The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, Frn. 3.

REGULATION FOR COMMON MOTIONS.
It is usual for one of the Judges to enter the Court occasionally
an bout or so in the morning before the other Judges, in order to
bear and dispose of motions of course, which are generally made
by Counsel behind the bar.
Mr. Antics BATLEY, on taking his seat this morning for this
purpose, called on Mr. Curwood to move. observing to 31r. Gut.
ney that he was afraid be could not call upon itiru consistently
with the ruled Court.

Mr. Guittiss—My Lord, I humbly submit that I have a
right to move. It wu understood when the rule was originally
laid down_

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Then I must leave the Court, Mr.
Gurney.
Mr. GURNEY begged his Lordship would hear him fur a mo-
ment : when this rule was originally adopted by the late Lord
Ellenboruugh the basis of it was certainly to facilitate the making
of common motions by the gentlemen behind the bar, but it was
at the same time expressly understood by his Lordship and the bar
that if any gentleman within the bar had a common motion to
make, lie was at liberty to do sa before a single Judge behind the
bar, and the motion he asked permission to make was a very short
one.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY said he always understood the contrary.
Alr. GUILNEY assured his Lordship that he had a conversation
with Lord Ellenborough on the subject at the time the rule was
made, and the facts were as be had stated.

31r. Justice BAYLEY—I always understood the reverse to be
the case, and upon that principle I have always acted. If, how-
ever, I am wrong I willingly yield, as I wish it to be understood
that no one would throw an impediment in the way of any gentle-
man at the bar more reluctantly than I would do; on the contrary
I would rather afford them every facility.
31r. Gt: n NEIL' —Every person who knows your Lordship's dis-
position is fully aware of that. I tun sure your Lordship only
mistook the terms on which the rule was grounded.
11r. GURNEY then made his motion, which was one of no
interest.

/11r. CAMPBELL, upon being called upon to move, was about to
make a motion of rather a special nature, when
31r. Justice BAYLEY reminded him, that the rule only allowed
common motions to be made before a single Judge.
Mr. CAM rnELL replied that his motion was of considerable im-
portance, although it was merely for a rule to show cause, and he
understood that when the rule was made, a single Judge was, in
all cases, to be allowed to grant a rule to show cause.
Mr. Justice RAY observed, that if special motions were al-
lowed to be made, the time of the Court must of necessity be de-
layed.
Mr. CAMPBELL then made his motion, and a rule to show cause
was granted.
hi.r. Justice Bayley then left the Court, and Mr. Justice Holroyd
supplied his place, after which
Mr. SCARLETT came in, and took his Seat within the bar, and
made a *notion apparently with a view to maintain the right which
Mr. Gurney had before been contending for.
TH RING r. STAMP SIITTOM COOKE.
The Loan Cum. Jusrrce asked Mr. Taunton whether it
was his intention to pray the judgment of the Court against the de-
fendant this Term

Mr. Tarixo; ea Id he was anxious to dispose of the matter,
and would apply to the Court at the convenience of their Lordships.
The LokD Curt! JUSTICE' asked Mr. Campbell whether he
was instrurted on the part of the defendant to oppose the judgment?
Mr. CAurnEit replied in the negative.
The LORD Cintr JusxrcE—Then let the defendant be
broaght up to receive the judgment of the Court on Wednesday
next.

POLICY OF INSURANCE.
This was an action brought agai Ist the underwriters, on a policy
effected on a ship which was lest on her .voyage from New South
IVales to New Zealand. The policy was to cover the ship in her
voyage at and from London to New South Wales, and at and front
New South ‘Vales to all placed in the East Indies, or to South
America. It also contained leavz to the assured to take in and
discharge goods, .lc., at all ports, as well on this as on the Other
side of the Cape of titiod Hope and Cape Horn, and with liberty
to trade and sail backwards and forwards, and forwards and back.
wards. It appeared at the trial that the ship was lost in her voyage
froth New South Wales to New Z.zdand, to which port she was
destined by the owners; and it was contended on the part of the
underwriters, that this was a deviation from the terms of the policy,
fur although the ship had liberty to touch at, take in, and discharge
goods at any intermediate port, }et the intention was that this
should be dune in the e,turse of the voyage to the ulterior place of
destination mentioned in the 'policy; and that the assured was not
at liberty to sail from New South Wales to any intermediate port
as the ternifuns of that voyage. Upon these grounds the plaintiff
was nonsuited ; but with brave to move to set the nonsuit aside
and enter a verdict for the plaintiff; in ease the Court above should
be of opinion that such u construction of the policy was not the
pruner one.
The case came on for argument this day, and Mr. MARRYAT,
Mr. lit77l7(ZY, and 11r. Matmt, were severally heard in support
of the nonsuit, and Mr. SLtaLETT, Mr. Cast ontt.x, and Mr.
Poxxocx, against it.
The Caner were of opinion that the words of the policy, although
very large, were confined to giving a liberty' to the assured to touch
at the Intermediate ports in the course of satling for the accomplish-
ing the ohjeCt of one or the other of the vdyages originally pointed
out by the policy. Unless this were the proper construction, they
did not know what limos, either as to time or place, could be given
to a policy; and, without seine limit, the underwriters would be
chargeable to an indefinite extent. Tile voyage in question was not
undertaken with the object to go to the East Indies or to South
America, but to New Zealand, during which voyage they. consi-
dertd the ship was not protected by thepolicy. The tumult must
therefore stand.

Mr..ScAuLETT consequently took nothing by his motion.
GEmyr V. KEBWICK.

This wits an action on a bill of exchange, tried before the Lord
Chief Justice, in London, when a verdict was given for the plain.
tell; with leave to the defendant to nerve to enter a nonsiiit, upon
an objection raised agt:nst the validity of an endorsement on the
bill, which, being in pencil, it was contended by the defendant's
Counsel was ❑o endorsement in writing within the statute of frauds ;
and, it it were, that it was nut according to the usage and custom
of merchants.

S 1•. Tit esstor:n this day argued In support of the verdict, and
Mr. POLLOCI: was heard against it.
The LORD ( nt Er JUSTICE said there was no authority to say
that the writing on a bill of exchange must be by ink, and there-
lure he thought it might be by pencil. The Court could not say
that an eniiiiNement on a bill was not such,-tiont the mere rheum-
stance that the name of the party was written in pencil. There
was not much reason to apprehend any great mischief would arise
by the Court giving their decision in favour of the plaintiff; for the
Imperfectian of thin 'node or writing, and dia liability which it
laboured order of being obliterated, so that evidence would be no
longer forthcoming of the party's right, would induce people in
general to take care to have endorse:Beata written in ink. 'there
aright be particular occasions when ink might glebe aceasaible;
and therefore. if the Court were to lay it dowu that these "indorse-
r:rata garala Le always written in irk, it would be a mit cal-

(-tainted to create very considerable inconvenience. Ho was therefore
of opinion the; the verdict ought to stand.
111 r. Justice BAYLEY and Mr. Justice ifotlovo concurred.
31r. Justice 'ATTU:D*I.E was not In Court.
Rule for setting aside the verdict refused.