The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-05-29 00:00:00

V

LAW INTELLIGENCL.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Ltwcol.N' INN, MAC ta

The Lord Chancellor was this day occupied in
kearing Lunatic Petitions, of nn general interest,
and at 12 o'clock he lett the Bench.

COURT OF KING'S SENCii, GUILDNALL, MAT 28.

Sitlinp,s al Nisi Prins. before Lied Mil Jasrire
Et LINSOILOL:OU anJ Special Juries.
0111•11' 9. Gills.
This was an action for a breach of contrail,
brought by the owner of the brig Susan, to recover
back the price he had paid the Defendant, who was
the builder of that vessel, upon the grounds of mis-
representation.
On the part of the Plaintiff it appeared, that he
hail commissioned his friend, Capt. Treluddra, to
purchase the ship in question, from the Defendant,
who was a ship-builder at one of the Western ports.
'This ship was .4 very handsome looking vessel, and
appeared tow extremely well built, upon the first
view of her, and beiior epresented td be well and
faithfully built, Capt. Tieluddra, on the part of his
principal, agi eed to mu chase her, at the rate of 81.
per ton ; and, in the mom,- s r November, OW, she
was launched from the Defendant's Dock. After
performing . voyage from Peozance to L0n.1.-m,
laden with tin, she was struck in the hull, by a boat
passing, whilt she lay in the river, and was injured
thereby. In repairing the damage, it was diacovv-
ed, that the timers in the bottom were very defi-
cient, and it was found necessary to have a survey
of the vessel, upon which it appeared, that her tim-
bers in the stern, the raids/lips, and the bows, were
both sappy and rotten; and she was. accordingly,
reported unseaworthy, and in so bad a state, that if
she met bad weather at sea, she must have gone to
the bottom.
On the part of the Defendant, it was contended,
that no warranty of the ship in question was made
by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's agent, nor had
any deceit or misrepresentation been used upon his
part. The Defendant did not immediately super.
intend the building of this ship himself, but, at the
time, he believed her to be well and faithfully built;
the purchaser had constant opportunity of examin-
ing the ship, and had he employed, with due dill-
. gence, the means in his power, he might have
known, in the iirst instance, the real state of the
vessel in question.
The sum paid was 5501. and some of the planks
were produced in Court, which appeared very
sappy, and uafit for such purposes.
Lord ELLIKSONOUGN said, the question was,
whether the Defendant had deceitfully made such
misrepresentation, the atition being founded on a de-
ceit, and there being an warranty in the terms of
the contract, the thing was, if such deceit had been
praftiseil? The party buying was to use all his
skill and attention, in the examination of what be
was about to purchase; but, if the seller lulled him
iato a state of security, by misrepresentation, and
induced him thereby to forego she necessary inspec-
tion, he was guilty of a deceit, and was liable for
such. This was a matter of very great public im-
portance. where the lives of so away persons were
concerned, and the mischief would be dreadful,
if it were to be permitted to ship-builders to trifle
with the lives of su many of El:s 51.jesty's sublet:h.
It was quite clear, in this case, that the vessel was

very unsound, proceeding from sappy and rotten
timbers, and the builder was bound to see, that she
was fairly and properly built. The putestion, there-
fore, was, whether the par:y had wilßigly practised
a deceit ? and whether the vessel in question had
that appearance, so as to deceive a purchaser ?
The Jury, after a short consultation, found
verdict of 5601. for the Plaintiff
CU? It 9. CHRISTI&
This was an adion upon a policy of insurance
uprm goods, brought to recover a total loss and
premium against the Underwriters.
The Plaiatiffs, Messrs. Cuffe and Dickinson,
were considerable merchants, and importers of but-
ter and cheese from the Continent, and the Defend-
ant a Gentleman of most respelable charader.
The policy in question was underwrote for 15001.
upon goods which appeared to be of the value of
2271. 13s. and had been shipped by the Agent of
the Plaintiffs, Mr. Ebegg, at Emden, consigned to
tbePlaintiffs by the ship called Fminalichefi (the
Fiend,hip), which bad cleared the Custom-house of
Emden en the 10th of November, 1803. She re-
mained in that river, owing to contrary winds, until
die 6th of December then following, and had never
since been heard uf.
On the part of the Defendant, it was contended,
that, at the time of eliciting the policy in question,
which was done on the 2341 of December, there was
a concealment of documents, which the Under-
writers should have beets made acquainted with.
The letter upon which the policy had been dieted,
was dated the 2cl of December, and received the
'nil, from which it appeared, that the ship in eines.
tion was then ready to sail ; whereas the Plaintiffs
being very extensively engaged in this trade, had
received several letters from tLcir Agent. Mr.
Ebegg. antecedent to that date, by Die Dr, I Scheyer. '
urn (the race i)rr Kon.g von P►au:fa (the
Asa Prviste), and other ships, with consignments
from that place, in most of which it appeared that
the Feeteirde(l.lll was supposed to have sailed for
tzgland long before any of them, and some appre-
hensions were entertained as to her safety. Some
of the Captains and Mares of the ahr•vr nicationed
ships were examined, from whose evidence it ap-
peared, that they left the Fretvareilft in Emden
;toads, on the 6th of December.
Lord Ettemaoitouou left it to the Jury, upon
she credibility cf these witnesses, when compared
with thole documents, which bis lordship conceived
to bee concealment sufficient to void the policy, if
the hazy disbelieved these witnesses.
'Me Jury, afters sheet consultation, found a
verdift of !Ss. for the Plaintiffs, being the De-
fendar.ei poition of the premiur•.r paid.
CORDOIS V. {SCRS T•H•
Tbi was also an edam upon a valued policy of
insurance upon the ship 'Ti,,,, for a total loss upon.
a v'va'e from the South Seas home.
77 e ship in question was a South Sea v.iral..r,
and having completed her cargo, was returoing
hon., laden with 360 baser!, of sperm oil, 1,100
he-"•rs of black oil, mad 360 seal skits, and oast


