The Sun.
London, England, 1803-02-02 00:00:00

ROBERTSON yr FRENCH.

This Caw, :which was uporra Policy of Inlurance,
was to have received the opinion of the Court,
after hearing Mr. GAR RO NV: in!sOpport of the Mo.
tidn fora new Trial ; but it ivent.otfupon a single
point•which did riot before Occur to the Judges, and
therefore a new Trial was awarded.

,

reTsoll IHANK• AND OTIIE Rio

This was, a Special Verdi 6 upon 4t Caie, of
which the following is "the substance :=---The Plain-
tiff is the Owner of the ship -Asia, and.let her to
hire for a certain freight, far twelve .months to
Gos•ernmenr, to Carry:TrooPs from this Country to
Nova Scotia—sailed from Cork for that purpose,
and on her way a child was taken with the small-
pox, and afterwards an infettion spread in the ship,.
and many of the troops and crew were taken ill, so
that they were compelled to land them before the
voyage was finished. • After going on shore, many
of the crew deserted, and some died, so that the
ship was delayed in. her voyage.
The Charter.patty of Affreightment contained,
a proviso, on which the whole of this question
turned. It provided,' that the Commissioners of
the Navy
,Board, under the authority of Parliament,
should,have power to mulet th'e Plaintiff, according
to their discretion, or make an 4thatentene in his
freight, on any of the fol,lowing ileconn6, in the
coarse of the voyage of the ship. while she was
chartered :

First, for loss'of time.
Secondly, breach of orders.
Thirdly, negligence of duty.
Fourthly, " It the ship should be unable to pro.
ceed on 'her voyage."
In this case the ship had become, from the causes
above stated, unable to proceed on her voyage, and
the Commissioners had determined that the Plain.
tiff sflotlM abate the sum of 20141. 7s. Id. being
just one half of the whole freight to which he would
have been intitled, had he performed the whole
voyage.
The single qUestion was—Whether the Com.
missioners had pOwer to make this abaetuent or
not ?

It was ably argued by Mr. CASCELL for 'the
Plaintiff, and Mr. Woc.)D fur the Defendant.

Lord ELLtNuoaoucti having been Counsel in
1 the cause, declinedgiving an opinion on it. - .
The other three Judges were clearly of opinion,
• '
that as to the three rst articles, or heads, by which
the Commissioners had power to make abatement
in the charges of the Plaintiff fir freight, . they did
not apply to the present case, for it did not appear
that any blame rested on the Plaintiff, but, that as
to the fourth head, '' that if the Ship should 'be
unable to proceed on her voyage," that .point gave
to the Commissioners of Ttansports a jutisdiCtion
to consider. the matter, and to arbitrate between
the Freighters Of the ship and ..the Public ; and if
the Commissioners had the jurisdittion, there was
an, end of the Matter, for they had,exemised, slie
power under the idea that .they had the jurisdiction;
and as to the manner they 114 dOne:it, or tic amount
of the abatement they had ordered to be made, they
were points which could not be vanealsed in that
Court. The. Court being of opinion, that the Comm.
missionerepossessed the power of milting this abet',
merit in the Plaintiff's charge of freight, and fir*-
ing that they had exercised that power, and had not,
exceeded its limits, pronounced judgment for tile 1
,Defendants. • ,