The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-30 00:00:00

RUSSIAN EMBARGO.

COURT OF c i'MNIONTLEAS, juNE 25.

FDsHb it v. VC• AR H.

On a motion to set aside the verdia in the second
vial of this cause:
- Mr. St.•rjeant SHEPHERD said—My Lords, in the
-case of Fisher against Ward, in which I moved the
ether day that the verdkt might be set aside, for
fee purpose of havirrg the question of law decided,
and, which the Court desired might stand over till
to-day, I to state on the part of my client (the
defendant) how this case' stands. It is not A case-
where there hits been ,two trials, and in which the

Jury have twice found a verdict the same way on
one issue ; but On the first trial the fads were agreed
tipon, and it was reduced to a case,, and the Jury
gave a verdin for the-plaintiff,subjed-to the consi-
deration of the_ Court on that case, and when that
case came on to be.argueds the Court suggested an.
other question that might arise, 'namely, she ques-
tion on a Quantum Meruit, supposing the law put an
end to the "contract ; and therefore the Court grant.
ed a new trial, which was for the 'benefit of the de.:
Sendant, as well as of the Plaintiff. •
Thenew trial was granted for the purpose ofascer-
.
taming how much , the -Plaintiff deserved to have
from Riga to London, on the supposition that the
Embargo in point of law put an end to the contract;
rind on that point the Plaintiff made out no case,
but left the case just as it stood before, .namely,on
a conver,ation between the Captain and some of the
sailors When they wereup the country. Now, my
apeliCation to the Court was to set aside the Ver.
did, and to grant a 'new trial-, or that the Verdid
should be subjs.& to the consideration of the Court.
on the question of law as it stood before the second
trial, with the addition only of One fad. The Jury
having f-aind a Verdid on the second trial, did not
give Ile Plaintiff a right to the benefit of that Ver-
diet; unless the law was with him. It is not a
question of fad, which could turn the Verdia one
way or another, but it is a question for the opinion
of the Court. Taking till 'the fans as' they were
proved, still I say, in point of law, the-Plaintiff
was not entitled to the Verdid. Mr. Justice
HEATH, the other day, said,,as this - had been a
second time tried, he. bad a doubt whether the
Court could grant a new trial after a second trial.
That observation would be extremely strong in
many cases; as for instance, where a Jury, having
found a Verdid on the first trial, without any ques.
tion reserved, and the same- point had stood for a ,
second trial, and a second Jury had found the same
Verdia on precisely the same issue.—But this case
is not so eircumStanced ; because •at the- first-
trial ,the fans were all agreed neon. There was'
a new point_ started by your-Lordship,' which
was very fit to: he enquired into. The Plaintiff did
notsucceed on that, which leaves the_ Case where it
stood before the second trial, with only the circuits_
stance of one additional fad, which was a conversa.
tion of the Captain with some of the sailors up the
country. That circumstance may be added to the
Case. It may he. said, why is the Plaintiff to be at
the expence of trying the question of law ? where_
ever a Plaintiff brings an action, and a question of
law arises in the Case, he must be at the exlience of
trying that question of law. '
Lord AI, TANL E Y.—The question now to be de_
cited is, whether we,_in our discretion, shall force
this man, after two trials, to litigate this great
question, which the bOdy of the Merchants of Eng-
land are desirous to have decided ? The question is,
whether we are to Compel a single sailor to do this,
who has brought his anion for 321. and there is a
. general verdid, which will conclude nothing at all
in the record--and our giving judgment can produce
alo precedent on the point ? and therefore I have no ,
difficulty in saying, that if the Merchants will not do
what I proposed, they haveno right to exped where
there has been a general verdia, where new points
of law cannot -be raised and setup as a precedent, ,
and cannot affed this Einbargo—they have no right to
• expect a -new trial. 'By this general verdict no ques_
_tion of law whatever is decided, and you are left to
_take another cause -to try, so 'that the Court may
• bays it on the record in the shape of a special verdict, •
a bill of exceptions, or in any way you think fit to
have it. Let us see what this case is which you
wish tb make the leading case, in order that it may
go up to the House of Lords. Tile question only.
is in point of discretion, whether we should do jus.
• .tice to the present.plaintiff, if we were to bring it
into that shape: NoW the fans are these : this man
-brings- his anion for 321. it is very true this case
did involve these great questions. There was a
case reserved; that case went to another trial, and
it was very much varied in a very considerable point,.
namely, not merely leaving the :question, wbether
wages were or were not due during the continuance .
of the embargo, but supposing it put an end to, the
contract, the question might be, whether a new con_
tract might be implied or proved. In this case, it
was proved that the Captain said; if they staid their
wages would- gO on. The Jury, telying on that,
gave the-plaintiff a verdict for 321. Now take the
opinion of the Court on the question,Of law on the
next case. The Jury having given a general verdict
on this case, the question does not arise. It would
be too much to send this to another trial to have the ,
question of law decided; when the body of Merchants
will not pay the expence of it.
Mr. Serjeant Sil EPHE'RD.—I do not at all under..
stand—Lord Alvanley interposing; I must not-be
replied upon.
Mr. J. dO not know how we can set ,
aside this verdict. The Captain says to this man,
go on board, and your *ages are going on ; I think
that is decisive.

Mr. Serjeant, BAYLEY.—That was said to ano-
ther man; and not to the Plaintiff.
Mr. J. RQOKE,—It was said to one of the crew.
It was said to one of the Seamen who was on hoard
that ship.
Lord ALvANLEt...—The .only question is, whe.
Eller it shall go to
,a third-trial ? and I am clearly of.
opinion that it ought not.
Mr. Serjeant BAyi.rty.—Vvre do not, ask for
new trial', but only for a special verdict. We only
- wish to have the question of law determined.