The Sun.
London, England, 1808-04-29 00:00:00

ARMORIAL, BEARINGS.
By persons keeping a conc,h •
Not keeping a coach, but chargeable to the duties on

inhabited kouscs
Not chargeable to such duties
Cainiqcceper
Not/Gamekeepers . -

•
.

LA* REPORT.

2 3

14

o 12
• 1 I

3 3

COURT O 1 CHANCERY, Arm 28.

•
• 14 R. L.UPLAM.
At the Sitting of the Court, this Gentleman,.
against whom a Commission:of Lunacy had issued
some time since (ns particularli'stated in the Report
of Proceedings ie the Cause in a former Paper),
respeEtfully addressed the Loan CIMICELLOA from
the back bar, He handsomely apologised to.' his
Lordship for thus troubling him with a personal ap-
plication, and trusted he would excuse so great a
liberty, assuring his Lordship at the same time that
nothing but the particular, • circumttances under
which he stood should have induced him to do so.
Ho r'e'quested, his Lordship would appoint a day for
taking his case into consideration, as'everyday's de-
lay was of the utmost importance and extremely ih-
jurious to him. He further stated that he had
already lost two of his.,,gtaterial witnesses, and a
third was,under orders fpr the West Indies. He
therefore irusteci these circumstances would be suf-
ficient apology for trespaSsing upon his Lordship,
and ,requesting early day for the consideration of
his case.' •
The Loan Cumqc.tr,Loa assured him, that it
was his wish to give the matter his earliest i,tten•
tion, but he understood diem was some difficulty in,
the case. •

Sir Siotun limit:l.Y, on behalf of Mr. Ludlam,
observed, that nothing more was necessary than for
bis Lordship to matte an order to try the traverse.
Lott n CITANCEI,LOR.'.."." I should be glad to give.
Mr. Ludlam every assistance in my power, but wish
to speak to the Master before -I make any order. I
will dircet the Master tot attend me in my private
room before the sitting of the Court to-morrow
morning, and if Mr. .Ludlam will be so good as to.at-
tend at the same time, I will see/what are the neees-
.sary steps to be taken."
Immediately after, a poov man, who has long been
,in the habit of attending the Court, who is better
knoWn by the title of the Duke of Norfolk, and
.whom we_have had occasion to notice in former
rapers, contrived to stpticui himself in the front a
the Bar, before Sir Solt/0. Rom ILLY, and address-
ing his Lorcl3hip, begged to know if his Lordihip
Would make any order in his case. He had, he said,
two), t i.rown into prison for debt, was now living in
a very poor and, humble dwelling, from which be
w afinid-Lbe should be obliged, to seek Assistance

LONDON : rrintet
At the Si rl-Ot

TrOM ttze
worithonse, whembe had already, been
once compelled to g,o. His title to an independent
'property (be added). could be fully made out to his
I.4oship's satisfaction.
The LORD Cif A NCBLLOR assured him he had given
his case,every consideration in his powcr, but found
it was quite impossible for him to g4e him any as-
sistance, which, however, his Lordihip regretted ex-
ceedingly.

