The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-01 00:00:00

ADMIRALTY COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
THE BONAPARTE.--BOTTOMEY.
Dr. Lushington gave judgment in this case, which had
been argued during the present term. He said that the
cause had already travelled up to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, and had been remitted back to this
court ; their lordships being of opinion, that the validity
of the bond as affecting the iron which had been shipped
on board the vessel could only be imp eached on the
ground that there had been no sufficient communication
to the owners and consignees. Their lordships had
therefore sent back the case for this court to receive
further evidence upon the point, to make such final de-
cree as justice might require, and to determine the ques-
tion of costs. He (Dr. Lushington) was not able to
understand from the judgment of the Judicial Committee
what was intended by the words "sufficient communi-
cation." If their lordships meant a clear intimation
that it was the intention of the master to raise money on
bottomry of the ship and cargo, then it was evident that
no such intimation had been given. But there was
another interpretation of the words, namely, whether
the master had made a sufficient communication as to
the disasters which had befallen the ship, and had
asked for instructions how to proceed. The usual
practice of the owners of small vessels (like the Bo-
naparte) as far as he had been able to collect it from
40 years' experience, seemed to be that when they fell
into difficulties, they chose some house of business at
the port in which their vessels happened to be lying to
.trortsa.ct_thg . whole ef
of larger ships, where-jibe Masters were persons of a
higher degree of education, more might be expected ;
but the practice with respect to small vessels was as he
had described, and it was very unusual indeed for the
agents so appointed by the masters to do more than re-
port the nature of the accident. On the whole, there-
fore, he believed their lordships did 'not mean that the
communication should be in direct term—" You must ad-
vance the money, or your cargo will be hypothecated.' To
require more than a general communication of the dis-
asters, and a request for instructions, would go far to
impeach the validity of an immense proportion of the
bonds when it came before this court ; and he (Dr.
Lushington) could certainly not lay down any such
stringent rule, unless he had the clear authority of the
Judicial Committee. The next point was whether in
the present case such a communication as he had
stated to be necessary had been made, or attempted
to be made, by the master or his. agents ? Now, it
appeared that the British consul at Cronstadt, who
was also an agent of Lloyd's, and must be pre-
sumed to be a highly respectable person, had written a
letter, in which, as it seemed to him (Dr. Lushington)
he had made every complete and proper disclosure of
the state of the vessel ; and that Messrs. Wilkinson,
Whittaker, and Co,. of Hull, the consignees of the iron
and the opposers of the bond, had not deemed it pru-
dent to take any steps in consequence. Besides this,
Messrs. Good, Flodden, and Co., the consignees of
certain wood which formed the remaining portion of the
cargo, had written out, stating that neither they nor the
other consignees would interfere. Of course it would
be said thaeMessrs. Wilkinson were not bound by the
unauthorised statement of Messrs. Good, but that was.
not the point they were now considering. They were
trying the conduct of the master ; and what, he would
ask, must have been the effect of Messrs. Good's letter
upon his mind, or on the minds of foreign merchants,
especially when it reemed to be confirmed by the entire
silence of Messrs. Wilkinson, notwithstanding that an
answer had been specially requested from them ? It was
clear that the' opposers had had ample information as
to the state of the vessel, and that on receiving it were
called upon by the law to take measures for the protec-
tion of their property. That, however, they had declined
to do : and therefore he must pronounce that there had
been a sufficient communication within the meaning of
the remission from the Judicial Cominittee. The point
upon which the case had been sent back had not been
raised at all upon the pleadings, and perhaps he was wrong
to have allowed it to he argued. The intkoductionof it
in the irregular manner in which it had been raised was
much to be lamented, on the ground both of the expense
it had occasioned and of the disgrace it reflected upon
the mode of pleading in the Court of Admiralty. If
this had been the intended defence, it ought in common
justice and in accordance with the soundest principles of
law to have been stated with sufficient distinctness for

the other • party to have taken issue upon it ; and he
hoped that if the case should go back again, the Judicial
Committee would be apprised that these were not the
ordinary pleadings adopted in this court. He should
pronounce for the bo d as it affected the iron, and he
?"Mad-dO latta
1110k1W -
THE NUOVA "

