The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-28 00:00:00

rind arrived off the coast of England on ,
year, and in London on the 25th of the sanzrionth. The Ai."4
papzrs were received by the plaintiff abont the AI:v;IVI.'
lowing ; on the f;th he gave a verbal notice of abandOntient
to the diff,2ront underwriters. The Jury had given a ves,di.4
for the plaintiff, for the full amount of the dcfendant'3 subtr6Xill"
tion, which was 2001.

The SOLICITOR••GENERAL, on a former day in this Tart,
had obtained a rule to shew cause why chi. verdict shoukl;los
be set aside, and a new trial granted, on the grounds, fillt,
that the Captain possessed no power, under site circumstances
of the case, to sell the slip, and thereby derermined.the voyage •
insured against ; secondly, that a notice of abandonment was
necessary ; and thirdly, that if such notice were necessary it
should have been given sooner. He cited the cases of Andrews
v. Mellish, 15 East, 13 a Hunt v. the Royal Exchange Assur-
ance Company, 5 Nfaule and Selwyn, to ;hew that the notice of
abandonment should be given as speedily as possible.
Mr. Serjeant Lx ;s and Mr. Scrjeant YELL now shelved
cause against this rule, and contended that under the special
circumstances of this case the Captain had a right to exercise-hie
discretion and abandon the vessel. By the sale the Captain had,
in fact, acted for the benefit of all concerned, and this was a
case of such extreme distress as fully warranted him in what he
had done.
Mr. Sergeant TARDY, in support of the rule, stated the
points. He contended, that even if this were to be considered
as a total loss, still that the notice of abandonment was bad, for
the Captain arrived in town on the 25th of April, from whirh
time he had frequent communications with the plaintiff, and
yet the notice of abandonment was not given till the sth of the
following month. On all the grounds, therefore, the Court were
bound to make the rule absolute.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—In this case the Jury found
that, under all the circumstances, there was a justifiable cause of
selling the ship, and we must refer to these circumstances in deli-
vering our judgment, as an attempt has been made, I do not say
improperly, to impeach the conduct and motives of the master,
of the vessel, as if he had acted for the benefit of the assure'
alone, and-not for the benefit of all concerned. The ship sus'
tamed a considerable damage, as specified in the different re-
ports on the various surveys which she underwent; and what
was the conduct of the Captain on being obliged to return?
There was an agent of the Insurers at Calcutta, vested with
particular powers; and the Captain, ignorant of their extent,
offered to abandon the vessel to him as the representative
of the underwriters. Vilna could be more fair, open, just,
or honourable, than this conduct? and if the agent had not
authority to accept the proposal, that circumstance would
' snake no difference as to the conduct of the Captain in mak-
ing it. The Captain intended to repair the vessel, and with
that intention caused her to be surveyed more than once, in
order to ascertain the extent of the injury she had sustained.
At one of those surveys the agent himself was present, and
must of course have been able to know whether the Report of
the Surveyors was exaggerated or not. ‘Vhen the vessel was
subsequently put up to sale by public auction, that agent had
notice, and yet he did not interpose to prevent it. The sale,
however, was only resorted to when the Captain found he could
obtain no pecuniary assistance, except on terms with which it
was impossible for him to comply. The Jury have found that
under all the circumstances the Captain was warranted in the
sale. In Mills v. Fletcher, 1 Douglas Reports, 234, Lord
Mansfield said, " I left it to the Jury to determine, whether
What the Captain had done was for the benefit of all coneerned•
If they had found that it was in words, where would have
been the question of law ?" In this ease I acted as Lord Islans-
field had done before me, and the Jury did find that what the
Captain had done was for the benefit of all concerned. The
Jury was formed of merchants, gentlemen most able to judge
in such cases, and I see no reason to overturn the conclusion to
which they have arrived. On the other question, of the notice
of abandonment, I think I may ask whether the rule as to thiti
is, in such a case as the present, to be strictly pressed against the
party ? The notice must be given in a reasonable time, and 1413 t
reasonable time is, must generally depend on the nature of die,
case.
.There is no evidence to shew that the party had the fell
means of determining the course he should pursue until the 31'
rival of the ship's papers, on the 3d of May. Taking five day-5,
therefore, as the limits of the time to be alloWed to the assured,
I think that the notice here was within the rule.
Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice ButtROUGII expressed
at some length their concurrence with the Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice RicstAnnsoar—l am sorry to havethe misfortune
to differ with my Lord and my Learned Brothers who hay=
just expressed their opinions, but I must shortly state tha.t
in my view of the subject the assured has no right to sell, ex-
cept in cases where the circumstances may be said to lay hie'
under a moral necessity of so doing. He should act as a pru-
dent man in the same straits anti difficulties would act as u
he were uninsured. His' Lordship here stated the circumstance
of the case.] On this account it would be more satisfactory
to my mind if this point were submitted to another investiga-
tion. On the other point too, the case is not so clear
I could wish. It is not stated whether the Captan had an);
communication with the plaintiff immediately after hisarrirS'
in London. If he had, the notice was certainly too 1 tte, and for
both these reasons, therefore, I am of opinion there should be°
new trial.
The majority of the Court, however, agreeing will the CIO
• Justice, the rule was discharged.

- TOURNEY V. BELL.
This was an action on a policy of insurance for 50001. on the
freight of the same ship ; the same verdict had. b en given, ex
the same rule obtained, which was enlarged till t lc first day in
the next Term, unless in the mean time the cause should be S
tied by arbitration.

COURT OF EXCEIEQUEP, Nov. 27.
Mr. TAUNTON moved, on the part of air. Parkins, former,ll,
Sheriff of the city of London, for a rule to shew cause $O/4
he (Mr. Parkins) should not be allowei to have free ace'?
to, and inspection of, the books in the office of the Untl,o:
Sheriff's, for the purpose, as was understood, of enabllyt
him to complete the accounts of fines, forfeitures and ottL,"
monies received and paid and due to the King (WWI
the term of his shrievalty. The Learned Gentleman
proceeding to state the grounds of his motion, when the Cour
interposed, and ruled that the length of time which had beer'
suffered to elapse since the expiration of Mr. P.'s service in Of
office of Sheriff; together with the subsequent death of his c?''
league, without moving in this case, left the Court no jurisal'
tion in it. The rule was therefore refused.

COURSE OF EXCHANGE, Novemi)er 27.
Amsterdam

Ditto, at Sight l2 10
Rotterdam 1.2 14
Antwerp l2 7
Hainburgh 37 6 CI tr 4
Altona
Paris, 3 Day's sight 44 60 61'6'
Ditto
Bourdranx, ditto
Franlifurton the ,N,ain
Niadrid
Cadiz 'l6 F tieLi 1 r
Ililboa 951 Ettectir`