COURT OF KlNG's BENCH, ArarL
JAMES HENRY rmLuty v. cocKnr.td. AND CO•

17 The Plaintiff is Captain of the East India ship
called the United Kingdom the Defendants are
merchants •in London and Calcutta. Our readers
,Inay perhaps recolle&, that proceedings have been
had 'in tquity conneaed with this cause. This was
an a6tion on the cause for the sum of 2,4001. 13s. 1 1 d.
the nature of which will be best explaindd by the
opening of the Counsel for the Plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL slid, that the Plaintiff,
in right of his situation as Captain of this Indiaman,
was entitled to occupy with his own goods 60 tons
and 32 feet of the loading, which privilege he sold
to the Defeudants on the following terms. First,
they having in their hands money of the Plaintiff's,
to the amount of 44,000 sicca rupees, were to occu-
py the ship with goods to that value, in the nature
of a Respondentia engagement with the 'captain, he
being to receive such amount in England at the
estimate of as. an. a rupee, (the ordinary price beieg
2s. Gd.) if the goods:so laden to this'extent ,should
arrive in England without damage : if the goods dit,
net arrive, or were damaged, the Captain was to
suffer to the reach of such loss. The goods to this
value occupied 15 tons; for the residue, being 45
tons and 32- feet, the Defendants were to pay 351.
per ton. The ships receiving goods from Calcutta
remain at some distance from the town, and receive
the goods in sloops and other craft, from the ware-
hsonses of the port. All the freight conneaed With
this transaction was received in safety on bokd •the
United Kingdom, excepting 112 boxes of indigo,
which were sent by a sloop which was lost while it
was proceeding towards the Indiaman.
Lord ELLENROROUGH asked, if the sloop was
tele6ted and hired by the Defendants ?
The ATTORNEY-( lINERAL replied in the affirma-
live, and then entered into a detail of history of the
business done under this contract, and in the con-
clusion he said, that the Defendants would endea-
vour to conneft with the Respondentia 'interest, for
which the Plaintiff was liable, the loss of these I 13
boxes of indigo, although they never arrived at the
ship. .TO matte the Plaintiff liable, they must ten-
' der the goods at the ship's side, and he must refuse
to take them on board. The engagement the De-.
fendants had fulfilled, excepting to the value of
these boxes, which amounted. to 24001. 13s.
for the recovery of which sum this action was
brought. The admissions on both sides having been
read, and the evidence on the part of the Plaintiff
having been closed, ... •
Mr, WILSON, tbr the Deendants, said, that the
only question in the cause was, which of the parties
should be liable for the loss of the l 19 boxes of in-
digo on board the Sloop ? The Attorney General
had correaly stated all the faels excepting one, In-
cluded in thistontraa for the freight of Go tott,l and
32,teet, was a policy for 70001. which watVinade
over to the Defendants. This policy, on goods from
Bengal to England, had been effected by .the Plain-
tiff's broker,. so as not to cover the river risk be-
tween Calcutta and the lndiaman, contrary to, the
established praCtice. With this unfortunate omis-
sion, , the Defendents had not been made acquainted.
On that account the loss was sustained, and for such
negle& the Plaintiff must be held to be responsible
for the injury sustained. The Learned Counsel said
that the only ditficultyin his clients' case appeared to
be., that the words of the contraa expressed, that
the risk in the nature of Respondentia was to com-
mence when the goods were -laden on board the
United Kingdom; and in answer to this, he argued,
that the Jury was not to construe the engagement •
froth this single phrase, which was probably intro-
duced without reference to any' particular case,
much less to the identical -case 'then under consi-
deration.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, Oust supposing the de-
fence proved in the manner stated by the Learned
Counsel, it would be of no avail to his clients. The
words laden on board removed all obscurity from the
question, and the insurance on the risk seembd to,
have been rightly effeeted, since it would be the ob-
jeit of the Plaintiff to .secure himself only against'
his own hazard, which did not commence until the
goods were laden on board.—Verdielfor the Plaintiff,.
13s. 11d.

RAMSEOTTOM V. LEWES AND ANOTHER.

This was an iaion on 'a Bill of Exchange; and the
defence was, that it had been indorsed by one partner
after the other had co►ttmitted'an at of Bankruptcy,
by quitting the realm. The Bankrupts were Messrs.
illotiatf and Brown. On the et)th O&ober Moffatt
left London; on the ifitltof November Brown in-
dorsed the note in question into the 'hands of-the
Plaintiff, as a security for monies drawn and on
the dof 'December the firm of Moffatt and Brown
were declared Bankrupts. It was admitted, if Mof-i
fatehad quitted England to delay or defeat his cre-
ditors, or that such a result would have been the
inevitable consequence of his departure, then he had
committed an ad of Bankruptcy, and his partner
'could not indorse an acceptance to any creditor, so as
'to render-it available in the hands of the creditor. It
turned out, however, that Moffatt left London with
another man's wifer and fled,to Gettenburgh for the
purpose of his adulterous connection, and not to
delay or defeat his creditors; consequently it was
not held to be an tait of Bankruptcy, and the
Plaintiff obtained a verdict for the amount of his
Bill.