Star.
London, England, 1807-05-29 00:00:00

CUFFED. CHRISTIE.

This was alfo an aflion upon a policy of infurance
upon goods, brought to recover a total lofs and pre•
mium agair;fl the underwriters.
The Plaintiffs, Neils. Cuffe and Dickinfon, were
confiderable merchants, and importers of butter and
cheefe from the Continent, and the Defendant a Gen•
tleman of molt relpellable chargter. The policy
in quetlion was underwrote for 15001. upon goods
which appeared to be of the value of 2271. ifs. and
had been (hipped by the agent of the Plaintiffs, Mr.
Ebegg. at Emden, configned to the Plaintiffs by the
(hip called Der Freundfchaft (the Friendfhip) which
had cleared the Cullom Houle of Emden en the loth
of November, 1803: She remained in that river,
owing to contrary winds, until the 6th of December
then following, and had never fince been heard of.
On the part of the Defendant, it was contended,
that, at the time of effeeing the policy in quellion,
which was done on the 23d of December, there was
a concealment of documents, which the underwriters
fhould have been made acquainted with. The letter
upon which the policy had been effected, was dated
the 2d of December, and received the 22d, from
which it appeared, that the flip in quellion was then
ready to fail ; whereas the Plaintiffs being very ex-
tenfively engaged in this trade, had received feveral
letters from their agent, Mr. Ebegg, antecedent to
that date, by. Die Drei Schwaren (the Three Sif
tab). Der Konig von Pruiffen (the King of Prudia)
and other (hips, with confignments from that place,
in moll of which it appeared that the Frenndfcbaft
was fuppofed to have failed for England long before
any of them, and fume apprehenfions were' entertain-
ed as to her fafety. Some of the Captains and
Mates of the above mentioned (hips were examined,
from whole evidence it appeared, that they left the
17, eundfchaft in Emden Roads, on the 6.h of De-
cember.
Lord Ei.t.stiactournr left it to the Jury, upon
the credibility of thefe witneffes, when compared with
thefe documents, which his Lordthip conceived to be
a concealment fufficient to void the policy, if the Jury
difbelieved thefe witneffes. _

The Jury, after a !bort coolphation, found a ver.
did of t5l. tss. for the Plaintiffs, being the Dem.
dant's portion of the premium paid.

OXINHAM V. GIBBS.

The plaintiff had purchafed a (hip of the defen.
dant, who is a fhip.builder at Dartmouth," in the
county of Devon, which to all appearance was a
found and 'well-built veffel, but upon examination,
after the Blip was brought to the Thames, it was
found that her out fide planks were wotked up of tim-
ber which had not fufficiently been cleared of the
fappy part at the edges ; in confequence of which,
when the Teams were afterwards caulked, the edges
of the wood gave way and the water leaked in
thruugh the apertures. The plaintiff, therefore,
having paid for her as a found (hip, brought an
adion of tort as for a deceit againft the defendant, for
having fold him a (hip as a found and well built
(hip, which WkS in fad, not found.
On the part Of the plaintiff it was proved, by Mr.
Treyludda, the captain, who purchafed the veffel for
his owners,*that, at the time, the defendant laid
it on" in praife of his veffel ; and, taking it for
granted fhe was well-built and found, he purchafed
her at a found price. To all immediate appearance,
indeed, there was no defeet in her; but it afterwards
being found that fome of her timbers got wet, Mr.
S. Barbe was called in, who requefted that a regular
Currey fhould be had; and upon examining the outer
planks as far as the high-water mark, almoß all of
them were bad and defeetive, fo that if (he had been
fent to tea there would have been great danger of her
finking.
Mr. S. Barbe faid that it was not ufual with him,
wben.he bought a new (hip in the River, to examine
her very particularly; but that if he bought one at
an outport, and did not know the builder well, he
thould make a pat titular examination of her condi-
tion ; but feveral of the witneffes NJ it was a very
unufnal thing to try the fufficiency of the caulking
of a new Chip by inftrumetus and caulkirg irons, and
the defe&s of this veffel could not well be difcovered
without fuch a trial.
Mr. PARK for the defendant at firft contended, that
as the plaintiff had nut regitlered the (lip in his own
name, there was not a complete tale, and he could
not maintain this adion which went upon an aver-
ment of a Cale. •
Lord Ecisissoftotrou thought this p•. na with the
Defendant, but would not nonfuit the Plaintiff, on
account of the expence of coming to trial again, and
therefore referved the point.

