Star.
London, England, 1814-11-04 00:00:00

WALTERS V. LIAUNDE.

The greater part of the day WAS pccopied in bear-
ing Counsel in an appeal from the judgment of the

Master of the Rolls in this case. In the year 1'794'
Sir Charles Booth, by his will, left his whole real and
personal property, being to a great extent, and of
vArinits descriptions, to trustees, to he try them ma-
naged for 15 years, at the expiration of which period
they were dirscted to divide the whole among his
next of kin who should be most deserving. The
trustees all died within the 15 }ears, and without
exercising the right of preference given them by the
will. Bills in Equity were, of course, tiled, and the
Master of the Rolls having given judgment in Li-
, your of certain persons who were the next of kin at
the time of the decease of the last surviving trustee,
Petitions of Appeal were presenter against this
judgment, to the Lord Chancellor, by the other
parties.
Mr. AGAR, Mr. FONBLANQUE, Mr. WINGFIELD.
and Mr. BELL, were this day heard for several of the
claimants, and the farther hearing was posTontAl to
a future day.

COURT OP KING'S BENCII, NOV. 1.
GO NI kZ V. TUNNO.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance up-
on goods on board the Spanish ship Union, of which
Messrs. Fissen, brothers, were owners, from Vera Cruz
to the H-avannah, and back to Cadiz or Malaga.—
The insurance was effected on the 21st February,
1810, at eight guineas per cent. ; and on the 27th of
July following, a permission was indorsed upon the
policy, and signed by the defendant, Er the ship to
change her destination from Old Spain to any port in
the United Kingdom, if it should be found expedient.
The ship sailed from Vera Cruz on the llth March,
and arrived at the Havannah about a month after-
wards, where she found great difficulty in procuring
a cargo for Old Spain, on account of the intelligence
from the Mother Country. Consequently a letter was
written to the Insurance Broker, dated 19th of June,
desiring him to alter the insurance, as the ship was
not to returq to Old Spain, but to some port in the
North, for which she could more easily procure a
cargo. She was more than a month taking in her
cargo at the Havannah, and waited three days for
convoy. In the gulph of Flor'da she met with a her
ricane, and was wreckeu WI the ‘LiLil of Oc:,ber, in
company with 150 other ships, five only of her crew
escaping. It was proved by the defendant that after
the 31st of August commenced the winter risks, for
which a higher premium than eight guineas was paid.
Mr. PARK, for the defendant, admitted the length
enment of the risk by the permission endorsed upon-
the policy ; but contended that it did not permit an
alteration of the terminus h quo of the insurance, which
was still from Vera Cruz and the Havannah, and
not directly from the Havannah, and that it was not
contemplated that the ship had not then her cargo
on board.

Lord EL4ENBOROUGH held that the underwriters
must be taken to have contemplated the possibility of
all the political changes which had taken place, and
which might take place, with relation to Spain, and
that they had consented to the ship's procuring a
cargo for England, if she could not get one for Spaip.
It had been proved that it was impossible to get a
cargo a: all for the latter country, and sooner for the
former. The Jury would say whether the waiting
Three days for convoy was not protected by the liberty
is the policy to join convoy.—They found their verdict
for the plaintiff.

SAM? V. REIM -
This was an action, under the sanr circumstances,
upon the ship.
Mr. PARK, for the defendant,'contended, that the
letter of the 19th of June did not cmivvy to tlic un-
derwriters such information as would induce them to
turn a summer risk into a winter one. The liberty
given by the policy was to touch and unload ; and if
the underwriters had ban informed that the ship
would have run the chance of lying five months at
t!ie Hay ttmt.th, they would never have undertaken
the risk ; they merely meant by the indorsement on
the policy to give the assured full opportunity of
changing their destination.

