The Sun.
London, England, 1816-11-16 00:00:00

SPECIAL CASES.

There were three special cases argued to-asy.
bid the only one of general mercantile in:twit
was the following :—....
ROBINSON V. BNEBBIt. :

This was an action upon a policy ofinsorange
on the shiplfanny, at and from Rummel to Liver-
pooh to recover is total loss, which wit.' averred
to be by capture. - At the trial before PIO Ellen-
borough, in the London Sittings after last.blichnel.
ma, Term, the Jury fnund a verdict for4he plain-
tiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon a
case, whith stated the following ,facts :.--6The
Fanntsailed front Patanaiu on ,the 28th- March,
1814, and on The 19th •April, in she course of
the voyage, she was captured thy'a *ortuguesc
privateer. - On the 12th of May she tvacre.cap-
tured by his Majesty's frigate Sceptre, and restor-
ed to the government other crew. Tilonews'ot her
rapture reached the assured on the sth,Jtme, and
they imniediately gave notice of abandonment to
the underwriters, as for a total loss. ,tits after-
wards arrived at Liverpool on the sth September,
in safety, and made a right and true delivery of her
cargo to the consignees. Ibe defendants ihad
paid eight guineas per tent. into Court, for the
partial loss the vessel had incurred by t b9..capt ore;
and the question for the opinion of the Court was,
whether this was a total or a partial loss. If the
Court should be of opinion,that it, Was _a partial'
loss, a verdict to be entered for the money paid
into Corut, but if they should he,,.,f opinion that it
was a total loss, ft Verdict to be entered accord-
ingly.
Mr. Lynt.anax.e, for the plaintiff:, corite*tl,
that. this was a total loss, UiltitMbtetily thitipos
an entirely Hew case, and was, distinguishableyfrOm
the casts of Ilainhridge v. Neilson,
,10 riot i
Faulkner v. Ritchie, 2 M. and S.;
,Andersori v,
Walla, °:2 M. and 5..24P ;, and l'arsonset. Scott,
2 Taunt. 263 ; in, all, of which The pasties itettl
upon a notion.that.the loss was total, at:4o4km..
or the aba,ndonment, although ,in filet,t* 344040.1W3
not total. litre the parity had ahatubme,,k, miti,_
out knowledge that dr, losis -, was irrel;. t t,Me,
There was no dispute that the assured upon neivs
arriving of the capture of the vessel had a right to

abandon, and the only question wag, whether the
circumstance of her atterviards coining safely to
port made any difference in the legal effect of the
abandonment, before the action was brought. It
tvas only necessary to attend to the effect of aban-
donment, which was, to place the underwriters in
the shoes of the assured, to enable the Cautt.to
come to a just .lecision upon the present question.
Lord ElLLENBottouctt—At what time do you
say the right of abandonment commences
Mr. LITTLEDALR—The moment the flag is
struck.
1.01*(! ELLIINRORoUGH Men suppose I am
standing on the beach, in company with the on-
derwriter, and I see my ship captured by the ene-
my, and 1 immediately put an instrument of aban-
donment into the underwriter's hands, but in halt
an hour afterwards a King's ship from the. Downs
retakes my vessel in our sight, tenet restitution is
made without the property sustaining a particle of
damage, is it to be said that the abandonment
transfers the right of the ship to the underwriter
under such circom3tances
Mr. LITTLEDALR said that his Lordship bad
certainly putt an extreme case ; but undoubtedly
the argument, as to the effect of the abandonment,
must go the whole length of Ills Lordship's notion,
' and. as a general position he contended that when
once the abandonment took place the underwriter
was hound imni.ediately to pay the whole loss and
phee himself in the situation of the assured,
without reference to the spa recuperandi.
He
telerred to Smith v. Robtison, 2 Dow. 47,1, in
aid of his arontent.. • ,
Mr. RICHARDSON (contra) insisted that as a
poliCy of insurance'was no more than a bond' of
indemnity, it could not be constrned extent' to
itClSe where no damnification had tiiten place ;
fur if the doctrine of ahmdounient could -be car-
ried to that extent, it would render • policies of
insurance subs( rvient to purposes of wagering.
The Court adverting tt-, the doctrine of Lord
M,nsfis•lll, Hamilton v. Mendez, 5 Burr. said,
,nev titUSt confine policies' of insurance to dick
sti let object,
.namely, that of indemnifying the
sioi re d against damage, and. they could. not ex-
tend the right of abandooment to a ease where
no damnification had in the result ensued.
hering to this principle, they must hold that this
was no. more ti-in ti partial iws, for Vrbielcoloue
the assnred was entitled to recover.
• A' verdict Was tfioefpre
.entered far the partia
loss.

