The Sun.
London, England, 1811-11-11 00:00:00

LAW R4IORT.

COURT OF KING'S .13E.NCII, Nov. 8.
- ••
THoMPsoti v. swAsZEY.
Mr. PAan.nioved foi a rule to thew cause why.
the verdict for the tilaiptiff should notbe setiaside,
and'a.new trial granted. I t was an action upon a
policy ot inialrance, from. Riga t-tet.tatify port- or. ports,
-in Great Britain. The loss was averted, first; by
perils of the seas, and ultimately .by capture. Mr.
Park, for the defendant, at the trial made this ob-
jettion, that the license ran, from thence tir any
port, &c. Tile ship was diiven into the port of
Rostock by bad weather, where her cargo of hemp
was taken out, in' order 10 repair the vessel, and
where it was all sold as cfrortikseil. The :defendant
had paid into Conti money sufficient to cover the
_average loss upon 'the ship's arrival 'at Rostock..
and here she took in a totally new Cargo of coin,
which Mr. Park cdtnendcd, concluded' the tinder-
-,
writer's risk.
'Lord ELLANBonounit observed, 'that the ship had
leave to load and unload; and the, policy was on the
ship knO cargo.
Mr. ?Atm was aware, that, upon the autbority of
the cases of Raine v. Bell,' 9 East. -105 ; and La'
ruche v. °swirl, 12 East. 131. a ship might add to
,l.cr freight provisions and other goods, without
, avoiding her policy ;' but this was a total change of
cargo, and a new-adventure. The obje4t:uf the tr.
der' writers wacto insure Only a single voyage; and
the assured. bad made his election to end the voyage
irhured at Rostock,. ' '
Lord EL MO/BOROUGH said, that' the delay wait Oct.
caNioned, by bad weather ; and the , ship continue
her linseed, which was part of her cargo,, on bOardl.
L was proved, that it would have taken more 11114
to take in a cargo of new hemp.; ,and corn was
substituted-with a view to expedition.. This subrito-
tutitin was •degicied upon in a week ; there Was no
delay; andihose who. granted policies must con-
template:the consequences sol such perils of the seas.
—Rule refused, t.

.. ' .....r..

FLCDGINO qf.GOODs I>Y FACTORS,

' • ht• • -
'll4O ATTORNEY LiENEAAL, movt4 .for a Yule to
AbeNs7 Cause.% by the verdict ,for thejdefend,mt in this
case shoold not be set aside„and
.a new trial granted.
It was an action of Troyer brought.by the plaintiff,
a Spanish merchant,.to recover from the defendant
'the value of trio hales of ,wool, CoMigoe4 ,by the
plaintiff to •J person of the name of oke,,whom the.
plaintiff had appoioted,his filetor 61.1ltis country, for
the tittle of such wools asi 0)001d he 14410gited to 666.,
bur whi,..11 quantity .t wool in question Coke itad
pledged with tlitloleridarit for. advarices.made to
Inn, oerporittly, and. the delcodaot had 41.ftetWattis
edit% erted foot) cash for his own reinibtirsement.—?
'nit: Attorney 'General had coot& oded on the .trial;
and he now,ng4in tiobt4itted to the Coury hat, thia
the cotomon case of as t-t•i:tor pledging Oct pro-
' perty of his principal, whit it„ itfitati:be.vo again.and
deaitled coald not do. It wtiti contended
on the Oates' shit: by his li,eatroed Vtiepd, Mr. Gar-
tow' that the preseitt easn was.talsen out of 140.ge-
oetiA; op.; by the CirObrOstance of the bill of lading
being iodors,cd to Coke, or • order,. 'rime Was no
case, however, among the vat ious decisions on this
point, the. Attorney General cot ended,. where a
bill of lading formed an iogredient in the case, in
which it was uor indorsed, to. the fa dor or
In the case of Wright o,campbc.li, in Burrow's Re-
yorts, tire hill Wing wart indorsed the factor or
his order; and io Newsome v. Thornton, it v•as to
' or his assigns; yet there it was held, that he
could bovpiedge the property, even where it stood
in the 'battle .of the ,brol;cr, because he .was
faCtor ; and in nil those ,ca.es,. the persons with
wholn the pledging was wade, were perfedly
Ignorant that the person with whom he dealt was tt
. -14dOr • .
Lord lEa.t.eittortouott s•lid.the'recbtild he ribthirig
clearer than the general prineipt ,teat a titetor could
• ' net 'pledge the property of ills ; but 'still
this principle must be taken with some limitations.
No per on could be suffered to collude with one stand-
log in the relation of a Naar, and thereby toacquire
sr right to theprincipal'a I.opertY., BM. if a consignor
olgoods chose to give to the couSigneealithe indteia
of the properly, andlhe full power of dealiog with
it as his own.; if he ChOSc to give to
,him. a larger
authority than a factor reloired, or
~ought to have;
then his Lordship thought, it would be too nitwit to
that an innocent person, dealing Wit it such .COnSignke
as the real proprietor of the goods, ought to_ be the
antlercr, Ifere the delepdant saw Coke in pmses.
shirr of lot get quantities of wool, which it, was impos-
sible for him not to suppose his own propel ty,—
When he vaw hint "armed with such large ant hot ity,
wasolte bfitind. to ioquire,and to ascertain, wheiler
it might not bra more limited, or of a ditferent na-
lore from what it appeared to be ? His Lordship,
on the trial„ pot it to tiie Jury to jodge, if, front the
circtunstance of Coke's having a large quantity of
‘vool in his posseasion, over which he seemed to
tie an unlimited controut, the defendant was not
Justified. in •believiog it to th; his own properly, and
in dealing with hint upon that footing ? Why had
Pot the: 6.400, on his faClor thoSe guards
trauds of this nature;, Which it • was in his
power to have imposed ? hadlte not, on the
face of 14_41(64, designated him as his factor
.Why did lig give him the character Of an unlimited
. proprietor to the, WarlJ, if he did not wish to be
bound by his oda ? This was the nature of Isis
LOrti‘hii)"S charge to the Jury ' • if it was erroneons,
then had the duty been joisledil his misdireaion;
MG Justice &UFA asked, did the defendant not
know that Coke was only a factor
The Arraimay-GE4#RAL,AdmiaN4, Shut be did
Lord. ELLettfirafottllti asked, who on4ht,,to'
tie
i'esponfiihle" for the act of another,. tribe person
• who armed him with the, power 01 cluing the Ito
W.ll not responsible ? Hete Coke •altnitted that he'
dirt not intimate to the defendant that the' worils
were not his own. The defendant had advanced
to him 20,0001. and he offered to put the hills ht
into the hands of-the,defendant, wts COti3te,4e
of the goods. , • ,
ATTR
ONEY-GENARAI. said, if .the Nog of
the factor was to militate against the eoni guor of