Star.
London, England, 1809-12-26 00:00:00

RANDLE AYD OTHERS V. BLACK.

This was an action brought to recover the vtilue of
50 ins of pit wine, which wore captured by the ene-
my y reason of the misconduct of the def.mdant's
SWUM

Tilt: plaintiffs, had ordered the wines, through the
medium of the :Agent for the Portuguese Port Com-
pany; in London ; and the defendant's Captain had
advised that the wines were shipped on board his ship,
and he should sail with convoy. He, however, al-
lowed the convoy to sail without him, and followed
the next day, when he was captured by a privateer,
and carried into France.

The defence was, that he had been delayed by thip
consignee in Oporto, sand the day after was forced to
go to sea by the Portuguese pilot.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought this no excuse for
risking the property of others in such a way; when he
missed the first convoy, he should have waited for a
second. • •

Verdict for plaintff-038. 7s. Bd. for 30 pipes,
the rest being insured.
Verdicts were taken against the defendant, in three
other causes of the same kind.

STOKES V. CARR.

This was an action brought against the owners of
a Post-Offce Packet, lying between Milford Haven
and Waterford, to recover the amount of repairs,
cordage, &c. supplied to the said vessel.
The defence set up was, that although the De-
fendants were apparently the owners, yet Mr.
James, the Captain, had the sole controul of the
vessel and every thing belonging to her, and there-
fore he alone should be liable, or if it should be shewn
by the plaintiff that the defendants had done some
palpable ;lets of ownership (independent of the regis•
try) to niaise then; liable—but Lord ELLENBOROVOII
said, hr sheuld aways consider the register as prima
facie evidence of ownership; and the Jury accordingly
found a verdict f,r the plaintiff—Damages referred.

WILLAN o. P.PKIN.

This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for R2OO,
granted by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated 17th
Novembn, 1795, payable one year after date.
The ATroRNEY.GtNERAL, for the plaintiff, as an
apology for the great lapse of time that has taken
place between the bill becoming due and the bring-
ing et the present action, stated, that the bill had
been lost, and the plaintiff, unwilling to acquaint the
defendant with the circamstance, 'allowed it to lie over
from year to year, in expectation of its being at last
found. He at length filed a bill in Equity against
the defendant, whose answer no doubt negatived the
existence of the bill in question, as a subsisting debt,
but furnished, at the same time, such an account of
the mode in which the 'Jilt had been paid, as would
enable the plaintiff, this day, satisfactorily to prove
the fallacy of the defendant's statement.
The defendant, in his answer, admitted that the
bill in question had been granted by him, but added,
that in or about the month of Novem. ber, 1795,
when the bill became due, the defendant had a
settlement with Mr. Willan, at his house, the Bull
and Mouth, Bull-and-Mouth street; when a memo-
randum was written at the foot of the acceugt, by the
.plaintiff's clerk, Mr. Sill, at the plaintiff's request, by
which the plaintiff undertook to deliver up the bill in.
question to the Defendant, when it should be found.
This account was delivered to the Defendant, who
kept it in his possession for some years, and he be-
lieved he had sle.-aroyed it, along with o.her papers,
when, is the year 1804, he left Dunstable, where he
formerly resided. This statement the ATTORNEY-
GEN ERAL should disprove by Mr. Sill, the person
stated to have written the memorandum in question.
Ile should also prove a 'letter of the Defendant to
the Plaintiff's Attorney, in answer to a letter from
him, previous to the bringing of the action, in which
he expressed his surprise that a balance of three
hundred pounds and odd, should be against him,
as he supposed the balance had been in his favour :
but state', that if, on producing the account, it shall
appear there is a balance in the Plaintiff's favour, he
(the Defendant) will pay it. This the Learned Coun-
sel contended, was a waver of the statute of limita-
tions, as applied to the bill in question.
''ite Defendant's answer in Chancey was then
P=iven.ln evidence, which was completely negatived
pp the teitimony af Mr- Sill. • .

11111111