The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-04-19 00:00:00

IN TIIO4.

>IIDD tit< _ _
tOPI DOM .
Fr (14y, - Ap•il 29 S-trurtkay. • - April SO
r.day, 111.ty 6 Sattirigay, - • M.ty 7
V. .1 y May IS Sliturdsv, - • MY 14
Wedrantlay, • Mty 19 Thurrilay, - • May 19
A /Tel 71101.
Wedneitlay, - May 25 ThanAiy,

a •

Mal 46


• •

LAM /NTE'.I.IGENCZ.

teltnkT 11F KING'S BENCH, Gunonatt, APIA Is.
Sitting: before leoLo Et., t!I POROUGH end a SszclAL
hay.

LORD ISEIIH V. 14111401 A, tSq.

This wa% an anion between the Noble Plaintiff
and the Defendant respeCting his right to a share of
certain prizes.
Mr. ERSKINE observed, that the Counsel on both
sides had thought proper to make a case for the opi-
nion of the Court, upon the question between the par,
ties, with leave to turn it into a special verdia, if it
should be deemed adviseable. A verdia was taken
for the Plain:iff for 62 fl. subjelt to the opinion of
the Court.

MdCARTIVZ V. GLOVER.

Mr. Glens stated this was an aftion on a Policy
of Insurance brought by Daniel M'Carthy, owner
of a ship called the Thomas, to recover a loss, on
which the subscription of the Defendant amounted
to 2001. The Policy was on the freight of the
vessel from Riga to this country. The ship was
chartered by Mr. Corner, one of the Owners, to
Messrs. Thornton and Smalley, to ,proceed from
Portsmouth to Riga, take in timber, and bring it
back to this country at stipulated freights. She ar-
rived at Riga, got the timber in, and the freight
amo anted to 17301. The money insured was 12001.
title had taken in the greater part of her lading, and
had gone over the bar of the harbour, as was acces-
sary in that country with ships which were heavy
laden, and the remainder of her cargo was ready to
he pin on board, when, by the embargo laid on all
English vessels in Russia, in the year 1900, she was
detained, and the Captain and crew sent up the
country. News of this circumstance reached the
Owners, and early in the year 1801 notice of aban-
donment was given by the Owners to the Under-
writers, who took to the vessel, and paid the loss.
In May, 1801, this vessel w.ts set free, the Captain
and crew were released, and the Captain was per-
mined to take his cargo on board, with which she
afterwards arrived at Ill:mouth. Notice was given
that she belonged to the Underwriters, and not to
the Owners. She earned her freight, bringing with
her the greater part of her cargo ; freight therefore
was due. The question then was, to whom that
freight was due. There could be no doubt but that
the Plaintiff, eh° was the Owner, and who had
abandoned the ship to the Underwriters, was enti-
tled to recover of the Underwriters on the freight.
It appeared that the vessel had been seized, and the
voyage had been lost for the time; the Plaintiff
therefore being in the situation of having lost his
freight, had abandoned the vessel to the Under-
writers. At last, however, the vessel was released,
of course whatever was earned by way of freight
was due to semebody. The Underwriters on the
ship centended, that it having been abandoned to
them while at Riga, they were placed in the situa-
tion of Owners, and were entitled as Owners to the
freight. Now he had no objet ion to these gentle-
men, the Underwriters, contending for their claim
with those to whom the cargo was consigned, but
there could be no doubt as to the Owners having a
right to recover the freight which they would have
been entitled to, if there had been no embargo.—
The Plaintiff, therefore, brought his action for that
freight, which he had an inchoate right to, a freight
which the Defendant had insured with the Plaintiff,
and he had abandoned. It might be a considerable
question, whether freight w:ts due to the Under-
writers of the ship, but there could be no doubt
with regard to the right of the original Owners to
recover freight of those who had insured it. He
had stated the case without going into particulars ;
he should prove the fact of the total loss of the
freight, which would be sufficient to entitle him to
a verdict.
The regular proof was given of the policy of in-
surance, and the detention of the ship at Riga. It
was with an extreme degree of difficulty that Mr.
Gibbs proved the fa& of the abandonment—to do.
so he was compelled to call the Defendant's son,
who positively denied all recolleCtion of either his
father or himself having received any notice to such
effeft, and coesequently if he ever had received 'it,
it must have been destroyed. The fart of the deli-
very of the notice to him was proved, and therefore
the Court admitted a copy of the notice to be given
as evidence of the contents of the original one.
Mr. ERSKINE addressed the Jury in favour of the
Defendant ; he observed, that the Owner had enter-
ed into a chatter-party that this vessel should bring
a cargo of masts from Riga ; he had insured the
ship with one set of lYnderwriters, and the freight
with his Clients. 'Ole vessel had proceeded to Riga,
where it had fallen under an embargo ; there had
been an abandonment ; pending that embargo the
Plaintiffs had sent to the Underwriters, ,4 You have
insured my ship, it is now under the pressure of an
embargo, which may be final, or which may only be
temporary, but 1 abandon the vessel to you ; I con-
sent that you shall enter into all my rights and the
vessel's rights." The embargo was taken off, and
she had earned her freight. The Learned Cquasel
said he had a short answer to the case of the Plain-
tiff. He should prove that Mr. Corner, who was a
joint-owner with him, had received the freight him-
self, and that 1w had paid it over to the. Unde-
rwriters of the ship under their indemnity. The
Learned Counsel entered into proof to that effcfl.
Lord Et. re so eounit was of opinion that it did
not affelt the Plaintiff's right to recover ; and the
Jury, under his Lordship's direr ion, returned a ver-
diet for the Plaintiff—Damages 2001.


