Star.
London, England, 1808-11-22 00:00:00

LACON V. JANE hIOSSENEAU..

This case was tried last Term, when the Jury, con-
trary to real evidence, gave a verdict for the Defen-
dant. • The demand was for 28 17s. 2d. Mr. PARKE
took an exception to the verdict at the time. After
hearing Mr. GAMMA for the Defendint, the Court
granted a new trial, but recommended a settlement
between the parties.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 21.
STEELE V. BROWNE AND PARRY.

This cause, our readers will recollect, was tried
last Thursday, before Sir J. MANSFIELD, at Guildhall,
and a verdict given for the Defendants : and the
question between the parties was, whether the Plain-
tiff, who had seized the goods of Cockburne, a publi-
can, under a bill of sale, was to be deprived of the
benefit of his seizure by an execution sent into the
house by the Defendants, who were Cockburne's
brewers, under which they sold the goods so seized
by the Plaintiff.—The Jury, under the ercumstances
of the case, found a verdict for the Plaintiff, to the
amount of his demand against Cockburne.
Scrjeant VAUGHAN, this day,moved fora rule, calling
on the Plaintiff to chew cause why the verdict 3hould
not be set aside, and a new trial grante-4, upon the
rotund that the bill of sale having been es,:.cuted long
before the possession was taken under it, was in itself
fraudulent and void ; and also that the possession
itself, such as it was, did not amount to such a valid
taking, before the entry of the Defendants, under
their execution, as to preclude them from the benefit
of ft.

Sir JAMES MANSFIELD said, there was no colour or
pretence for granting the rule, which was refused ac-
cordingly.

DUWELL 1,4 NIOXO.N AND ANOTHF.R.
Serjeant Coe KELL sheaved causeagainst a rule which
had been obtained by Scrjeant Shepherd, for setting
aside the nonsuit in this cause, and entering judg-
ment for the Plaintiff. This action was brought for
a cargo of timber, sent from Carsholm to Hull,
by the vessel of the Defendants. By the bill of
lading, signed by the Captain, it appeared that
the cargo was to be delivered, (free of freight), to
the Plaintiff's order. Upon the ship's arrival at
Hull, the consignees refused to accept the bills
drawn on them for the amount of the cargo, and
the Plaintiff demanded the timber to be delivered
to his order, which the Defendants as owners of the
vessel refusal to do, without being first paid for the
carriage. At the trial, Sir James Mansfield was of
opinion, the two first counts in the declaration, being
for breach of contract, could not be jointly sustained
against the Defendants, in their characters of owner
and master of the vessel ; and also doubting whether
the third count, which was in trover, could lie as
against a carrier, the Plaintiff was nonsuited, with
liberty to apply to set aside the verdict, and to enter.
it for the Plaintiff. The right of the Defendant,
Moron, to retain the goods till he was paid freight,
was insisted on, notwithstanding the words of the
bill of ladipg, on the ground of its being an imposi-
tion on the Captain, and there being no consideration
for the carrying the timber. It was also contended,
the Captain bad no power to bind his principal to so
injurious a contract, who would otherwise be bound
to all the risk of the voyage, without a compensation
for the use of his ship. On the other hand, it was
contended, that the act of the agent was the act of
the principal, and that therefore the Defendant was
bound to deliver up the cargo, without payment of
freight.
The Court were of opinion, that trover would lie
in this case, as the Defendants bad landed the cargo
out of the vessel, which might be evidence of a con-
version, provided they were bound by the terms of the
bill of lading. Upon this point, however, as consi-
dering it of consequence and difficulty, they took
time to isonsider.