Star.
London, England, 1824-01-29 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE STAR.

SIR—I congratulate commercial men that at length,
through the medium of your Paper, the statement ofl
the question between the Merchants and the London
Dock Company has been made known to them ; and
as it is but fair the Directors should also be heard, I
have sent you their Reply to the Declaration of the
Merchants, which, I hope, your candour will allow to
be inserted in your respectable columns.

A GENERAL NIERCHANT.

Copy of a Minute of a Court of Directors of the London Dock Com-
pany, held at the London Dock House, the 23d Jrnuary, 1824,
Isaac Sorer, Esq. in the Chair.
The Directors of the London Dock Company have
read, with surprise and regret, certain Resolutions passed
at a Meeting of Merchants, held at the Baltic Coffee-
house on the I I th of November last, BENJAMIN HAWES,
Esq. in the Chair ; and likewise a statement, signed by
many Merchants and others, declaratory of their opi•
nions upon the conduct of the Directors in the matters
to which those Resolutions refer—both of which docu-
ments the Directors consider to be founded upon very
erroneous views of the stwject on which they treat, and
expressed in terms not warranted by the circumstances,
as well as at variance with the spirit of accommodation
which the Div ectors have never ceased to evince towards
every trade which has fiequented the London Docks.
The Directors have always been thankful for any
suagestions which could tend to the perfection of the
System pursued at the Dock, and %%Lich afforded facili-
ties to commerce; and they have adopted sncli sugges-
tions as far as the law permitted, or the safety of the
propel ty of the proprietors, placed under their manage-
ment, Alined.
The Directors consider that it would be quite incon-
sistent for them to repel the charges brought against
them, otherwise than by this plain statement.
The Law which allows the stoppage of goods in
transit:', is of no recent date, and has been acted upon
to a great extent under the administration of the highest
judicial authorities:--it is the important privilege given
by this law to parties engaged in trade, which the Gen-
tlemen signing the Declaration are desirous the Dock
Company shall disregard ; and they impugn the con-
duct oldie Directors for having paid attention to notices
to stop Tallow, which the parties giving those notices
allege has not been paid for.
It may be remai ked, that some of the Gentlemen
signing the Declaration have themselves, anon former
occasions, given similar notices, althouga they now
condemn the principle of receiving them.
During a period of nineteen years, which has elapsed
since the opening of the London Dock, the Dock Com-
pany has, in all its great concerns, veered clear of dis-
pute with the parties engaged in the Trade of the Port,
upon this important subject ; and it is only at this late
date that inconveniences, arising out of the naw system
adopted by the Importers and Dealers in 'fallow, are
encountered.
Mercantile men are well aware that there is not a
complete delivery of any goods which requite weighing
to ascertain their quantity, until after the weighing has
taken place, and that such part only as has passed the
scale is legally in the possession of the buyer, unless a
weight shall have been agreed upon ; or, as is the case
in Coffee Warrants, where the goods are taken at the
landing scale.
By the system now practised in the Tallow Trade, an
order given may receive twenty or more endorsements,'
and even be passed through the same bands more than
once, previously to its being presented at the Dock for
a transfer or delivery of the goods ; and when presented,
if the Tallows are not weighed so as to give the pur-
chasers a complete legal title, it is because they do not
direct it to be done, in order to save the expense which
would be thereby incurred ; and yet they require front
the Dock Company some evidence of the goods being
placed in their names in the Warehouse-keeper's books.
For the accommodation and convenience, therefore,
of the Trade, a Transfer Ticket has been given, and it
is this Transfer Ticket which the Gentlemen signing
the Declaration now wish to construe as subjecting the
Company to the liability of delivering the Tallow, in
defiance of any notice to the contrary.
So desirous were the Directors of preventing any in-
convenience to Merchants, that they proposed in the
very outset of the present question, to deliver the Tal-
lows to the parties in whose names they stood in the
Company's Books, ripen their giving an indemnity,
conceiving that such an arrangement could not be ob-
jected to by persons who considered their claims to be
indisputable. Claims to the extent of 132 casks, were
so arranged, and the notices given having been subse-
quently withdrawn as to 165 Casks, the whole which
at this time remains under stop, as respects the Com-
pany, is 200 Casks.
The Directors, considering the question at issue to in-
volve a principle of great importance, have not taken
any step in the progress of this business without being
advised by the Company's Counsel, to whom copies of
the Transfer Tickets were submitted. Whatever mer-
cantile usage may have prevailed, the Directors, as,
guardians of the property placed under their charge,
(not only as respects the trade, but also the interest of
their proprietors), have thought it their duty to pursue
the coune which they have adopted, for no other object
could influence the minds of the Directors but a desire to
act with strict impartiality and justice, and to deliver
the goods to the proper parties.
As regards the future, every buyer must be expected
to know the process which gives him a title to the pro-
petty he has purchased. If any method can be sug-
gested to afford additional facilities to trade, the Directors
will readily take it into their serious consideration ; but
they cannot, in the performance of their duty, subject
the Company to liabilities for which it receives no ade-
quate consideration. The Directors are very desirous
that the legal question (which applies alike to every
I) Eck Establishment or Wharf taking charge of mei-
ea:tile property) should now he completely set at rest;
and they will not relax in their personal exertions to ac-
con;plish this object, and prevent the recurrence of simi-
lar difficulties : those in existence, however, certainly
not originating with them, but arising out of the prac-
tice which has lately obtained in the Tallow Trade.
The Directors cannot conclude without remarking
t.. at they consider the resolutions and declaration which
have been forwarded to them, as conveying censure un-
called for, and undeserved.