GNIFFITHs v. ILENsINGtoN.
Mr. Gmettow said, this was a question whether
the Defendant, an opulent Banker, should pay his
Butcher's bill for the liberal supply of his table for a
certain period ; and certainly, if the Jury should not
find a verdiCt in favour of his Client, all he could
s.-.y was, that himself and his learned friends around
him had aaed very unwisely indeed in paying their
Butcher's bills for the last two or three years, for
that it would have been much more prudent in them
to have invested the money in the public funds. He
understood he was to be told that his Client, the
Plaintiff, had not given credit to the Defendant,
but to his Cook; in other words, that he had
trusted a beggar, for she was at this moment in pri-
son, having been :a-rested by her master, whose
money she had most wickedly embezzled.—
He had heard the late Lord Kari YON say, that if a
man sent his servant out cloathed with his credit,
he was bound to answer all the consequences of his
improper use of it. He wished persons of large
estates would condescend to look a little ilLo their

cs*n anairs certai::ly it would eventually to much
better for diem but if they would trust to
coltti-
dential clerks and servants, the fault wins theirs, and
honest tradesmen ought not to be injured by their
folly. It might be said, that the Plaintiff ought
not to have suffered the bill, which it was the object
of this aOion to recover, to have gone on so far. In
answer to this, he had only to observe, that trades-
men, to whom large bills were owing from men of
fortune, were frequently fearful of applying to them
lest they should give offence and lose their custom.
The Learned Counsel alluded to the case of a gen-
tlemen, whom lie described as a most amiable cha-

raFter, who had had this truth exemplified in a way
extremely injurious to his feelings. It happened
that his hrewer called at his house with a small

bill, and he observed there could net possibly be
any thing owing to him, unless he had sent in beer
in the ciurse of the week, for that he had given his
servant the money to pay all his tradesmen's bills ;
however, he said he would enquire, and call upon
him. He accordingly- enquired of his servant, who
said," 0 dear, Sir! it must be some mistake, he has

been paid." The Gentleman, who was a Member
of Parliament, and was just then departing for t 1..•
House of Commons, had Lot at that moment time

to call for the voucher, which his servant pretended
would prove the payment of the bill ; but he after-
wards thought it would be as well if he gave the
brewer a call. Accordingly he paid the brewer a
vita, and was informed it was a mistake, and that

the bill hai been paid. Upon interrogating him
as to tad probability of a mistake, the brewer can-
didly said—" Sir, if I must tell you the truth, your
servant has paid the bill since I presented it to you.
He told me you was a very good man yourself, and
always gave the money to pay your tradesmen
punetually, bat your lady had such an itch for
gaming, there w.ts no getting a single guinea out
of her fists. Upon inquiry it turned out, that this
insolent servant had told the same kind of story to
all his tradesmen, that he had described his master
as a punctual man, and his mistress as a woman
who intercepted for the purposes of gaming that
money which he appropriated to the payment of
his tradesmen. The whole story was as wicked as
it was false.—ln the present case, whenever the
butcher applied to the Plaintiff's cook for his
bill, she said, my master cannot pay it you now ;
but here is something in part. The cause was of
very little importance to Mr. Kensington, but it
was far otherwise with regard to his Client, the
Plaintiff. He had no doubt but Mr. Kensing-
ton's cook had cheated him, but it was his duty

to have contro/ed her and prevented her from so
doing. It was impossible fur the Plaintiff to force
his way into the drawing-room of this gentleman,
and tell him his bill was running on too far ;
he gave credit to his cook, under the idea that
she had his sandion for running in his debt. The
balaace due to the Plaintiff, after deduding two
sums of 101. which the Defendant had paid him,
without prejudice to tile present action, amounted
to 471. and this sam, he had no doubt, the Jury
would give him.
The Plaintiff's servant proved the delivery of the
articles contained in his bill.