Mr. PARK addrefred the Tory, and contended that
in this aftion exprers fraud mull be (hewn, for if it was
-a latent defedt,then the masi;n of caveat emptor Applied,
and the Plaintiff mutt lofe by his own want of cau
tion in not requiting a warranty.
brd ELLKSBOROUGH directed the Jury, that if
there was any reprefentatinn, and in language, or any
fraudulent fitting up of the (hip to put her in fuch
trim as either to lull the caution of the purchafer, or
to conceal the defeets of the vein', the Defendant
would be li,tble in this aelion for a deceit, and it was
proved that every one concerned in, the building of
the (hip mutt know of there defeets in her. At the
fame time, he wilhed that in cafes of this kind owners
would have the caution to require a warranty that
the (hip was faithfully built, as the lives of fo many
perfons depended upon it.
The Jury found a verdia for the Plaintiff—da-
mages 550). which was the fum proved to be necef-
fary to put her iu a Elate of lea worthinefs.

COURT OF CINNAMON PLEAS, MAY 26.
HUNT V. ►ICKFORD.

This was an anion to recover the value ofa pocket
of hops fent by the plaintiff to the warehoufe of the
defendant, for the purpofe of being conveyed to Lei.
celter, and there to be delivered as dire&ed. The
hops arrived fate at Leicerter ; but neither Mr. Ben-
ningtn, the defendant's clerk, nor the porter, could
dilcover the refidence of the perfon to whom they
were addicffed, and the hops were depofited in the
warehoufe of the defendant, and remained there for
f.me months before any inquiry was made after them.
It appeared from the evidence adduced, that the,
agents of Mr. Pickford had exerted themfelves to
find the abode of Mr. Bellamy, in Leicelter, the per-
fon to whom the plaintiff had fent the hops, but to
little purpofe, nor could they trace out fuch a name.
The Conniel for the plaintiff infified that the defend.
ant had not endeavoured, to his utmoll, to find the
owner of the goods, and, to prove his alTertion, he
called Mr. Bellamy, who fitted, that he nnt only
lived in Leicelter, but kept a public houfe there. On
his eras examination, he laid his name was not paint-
ed over the door, nor was there any external rum by
which a perfon walking the lircet could know that a
Mr. Bellamy lived there.
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD, in addreffing the Jury, laid
it was clearly probed that blame could not attach to
the defendant ; his agents had made every reasonable
inquiry, and if that inquiry was nnfuccefsful, the
fault could only reft with the plaintiff; he Ihould
have been more explicit in his direeions, and not
have fent goods under fuch an addrefs as " IL Bella-
my, Leicelter," a name not even known at the Poa
0 ffice.—PlaintifF nonfuited.

MAY 27.—MOORS AND CS. V. TUCK.
The plaintiffs in this aCtion were Meffrs. Moore,
Stanton, 'Popham, James, and Blorford, eminent ha
berdathers, in the City of London ; and it was brought
in order to recover from the defendant the value of
a box of goods intrufled to his care as a carrier, and
owner of waggons, at Lynn, in Norfolk ; which parcel
of goods had been addreffed to Mr. Cooper, a retail
haberdather, at Lynn, but it had never come to hand.
It appeared from the evidence, that in the latter
end of 1805, Mr. Cooper, who had been in the habit
of dealing with the plaintiffs before, ordered the
goods in queflion to be packed up in a box, and fent
to Lynn, to his (hop, as ufual, via Norwich. The
goods were accordingly looked out, and afforted, and
fent off by Jennings, a petrol' employed by the plain-
tiffs, who directed the warehoufeman previoufly to
pack them, and then to fend them by a porter to the
waggon office. The delivery of the b'x to the de-
fendant was alt.() made out, and it was proved like-
wife, that it got fate to the city of Norwich, from
Norwich it was to be conveyed by another waggon to
King's Lynn. Mack, a Clerk in the waggon (Ace
at N.irwich, dcpofed to the delivery of the box to
Mr. Tuck, waggoner, in order to its conveyance to
its final dellination ; but it appeared that the box was
101 l on the road between Norwich and Lynn. The
proprietors of the goods thus had no alternative but
the prefent ar9ion, for recovering the value of the
articles they had fent off, which It was contended,
had been 101 l through the negligence of the defendant.
Sir J. MANSFIELD told the Jury, 'that the Counfel
for the Plaintiffs had not brought forward the
Warehonfeman, to prove that he actually had
packed up the goods in the box ; and, for aught he
knew himfelf, they might nut have been packed
lip a' all ; on the contrary, the box might have been
fent off empty ; he was, however, fatisfied that the
goods were in the box at the time, but as there was
not fuch proof of that fa&, as the law required, and
as far as the evidence went, the Jury could only give
a verdia for the value of the box merely. It would not
be e.,nfiflent with jaw, were he to advife the Jury in
the decifion they might adopt, to give a verdict for the
goods, inafmuch as they had been fent by a very im-
proper and irregular fort of conveyance, liable to
great infecurity from a change of vehicles, which ren-
dered the Defendant in a great meafure anSwerable
for the various cafualties that happen to goods con-
ligned to his care as a carrier or waggoner, in the
courfe of their tranfit from one place to another.
The Jury, after a (port deliberation, fi•und a ver-
diet fur the Plaintiffs for sof. and ss. as the value of
the box.