The Sun.
London, England, 1813-04-16 00:00:00

that tlie vessel could he ready to hythe-ht of
September, when. the winter risks eonunence, and
that she was state to the underwriters to be an
early vessel. I-Ic then called Mr. Gregory, one of
the underwriters, but he stating, that he bad paid
his sulwription by two payments, one of 804 on
the 306 of November, .Ltitl the remainder• some
months after, when, on his asking plaintifrwhY.
the. other underwriters cliff not pay, he was told
that they disputed their liability, and he paid
on an express proinise that he should have
his money returned if the other underwriters
were successful—his Lordship held him to tAt in-
compttent.

Two other underwriters were then called, who
stated, that had they seen tlu letter, they did, not
think they woidd have underwritten the vessel at
so low a premium.; hilt they tenth agreed tha: the
vessel Might have -smiled before the Ist of Sept,
after having done every thing that was mentioned
in the letter. •

The Jury, nnder the direction of his Lordship,
found a verdict for the plaintiff.

NICHOLLS V..GLENNIE AND OTHERS, AS3IGNE's
•OP SHARPE AND. SONS, AND G. W. AND .----
SHARPE.
This Nvasall action. (t trover, to recover the
amonntof a quantity of flax.
Mr. Mackenzie swore, that the fax in qtrestion
was consigned to his boue by the plaibtiff, that
`Sharpe and Son had been the brokers of J. J.
Mackenzie, and that the flax was put into their
wharf in S. J. Mackenzie's names,. and directions
given to Sharpe and-Son to dgpose of it. That
they. ,advanced money upon It. #int he positively
swore, that it had not been sold to 'them. On
cross-examination, be said, he was a menther of
, the IttiSsia Company, and tha, the elaintiff ut•the
time of the arrival of the vessel Was not. a Member,
and was British subject.
[The oath was react by which each Member is
hound not to enter any goods except those be-
longing to 'a Member or to a
On re-examination he swore chat brokers were
bound both by oath and bond not to trade on their
Own account. Sharpe told him, after the bank-
ruptcy, that the flax bad bi:en pledged "to. Walker
and Co. in July.
The Clerk of the Wharf proved that the flax
'was still in the warehoute.
A Clerk proved, that he demanded the flax from,
and tendered a dum for charges, both to Sharpe,
and to Glennic, but they refused to deliver.
Mr. Crossland, solicitor to the 'commission was
then called, and asked whether ,the defendants
were the. assignees. . • • ,
'rue SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected ; hut
Lord ELLENDORoUGH be.hi, that if he knew.
it drone any act of their's he might, ;be exa-
mined.
Mr. Crossland, then proved, that defendants,
except the Sharpos, were the assignees of Sharpe
and Son.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL. COntendld, that the
assignees and bankrupts could not be joined,.
Lord ELLENHORottOII held, that as it was an
action of tort,,and there was proof of eonversiOn
by bankrupts 'before their bankruptcy, which
was adopted• by the assignees, they might be
joined. . , •
The SOLICI'T'OR-GENERAL then said, that as the
Assignees- received al, goods as the goOth of
Walker. and Co. they were bound to keep them
for them,
•
Lord ELL4INROROUGH said, they might -set up
the title of Walker :anti Co. and sustain it;
but they were bound to give the goods to this
proper owner. Verdict for plaintiff. •