The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-29 00:00:00

founded: but finding on examination of the 1011 of tow that
a summons had been issued, they granted a rule to show cause.

COURT 01' COMMON PLEAS, JAW. 28.
T`ovEY V. rAitxER.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice in the
sittings after last Michaelmas term. It was brought by the
plaintiff to recover damages for the injury he sustained in con-
sequence of his vessel having been run down at night by that
of the defendant, off Cape Filey, in Yorkshire. The Jury
found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant VwUoitAN now moved the Court fora rule for
a new trial; contending at great length that the Jury were
hound by the evidence to.havo found a verdict fat the plaintilt
The Court, however, was of a different opinion. In this case
a great deal of contradictory evidence, was adduced at the
trial upon the several points, or whether or not it was so dark
at the time of the accident., that the persons on board the
defendant's vessel, which was sailing before the wind,
could not discern the other vessel, which was tacking athwart
her bow, in time to have avoided coming in contact with
her—whether the defendant had not giien fair warning of the
approach of his vessel, by having a light hoisted at her bow;
whether, in short, the accident arose from the grass neglect of
the defendant, or from the darknessof the night. These were
all pure questions of fact, to be decided only by the Jury.—
They had decided them ; and if the Court were to interfere to
disturb their verdict in such a case as this (unless, indeed, the
weight of evidence strongly preponderated the other way,
which was far from being the case here), it would be doing that
which would in effect be totally superseding the necessity of a
Jury at all. The Court therefore refused the rule.
FROST V. BENGOUGU.
This was an action on a promissory note of 30/. due in 1815,
to which the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. In
order to take it out of this statute, the plaintiff gave a letter of
the defendant's in evidence on the trial, dated September, 1817,
in which he said, that " as he was obliged to go to Liverpool
on business, he would, if hisadventure were successful, meet
the plaintiffin Bristol in three weeks ; if not, they (plaintiff
and defendant) should only manage matters in the b.nt way
they could."
The Juryino evidence having been given of any other trans-
action between the parties to which the letter could allude,
referred it to the bill in question, and found a verdict for the
plaintiff, the Learned Judge reserving the point for the
Court above, in case the defendant should choose to move for
a new trial.
Mr. Serjeant VA.UGHAN to-day moved accordingly ; and
the Court granted a rule nisi for a new trial.

MOH COURT OF ADIVIIRM,TY, J. 04. 2;3
GENOA.

