The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-30 00:00:00

The Couttsei for the Marquess of Donegal (Dr.
ADAMS), and for the Marchioness (Dr. Pnum-
MORE), both contended, that allowing the ob-
jection to be a valid one even, it was not compe-
tent to Mr. Chichester's Counsel to take it. But
there was nothing to shew that the Noble Party
herself was out of the jurisdiction of the Court.
That she was resident in Ireland was sworn only
to the best of the knowledge and belief of a Mr.
Stratford Robinson ; and the mere fact of her
having assented to appear was sufficient to found
the jurisdiction of the Court. The cases of
" Lord and Lady Iferbet," and " Tenducci and
Tend °eel," were cited in support of this position.
Lord STowELL said he would take time to
consider an objection so important as this was,
and give his opinion in the matter upon some day
next week.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JuLY26.

AND &TREES V. BELL.

This action was brought against the defendant, an under-
writer, upon a policy of insurance, to recover the amount of an
average loss upon a cargo of rice, insured with the defendant
from the East Indies to England. The captain of the vessel
stated, that having carried out convicts to New South Wales in
1817, on his return he shipped 9380 bags of rice at Sourabaya ;,
previously to which he had the vessel surveyed and caulked,
and she was found fit for the voyage. On the sth July, 1818,
he sailed from Saurabaya for England, intending to touch at
the Mauritius on his way, to renew his store of water ; and if
he could obtain a price for the rice, the profit of which would
be equal to a good freight, W sell it there. He reached Batavia
on the 10th, and'sailed from thence on the 13th or 14th for Eu-
rope. The vessel was deep, but not very deep, drawing 18 feet
or 18 feet 3 inches water. After the next three or four days she
had very bad weather, strong winds, and a heavy sea from the
south on her beam ends, which made -her roll very much.
Some of her sails were blown away in a heavy squall, and her
maintop-sail split. The weather was generally boisterous, and
at one time she was for 35 hours under a close-reefed maintop-
sail and fore-sail only. Her lee-rails were frequently under
water from the lurching of the vessel. The sea threw the boat
with such violence on the mizen rigging as to stove in three
streaks of her side. The labouring of the ship caused her to
leak very much; the making, during the height of the gale,
six inches water in the hold. Upon her coming to anchor at
the Ise of France, she was found to have six beams broken on
her middle deck, and two on her lower deck. The fastenings
of her lower and middle deck were loosened, and the bolts
started. Upon application to the Admiralty, a survey was had,
and the vessel condemned. The rice was sold on the Bth of
September; it being considered too expensive to hare the ship
repaired at the Mauritius, where it could not be done under
B,OOOL, and no other vessel there at the time in which the rice
could have been re-shipped for England. This evidence was
supported by that of the mate and a passenger of the Friend-
ship. On the part of the defendant it was contended that the
vessel had not suffered by the perils of the sea; but had been
damaged in consequence of having been too deeply laden, and
thereby rendered unseaworthy fora voyage through the Indian
seas, such as she had undertaken,. To support this, the Cap-
tain's log-book was
.given in evidence, and persons called who
had had experience in navigating those seas, for the purpose of
proving that (having read the account of the voyage in the log-
book) the ship had only incurred the ordinary dangers prevail-
ing in those seas ; and must, therefore, have been unseaworthy,
from having been over-freighted.
Mr. Justice PARK, however, after a discussion -upon the point
of some length, held that this evidence was not admissible, for
that this conclusion was exclusively for the Jnry.
The defendant also urged the in jury sustained by the disposal
of the rice at the Isle of France, instead of having it conveyed
to England. But it appeared, with respect to the first objec-
tion, that the vessel had frequently sailed from the West Indies
laden so deeply as 19 feet; and as to the second, that the rice
being Java rice, which is very subject to damage from the
weevil, was likely to be injured by delay, and there was no ship
in the harbour at the time of the sale, in which it could be con-
veyed to England.
The trial lasted the whole of the day, and the .Tury, after up-
wards of an hour's deliberation, returned into Court at six
o'clock, with a verdict for the plaintiffs.

JULY 27.
REID V. BONHAM.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance effected by the
plamtiff with the defendent upon the ship Vittoria, to and from
the East Indies. It appeared that in sailing down the Calcutta
river, the Vittoria ran foul of a brig
.which was there moored,
whereby she received considerable injury, which became visible
in a few days upon encountering rough weather at sea, and
obliged her to put back to Calcutta. Here, upon examination,
she was found td be disabled from making her intended voyage,
without incurring an expellee of 50,009 rupees for repairs;
which, considering the value of the ship, the Captain stated
would be an act of madness. The cargo was therefore shipped
on board another vessel, and the Vittoria sold ; the Captain
having first offered to abandon hei to the agent for Lloyd's, but
which offer was refused.

The So LiciT 011-6 ENE RAI, for the defendant, (having
given up the ground that she was not seaworthy as having been
satisfactorily disproved), contended that the Captain did not
consult the interests of the underwriter, in disposing of the
ship, instead of repairing it and bringing the cargo home in her
to England. He insisted, therefore, that the Jury ough►t
to find a verdict upon an average loss, and not upon a total loss.
The Jury found for the plaintiff upon a total loss, with benefit
of salvage to the defendant.