The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-01-13 00:00:00

'!;a`.

#

Isrs 7. .t.•!'•t • ..ivis/shi'Dif 1.-•••
vs: ntrILLYGENet
'COU&T OF *ISO'S BENCH, GumostAi.l.,
Falsay, .lasnaav
Adjortwed Seabee Offore the Loan CHIEF
JUSTICE asi4 Special Jaries.
TODD O. ARID.
This was an acmes on ts policy of insurance.
The Plaintiff is a Merchant at Hull, the De.
feedunt is a coirsidernne underwriter at Lloyd's
' Coffee...house. In August 11818, the Plaintiff' ef-
fected insurance in the ship Affort, through the
medium of a broker, mulled Power. It was ad-
mitted that the Defendant subscribed 200/. and
that the Plaintiff was interested in the cargo, and
also that the ship proceeded in her homeward
'voyage and was lost. The lola was adjusted at
I.loyd's through tbe intervention of the broker,
&ewer, who in a few days after 'the adjustment
became bankrupt, and the Defendant had notice
from the PI 'ff, before the termination of the
'month (being theurnal period at ihich the under.
Idlers settled with the brokers). not to pay the lull
over to Power. The question was, whether ou aoy
general principle of law or custom of trade, the
Defendant was justified in deducting front the
•ff money which might b* AMP% to hiM
from the broker on other accounts.
Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Barnes, and other considera-
ble insurance-brokers, proved that the practice at
Lloyd's had been altered within these fifteen years,
and the principal brokers new consider that the
money is available to the assured, immediately
after the adjustment, though it was admitted that
several persons still followed the old practice, and
held the money not to be available to the assured
till one month after the adjustment; and also, that,
M point of fact, the loss was not (by the brokers
who followed the new rule) ever paid till the end
of the month.
Some letters of the Plaintiff to Power, the
biker. were put in and read, the effect of which
might be considered as assenting to Power settling
with the underwriters, and stihjecting his (the
Plaintiff's) claim to be reduced by whatever might
appear to be due from Power to the underwriter.,
lon account of business done for the Plaintiff.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, it was an in-
controvertible principle of law, that no set-off of ■
debt due from an agent was binding on the
principal. Length of time, and universality of
usage, might control general rules of law ; hot
the rule mast be general and consistent with itself,
and in that respect the evidence presented in this
case did not bear out the defence. If the Jury con•
sidered that the letters which had been read im-
plied that the Plaintiff consented his Maim on the
underwriters should be subject to the demands
which they had against the broker on the Plaintiff's
account. they would find accordingly.
Verdict fur the Plaintiff, for 631. 16s. the whole
amount claimed, deducting four guineas due from
Power to the Defendant ou the Plaintiff's account.
TEN AISLES C. BROOME.
Mr. SCA HIATT stated the case to the Jury for the
Plaintiff, who, in August, 1814, wits Irving atllour•
deans, and had also un establishineot at St. Jean
de Luz. He there loaded a Russian weasel, called
the Charier, with a cargo of brandy, rum, whiskey,
wine. &c. the cost price of which altogether amount-
ed to 11,0001. The vessel was dispatched with a
supercargo, named French. who had directions to
follow the orders of the Defendant, to whom
the Plaintiff wrote, and left it to the Defend.
ant's judgment to send the vessel to the best port in
the Baltic fur the sale of the cargo, and left it to
him also to choose the return cargo. At the time
the vessel arrived in the Downs it happened that
the Defendant had a considerable speculation in
corn. and he (Mr. Scarlet') could hardly account
for the Defendant directing the Charles. with her
cargo of brandy, &c. to Maisie. but by sup-
posing such gross ignorance, as a merchant, as
would render him liable to the Plaintiff for not
exercising that skill which he must be sup-
posed to possess when he took upon himself
the direction and agency of another's mercan.
tile concerns. He should call evidence to

prove that the port of Datitzic, to which the De-
fendant ordered th evessel, Imes the worst to winch
brandy could be sent, the duties being very high
and no market for the commodity, so that 27.000
gallons of brandy, which was laden on board this
vessel, would remain for twenty-seven years be-
fore it would be demanded. The Defendant,
notwithstanding he was informed by a Gentleman
acquainted with the Baltic trade. that Danisic
was a bad port to send brandy, dispatched the vessel
there with an agent of ins own on board, commis-
sioned to bny cons for him. The supercargo receiv-
ed letters of introduction to the house of Up!lager)
and Co. to whom the bill of lading was endorsed.
No market was fosimi for the brandy and whiskey,
and when the Plaintiff, who hail become impatient
for returns, hail gone to Datitsic, be found that
Messrs. Uphageis and Co. held the cargo in
pledge for some bills which they load drawn tin the
Defendant for teosii, and which he hail refused to
accept, and it was not till the year 1817, that the
Defendant settled with them, and then they released
the cargo; but by duties, charges, leakage. &c.
when it came back ultimately to be sold in this
country, for that cargo, which had at prime cost
stood the Plaintiff in 10,800!. he received only be-
tween 300/. and 400/.
Several witnesses were called, who substantiated
the main points above stated.
Mr. NI AltltlrAre, for the Defendant, contended,
that an agent was liable for gross negligence only, but
bete nothing of the kind was proved; the Defend-
ant had made inquiries, and had actually communi-
cated to 11:e Plaintiff al the result of those login-
rtes, that the pending this brandy to the Baltic would
he a Insir.• speculation ; and though Datitzic was a
had market. as it proved. yet it was as good as any
other port which %moppets toe the cargo. The spirits
had suataiised a leakage of 2,0 per cent. and yet the
Plaintiff .ought to recover the whole invoice value.
He should be able to skew that it was from the fault
or the Pl.' •ff that so great a loss had been sustain-
ed, for when first the brandy arrived from Dantsic in
London. it would have fetched 9.. per gallon, but the
Plaintiff' had chosen to have it kept for two year.,
and then sold it at 21. 64. per gallon only. If the
cargo had been detained at Dantsic, it was Uplueeen
sod Co. who were the wrong doers; the Defendant

••• • •-•