him any further. The
Defendant then stepped forward, and asked Mr.
Crossley, if he would take his bill for the 151. for ten
days, as a security for delivery of the time-piece in
ouegion. This was consented to, and Best was
liberated, on giving a note fur the remainder of the


•ft t-k

• •

Itri

rig

.

rrAnler. At the titre appointed, the time-piece was
put into the hands of Mr. Ledwick, astd the Plain-
tiff applied to receive it, or the 45L He was told
by the Defendant that Best had left the kingdom
for Constantinople, and had gone away so much in
his debt, that he should keep the said time-piece on
his own account. The Plaintiff then brought his
aaion. The time-piece was undoubtedly given for
a specific purpose, therefore Mr. Crossley had a just.
claim to it.
The evidence called corroborated the foregoing
statement.
Mr. EttSKlNt; contended, that there was a hook-
debt due to the Defendant from Best, amounting to
791. and asserted that his client had never entered
into any such agreement as had been stated during
the time of Best's being in custody for his swindling
at the house of the Plaintiff. Mr. Ledwick was an
attorney ; he was well acquainted with the nature of
such an agreement, therefore would not have en-
tered into it.
Lord EL I.L.NtIOROUGII said there had appeared no
contradiaion in the evidence. The bill was de-
livered on a condition which ought to be complied
With, the Jury would therefore give their decision.
Verdict for the Plaintiff.
BLAKELY V. BARR.
This was an action in trover, to recover the value
of a cask of juice, the property of the Plaintiff.
It appeared, that a cask of juice had been sent
in a cart to the Defendant, who is a wharfinger at
Symond's wharf, to' be delivered on board the
Friendship, Captain Day, for the purpose of being
conveyed to Messrs. For, Birch, and Co. at Man-
chester. On the arrival of the cart at the wharf,
the cask was booked, and the sailors belonging to
the Friendship placed it on the quay ; it was, how-
ever, conveyed away, and Inst to the Plaintiff. It
was contended, in beliad of the Defendant, that
the men belonging to the ship had taken possession
of the cask, and that he bad no charge of it.
Lord ELLENBnROI:GIi observed, that if it was in
the custody, at any time, of the whartinger, he was
bound to see it safely delivered. Money was paid
for that purpose by the owner, consequently it
ought to be respated.
The Jury, without hesitation, gave a verdid for
the Plaintiff.

BISHOP V. GAIME.4

This was an athon to recover the sum of "1.25. Rd.
far goods sold and delivered.
The Plaintiff was a Corn-chandler, in Itolborn,
and the Defendant, a Carpenter, residing in Camden-
town. Several articles were delivered, for which
the Plaintiff was refused payment by the Defend-
ant, on pretence that the hay, straw, &c. had
been sold to his son against his order. It was, how-
ever, proved, that the articles had been generally
used fur the benefit of the Defendant's horse. The
Jury, therefore, gave a verdict !Or the Plaintiff.

POLICE.