Mr. ERSKINE said, he was Counsel for Mr. Ken•
sington, and, in his short address to the Jury,
would state on what reasons and principles this ac-
tion was defended. He said it was not necessary
for his Learned Friend to have appealed to the au-
thority of Lord Kenyon, for the purpose of shewing,
that if a man authorised his servant to go to a but-
cher, and if he did not give him any money to pay
for the articles he purchased, that he was accounta-
ble for the credit given him; law, justice, and com-
mon sense required in such case the tradesman
ought to be paid his bill.—ln the present instance,
Mr. Kensington had always been very particular in
desiring his butcher to bring in his bill weekly. He
had made it the condition of his employing him, that
he should do so, and for more than a s ear he had
dealt with him, the Plaintiff regularly r.2ceived his
money of his cook—for a length of t►me she had
ailed with honesty, and had devoted the money he
had given her to the discharge of the debts she had
incurred. What Mr. Kensington complained of
was, that when his bill had been regularly paid,
week after week, and that there was suddenly an
omission of the payment of it, that he did not give
him notice of the circumstance, in order that he
might be put upon his guard, and make enquiry as
to the cause. Mr. Kensington, upon detecting the
dishonesty of his servant, found that he was in-
debted to tradesmen, whose bills he had given her
money to discharge, in a sum amounting to some-
thiag more than 2401. 'Ale Learned Counsel said,
he should prove that the Plaintiff had declared he
had trus►ed the cook, and that he did not wish to
mention the circumstance from the fear of hurting
her in her master's esteem. If this was so, he ought
not to look to the master for payment : if a man
made an agreement with a tradesman to pay him
weekly, and he gave his servant money to discharge
the bills, was it reasonable that he should after-
wards be called upon to pay the bills incurred by
his servant ? He would ask his Learned Friend
Mr. Garrow, wealthy as he was, whether he or any
man, if such was the law, could keep a house over
his head ? He was well persuaded Lord Kenyon
would not have expressed himself in favour of such
a iloCtnne. He thought it was quite sufficient for a
man to pay his hills once. The Plaintiff had re-
,.ceired his bills regularly for a year and a half, and
upon that regularity of payment ceasing, he had ne-
ver thought proper to come near the Plaintiff to in-
form hint of it. The Learned Counsel urged the
inconsistency of the Plaintiff's applying at different
times for the loans of ten pounds, when he conceived
he had a demand upon the Defendant for a much
larger sum, and he thought his acceptance of that
loan a sufficient proof that he had no legitimate or
legal demand.
A. witness, of the name of Garford, proved the
circumstance of the Plaintiff having borrowed 201.
of the Defendant, b.st it appeared to be under the
express condition of returning it again, in c..se he
should not prevail in his suit against him.
Blanche Morgan, the Defendant's cook, was
brought into Court by habeas-corpus, in order to
prove certain payments, but such was the conscious-
ness of guilt and shame she exhibited, that she nei-
ther could hold up her head, or give the least satis-
ladory testimony ; nothing whatever was colleCted
from her evidence.
Mr. Divatt, the brother-in-law of the Defendant,
merely preyed. that he had recommended the Plain-
tiff under an assurance that he would be paid
weekly, as he was paid by the witness, but he could
not prove a positive agreement that the dealings be-


%wren thr Plaintiff itta Def:adAt: wife L Le 4..11

do other terms.
Lord Ett.entosottos was of opinion, that the
evidence on the part of the Defendant did not amount
to an answer to the Plaintiff's claim, ad.d the Jury
returned a verdiet for the, Plaintiff.
HUMBERT T. HARMS AND OTHERS.
Mr. EasitiNz observed, this case lay within a nar-
row compass, and rested on admissions on both
sides. It was an anion brought by the Plaintiff,
who had been secretary to Admiral Kingsmill, on the
Irish station, and purser of the when it was
commanded by Lord Ranelagh, and afterwards,
when the command *as given to Captain Halliday ;
by Mt of Parliament, officers in the navy were en-
abled to appoint agents who had ceroin duties as-
signed to them which were not only extrenie;v
crative to themselves, but convenient to the cfLers
who appointed them. .1 he Doris having taken a.
prize, the Defendants, by a letter of Attorney, exe-
cuted by Lord Ranelagh and his officers, were ap-
pointed agents to manage their concerns relative to
all captures and recaptures. In January 1801, the
Doris was in port, and Lord Ilanelagh dying, the
command was given to Captain Halliday, and oil
the 20th of the same month the Doris captured a
valuable French ship, which, on the 10th of March
following, was condemned, allotted and arranged
for sale. On the 24th of April the Captain and of-
ficers made a new power of Agency, appointing the
Plaintiff to ail jointly with the Defendants, he con-
tended, that by virtue of this power the Plaintiff was
entitled jointly with the Defendants to the profits
of the Agency. The single question would be, whe-
ther the first power of Attorney was revocable. 3
Lord ELLENDOROUGH was of opinion, that the
officers of the ship could not appoint an additional
Agent without first ascertaining whether the Agents ,
before appointed would consent to aft with him
and further, that before such appointment, they
ought to have tendered to the first appointed Agents
the amount of those profits which had been vested
in them.
Upon the expression of this opinion, the Plaintiff
was nonsuned.