The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-02-03 00:00:00

~:

;: .

L lir INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, GUILDHALL, Fits. 1.
Before Lord EL LEN BOROUGH.
ROBINSON FRENCH.
This was an action on a Policy of Insurance on
the ship Chester, to commence from the time of
her loading at and from any port or place on the
coast of Biazil, and from the 17th of September
1800, until her arrival at the Cape of Good Hope.
Mr. ERsKINE, as Counsel for the Plaintiff opened
the pleadings in this cause, with stating, that the
ship in question had originally sailed to the Cape of
Good Hope, from whence she proceeded with a
valuable cargo, the property of several merchaats,
to Rio de Janeiro. A contract was there entered
into, on the part of the captain and the owners of
the vessel, with Don Pedro Alvarez, a Portuguese
merchant, the purport of which was that the cargo
of the Chate,Ald should be delivered to two small
vessels, belonging to Don Pedro Alvarez, in a cer-
tain latitude, where the goods were to be paid for in
dollars. The Cherterfeld was to take in a loading of
copper and tallow, and return to the Cape. On the
arrival or the ship at the appointed latitude, she was
captured by his Majesty's shipD.;omede, Capt. Elphin-
stone, and taken possession of as a prize, on the
grounds that she was suspected of trading with the
Spaniards. This, however, was not the case; she
had done no more than any other fair trader would
have done. She was trading with the Portuguese,
who were on terms of amity with Great Britain, at
that time. It would be urged on the part of the
Defendant, that Captain Elphinstone had an un-
doubted tight to capture the vessel, as she was car-
rying on an trade. The learned Counsel
hoped he should be able to prove, by evidence, that
the Plaintiffs had not been engaged in any transac-
tion contrary to the justice and equit) of those rules
observed by all vessels on such an occasion as the
present; and he had not the smallest belief but the
Jury would see. that the Plaintiff had every reason
to expect a verdict in his favour.
The principal evidence was Mr. James Worlock,
the supercargo of the Mgt-tie/di he stated that he
sailed from Rio de Janeiro, and was on board for
the purpose of delivering her cargo to the owners.
On the 12th of January, 1800, he entered into con-
tract with Alvarez, in consequence or which he
was to convey the cargo to certain vessels that were
to meet him in latitude 34. s'outh; and to know those
vessels When they might appear in sight, he had va-
rious signals by which he was to distinguish them.
On arriving at the entrance of the Rio de la Plata,
the Cipertecfia/d was captured as an illicit trader by
Captain Elphinstone, in the aortstdf. The witness
had ho knowledge that the goods were consigned to
the Spaniards, nor was be acquainted with the real
intention of Don Pedro Alvarez with respect to their
dispbsal.
Mr. brooks, the Captain of the vessel, corrobo-
rated the last evidence, with the addition that Cap-
tain Elphinstone sent an racer, who mustered the
men on board the CLerterjeld,. and inii6ressed several
of them to serve on hoard the 1) omit.
From several other witnesses it appc4red that the
sl4 had sailed to the river of De la Plata, to deliver
up her cargo to the small vessels that were to be
there to receive it for Don Pedro Alvarez.
Mr. Glass, as Counsel for the Defendant, con-
tended that the Cketterfuld had actually carried on
an illicit trade with the Spaniards, and thereby had
forfeited the benefit of the policy. He conceded,
that the supercargo, MortleCk, knew the goods
were goiN; into a Spanish port, as he would prove
that regular signals had been made by him, tb com-
municate with the Spanish vessels that were to take
away the Cargo. A letter had been sent from Don
Pedro Alvarez, at Rio de Janiero, to a person on
board the CbeJteild, who had sailed as an inter-
preter of the Portuguese language. It was in these
words—
" Tr; Dori WMARONE,
" Sir,—M son as you get to the place appointed, and yen
meet toe vessel:, you will request the Ca2tain to reduce trio
small packages. By the first uWortunity you will scud the let-
ters to the place appointed. Recommend the master of thcs
Spanish yewti to lcec p the sailors in etler—thcy must sty they
are Portugue4e It is necessary to destroy me pspers that pass
between us, that nothing may appear to dis.:..ve: our business."
This hater was proof positive that it was known
the cargo was for a Spanish port. 'I he situation in
which the aesteofrld was found, being nearly 125
miles up the Rio de la Plata, surrounded with Spa-
nish setaements, did not leave the least doubt bat
her intention was to trade with that nation. . Would
Dein PedrD Alvarez have appointed to send his ves-
sels with no less than 132,000 dollars on board, if
he had not been sure of his agreement on the part of
the persons be had engaged with. Upon the whole,
it was evident, the Plaintiff had been concerned in
an illicit commerce, by which the shin had become
seizable, consequently the benefit of the policy had
been forfeited.
Lard ELLERBOROUGH summed up the evidence,
and directed the Jury to decide upon those appear-
ances that had occurred to influence their judgment
either in favour of the Plaintiff or the Defendant.
The Jury returned a Verdict for the Plantiff. Da-
maces, 1911. 12s.

COVilt OF COMMON PLF k 9.
Before Lord ALvAN
PTOFFAT AND OTHERS V. DLETRLCDT9F.N.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
251. the amount of a Bill of Exchange. The De-
fendant had given the Bill in question to a Mr.
Warry, who had paid it to Mr. Cox; by whom it had
been paid into the Plaintiff's Banking-House. The
Bill by some accident was lost, of which all the
parties were duly apprised. '1 he Defendant was
applied to for payment of the money, but he re-
fused, and this action was brought to recover the
amount. The Defendant's Attorney took out a
Judge's summons, for the Plaintiff to shew cause
why upon payment of the 251. the Bill should not
be delivered up to be cancelled: this could not be
complied with. '1 he Defendant, therefore, still
persisted in his refusal to pay it. A bond of indem-'
nity was tendered him, but it had no effect. Upon
the trial he endeavoured to maintain that he bad
paid the bill once and ought not to be called upon
again ; in this, however, he failed. It appeared he
had originally promised to pay it, provided the
Plaintiffs would have discounted him a bill for 2001.
which had two years to run. When the Defendant
found his proof of paywsnt of the debt was insuf-
ficient, he contended the Nintiffs ought to be non.
suited, because the Bond of Indemn4z was not
signed by all the parties in the firm. t his objec-
don was overruled, and a verict was given fur the
Plaintiffl. Damages 251.

IPlaintiffs. Damages 251.
..4 -•
• Id'