Star.
London, England, 1807-11-07 00:00:00

SNAIL M. MARRIOTT.

The Arrotta Sy Gemmel. moved for a rule to
thew tank why, in this cafe, a new trial fhould not
be granted. It was a cafe founded upon an under-
taking that a certain (hip, called the Nelly, (hosild
fail with convoy. The charge was, that the bad not
failed with convoy.. She was loft, and Mr. Snail
was unable to recover from the underwriters, in con-
fequence of her not having failed in the manner at
&It given nut. •
It was advertifed that thia Chip was
,to fail with
convoy, and cards were alfo iffued to that effea, and
in fad, it feemed to be originally intended that (he
fhould fail with convoy ; but the Captain finding ,
hinifelf blown off from the Ration he had taken, while
waiting for convoy, thought proper to fail without it.
Under there citcusnftances he (the Attorney Go,
octal) had formerly fubmitted to one of their Lord-
(hips (Lord Ellenborough) that be was entitled to
recover againft the defendant, as the defendant had
moll exprefsly undertaken that that veffel thould fail
with convoy. Upon that occafion, he had takenahe
1 liberty of mentioning .•.a caufe at Ni, Prier,-which
was twice reported, called Runquis v. Diggett, in
Efpinatie's boot, p: 64. That was a cafe in which
a Chip had been put up in the fame way with this
one, and yet did not fail with convoy. The plaintiff
itr that cafe recovered aglinft the defendant, on the
ground that he fuftained a lofs, which was occationed
by that reprefentation. The report of that cafe Ra.
ted that the vette' was put up, and warranted to fail
'With cnnvoy; and alfo that the bill of lading con-
tained an engagement to that died. He having
been'Counfel in that cafe, he had taken notes of it;
which, not correfponding with that report, be was
led to doubt whether or not he had been minaken ;
and theref ire he had lately fent for the brief, in order
in afcertain the fad, which brief he had now before
him, and he found that the circumftances of that
cafe were exactly the fame at this one. The (hip was
fet up with no fuch thing as warranty, but merely
with a aatelrient that the was to fail with convoy ;
not *as there any mention of convoy in the bill of
lading. The two cafes, therefore, exactly refembled
each other, in every particular. His Lordthip had
told the jury, that this did not amount to an un-
dertaking that (he, in the prefcnt cafe, (Mould fail
with convoy; but, if it appeared that the Captain
never had any fuch intention, it would amount to a
i frauds

Lord Etuttisottoocu..;—" I fhould fuppilfe that.
The bill of lading would contain an engagement oil
that fort."
ATTMLWIT GIINUAL.4I The truth is, that the
bill of lading does not coritain all the Itipulatinns,
either of the parties fendinithe plods, or of the party
receivin: them."
Lord ELLENIOiOVaII. If the cafe you quote
vary 16 much from the repotted cafe, there is cer-
tainly good caufe for a new trial in 'the prefent in-
(lance."
ATTORNEY Gsmra—at...^•46 I certainly did cite,

that cafe, and Obiererd upon the dillinktinn between
it and this one, and pointed nut that the apparent
difference was nor fupported by the ta&. Your
Lordfhip did not much advert to that cafe at ali,and
there were. no o'itocae. caileJ oo the part of the de-
fendant."

;.r..

• .4. -
t• , .
Lot 4 Ez.t.twaostovciti:.l:4l. Ton Nor...communicate'
tunic paliculars which-have lince come to 'out
notice:l? the other geatrelpen,l4rat they may tee the
fitasittion:irigwhich it (hands beine it comes 'rib.'
tMeh we lia4 a cafe of this kind tiom Live- (plot.
etnat'aded Reid v. Martin, whereon advertifewei t was
inferted in tome of the papers, Rating that the thip.wAs
to fail with convny, a!thmigh the did n.,t ; and there
was alt.', another cafe Comewhat limiloi, entituled
Simprony..tunialte:—Take a ruse to thew cattle."
ANDREWS A'.dD,n7HERSV. PALSORAVi.
_

Mr. PARK moved frt. a rule to tliew caufe why
a new trial &mid not take place in this care, as it
was one attended with very peculiar circunittancts.
It wain caufe which formerly came before his Loyd-
thip at Guildhall, and the aBi'm evas founded, upon
a policy of infurance dated the 18th day of February-
-1805, upon the th:p Mercurius at London, bound
for Tobago and the Welt India Wands, thole of Ja-
maica and St Domingo excepted. Policies, in ge.
neral, contained certain printed words, fuels as "•nri-
til the (hip has moored at anchor, for the (pace f
24 bouts, in faros." But its this policy there riot-
ed words are ended. and the words" until u' loaded"
written over them ; fo that, according to this con-
tra°, the Ihip was to continue until (he was aerially
unloaded, at the rifk of the infirrer.. The it!orney
General relied upon the payment of the m, ney into •
Court upon the general policy, and theref,re he was
not bound to produce that policy In this he was
certainly right ; but he (Mr. Park) was now in a
condition to prove that this policy was altered :Fier
iit WA. fisbfcribed. This he could prOve by very fob-
ftantial evidence. Upon this being ba-ely Rated,
his Lordthip limed inclined to gibe effect so it, and
Paid That he (Mr. Park) might have a new trial.—
His Learkd Friend, however, had loon thereafter
prodticed the policy, tut it was then of no ufe to
him, as the rule of Court flood againtt him, and it
was needlefs to afic whether the policy was not alter-
ed, the rule of Court admitting it as it now Itood.
His motion now was, that he might he 'permitted to
amend the rule of the Court, upon paying the money
due upon the common counts, together with the
coils, and that he timid have a new trial. If hit
Lordthip would look at his note book,he *ould find
the cafe where a verdisft was got for the defendants,
on payment of colts, under fuch circuinttances. lei
the cafe of Tomlinfon and Blackfmith, in. the 7th
Vol. of the Term Reports, p. 13z, after a verditt,
the Court permitted the record to be amended from
sOOOL to tool, and fen; it down to a new trial.-d-
Rule granted.
TN! RING 'V.-GOVERNOR THOMAS PICTON.

Mr. DALLAS, on the part of the Defendant, (aid,
that he was now prepared, and winsed to knosi when
it would be convenient that this trial fhould come on.

Lord ELLawsortouctr obferved, that there were
three days' bufinefs on the Peremptory Pap-r, and
when that was terminated, the argument might be
heard. If Mr. Dallas thould not be' in the way, he
mould be informed when they were ready.
Mr. (BARROW remarked, that the papers, which
however he had not perufed, were very v luminous.
It might be convenient that their Lordfhips fhould
have the material parts pointed nut to them, on
which the Learned Counfel for the Defendant relied.
Mr. DALLAS anfwered, that the depofitions al.
though numerous, were in a narrow compafs. The
only paper of length WAS the copy of the record. In
reply to Mr. Garrow's obfervation he laid, thAt he
meant to rely upon every pat t of each depofition, and
not upon any particular part exclnftvely.

HARM cortrus.

Mr. WALToN moved for a Rule to fheur caufe
why a writ of Habeas Corpus lbould not be iffued,
in order to relieve the perfon of a young man, named
John Scott, who had been impreif, d into the oavv,
and detained on board the Skylark gun brig. He
cotld produce evidence that this young matt had
'lever been at fea for a longer period than from
March la(, and therefore his detenri n %vac not with-
in the ftatute, which requires men to have been at
fea for two years, uolefs it appears that they have
formerly received bounty.—Rule granted.