Star.
London, England, 1830-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jan. 13.
nes v. murrix.
Mr. Pot .ocx (with whom was Mr. Cassswm.) stated, that this
was an action to recover a policy of insurance on the ship Eagle, on
a fishing voyage to Davis's Straits in 1825.—The defendant was the
Secretary of St. Patrick's Insurance Company, a company which
at that time professed great liberality in business. This vessel in
her voyage met with very rough weather, which carried away her
bowsprit, and also received several shocks from the ice, which
strained her considerably, and caused her to make so much water,
that the crew were obliged to pump every hour. When the vessel
returned to Hull, she was found to have broken some of her tim-
ber.. For that /Image the plaintiff brought the present action.
Mr. Arroairre-Guntaat (with whom was Mr. Callum.) con-
ten.led that the damage sustained was mere wear and tear, and
only such as every vessel engaged in that trade must expect to
meet with. They also contended that she was not in aSt state to
go to sea. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
£'9B2 164. Bd. the whole sum claimed.

STMONDS V. BARCLAY ANDOTUZIII.

This was an action to recover salary and travelling expenses.
The plaintiff had been employed by the Mexican and South
American Mines Company. at a salary of i6OO per annum, and
It was agreed, that if be was discharged he should have three
months' salary, and his expenses from Mexico to England de-
frayed. Having been dismissed, he sought in this instance to re-
cover the said allowance from the defendants, who are tbe Direc-
tors of the Company.
The LOKI) Cum JOPT/CE held that the declaration was not made
out by evidence, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.

JIUD •. LAW M•

The plaintiff, a ship-broker in of London, brought
this action to recover .Cll4 being the amount of commission at
two and a half per cent. for his services as a broker in chartering
the ship Mermaid, belonging to the defendant, upon a voyage to
India.
Mr. Guayas stated, that the defendant applied to the plaintiff to
procure a freighter for his ship. The vessel was 400 tons burthen,
and by the plaintiff's exertions a Mr. Eardley was ready to charter
her, at twelve shillings per ton, per month, for twelve months in a
voyage to India. It however appeared that the defendant was
desirous of introducing a very unusual clause in the agreement be-
tween the parties, to which the freighter would rut accede, but
finally procured another ship. As the plaintiff had done his busi-
ness properly, he claimed the usral compensation for his services.
After several ship.brokers had been examined in support of the
plaintiff's claim,
The ATTORNZT.GZNEILAL submitted that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited. The ship had not been freighted, and it was contrary
to the custom of merchants to pay commission for freight never
earned. . . .

Mr. GURNBY said, whether the broker was entitled to the whole
of his demand was a question for the Jury, but, under the most
unfavourable view of the claim, the plaintiff was entitled to some
compensation for services. It was, no fault of the plaintiff's that
the chatter party was not signed.
Lord Tativaxnax— lamof op , where the claim is founded
as this is, upon custom, and the rfil no custom to support it, the
plaintiff cannot recuver.—The plaintiff was nonsui:ed.