The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-29 00:00:00

JAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL
27.
FREEMAN V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved, for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and anew
trial granted. He stated, that it was an action of trover tried
before the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, to recover the
value of a quantity of indigo, now lying in the warehouses of
the East India Company. The indigo in question was part
of the cargo .of Abe ship. Cerberus, bound from Calcutta to.
England, which was wrecked of the Cape of Good Hope, but
from which the indigo, with other goods, was saved by the
exertions of the master and mariners: The captain, acting
bona .fide for the benefit of the owners, caused all the property
saved to be surveyed and put up to public auction, where the
indigo was purchased at the market-price of the commodity in
London. It appeared that the wrappers were wet, but none
of them were taken off to ascertain whether the indigo had re-
ceived injury. Before the arrival of the goods in England, the
price had risen, as fairly speculated on by the purchasers ; and
in consequence of this rise the owners of the vessel sought, in
this action, to maintain that the captain had no authority to sell,
and that therefore the purchasers had no right to retain. The
Lord Chief Justice was strongly of this opinion, and the Jury
confirmed it by their verdict.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now contended that the cap-
tain had a right to sell, and that the sale was therefore valid.
In general, indeed, a captain was a mere carrier ; but under
some circumstances he was compelled to assume the character
of supercargo and agent. It might be necessary .for the in-
terests of the owner, or, where the cargo was insured, of the
underwriters, that the captain should have this discretionary
power in cases of wreck. There was no difference in principle
between this case and that where goods were damaged, or
where they were of a perishable nature.; and it would be ab-
surd to contend that where some small portion, as a single
package, for example, was uninjured, the captain was bound to
transmit it to his owners. At all events, here was a sale in
market overt which transferred the property, even if the cap-
tain had no right so to sell it ; for it would be most prejudi-
cial to the interests of commerce if a purchaser, buying goods
at the public custom-house from one who had all the appear-
ance of a general authority to sell, should be liable to have his
bargain wrested from him, because, in offering to sale one par-
ticular lot, the captain had exceeded his powers.
The Court, however, were unanimously of opinion that the
direction of the Lord Chief Justice was right. A captain
might hypothecate the ship and cargo, but beyond this he
could not proceed unless there were an absolute necessity for a
sale. Incase where the goods were perishable, or where the
materials of a vessel wrecked were alone saved, or where it was
a sale of part of the cargo which was necessary for the pur-
poses of the voyage, the character of agent was forced upon
him, and he might unquestionably sell. But here the voyage
was ended by the wreck, the goods were not perishable, and
might and ought to have been transhipped to England. A
sale in market overt would, indeed, change the property, but
with this one important exception—that it would be of no
effect if the purchaser were acquainted with the infirmity of the
contract.—The rule was therefore refused.
THE KING V. KNATCHEULL, POWELL, AND PARTRIDGE.

In the case of these defendants who were convicted of a con-
spiracy a few days ago at. Guildhall, Mr. Storks applied for a
Habeas Corpus to bring up Capt. Charles linatElibull, who is
now a prisoner in the Fleet, in order that he might be present
on a motion for a new trial, as the rule of practice requires that
all the parties found guilty of conspiracy should be personally
in Court on such a motion. _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested, that as Captain
Knatchbull was in prison, his attendande might be dispensed
with, and the expence of the writ saved, unless the prosecutors
objected.
Mr. GURNEY, on the part of the prosecution, intimated
that there would be no objection to the course suggested by his
Lordship.