D'r. PIIILLIMORE. in this case applied on behalf of his Ex-
cellency Count Ludolf, the Sicilian Ambassador, for a monition
against the Governors of Chelsea Hospital, calling upon them
to show cause why a certain proportion of prize-money, due to
the Sicilian troops, who in the year 1814 co-operated with a
British arriv in the reduction of Genoa, should not be paid over
to his Excellency. The money had been paid over by the
agents, and his, Majesty, by an order in Council, bearing date
in the month of June last, had declared the Sicilian troops
entitled..
No opposition was offered ; but on the motion of
The RING'S ADVOCATE, the monition, it was declared,
should not pass the seal for some days.
The Learned Counsel, for the same interest, obtained similar
monitions in the cases of Spezzia, Savona, and Angoeta.
Dr. Lust' INtYrOX then applied, on the same behalf, for mo-
nit
places iencsiiiin ththee Mediterranean...-Monitions n._l%
casieesoifTarnreeagena,Biloalnins accordingly.tatio,andthreeother ports
or
Tlli DUNDEE.
In our last report of proceedings in this Court, we stated the
grounds of the present ease, which arises out of an objection
taken to the report of the Registrar and merchants, upon a re-
ference directed by the Court, in respect of the loss and damages
sustained by the owners of the Princess Charlotte, a vessel
thateupon entering the river, as she was- coming from South
Shields, was run foul of by the Dundee, Greenland whaler, and
sunk. Bail was given to answer an action that had been en-
tered in the sum of 9,0001. against the latter, ship, tackle,
apparel, and furniture," in the usual form;. but in the un-
dertaking that was given to lead that bail (it being of im-
portance to the owners of the Dundee to have her released, so
that she might proceed on her fishing voyage), the word " up-
purtenancee" was added to the usnal formula of " tackle, ap-
parel, and furniture t" and. the Registrar and merchants con-
sidered themselves in consequence bound to include the fishing
stores, which at the time of the accident were on board the
Dundee. The value of these was very considerable ; and the
owners, tinder the act 53,Ge0. 111., Which limits the responsibi-
lity of ship-owners in like cases, have objected to this part
of the report. The case was.argual at considerable length last
Court day.
Lord STowEI,L, in giving judgment, slated the origin and
nature of the suit. The accident did not appear to have arisen
out of any wilful design, not, indeed, any purpose of injury
whatever, on the part of the Dundee, but rather out of a want
of that diligence and attention which are due to the security of
other vessels navigating on the seas. The question of repara-
tion in such a case was differently measured in the maritime
laws of different countries ; and had been differently measured
by our own maritime law at different periods. In England,
the ancient maritime law exacted full compensatioa out of all
the property of the owners on board the aggressing ship, on the
common legal principle that persons undertaking for the convey-
ance of goods are liable for the conduct of the servants whom
they employ, to the patties who may suffer loss or damage
through their neglect. It could hardly be denied that the term
'•compensation'- would be very improperly applied to any thing
which should faU short of a full, and fair reparation for the injury
done. Holland, however, having instituted a law fOr the pro-
tection of its own navigation, anti with the view of engaging its
subjects to enter into these commercial voyages, by providing
that owners of vessels .which should unintentionally occasion
damage to others of the same nation, should not be liable be-
yond the value of their ship;' with their freight, tackle, ap.
pate), and furniture. England followed her example by pass-
ing statutes which protected her shipeowneis from responsibi-
lity beyond the amount of the same interests; .first, in the case
of embezzlement front the cargo, committed by the crews of
such vessels ; and, subsequently, in the case of embezzlement
committed by other persons. By the statute of the 53d Geo.
111., it afforded the same protection in the rase of losses other.
wise sustained. The Ist clause of that statute (which 'mine.
diately bore upon the present question) was the enacting clause ;
it subjected the ship, then the freight,
_(the freight already
earned as well as the freight that might be contracted for), anti
then her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to this liability. These
were the only subjects which the enacting clause directly, and
in terms, cperated .upon : but almost all of the following;
clauses, and particularly the .7th and Bth, sdid introduce the
word " appurtenances. The, word repeatedly occurred in;
subsequent parts of the statute ; but the 7th clause expressly,
provided, that where the Snit k brought on account of damage
done, a valuation shall be first duly made of the ship and ape
purtenences.'" The same term in other passages of the statute
appeared to be, if the Court Might so .'express itself, a sort of
shorthand way oftiescribing what might properly be considered
ax "appurtenances" of the ship. It was not to be supposed
that the foregoing elauses had introduced a word merely in.
operative, or intended to have no meaning at all. Now it could
have no effective Meaning, unless it were Considered to be vit-
tually incorporated into the lit clause. If not so incorporated,
then the enacting elause was in contradiction to the subsequent
clauses, in which it was mentioned. The " appurtenances" of
a ship could not be considered as intending her cargo; for
cargo was that which was meant to be disposed -of at some
foreign port, either for money or money's worth. The con-
flexion of the cargo with the ship was merely transitory, and
boie a distinct character of its own. On the present oteasion,
these were appurtenances evidently necessary and essential to
the ship in the performance of the functions that she was des-
tined to discharge and herein essentially different from cargo,
although they were not constituent parts of the ship: for if con-
stituent parts, then they were not appurtenances,—lt being
the very definition of " appurtenances," that they were things
"belonging to" anothetettung, not banning past of it. Yet,
if they were so essentially necessary to a slip, as that she
could not without them perform her function%) they might,
under a loose detinition of the word " ship be included,l
being those matters which were as essential to that ship as
any 'part of its own mad-limy. In the :present instance
the, appurtenances cenSiited of lulling stores ; and these had
been veined, by the merchitits at Lloyd's, at. 2,2361.,
the ship being valued at 2,1151 ii. The owners of the ship
,con,
tended that the eieleing stores were exempted from. all liability
to Contribute; anti by reason of the way in- which this
suit had commenced. It had commenced in the usual way, by
the arrest of the vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, with-
out mention of her fishing stores ; and it had been argued that
fishing stores could not be considered as " futnituree' inns
much as it had- been detetmined, in a ease tried in a common
law Court, that they were not to be soaccounted.---(The Learned
Judgetlierteited the case from Sergeant Marshall's "book, p.727.e
this anthority it was held by Lord Mansfield, that theques»
thin as to whether tithing stores were covered by the policy of in:,
surance on.a South Sea whaler, including, as usual, her boats,
tackle, itc, must depend on the usage of the trade. On the first
trial, a Jury found that fishing-suttee were part of the furniture
but very contradictory evidence having been.adduced, the (-Aft
went to another Jury ; the former verdict was reversed, and
they found that, in truth, the usages lay ati'die other side. Ili*
Lordship then observed, that he was not. aware whether this
rule, although it had been considered on the highest authority
applicable to the case of a policy of insurance, 'Was of sufficient
weight to govern the construction of the same word in an Aet