The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-12 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 11.

(Sitrings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Lord
Cnief Justice JERVIS and a Common Jury.)
cox v. DAVIDSON AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Willes were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr.
.14,:.w for the defendants.

This was an action brought against Messrs. David-
son and Gordon, colonial brokers of Mincing-lane, to
recover the sum of 175/. for the loss sustained by a re-
sale of 1,431 bales of a dyestuff called " gAmbier,"
which they on the part of their principal refused to
accept, after having entered into a contract, of which
ths following were the terms :
" January 9, 1850...

Bought by order and on account of Dsvid-
eon and. Gordon, of Mr. W. Cox, 100 tons cf gambier,
sound and of good marketable quality, to arrive per Jos-
tins, at 131. ss. per ton in small bales. In the even; of
damage being so extensive as not to leave 100 tons of
sound, the actual reiuced quantity to be accepted by the
buyer in lien of the said ion tons. Conditions custo-
mary.. !I:tzposit 151. per cent. Promdt three months
after landing, &c.
SARGINT AND TRUMBLER."
The Jostina arrived at the 'West India Docks on
26,h of Januhry, and discharged a quantity of cam-
phor, which formed part of her cargo, on the 11th
and 12th of February. In the mean time no less than
four suits for wages had been instituted in the Court
of Admiralty against the ship and freight, and on the
13th of February a stop order from that court, to
prevent the further discharge of the cargo, was lodged
at the West India Dock-office. Money was paid into
the Admiralty Court in respect of the Gambier on
the 20th of February, and thereupon an order for its
release was lodged at the office on the Ist of March.
The unloading, however, was not resumed till the Bth
of -larch, and continued till the 23d. One witness
stated that a vessel of 400 tons, like the Justine,
would in general occupy only five or six days in
unloading. It seemed here that nothing prevented
the delivery of the gambier except the con-
flicting claims of the captain and the crew
in the Admiralty Court. The invoice was not sent
to the defendants till the 4th of April. A month
previously they wrote to the plaintiff's brokers,
Messrs. Sargent and Co., stating that their principal
had been complaining of the delay, and threatened to
make them rseponsible, and to cancel the contract.
After receiving the invoice Mr. Sargent met Mr.
Gordon, when the latter .objected to it, but only on
the ground that by it they were not only charged the
deposit of 151. per cent., but also the difference be-
tween the original cost price in the weight-note and
that at which the gambier was sold to the defendants.
Mr. Sargent promised to amend the invoice, and a
clerk was sent an hour after to say that only 15/. per
cent. deposit was to be paid. Next day the defendants
wrote to Messrs. Sargent and Co., saying that their
principal had returned the invoice, as he 'considered
the contract cancelled by their letter of the 4th of
March. It was proved that the market price of
gambler during the early part of February was from
12s. to 13s. per cwt., and in March there was a fall-
ing market.
The LORD CHIEF' JUSTICE directed the jury that
if they thought there was unreasonable delay in un-
loading the ship, he should tell them that the fact of
the stop order was no excuse to make to these de-
fendants, as the plaintiff might have his remedy against
the captain for any loss he could sustain. But then
the question arose, did the defendants repudiate the
contract on that ground. He would ask the jury to
consider whether the defendants had only objected
to the contract by reason of the additional charge in
the invoice, in which case the verdict should be for
the plaintiff, or whether they had repudiated the con-
tract on the ground of the delay caused by the pro-
ceedings in the Admiralty Court.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 1751.