The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THURSDAY, MAY U.

Their Lords Lips were engaged in their pri►ate room iu sveating
in the two new pageants, Mr. Arabin and Mr. IViltie, trite were
afterwsrd4 introduced at the Bar, where the► went through the
usual ceremonies. They then bowed to their -Lordships and the
Bar, and took their scat with the other sergeants.

AVDERSON v. CLARKE.
Mr, Sergeant l'h lIAN appeared as counsel for the plaintiF. to
show cause against a rule. The was a merchant tal !Aver.
pool. Thedefeldant was master of the ship Hannah. T:As deems.

ration contained two counts. The general Isaac wag pleaule.l, nod
the Jury gave a verdict of 51W. Ifts. ea. A rule for a new trial had
been obtained by 51r. Sergeant Teddy. It appeared that 51r. Orr,
ft merchant at Newry, was in the habit of consigning shipments of
butter to the plaintiff; and he frequently drew bills upon the nimbi-
tilt. in anticipation of further consignments. In the year 1819, the
plaintiff, in consequence of the had state of the batter market, was
desirous to wind up his accounts with Mr. t ire. Ile therefore weete
to SI r. Oer. declining any further consignment, and asking fur his
!account. Mr. the, however, continued to ship a further consign-
I thent lot 2011 casks of butter by the Content, ar.d drew upon lthe
plaintiff for LOW. Mr. the fell into difficulties, and requested as-
! sistancefrom the plaintiff The dealings between the parties were
general; but the particular ground of the present action avow from
the shipment of a quantity of butter on board the Hannah, for the
!plaintiff, a balance being then doe from ()re in his favour. The
butter was not delivered to the plaintiff but taken hack to Newry.
; Sir. Sergeant Vaughan submitted that the rule obtained should be
i discharged ; amt was proceeding with his argument, when
I Slr. sergeant Tabu" was called upon by the Court to reply.
; lie contended that as this was an action of assumpsiOnot of (rover,
the plaintiff had no right to recover ttuin the defendant. There
was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; there was
no correspondence between them. The defendant was the mere
shipper of the goods, and if Sir. Orr these to have the goods biwk
it did not make the Captain liable. The goods belonged to Orr,
for no new advances had been made by the plaintiff on this specific
transaction. If this had been an action of prover the case might
have been otherwise, but the goods were in fact Orr's. There was
a draft upon the defendant, tacked to the invoice, and that dealt
the plaintiff had not horroureeL The value of the butter was 5101.
Iris. W., and the draft was for bOtW. This, he submitted, was
sufilient evidence to conclude it was drawn upon that particular
consignment. Slr. Anderson, the Learned ....rearit -.intended,
had repudiated the goods, for he wrote to Sfr. Orr, to say he hail
as much butter RI he could sell. Ile meant by the terms of his
letter that no more consignments should be made to him accord-
ing to the old mode, viz. with a burthen annexed them. This
case was different from any other that lie remembered. Upon
these grounds the Learned Sergeant submitted that the Captain was
not liable.

1111eess IMF JUSTICE was of opinion that the Jury had found
rightly, for by the bill of lading he had undertaken to deliver the
goods to the plaintiff. Isis brother Teddy had taken two objec-
tions, one a technical objection, the other on the merits. It was
contended that this action could not be maintained as an action of
assurnprit Ilia Lordship was of opinion there was no ground for
that ohjectiot. Upop the justice of the cam the question was
whether there was evidence to support the finding of the Jury.
His Lordship was of opinion that there was evidence to support the
verdict. What coafirmed his Lordship in this opinion, was the
account set out between the parties' to which his brother Teddy
had not adverted. If it had appeared that these goods had been
sent specifically upon the condition that the plaintiff should give
accerances cn account of them, the plaintiff would not hare been
entitled to recover from the defendants but it appeared that the
goods were sent on the old terms. His Lordship was of opinion
that this verdict ought not to be disturbed.
.Mr. Justice Pant and Mr. Justice Ihlnnocon concurred.
Rule discharged.