GRO. ROBINSON, Secretary.

Among the bilk reported in the Kentucky Legisla-
!lr.:, during its present Session, is one for the benefit of Matthew
I tvrper—'• a cripple with torrity children." The bill allows him
`'to retail spirits without a license."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
_.-...c-.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY U.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

HAWES AND CO. V. WATSON AND CO.

This was an action of trover, brought by the plain-
tiffs, who are soap-manufacturers, to recover from the
defendants, who are wharfingers, the value of 79 casks
of tallow. The cause was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, at the London Adjourned Sittings after last
Term; and on the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs,
an the 25th of September, purchased of Messrs. Mo—
berly Iliad Bell 300 casks of Russia candle tallow, at 40s.
Iper cwt. and among this lot were 100 casks imported in
' the Matilda, and which were then in the warehouse of
the defendants, and for which Messrs. Moberly and Bell
handed the plaintiffs the following transfer note:

" London, Sept. 25, 1820.
" To Messrs. Vi'atson and Co.

" Please to weigh and deliver, transfer, or re-house, to the order
of Mtssrs. B. and T. Hawes, one hundred casks yellow candle tal-
low (ex Matilda), H. M. charges from the 10th of October to be
paid by the bearer. " MOBERLY and BELL."

And the defendants, upon the receipt of this transfer
note, transferred the tallow into the names of the plain-
tiffs, and charged Bs. 4d. for so doing. The plaintiffs
upon receiving the transfer notes of the other two hun-
dred casks, accepted Messrs. Moberly and Bell's hills
at six months after date, for 1,444. and 2,880 L In a few
clays afterwards the plaintiffs sold drier or four lots,
amounting to twenty-one casks, and their orders to
weigh and de:iver were obeyed by the defendants; but
on the 15th of October, Messrs. Moberly and Bell hav-
ing stopped payment, the defendants refused to deliver
any more tallow to the plaintiffs' order, alleging that
they had received orders to that effect from Raikes and
Co. of whom Moberly and Bell had originally bought
the tallow, the price of which, except 2001. was paid.
A verdict was found forthe plaintiff.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL this day moved for a rule
calling upon the plaintiffs to shew cause why that ver-
dict should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The
Learned Counsel contended that it had been laid down
in the case of " Hanson v. Meyer," 6 East, 614, that
where goods were sold per the cwt. the delivery was not
complete until after the goods were weighed, and there-
fore the light of stopping them in transitu remained in
the vendor.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—.- But you admit that the defen-
dants assented to the plaintiffs, delivery order in one or
two inAances.

Mr. AT CORNEY-GENERAL.--I say that Itaikes and
Co. had a right to stop in transit?: as between themselves
and Moberly and Bell, and if that right existed, then the
defendants would not be justified in delivering the goods
to the plaintiff.; after having received notice fromßaikes
and Co. not to do so.

Mr. Justice BEsr But here a strong fact in this
case which there is not in tl:e case of " Hanson v. Meyer,"
namely, the acknowledgment of the defendants, which
puts all this doctrine aside. _

Mr. Justice linyt.Ev—ln the case of di Hanson v.
Meyer" did not the goods remain in the seller's name?
Were the goods in this instance standing in ltaikes and
Co.'s nAmes in the defendants books ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the fact of
the goods having been transferred into the plaintiffs'
names in the defendants' hooks did not, take away the
right of Itaikes and Co. to stop in transitu, and that that
right was not forfeited until the goods should have been
weighed.