PEELE AND ma. accmsst-L.

TUE RING ,V. DANIEL dCtINNBLI.,

At the rising of theoCourt, Mr. It NADER, on
behalt of this Gentlemarr(who was bound by his
teeogrOances to appear in Court on the sth day
of this Term), moved, either that his recogni2l.-
ances be discharged altogether, or in the plea
sure of the Court, that:theY be further respited
until the first day of next Term. The Learned
sCounsel said, that he bad omitted inadvertently.
to submit ;the ,present, motion, according to his
inrtructions, on the sth day of the Term, but he
trusted it wai not now too lore. He held an af•
fidavit in his hand ow the !Art of tMr. O'Connell,
which stated, that however inconvenient it would
ha,ve been tor that Gentleman, with reference to
his 4irofeasionel avocations, it WAS certainly his
intention to have attended their Lordships in obe-
dience to rite rule of the Court requiring his pp-
!), arance this Term, but lie was unfortunately pre-
vented by severe indisposition.. It was hoped,
‘there!ore, that their Lordships would either dis-
charge his recognizances,
.or respite. them until
the first day of next 'Term, when be should cer.
tightly make his appearance.
Atter a few toomenes consultation with the
orliee Judges,
Lord LLuct4nottovon said—Let the recoel42-
ances be ..respited until' the first day of kiilary

cllll.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nat. 14.

'The petition of Joseph .Alters, whose debts in
his schedule amounted to 80001. was. opposed. by
Mr. Heath, on the part jou-es, who hoht,,
a'bill indorsed and passed to laitu by the prisoner..
for'2ool. , This bill !imported to be drawn by G.
Henderson upon Mr. Nixon, 123; Great Portland-
street, and Accepted by Nixon ; but-when it'
was preset' ted •.lor, payment , Nixon, the occupatit
of the house tle:eribed in tie hill, denied that the
acceptance was hi% band-writing;` or that' he
knew any; thing about it. Hence, Mr. Heath
contended, that- the hill hare.* fraudulent charac-
ter, of which thCr6wgs reason.to conehule that the
.prisoner, neociated it, Was, rutty avyare.
The prisoner, stetted, that' lie had-,received the
Dill from iris father, who was then in good chi,
cunktmices, and re=.i,lunt In' Staffordshire, hut
now, a banks opt ; and that lie indorsed the 6'll per
procttratibo ot his fathet ; that Mrs Nixon,
of 123 (ire,tt Portland-street', Witt). was then in
Court, might he referred to. on that point.
Nixon i. us atcordingly sworn. He stated his
name to he James 'Nixon, and tikat'his occupation
WaS that of an upholsterer. fle'_denied the.itc
cepiance, but said that lie I harbill Iriniae-
tionS with the priSoner's- father to. the amount of
several thousands ; that, indeed. such was his
confidence in the f attar's credit and circtunstances,
that he fretinently sent hint down blank stamps to
drAw .abort tutu (the writhes ):
On cross-examinination the witness stated, that
die acceptance resembled the band-writing 01 his
son, who was, at the date of the acceptance,
aliont Ito' years old, Stiiiieilnerilly he admitted
that he had uo.donbt it, wa'S, his saes hand-writ-
ing. bon, bowevcr. had no authority from
witnevs to accept .the hilt. Witness kneie the
drawer, whpin be stated to be a -midshipman, at
present out of the country.
Vpon looking over theiCheitile Mr. Serjeatit
itnriniugton tihservid, that then + ,was a stateotent
.of the 'prisoners.having signed a hunt)with hii fa-
titer for 59,0/,' when .he (the prisoner) was 'tinder
age, _Of cOurse then 'the prikoner cointaeted a
deht Tor which he. . that he was ,nOt liable.
.Prot the prisoner had, it appeared from his scheT
d111e.,1 contrast oil several debts, ~eithont haviOg any
gry4.l4,l,!inettnS of paying them. On those grounds,.
cctielutml4vitit the extraordinary dist:lnsure is 10
hitt 'tithe bands of Joncs, he could not hesi-
tate tp..aroprice this a case of as gross fraud as
cemlillie itupptised to-come Within the meaning of
the late Act of Parliament, lU:retort, 1;a kit