litrd'ELLENßoitouinu laid it down, that a policy of
insii ra ace contemplated the performance of the voyage
with all reasonable expedition ; but if a voyage were
protracted to a subsequent year, if this were dcne
toriafile, the underwriter would still be liable. He
remembered a case before Lord Kenyon, where a ship
not being able to put into a port in the north, actually
came back to Engl.ind, and tried again the next year,
and the assured having used no undue means to pro-
tract the risk, the underwriter was held still respon-
sible. No doubt the present became a winter risk ;
but if this were by no fault of the assured, but
by the extraordinary cccurrences of events, to which
the assured was not cr.ntributory, or over which
he had no contreul, he was still in a situation
to recover upon the policy. Upon the letter of the
19th of June, it appeared that the assured had abart.
Boned the idea of a cargo for Spain, but if -,ne had
turned tip he would still have ta%en it in ; and the de-
fendant's agreement was procured to p,Tinit one for
England, as late as the 27th of July, “sif it shoul I be
found expedient :" this was bearing upon a winter
risk, which it had been proved commenced on the
31st of August. It now appeared by the evidence
that the convoy for which th.: ship wkited ryas formed
by a mass of merchant ships themselve-, arid did not
c,,nsist of a ship or ships of war ; and for the collec-
tion of such a convoy it was necessary to wait—had
it been the case of armed ships, it might have been
said that waiting for was different fromjoiniag r but
there must necessarily be some time spent in collect.'
ing such a convoy, as this ship waited three days for.
The question was, whether the assured had abrised
this liberty, and made it the colour for delay ?—The
Jury found fur Cie Plaintiff.

NOVEMBER 3.
TILE KING V. TAYLOR.

This was an indictment against the Proprietor of
one of the slaughter-houses in Warwick-lane, for a
nuisance in obstructing the regular thoroughfare, and
in otherwise annoying the whole neighbourhood by
killing cattle, &c. The prixecution was instituted
by various inhabitants in Warwick-lane and War-
wick-square, who declared that they were constantly
and grievously annoyed by the continuance of the
nuisance, and that their property was very extensively
injured by it.
The ATTURNBY-GENERAL, in opor.iag the case,
stated, that the nuisance was so well knovn that it
did not require description ; for the italvliitaati wexe
not only positively unable to pats to their hunt%
and almost %Leached out of their habitations, but OK
lane was su occupied by Oil slaughterers, that it bad

almost ceased to be a ptthl:c thoronOtfare. Common
report might be sufliLient to ect::!)lkh the rdii,ance,
hut he would prove it by whole neigh-
baurbood, and having provid that tact, he should
hold himself entitled to t verdict. That such a nei.
wee was contrary to I.lw, he tlionwlit was heron I
dispute, hut he was tore the ,lure would be told from
the Bench that it se.ts contrary to law.
Mr. Crowder, of Warwick7square; Mr. Wheble,
and ?Nil-. Shirley, the distiller, of .Warwick.laae. -
proved the nuisance, statia4 that the lane was oftca
so completely impassable as to render it impotsibla
for them to get to their residences; and added, that
the smells alone which proceeded from the sl.sugh-
ter.houses constituted an extensive mid unbearablt
nuisance.

Lord ELLENII.:TIOUGII, interrupting the course of
the prosecution, when there were about thirty other
witnesses ready to prove the same facts, observed,
that according to the St itntes cii te subject, it was
illegal to slaughter cattle within any welled town,
Berwick and Carlisle excepted ; and Ciat the nuisance
and its illegality were tiierefore now beyond dispute.
But as the practice of killing cattle had continued in
Warwick-lane for so long a period as to.giee
most the appearance of a legal proceeding, and as
the proprietors of the sl 4ughter.houses would, no
doubt, acquiesce in altering their conduct, his Lord.
ship recommended that the matters in dispute should
be referred to some gentlemen connected with the
City, and competent to decide on the case, to SAT
what should be dyne.

The parties having consulted for some time agreed
to refer it to Mr. William Montagu, the City 6u2.
veycr, for him to say how the nuisances complaine I
of were to be reformed, and how the business of tbs
slaughterers should be ccnJacted in fitures and a
verdict c)f. Geiity was :ett,rned, subject to such re.
ference.