The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.).

ROLLS COURT.
JUDGMENT.--YATES V. FAIRLIE.
The Mama of the ROLLS gave judgment this morn-
ing in this case. The bill was filed by a gentleman of the
name of Yates, who claimed to have an interest in a re-
turned cargo of a ship called the Mercury, consigned by
Macdonald and Co. of Liverpool, to Arnold and Farlie of
the Mauritius. Macdonald, who was one of the persons
who signed the bill of lading, was a partner with a person
named Waring. Previous tothe transaction with the plaintiff,
Macdonald and Waring carried on busines as merchants,
and as such had opened a correspondence with Arnold and
Fairlie; in the course of which they acquainted them of
their intention, in a short time, to consign to them a ship
called the Mercury, laden with goods fur their account,
and requesting them to purchase goods for the supply of the
returned cargo, telling them they should be supplied with
money for the purchase of it out of the proceeds of the
outward cargo. Upon the faith of this Arnold and
Fairlie purchased a homeward cargo. In the meantime
Macdonald and Waring wanted an advance of money from
the plaintiff, which he was willing to accede to, upon
one of the partners of Macdonald's house being made a
Party to the bill of lading, and also upon instruc-
tions being given that 6,0001. should be paid out
of the first proceeds of the outward cargo. Nothing
however, was mentioned to the plaintiff of the previous
correspondence which had taken place between Mac-
donald's house and the house of Arnold and Fairlie. In-
structions to this effect went with the- bill of lading to
Arnold and Fairlie, who, previously to the arrival of
them, had laid out their money in the purchase of a re-
turned cargo, under the understanding that they were to be
reimbursed out of the first proceeds; they, therefore, declined
to pay any attention to those instructions. Macdonald and
Waring shortly afterwards became bankrupts, and the
plaintiff, conceiving he was entitled under the commercial
law to be paid this 6,000/., commenced proceedings
against Arnold and Fairlie in the Mauritius, where, after
considerable argument, it was determined that Messrs.
Arnold and Fairlie bad a right to reimburse themselves for
the money they had laid out ; but in that decision a reser-
vation . was made of the right of Yates to any surplus
which might remain after Arnold and Fairlie had been
satisfied. Yates being dissatisfied with that decision filed his
bill in this Court for an account of the proceeds of the out-
ward cargo, for the purpose of being paid out of the surplus, if
any. When the cause came on for hearing the Court was
strongly of opinion tliat the general commercial law made
it incumbent on the consignees, Arnold and Fairlie, to
apply the proceeds of the cargo according to the instruc-
tions which accompanied the bill of lading, the
Court, however, directed a referee to the Master, to in-
quire whether the consignee accepting and acting upon
a consignment is not bound by the conditions expressed in
the bill of lading accompanying such assignment. Three
French lawyers were consulted, who were of opinion
upon the general proposition that the consignee was bound
by such conditions. The opinion of other French lawyers
were taken upon the said question, all the correspondence
that had taken place between the parties being laid before
them ; on which they were of opinion that Arnold and
Fairlie bad a right to reimburse themselves. The Master
coincided in that opinion., and reported accordingly. To
that report exceptions were taken, which were argued
yesterday, and the case stood for judgment this morning.
NA Honour was clearly of opinion the decision of the
Master was right, and ordered the report to be confirmed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY took his seat in Court this• morn-
ing, at nine o'clock, for the purpose of swearing in the
Westminster and Middlesex Grand Juries. There being
only seventeen gentlemen present, the others who had been
summoned were not in attendance, and for whom no satis-
factory excuse was offered, were fined 201. each.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY expressed his regret at so thin an
attendance; but as there was no case of any difficulty
likely to come before them, and it being only necessary for
twelve to agree to the finding of a bill, he did not think it
advisable to postpone er:tering upon the business. The
gentlemen► present were then sworn.