The Sun.
London, England, 1804-03-17 00:00:00

CHURCHILL V. SHONE.

The-Plaintiff is an East India Captain, and the
Defendant is.a Brewer. The former had purchased I
from the Lauer so tons of ale, for which he had paid-
-171. los. per -hogshead ;\ he had taken it to the'
;East Indies; where, in drawing it off, it was dis.
covered to be fetid, and unfit for use.
Mr. Ettsxmi, ;for .the Plaintiff, prOved the cor.
rupt state of the at ticic but. Mr. G —ARROW, on the
contrary, shewed, that in hot climates 'ale would Le
liable to this'offensive state, without any negleft
want of judgment on the part :of the Breweri—.
Plaintiff normuited.

Metcalf's, own The
wie;, whether these Bonds 'sci •"
Mr. E'4,401.4, fw the .Pia:ii;tifF,
the transit was OVO, Aar. the're was ;;-e,;llpiete •
livery, and that the Defendants should
widi his other creditors by the Bankt,,pt's
GARRow,' on the other side, ctxtendeff
against the fads, add also that' the •13,aokrupt's'let ter
to the Defendants 'was' a Fiona fide and fair intim3.--
(ion empowering theM to rescind the contrati, 'and
-not a fraudulent' preference.
Lord ELtENBORtitiGa stated, the law, respcaing
the stopping 'of goods in uransitd, which was always;
-tne Law of Foreign Nations, 'and first obtaincd-in'
-this Country in -Courts of E4ti4y. His' Lordship,
explained this principle' as &tried -inuCh 'farthei in,
other countries. In RusSia, for instance; whe-rethe,
seller may take the ir,ocidS'after complete delivery
Of the purchase'r's warehouse, or any other,
place where.he can-find them. This, however, is.
not the Law of England, which does not go so
-Our Law only authorizes the stopping of goods 'be-
fore the end of the journey, by which they are to'
reach the placeiof ultimate destination, to be deli-.
vered in consequence of tie sale. His Lordship in..!
formed them of the irectignition of, this principle in
the case of WiseMan'and.Vandeput, and a variety
of •oiher cases. He also explained the difßrence,
between an insolvent • man, in contemplation of
bankruptcy, giving a fraudulent preference, and his'
fairly giving notice in thecourse•of trade, in a ejn.
scientiuty manner, to a person from whom he had
bought.gOods. . •
The jury retired for half an hour; and ftiund for
the betendant.
. ,

mAttcH

GORDON AND CO. v. CA3US INS AND CO.

This Aftion -was bretight by the-Plaintiff to ob-.
lige the Defendant to follil. a contra entered into
between the parties under the folloi,i'i!.rg ~aircnMs-
tanees. A Mr. Shaw, merchant, residing at Ma-
laga in Spain, was written CO,- in the year! 803,
by-the Defendant, to send him a- cargo of fruit, 'on
certain conditions not usual-in-the-course of trade,
and Shaw did not . accede to them,..but consigned a
cargo of that ccinarnodity ,to 'his correspondents in.
,London, Messrs. Gordon and Company, and ex-
pressly desired them not to deal.wirh Cousins fcir it,
except in the ordinary way, without any of dui un-
customary stiptilations 'contained in the letter 'afore-.
When _the. ship arrived at Stanga.te
where she was obliged lb perform quarint:ine before
she was suffered to sail up the Thames, Gcirdon had
it communicated to Cousins that he might beCome,
the purchaser of the cargo if he pleased, by 'accept,
ing bills :on being preiented with the invoice and,
bill of lading ; but Cousins hung back until the mar;
let had risen, in consequence of the increased
fence of the plagpe at Malaga, which prevented thte.
importation of fruit from then'ce into_this CoUntry.
He then entered into a contra& in wri-ting with
Messrs. Gordon and. Co., the performance of which
was the object of this attion. He set up the parol
testimony of one witness against this eontiraft
hoc
the Jury, under the direetion, and advice of .the,
Court, found a verditlifor the Plaintiff's.

CARRELL BANK 03i ENGLAND.

This Adion wits brought to enforce the payment#
of a Bank' Note for .iOOOL which the Plaintiff re.
ceived in the cotirs..e of
.trade at HambUrgh. It was
tinnoured. that the .Note had been lost ten .years ago
by a person who stopped its paythent it the Bank of
Eogland,andiride•innified the GOVernor and Company
for becoming nominal Defendant's.
The. Action when called on was immediately.com-
promised.