The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-10-30 00:00:00

This was
before Mr
Jury found ,
opinion of the Court.
Mr. Pot.LoCK stated that this wait
voyage trom Cork to St. Vincent's ; the
sured were 28 mules, 10 losses. and 10
the policy contained a clause *strewn%
writers from " mortality and jettisou."
sailed from Cork on the 19th Janoory,
had scarcely quitted the port when it encou,
violent storm, which lasted till the 30th
the end of which time the ship got into St.
Mount, Cornwall, where she ►efitted;
mules, oxen, and asses, were killed during
others were much hurt, and died whilst at Si,
Michael's Mount, and one died after the ship had
refitted and proceeded from St. Michael's Mount
to the West Indies; so that in fact only five mules
and one ass arrived safely at St. Vincent's. The
qweetion for the opinion of the Court therefore was,
whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover for all
the animals which were lost, or for those only that
perished darling the storm ; or whether, on the other
hand, the Defendants were not entitled to a verdict
ender the clause of exception introduced into the
policy " free from mortality." The question would
furl upon the meaning of the word nro►tality.
Johnson, in his Dictionary. say% mortality means
death, liability to death, frequency of death; and
undoubtedly the word, as used in common parlance,
toreent mortality arising from ordinary causes; no
one ever spoke of the mortality in a ship arising
from a her of men killed in action with the
enemy. If, indeed, the word had the meaning
which the underwriters contended for, the policy
would have been satisfied by their delivering the
deed bodies of the animals at St. Vincent's. even
though the ship had been wrecked, and the
dead bodies had been collected on the shore. Stich
being the result of that construction, he (Mr. I'ul-
lock) professed that he was quite at a luta what be
had to answer.
The COURT said, that it might be es well to hear
the other side first.

Mr. CAurser.r., for the Defendants, contended,
that the meaning of the exception was to exempt
the iusurers from those risks which arose from the
vitality of the subject matter insured. His Learn-
ed Ene►d, Mr. Pollock, had professed to be at a loss
to know if the insurers were not answerable for this
loss for what they were liable. He would tell him
they were liable for loss from enemies and pirates ;
but he should be told that this was iu time of peace,
but there were other other perils for which the in-
surers were liable,• viz. barratry of the maser of
marines, detention by Princes, or if the ship went to
the bottom and the cattle were drowned, for their
the less would not arise from the vitality of the sub-
ject mutter insured, and so if the ship were burnt
the insurers would be equally liable ; brit here, he
contended, the meauing was to except the under..
writers from all risks except such as dead goods
were subject to.
Mr. l'ot.Loce, in reply, contended that the
meshing of the word " mortofity" in this polity
must betaken in its popular sense, and if so, theft
the insurers would not be liable for what lie tnight
call a medic.il case, but if a surgical case they
would ; or, in other words, if death were induced
by that natural tendency to death, to which all ani-
mated nature was subject, then the underwriters
would not be liable ; but if the animals met their
death by any violence, such as the falling of the
ship's masts, then the underwriters would be liable;
but a the insurers meant to guard against all the
perils to which animated nature was liable, then the
language whirl' they had used was illusory. In
this case the ship, from the violence of the tempest,
had the whale of her bulk-heads driven in, and all
the cattle were mixed pell moll together, and his
Learned Friend, Mr. Campbell, had acknowledged
that if the animals had been killed by the enemy in
battle, it would have been a question for the Jury
whether the same violence would not have injured
inanimate goods. So here, according to his edrnis.
sioo, it might bee question whether the violence .
would not have burst a cask of wine or spirits.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he was clearly
of opinion that the insurers were answerable for the
loss incurred, as the animals were killed by a peril
of the sea, from which the insurers were not ex-
empted by the clause "free from mortality," which
word mu►t be taken by the Court in its ordinary
sense; if that were not the meaning attached to it
by the underwriters, it would be easy for them in
future to protect themselves by the substitution of
some other.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the words were in.
tended for the benefit of the underwriter, mid it was
therefore his duty to express himself so lareely as
to meet every case he meant to except himself from.
He concurred with my Lord Chief Justice in the
opinion that the word " mortality" in the policy
meant death by ordinary means.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD and Mr. Justice But.
concurred.

Mr. CAMPBELL asked if the opinion of the Court
extended to all the animals which had died ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTIC6-.." To ■ll the •ai-
wale which were killed by the storm. The twilit t
must be eutered fur the larger sum."

LONOEIDOK D. DORVII.LE.
Mr. PULLER had mentioned th:s rase on Friday
last. He reminded the Court briefly of the facie
which he had before stated. The Carolina Matilda,
hound to Norway, in goingdowis the river Thome..
ran foul of the ZeNobio.The Plaintiffs, who are own-
ers of that vessel, applied to the Court of Admiral-
ty, and the Carolina Matilda was stopped at Graves-
end. The Defendant, as agent to the owners, wrote
to the Plaintiff, stating, that if he would permit the
ship to proceed and give up all claim opium her.
he (the Defendant) would indemnify him for all
damage dope to the Ztnabia, not exceeding 1801. to
be paid so soon as the damages could be ascertained.
The Carolina Matilda was iu consequence released,
and proceeded on her voyage to Norway. The
Defendant now denied his liability ;.but he shou:d
contend that. to the extent of the promise, he was
answerable.
Mr. PoLt.ocir, for the Defendant, contended,
that ou the authority of decided cases, as his chest

• AL

4


. .
•
.
. .
• •
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, W NITMINNY
LOS DAY, OCTOMUIt 29.
LAWBENC6 V. ABERDEEN.
This was an action on a, policy of insurance tried
before Mr. Justice Best at Guildhall, when the
Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the Court.
Mr. Pot.z.ocx stated that this was a loss on a
voyage from Cork to St. Vincent's ; the cargo as-
sured were 28 mules, 10 asses, and 10 oxen, and
the policy contained a clause *attaining the under-
writers from " mortality and jetti.on.' The vessel
sailed from Cork on the 19th January, 1819, and
had scarcely quitted the port when it encounieivil
violent storm, which lasted till the 30th January, at
the end orwhich time the ship got into St. Michael's
Mount, Cornwall, where she refitted; part of the
mules, oxen, and miles, were killed during the Aorta.
other. were mueh _. c.