The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-01-25 00:00:00

ipplieetioo of Holrak to a person named
ot were, of the vessel took place, said she was eon.
deemed as osiseoworthy. At the trial the Dr fru.
data' Counsel contended that there was no hair.try
proved, hut that there ti* full proof the vessel suss
suiseaworthy at the Aeon she sailed from Siena
Leone. The Lord Osier' Justice, in summing up
to the Jury, observed, there were three l o flea of
view in which this case might be presented so • heir
itinsidetatiois : First, if the Jury ihoul.l be of opi.
stip°, that previous to the ship's quoting Sier.
Leone, there hod been a fraudulent inn mina. sr, 1
plan to curry her to Barb .does, that would aoloot.t
to horridly ; secondly, if the plan was not formed
till after they tailed, but wits concocted ou tle m .
sage, and the wirer and provisions were wasted ise •
step triennia carrying the plan into effect, that is...
would ailment to he. retry ; ind thirdly. even tiie4
sirs such plan existed, and the voted was foleeil
Arent of circonsetinices to go to Btblradoes, pl, if
the Jury should 'be of opiiiiess that .1164 'plan wins
formed lifter the vessel getting them, in order to
get her surveyed and condemned, is order to de.
frond the owners, that also would toestiluie bat rat .
The Jory found a verdict for the Plaintiff; but
they did not say an which point their verdict was
formed. It might hive been founded on the Brat
point, the law of which lie (the Solicitor-Getteral
did not omen to dispute., but lie had now to con.
tend, that it was a point not covered by soy allege.
lion in the declaration. The but count stated,
that the ship sailed on her voyage to England, and '
afterwards, whilst proceeding ou that voyage, she
was lost by barratry of the m.sier (Holyciak)
the crew. Now if the plan was formed before she
quitted Sierra Leone, she never did *ail on her
voyage to England, and the count was not made
out. He had also to complain, that upon this
count, as compared with the evidence brought forr.
ward at the trial, the Defeodaot had been taken by
surprise. The. count directed the attention of the
Defendant to what took piece on the voyage, whilst
the evidence adduced et,the trial went to shew
design end plan formed sod matured ham .11*
voyage einumeueerL ray ',Jr ,111 •r
Mr. Justice BA YLIIT asked. whether, if the barns.
trotts intention existed before the vessel sailed, that
world not constitute a loss pithiu the policy ?
The SOLICITOR-GINERAL acknowledged it
would, generally speaking; but submitted, that
that fact could not be considered under the coasts
of the present declaration.
The LOAD Catil You mean, Mr.,
Solicitor. to contend that all the three position'
which 1 laid down to the Jury were good, remelt'''.
but that one was had fruits the form of the prese•••
declaration, and the Jury might have found on
point. Yoe say, if the plan was formed at
Leone, and not carried into effect until a
(pent period, it will not suit this declaretioa." '• t
The SOLICITOR-GILIIIKAL said, such was hi,
view oldie case on this point. On the other couer,i,
which stated the barratry to have originated in the
voyage to England. there was the same objection,
the proof of the Plaintiff at the trial Lein that ow
voyage to England was ever contemplated. On the
third point, wisely, that it was not till after the
arrival of theveasel at Borletdoes that the bairatry
originated, time he would submit that there heat
been sech a deviation from the voyage 'inured, as
operated to put the underwriters off the policy.
as even allowing that they had been forced into
that deviation by shortness of provision and water.
It had been repeatedly held by the Court, that if
the shortness of provisions arose from the awesome*
of the master sod crew, that circumstance should
sot - to excuse the deviation to the prejudice

operate __
of the underwriters. to these several
points, he submitted,. that it appeared from the evi-
dence, that the Plaintiff had received a part of tbo
cargo, which had proved beneficial to him to a en.
tarn event, and ought, therefore, to be taken ildto
account in reduction of damages.
The CHlil Justice reed his notes taken at fJM
trial.

Mr. Justice BAYLZT said it did not ow=
from the evidence that there had been such WNW
waste as would operate to put the uuderariterlig
the policy. ,
The CaterJUITICR woo'decidedly of opiniou
the objections of the Solicitor General shook,' bare
been made at the trial, and that the attention 'of the
Judge should have beer' called to these poiots, and
a question put to the Jury us to the purticalar point
on which their verdict was founded. He thought
there had not been • case made oat that would
justify disturbing the verdict. A rule might be
drawn up to inquire as to the receipt of part of the
cargo by the Plaintiff.
The rest of the Corm concurring in this opi-
nion. • rale fur reference= that subject was drawn
up accordingly.
wear V. riIANCIIII.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief
Justice at the sittings in Middlesex after lest Term,
when a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff.
Mr. GultNitir now applied to have the verdict
set aside and a nonsuit entered. The Plaintiff was
the publisher of certain theatrical character prints.
and the Defendant was • print-seller, and the pre-
sent action against him was for selling certain pirabssi
copies of the Plaintiff's prints. From the evidence
at the trial, it appeared that the prints sold by the
Defendant did in part resemble the °victual put,-
lit:awns of the Plaintiff's, but varied mime--
ally in some oiher parts. The Learned
Cvuu-
sal now insisted that under the Emote the
Defendant. who was only the seller, and Not the
publisher of these pirated engravings. was Not
liable. The statute, in express words, provided
that a prbhsher of copies in part should be liable ;
but sellers were only made liable for• selling exact
copies. This distinction was founded on the strict-
est justice: the publisher must know of the exist-
ence of the original print, and the variation was
meant as a cover fur fraud; but the asere seller of
the copy might never have seen the original, and be
entirely ignorant of its existence.
The COURT observed this was • tpeeetion of great
importance to persons macerated ia swab property.
and therefore granted the rule, is oder slat Use
verdict eight be fully considered. "'" ‘•
• '
4... •
Win V. WINOS.

This was • similar action. sad Mr. DUMAN else
*bunted Me es the grimed. urged by Mr. Gus-
tier is the hewer ceee.
catiaiNat. INVOIMATION.

Mr. WAIOOII9 140044 ger a minimal Warm.
CND Misr{ apnoea mama lleassil aril wee ober