article, the produce of that part of the world, va-
lued above 8,811 schen she fell is with a French
frigate in the Bay of Conception, and was captured.
The Underwriters had paid a sum of money into
Court, at the rate of BM. per cent. upon the tctal
loos.
The ATTnaNET•GLNLRAL, on the part rf the
Defendants, said, that this sum was paid into
Court, the Underwriters conceiving they were not
liable for more than two-thirds of the lost, as by an
agreement between the Owners and the Captain
and crew, the latter, in lieu of wages, were to hare
one-third of the profits of the voyage. He there-
fate contended, that the Plaintiff's tritild only claim
for the remainder, having no interest in that one-
third.
Lord ELLE/CW*O(.:IR considered this a question
more properly to be decided by the Court above,
and a verdiet was accordingly entered fur the Plaint-
iff, subjeß to the future consideration of the Court
at Westmineter.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Gui , M•Y 23.

SPECIAL JURY.
III,TIERY V. wr nowre.
This was an issue directed from the Conn of
Chancery to try the fad of an At of Bankruptcy
having lx.in committed by the Defendant, before
the time and date of issuing the Commission of
llinkruptrry in this cause. The Commission was
issued on the 17th of April, 106, and the Jury
were to find by their verdid, whether or not the
following fads or circumstances in the Defendant's
conduct, amounted to an absconding. or (..ginning
to keep house, with an intent to avoid, hinder, or
delay his creditors from recovering their demands
against him, within the words of the Statutes?
The fads were these: That the Detendaat being a
partner with a Mr. Lloyd, in 'Nantes street, and
being on a joarr.-y to Exeter, about the business of
the firm, on the Bth of April. 1806, when the house
stopped payment, on the 12th of the same month,
the Defendant returned to town, and on the next
ensuing Monday, attend ed at a meeting of the Cre-
ditors of the house, with a wish to avoid a bank-
ruptcy. Another meeting of Creditors was pro-
posed or fixed for the following Monday, but before
such second sneering, the Defendant was arrested
by Vincent, a Serjeant at Mate, on ‘Vednesday the
16th of April, at six o'clock in the evening. and
remained in custody at a spunging-house is the
city, until about one o'clock next morning, when he
procured bail, and instead of coming to his own
house, at Tharaes-street, he did. with the advice of
Mr. Chippendale, Lis Solicitor, go to Islington, to
Mr. Chipendale's lodging, in order to consider
what was best to be done with the Defendant's
affairs, by the aid of his Solicitor and a Mr. Poole,
one of the Creditors, in whose house the lodgings
were. On the next day, Thursday. Mr. Poole
brought a note or uritiag, on paper, to Thames.
street, to the head clerk, requiring linen to be
sent to the Defendant, but containing no se-
cret whatever. Mr. Poole carried no verbal
message as to conce.ll:ng or avowing where the
Defendant was, or what answer was to be given to
Creditors calling, if any, and the Defendant did not
return to his home until the Sunday following. Be-
tween Wednesday and Sunday so Creditors called
at Thames-street for the Defendant. and he slept
each night at the same lodging of Mr. Chippendale,
and walked out each Jays and in particular he was
with Messrs. WaUace and Co. creditors, near
Cheapside, who do not oppose the Commission, so
that to seemed to be his wish to avoid a Bankruptcy,
if possible. It was contended, on behalf of the De-
fendant, that as the law admits nu fraaion or divi.
sion of a day, the Defendant bang at home all day
on the 16th, until six in the evening, when lie was
arrested and detained in prison, until after twelve
that night, he had not absconded on that day, ac-
cording to the Statutes, nor committed the ad in-
quired of by the words of the issue, and that if, on
the next day. the 17th, by remaining from home, at
Islington, an Aft of Bankruptcy had even been com•
Knitted, it would not support the present issue.
The Counsel for the Plaintiff denied this to be
law, and contended that the intention was mani-
fest in the Defendant to avoid an arrest, or his Cre•
ditors.

The Cm mr-J times agreeing with the Plaintiff's
Counsel, as to the law of the case, stated, that al•
though the law in general did not allow the division
or fraftion of a day, yet for certain purposes of con-
venience, it admits of such division or fraltion, and
that in this case, the Defendant, by remaining at
Islington, on Thursday. Friday, and Saturday, had
rendered the whale tiros one continued absence,
commencing with the moment of his discharge
from the Spunging.house ; and added, that even If
it were known in town where he was, it would
be within the Bankrupt Laws ; as a writ issued in
the city, wo;:ld not avail at Islington, in Middlesex ;
for that the Creditor W S not to be delayed or in-
col.moded in arresting him, if he would wish to
gain a preference or priority.
The Jury, however, against the law and charge
of the Judge, found a Verdift, but offered to Bad an
Aft of Bankruptcy, on the 17th, if all parties con-
sented, which they at first were disposed to do, until
they considered the terms of the issue. • There was
a verdia entered for the Defendant on the present
issue, and his Lordship said he would certify or
rert the peculiar circumstances to the Court
of C pohancery, with the Verdiß.