Star.
London, England, 1801-12-25 00:00:00

STRONG AND SANDILANDS V. TORSTRR.

The Plaintiffs arc liquor Merchants, in Noble-
flr!et, Fofter-lane, and having an order to fend
tims'n fomc I;cinor to a Publican, at Kempton, in
liertfordinir:, but up two calks, one of btandy,
containing ten gallons and three quarts, and one of
rum, of ti.n gallons and two quarts, which they
fent by their fervant to thdyard of the Defendants,
Meas. Forfters, at the Red Lion, Alderfgate-
Itreet, addrcffed to Mr, Ralph Seddons, at Kemp-
ton, in 1-47:fr.rdetire, by, crexe's cart. The De-
fendant, William I'm Iter, entered the receipt of
the two calks in the book ceriled by the Plaintiffs'
porter. The calk of rum came to hand, but that
with the brandy was loft ; and by form flrange
neglcfl or other the permits for both eafrs were on
the one that was 1011, fo that when the rum arriv-
ed at Kempton, Mr. Seddons could not take it in-
to flock without a permit. On the Plaintiffs being
advifed of the lots of the calk of brandy, they fent
their fervant to Meffrs. Forfters to apply for pay-
ment for it. Mr. Willi.tm Fortier Paid, "If you
will take the rum that is in the country, we don't
mind paying you for the brandy, as it is of no
great confequence." The Plaintiffs refnfed this ;
and brought their tallon fdr 91. Fs. 9d. fcr the
brandy.
This cafe was proved on the part of the Plain-
tiff, and not rebutted by the Defendants, except by
the arguments of Serjeant Sn erne RD, who argued
that the Defendants' fervant having pointed out
to Crewe, the. Carrier, the two calks, as being for
him, it was a good delivery to him, fo as to exone-
rate them front all refponfihility. Mr. Crewe was
examined, and on an objeClion being taken to
this teftimony, a releafe was put in, when he de-
clared that he did not confider himfelf as being
in the charge of the goods until they were put in-
to his cart, which was not the cafe m the prefent
inflame. _ _

Lord ALVAMLEY fummed up the evidence to
the Jury ; and obletved, that the gneflion in this
cafe appcared to him to turn on two points. 111,
Whether this was ItlCh a delivery to the Defen-
dants as to tender them refponlible ? and, 2d,
Whether the Defendants having fo received the
calks, did, by the ad of their fervant, in pointing
out to Crewe the carrier, that the goods were for
him, and his condnd in rolling the calks up to the
fcale and weighing them, was fuch as would
amount to a deliv:ry to him ? The Plry, after a
fAv minutes confil.ration, found a verdict for the
Defendants.

DEC. 19.-00 M AND CO. V. KINC.
This was an anion to recover an average upon
a Policy of Infitrance on the fhip Ratalies Mag-
nus, from Archangel to London.
The policy was r,:ad, which, in addition to the
anal engagement, had thefe words—" including
the rilk of liglltcrs over the bar of Archangel."
It appeared horn the evidence of the Captain,
that the lois alledged took place within the bar, in
July hall, when two veffels, called 'vaunts, laden
Nr'!ii wheat for the (Hp, were funk alonglide.—
Thefc veiLls he defcribed not to be fuch AS Could
1411 over the that putrpofe vcffels called
/0rf.7., were employed.
The &fence let lip by Mr. Serjcant Bast. was,
that the vcffels in which the wheat was loft were
not of the dcfcriptinn comprehended in the terms
of the policy, and t'aat therefore Ole Underwriter
was not liable.
Lord ALvantry, in addreffing the Jury, faid,
the quellion for them to decide WAS. whether
thole traurnt ware to be confidered as lighters ?
He withed that Merchants would be mole explicit
in the terms of their contrafts, as a good deal of
iiti,gation might be avoided.
' Vcrdift fur the iltiutiff--Ditmages 57L 16‘.

WADDINGTON AN D CO. Ts. ILVEY.
This was an aaion for the non-performance of a
contra& The damages were laid at io,oool.
The contra t, dated 061ober, 1799, was pro
duced, and the fignature of the Defendant proved.
It (laced that he engaged to deliver to the Plain-
tiff zoo bags of hops, at R guineas per ewe. ; and
200 bags at 9 guineas per cwt. of the growth of
1800, which he declined. The aelion therefore
was brought to recover the difference between
thefe prices and the average prices in the months
of OCtober, November, and December me),
which were from 151. to i 61. per cwt. but no time
being fpecified in the contra& for the delivery of
the hops, the plaintiff not being able to prove any
demand on the Defendant for the execution of his
bargain, and it not appearing from the evidence
examined that there was, according to the cuaom
of the Hop-planters, any fixed time for the delivery
of hops fo contraCted for, Lord ALyANLEY Was of
opinion that the aCtion could not be fuliained.—
The Plaintiff was accordingly nonfuited.