The Sun.
London, England, 1812-11-09 00:00:00

LAW 11 EPOTIT.

COURT OF KING'S.IiI::•:CiI; Nov. 7.

•` LAING V.• GALE. • .
'Mr. Serieant PELL obtained a rule -to sbevi
cause for a new .trial of this case before M-r. Jus-
tice CHAMBRE, at the:last Devon assize 3. It was
an action upon an agreement for the sale of au
estate, one of the terms of whreh "eras, that tt4iraft
of the_conveyance should be deliye-red within thre
.mouths -from the rhite thereof; and .the question
was,. whether this meant Junin. oreaienaarinouths
The draSt s s delivered evithin three calendar
.
tuonths ; but Mr. Justice' Ck.lMukf. thought it
roust be three lunar irrmiths. There, AV a s nothing
in any' other part of "the agreement. from which
the meaning of the parties coull be collected, nor
was there any evidence' of cUstont. The circurn:,
stance could not alleCt ptirchtse money, for
that Was specifically to be pilidon the 24th of
June. •

BRIDGES V. HUNT!R.

Mr. TApby Obtained a rule Co -sliew cause why
the verdict for tlw plaintiff in this insurance case
• should not be set aside, and a new trial..grarited.
The policy.'Was dated November 12,.1.80, from
Oporto to Liverpool:. and L:m:2. aster. The ship
sailed on the 13th of. October p=t -;l.,tliitig; nnd.at-
tempted' to gain a convoy which had the start of
her : she -could not getup, however., and- meeting
with very had weather, put into Lisbon, whence
proceeding without any sailing instoctions, she
was lost. The defence was; the non-CoMmilnlea-
tiOn of two material letters received by the ds-7
sured ; one da(ed' on the lith cit Oetober, saying;
that the ship expected to sail on- the Rith j. and
the other dieted the 13th, saying, thct the ship
hiad got her bills of lading on board; which is ge-
nerally the:lastthing iaevious to •-..ilitig,.and spe-
cifying the co;Ivoy with which she was going.—
Now the convoi,' of the 13th. .1)1 October arrived
'on the 3jth of that month, and its arrival' was
known iit- Lloyd's- on the Ist; of November:' if
.this letter, therefore, had been communicated to,
the UnderwriterS, they woUld ham. known -that
the ship in.question wassmissing, and Height have
made inquiries. •

.FLEISE 17. NEWHAM.
Mi-. SCARLET moved for a rule to Shew -cause for
a. new trial..o theinsurace case on the Helionota,:
in-which the license was g,raatecl to Messrs. F.
venc and Co., ," and others,'" but the party inte-
rested being a Prussian subject, the Learned Conn-
sel contended, he could-., not be. included in the
word ." othersy althoUgh licensed to reside here.
In point of fact be ,was a native .of Dantzic, and.
therefore.,: living. under the protection of Gr.eat
Britain, .no longer a Prussian for the purpose of
being a party to the condemnation of his own ves-
s)el, which was effected ~by an act of the Pitislan
Gro4rninent. ‘fSee the cases of -Minett v. B6n-
ham;andFlindt e. Reid.] It was also a fact, that
although the license bad been taken gut for Fa, -
venc and. Co. 'themselves, yet they were agents of
the party interested. :,Still Mr. Searlett contended,
under 'the 'case of .Minett v. Bonham, that the.
Others' ' must heiejnAtem generis, which the Prus-
sian was not. • •

Lord ELLEN2OROUGH.—^YCS, he is.
Mr. Sciumwmcontentied, as he did hi the case
of I'tlinett v.-Bonham; that the Crown had no
right to delegate its powers•of licensing,' to autiii
rise any British merchant to name others 4
instanced the void ,grant to the Abbot of St_ Al-
bans, to make justices.. • • :

The. Court .held, that the tlltippings of 'other
British merchants, under the authority -of the
persons mithed in the license, were covered and
refused the. rttl . .