Star.
London, England, 1807-12-26 00:00:00

given in the cafe. TMs was one of the aloft grofs
and abominable frauds ever attempted to be com-
mitted. The poor defendant had never been the
owner of the (hip, or had received one farthing on
aec,,uat of its owners.

It appearing that the Attorney General was nal
poffeffed of fufficiently pefitive evidence for the Plai-
ntiff, Lord ELLINIMOUGH ordered him to be non-
fuited, as a snatttr of favour, in order to enable him
at fome future opportunity, to come forward with
other evidence, conceiving the prefent iofufficient.—
Plaintiff noduited.

4.4Iyr,MAS CUMMINGS U. THOMAS DROWN.
The plaintiff had advanced the rum of 19001. on
the faith of a bill of lading of a quantity of brandy
and Madeira wine, (hipped on board the veirel corn.
manded by the Defendant. This was an action of
tuner, to recover this property or its value.

Mr, PARK, for the plaintiff, Paid that Mr. Brown
'was merely a nominal defendant, the party really
concerned being Mr.jean, of Jerfey, to whom Meffrs
' Abel*, of this city, were agents. Mr jelb configned
thee liquor:, to the quantity of 35 pipes of Madeira
lend so of brandy, to Mr. Edw. Philip Maine ; and
the tfirft qtteLlion for the confideration of the Jury,
would be, whether Mr. Maine Rood in the fituation
of owner of there coMitroctiaks, or if he was merely
the fad& or agent of Mr. Jean, of Jerky ? (The
ground of the defence here alluded to being in the
fequel abandoned by the Attorney General, we (flail
pats over both the Raiment of the Learned Counfel,
and the tellimony applicable to this enquiry.) The
other queftion was, as to the right of flopping in
trap_ au; but the argument with refpefk to it Mr Park
pot posed, until, on the evidence, it lhonld appear
how far it was :wearily emulated with the Interefl
of his client.

Mr. Kendal (Mars. Palmer and Tomlinfon's
clerk) Paid, that he ferved the demand upon the De-
fendant for the wine and brandy in June la(t, at the ,
fame time tendering the payment for the freight and
primage. The Defendant refufed to deliver the
property, and laid that he was indemnified by MelTrs.
Abell. The bill of lading was produced and read :
it acted the quantities, the marks, the fhipment on ,
board the Britannia, Capt. Brown, and was dated
the 14th February, 1807.
The bills of exchange were produced, which were
given by the Plaintiff to Mr. Maine, as the confider.
ation for the bill of lading depofited with the former.
It appeared by the evidence of Murphy (clerk to
Mr. Maine) that the latter had kept out of the way
Ito avoid the felicitous inquiries of his creditors, who
vifited his houfe in great numbers, not to inquire re-
garding his health, but to fatisfy their uneaftnefs
with refpeet to their own fecurity.
The Ayr( RNEY CENPRAL, for the Defendant,
laid, that the dalrine laid down in 4 Lickbarrow
and Mafon' had removed all difficulty with rape&
to the rule of floppage in tranlitu. Before that cafe, it
was thought that the feller might fo (lop the gords, in
the event of the infolvency of the buyer ; but that
decifion had fettled this point, that if a feller fend a
bill of lading, and thus give an apparent title to the
petfon receiving it, and fuch perfcn indnrfe it over
to Another, tonafils, for a valuable confederation, the
now holder of the bill a lading, if he have nn notice
that the goods have not been paid for, may injercept
the right of the feller to ttop the goods in tranflu.—
But in loch cafe notice mutt net have been given ; if
I notice were proved, the right of the feller to flop in
?trenfita was unquestionable. In this cafe, the fails
were as follow :—Jean made the conlignment ; as
early as April, Maine became infolvent ; but the chip
I did not arrive till June. This, then, in the eye of the
law, was a fraudulent arrangement between the plain-
tiff and Maine, which could not be fupported in a
ICourt of Juftice. The Learned Counfel Paid, that he
Ihould produce the anfwer of the plaintiff in Chan-
; eery, to (hew, that he had notice that this merchan-
dize was not paid for, and that therefore the bill of
lading was no: a valid fecurity.
The anfwer in Chancery was read, by which k
appeared, that the plaintiff had filch notice.
iMr. PARK, for the plain.iff, admitted, that the
money for the winds was not paid, hut Willed that
acceptances having been given for the amount, a
bona fide confideratior: was receive 1, which materially
dittingui flied the prefent cafe from that of Lickharrow
I and MAinn.

Lord Ettrnaoar von Paid, that this aelinn was
brought by the plaintiff, as intim fee of a bill of lading,
to recover thirty•five pipes of Madeira and twenty of
brandy. The effect of the indrofement upon a bill
of lading is, that where the indorfee is the holder for
a valuable contideration, it vetted him with an au-
thority not to be countermanded, to as to prevent the
original. gripper from flopping iit tralku : flriElly
(peaking, the bill of lading did not pals the property,
bat it gave the right to receive the property. His
Lordfhip felt a difficulty its laying, that no right to
the property could be obtained, unlefs the price were
paid in monies numbered. He th,,ught a &thine of
that kind unsuld lhake the fecurity of all commerce.
He conceived, that the acceptances given by the con-1
fignee might be con6dered as a valuable confidera-1
lion. The plaintiff is not to be permitted to interpofe
himfelf fraudulently between the feller and the con-
fignee, if be believed that wrong intentions were
j entertained, or if he believed that the infolvency of
I the confignee was approaching; but at the time this
pledge of the bill of lading was made, and the money
in confequence advanced, the plaintiff appeared to
j have no expeciation of the infolvency of Maine and
the confignee.—Verdia for the plaintiff 19301. tub
jet to the award of Mr. Gibfon.