The Sun.
London, England, 1802-01-28 00:00:00

THE KING. V. PINICEETOk.

this was a Rule calling on the Defendant to
spew Cause why a Criniinal Information should not
he filed against him for publishing a Libel on Mr;
Houghton, a Gentleman who was Agent for a
Canal Company, ieflefting on his conduit in that
charader.

Mr. GIBBS admitted, that the Publication of the
Defendant was not to be justififKl; but said,, he un.
derstood, he had offered an apology to the Prose-
cutor. He did so now, by him, his Counsel, but if
that was not received, be had no cause to shew
against this Rule.

—Mr. ERA! NE said, that if this Apology had been
offered in proper season, the Defendant would have
been in a different situation from that in which he
stood at present.— He could consent to nothing
now.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMONPLEAS, WEEiNESDAY, lAm.!7.

MUCK V. ABEL.

THis was an Adion tried at the Sittings after
last Term at Guildhall. It was brought upon a
Policy of Insurance from a Danish SettleMent in
the East Indies to Copenhagen, the cargo insured;
being warranted Danish property, and being put on
board a Danish vessel. It appeared upon the trial,
that the' vessel , g.tually. sailed from' Calcutta,
and being afterwards captured by a French vessel,
the cargo was condemned in France as British goods.
It was contended on ,the part of the Defendant
that the vessel being Danish, and sailing with im-
port goods from a British port, the voyage was
illegal, being contrary to the Navigation Aft, and
that therefore the Plaintiff could not recover. Lord
ALVAZiLEY being of this opinion, but con.
sidering- that no fraud appeared on the part of the
Plaintiff, he thought the Plaintiff ought to recover
back the premium, for the amount of which the
Jury gave a verdia.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN now moved for a, rule
for a new trial, on the grounds that the Defendant
had insured on the express condition that the voyage
was perfectly legal, and that the goods were neutral
property, whilst the Plaintiff had by his own at
rendered the goods liable to-capture as British pro-
perty, and the voyage illegal ; he contended therefore
that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover back
the premium.
Rule to &hew cause granted.

OPPENNE/M
AND ANOT!;

ER et-2. TUTSSEL‘

This wns an Alton also tried at the sat tie Sittings
at Guildhall. It was brought against the Defend-
ant, who
,is a Carriers being the proprietor of a
Nvagko. n travelling the Western road, torecbm the
arnount,of certain goods which had been consigned
by the Plaintiffs to a house at Plymouth, but which
hearing of the 'failure of the Consignees,- the)? had
stopp&l in transitu. The Defendant's Counsel on
the trial- off.ered evidence to pidi•e that i•Carrier
had a right by custom to detain goods against a
Consignee until any balance due to him frotn such
Consignee was, paid, from which evidence they in-
timated their intention of drawing the, inference
that the qarrier held the same right to detain goods-
against the Consignor for a balance due from the
Consignee, 'although such goods were stopped_ in
traniztu.

Lord ALVANLti would not permit the evidence
to be given, it being his opinion that the Plaintiffs'
right could not be affeded by it ; in consequence of
which there was a verdict for the Plaintiffs for the
aniount.of the goods.
Mr. Serjeant LENS not moved for a Rule for a
new trial on the same ground as was urged at the
former trial on behalf of the Defendant, adding
that no case had yet been decided whereby the right
of stopping in transitu might affect third persons.

Lord ALVANL EY and the other Judges' (Mr.
Justice HEATH being absent) objeaed to the principle
urged on the part of the Defendant, conceiving that
it led, to the most injurious consequences, .as it

went to do away the right of stopping ;# transitu
altogether, and might enable a Consignor to pay his
own debt to a Carrier out of the amount of the
goods of a 'Consignee, which had never come into
his own possession.
They consented however to grant a Rule to shew.
cause.