Dr. Lushington gave judgment likewise in this case.
The bond, which bore date the 16th of April, 1851, had
been given by the master, Battistella, to Messrs.
Sechino, Brothers, and Co. ; it covered the ship, freight,
and cargo, and was opposed by the consignees of the
cargo. The history of the ship, which was a Wallachian
barque, was shortly this : On the 19th of June,
1850, she sailed from Hull for the Brazils, and
was destined to return to a port in Europe. On the
15th of April, 1851, she arrived at Rio Janeiro,
where the master and all the hands, except the mate
Battistella and three seamen, died of yellow fever
By the order of the Ottoman Consul, Battistella was
appointed master, and it was alleged in the act on peti-
tion that the vessel, with a cargo of wood and black
rushes proceeded to Bahia, whither she arrived on the
Ist of November. That on her voyage she encountered
violent storms, which rendered repairs necessary ; and
that the master had no money or credit, and the Otto-
man consul being absent, he applied to the vice-consul
of Sardinia, who was one of the firm of Sechino, and
who caused advertisements to be inserted for a loan on
bottomry. That the tender of the house of Sechino
themselves being the lowest, the bond was executed
to them for the sum of 1,3251. 10s. 9d., which,
with maritime interest of 40 per cent., amounted
to 1,8551. 15s. That the ship reached this country
on the 20th of June, 1851 ; and with her cargo was
arrested. That no appearance was for some time given
for them, but that eventually the consignees of the cargo
appeared to oppose the validity of the bond. The an-
swer of the consignees stated that the vessel arrived
at Bahia in ballast, and without a cargo ; that she
was consigned to Messrs. Sechino, and that through
them the master, on the Bth of November, chartered
the vessel to Mr. Charles Lane, a merchant residing at
that port. That Messrs. Sechino were not only aware
that the vessel was unseaworthy, but that they concealed
the circumstances from Mr. Lane, and the charter-party
stated the ship to be seaworthy. Now, without entering
at all upon the many points of law which might have
been raised in the case, and deciding it solely upon the
facts admitted, he (Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that
it was the duty of the master, the Messrs. Sechino, and
the Sardinian consul, to have made a communication to
Mr. Lane, and to have inquired of him whether he was
prepared to make the necessary advances ; and that their
omission to do so was fatal to the validity of the bond,
as far as related to the cargo. Where the owners of the
cargo and the charterers of the ship were upon the spot,
there must be an express communication to them ; and
no defect in that particular could be remedied by adver-
tisements or any other means of publicity whatever.
This was a most important rule of law, and one that he
could not under any circumstances relax. In fact, until
such an application had been made for the money and
refused, it could not be said that the master had no
credit ; and- the materials for bottomry did not exist.
He (Dr. Lushington) must, therefore, pronounce against
the bond, so far as related to the cargo, with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.— DEC. 31.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)
IN THE MATTER OF DAVID BOWEN.

This insolvent, a coal merchant, was opposed by Mr.
Cooke on the part of Messrs. Irvine and Brown, coal
merchants, Broken-wharf, Wapping. Mr. Sargood sup-
ported.

- The complaint was, that the insolvent had improperly
contracted a debt with the opposing creditors. It ap-
peared that he had been in their service, and at the end
owed them about 2001. for money collected, after allow-
ing his salary of 61. per week. His son-in-law, a per-
son named Smith, had given his bill for the balance, and
the insolvent stated that he believed that when it was
given that Smith was a farmer and worth 10,0001. It
had, however, turned out that Smith was only a farmer's
bailiff, and unable to pay the bill.
The insolvent had lately made up his mind to emigrate,
but was arrested by a creditor on a judge's order.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips intimated that whatever
complaint the opposing creditors had against the insol-
vent had been condoned by them taking the security from
the son-in-law.

Mr. Cooke apprehended that it was a fraud to get the
opposing creditors to take the security when it would not
be paid, and therefore there was no condonation.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was of opinion that there
could be no fraud unless it could be shown that the insol-
vent knew that Smith was in different circumstances to
those stated. He had, however, sworn that he believed
he was a man of property.
Mr. Cooke complained of a statement made on the
schedule respecting the debt due to the opposing creditor.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said it must be altered. It
was, no doubt, owing to their kindness to the insolvent
that their complaint in this court had failed.
The insolvent was discharged.

IN RE WM. BURT.
This insolvent, a lieutenant in the army, was opposed
by Mr. Nichols and Mr. Caarteen. Mr. Sargood sup-
ported.

In the course of a long inquiry it appeared that the
insolvent had held the rank of "Captain" in the British
Legion in Spain, and had been called " Captain up to the
present time. He had described himself as " Lieuten-
ant" in his schedule.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips held that the insolvent
must describe himself as known as " Captain Burt," and
adjourned the case for an amended description.

ILLICIT STILLS.—The officers of Inland Revenue dur-
,ng the year have captured upwards of 100 illicit stills
in different parts of the metropolis.