The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 26.

SAMUELS V. THE ROYAI'EXCHANGEINSURANCE COMPANY.

This was an action upon a policy of assurance.
The plaintiff, a respectable merchant of the City of
London, sought to recover 1,7001. for the total los
of a brig called The Salmon River, insured from
London to Sierra Leone and back. She sailed from
Sierra Leone on the 3d of December, 1826, and in
the course of her voyage home she met with so much
tempestuous weather, that she was compelled to put
in at Dover, whence, after repairing, she proceeded
up the river, and came abreast of the King's dock
at Deptford at five o'clock in the afternoon of Sun-
day, the 18th of February, 1826, where she made
fast to one of the King's ships in the tier. Mr.
Lennox was the charterer of the ship, which was
freighted with teak timber, which he had contracted
with the Navy Board to deliver on the 21st of De-
cember, 1825, at the Dock-yard at Deptford. When
the vessel arrived at Deptford, Mr. Lennox was
making application for an extension of the time for
delivery, which he afterwards obtained. The Captain
applied on the day after his arrival at the dock, but
was informed his cargo could not be delivered, because
the bills of lading were not ready ; and he was also
told that from the state of the river, which at that
time was very much frozen, it was impossible for
him to get into the dock. The bills of lading came
in a few days, but the river remained in a frozen
state until Tuesday, the 27th, on the morning of
which day the Captain applied, and was told he
might take the vessel into dock that day. The
Captain went to London to pay off the crew, giving
orders to Mr. Brown, the second mate, in whose
care he left the vessel, to get a pilot whom he had
engaged, of the name of Powell, to come and super-
intend the getting the vessel in. Powell had pro-
mised to be in readiness when called upon, but he
was engaged that day, and Brown, not being able to
get him, procured a waterman of the name of
Braine, who had been accustomed to take vessels
into dock. Under his managem'tnt they proceeded,
but the wind blew very strong, and a rope from the
larboard bow to the tier of ships breaking, the ves-
sel was drawn by another rope, which was fastened
to a capstain on the dock-head, and which was
pulled, by convicts who did not leave off when
they were spoken to, upon the launch-way or slip of
the dock-yard, and could not be got off as the water
was then falling. As the tide receded, she fell
upon her beam-ends and bilged, and started her lower
futtocks, and it was impossible to remove her until
her cargo was discharged, when she became a com-
plete wreck.
The captain of the vessel, Mr. Duke; Tatum, the
mate; Braine, the waterman ; and several other
witnesses were called in proof of this statement.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET, for the defendants,
contended, that after the arrival of the vessel on the
18th of February at Deptford, a competent crew
were not kept in her. The accident was owing to
unskilfulness, want of proper ropes, and disorderly
conduct. If this was proved, the plaintiff's case was
totally destroyed. • In addition to this, after the
vessel was heaved upon the slips, there was a want
of proper care to prevent a total loss.
William Stone, examined by the ATTORNEY-GE-
NERAL—Witness observed the steps they took after
the vessel came on the lower side of the Discovery
and took the ground. They ought to have moved
her before they did. -Their whole proceedings seemed
unaccountable.

Cross-examined by Mr. P. POLLOCK—Cargoes of
teak were generally discharged within the docks ;
but the last vessel was partly discharged in the river.
Captain Kirkham, of the Discovery—The . men
were shifting' the vessel round between twelve and
one o'clock; the tide was-then two hours flood.
Witness saw two of the men on board quarrelling
and fighting. In his judgment the cause of the ac-
cident was the want of a rope to keep her in the
stream, and the helm' not being properly attended to.
If a person of competent skill had had the conduct-
ing of the vessel, it would not have happened.
John Douglas, Master-attendant of the dock—
Proper measures were not taken to dock the vessel,
and the ropes broke. Merchantmen find their own
pilots. There ought to have, been a pilot on board.
Mr. Hawkes, a ship-surveyor, surveyed the brig
on the 29th of March; 1,000/. would have repaired
her.

Lord TENTERDEN—What do you say, Mr. Camp-
bell, as to the mooring ?
Mr: CAMPBELL—The words of the policy are, If
she has been moored and anchored there."
Mr. Murray recalled—Numbers of vessels were
moored to chains laid down. This brig was made
fast to the King's ship, and was also fastened to the
mooring chain, which was fastened to the mooring
anchor.

Lord TENTERDEN--I am of opinion that the vessel
mist be taken as moored and anchored; if not, she
remains ten days in peril, and either way there was
an end of the cause.

Mr. CAMPBELL said something in reply ; and we
understood his Lordship to say he would not stop
him, but would reserve the point.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in reply, could not help feeling
alarmed at the intimation of his Lordship ; but if he
could show it was ill-founded, his Lordship would,
with his usual candour, review his opinion. As to
the defence made of the vessel having arrived in port
when the accident happened, the question was, whe-
ther the vessel had been moored twenty-four hours
in safety after her return. It was from Sierra Leone
to London. The port of London commenced at
Gravesend, but the place where the vessel was to
be discharged was the terminus ad quern, and this
was in the Dock-yard at Deptford. The river was
so full of ice, that, although the vessel could get op-
posite the Dock-yard on the 18th of February, it
was impossible to attempt getting into it until the
27th, during which interval, she was neither moored;
in the sense of the policy, nor could she he so moored
until she reached the Dock, her place of destination.
The sailors employed were experienced men, al-
though not the original crew, and there were sixteen
men on board, being a greater number than the ori-
ginal crew. There was an esprit de corps in the
evidence for the defence, but it was clear the vessel
grounded from the badness of the weather, which
occasioned the ropes to break, and not from careless,
-Bess or want of skill.

Lord TENTERDEN said, there were two questions
of fact—whether the vessel was detained at the
mooring chain for an unreasonable time, and whether
persons of competent skill were employed to carry
her into dock. If persons of competent skill were
not on board, the defendants were entitled to a ver-
dict : if there were, the underwriters must answer
for the loss.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1,7001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

MAGOR AND OTHERS V. HAMMOND.

Mr. CROWDER opened the pleadings. This was
an action on a bill of exchange for 30Q1. drawn and
accepted by the Cornwall and,Devonshire Mining
Company, dated March 17, 1826, and made pay•
able two months after date. It was endorsed to the
plaintiffs.
It was agreed that the evidence given in the de-
fence of the case of "Ellis v. Schmeick and an-
other" should he received in this. •

The defendant's attorney proved the action against
the defendant to have been tried in the King's
Bench; but in cross-examination admitted that the
facts of the case were not gone into, and that the
case went off on a legal objection.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE having replied,
Mr. Justice GASELEE summed up, leaving it to
the Jury to say. whether they believed the company
to be a fraud and a bubble, and whether the direc-
tors were the real plaintiffs in the case.
The Jury having retired for a short time, return-
ed a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed,3oo/. giving it as their opinion, that the
company
was a fraud and a bubble, but that the
plaintiffs were not cognizant of it., and that Messrs.
Magor and Co. were the real plaintiffs in the case.