Star.
London, England, 1825-10-25 00:00:00

ANOTHER ACCOUNT.

LONGFORD, Ocr. 20.—Before six o'clock this morn-
ing, nearly the entire of that ancient and magnificent
building, Castle Forbes, the residence of Lord Viscount
Formes, M.P. for this county, was reduced to ashes.—
It is not precisely ascertained how the calamity origi-
nated ; but it w.s discovered by means of a favour ice
dog, which his Lordship generally keeps in his sleep-
ing room at night; the poor animal awoke his Lord-
ship, by pulling the clothes off his bed, and making
the most pitiful cries. When his Lordship stepped out
of bed he was enveloped in smoke—he gave the
alarm, and by the exertions of the household and the
neighhouring People, the whole of the furniture and
the library (which is one of the most valuable in Ire-
land) was saved. No lives were lost, nor did any
accident occur. It is generally believed that the fire
originated in his Lordship's span apartment.
After the above accounts of this melancholy occur-
rence were in print, the Dublin uurrespondeut received
the following communicati.-n, which may be relied on
for its authenticity.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM A GENTLEMAN IN
THE VICINITY.

Tharsday morning, between two and three o'clock, the wind
blowing very strung at N. W. the funnel of the kitchen chimney,
which, it is now supposed, must have been for several days on fire
unobserved, burst at the very top story of the house into the room
in which Lord Forbes was fast asleep. The flames forced in with
such violence and rapidity that he must have been inevitably burnt
in his bed, bad not the sagacity of a favourite spaniel dog, of the
poodle kind, that lay in the next room to his Lordship, and of which
the door was fortunately open, jumps upon' him, and by exertions
the most extraordinary awoke him t- The story is miraculous, but
true !—Lord Forbes had the presence of mind first to fire a shot, in
order to arouse and alarm the servants, then to remove tslbs. of gun-
powder,: and afterwards secure a large chest of family papers, &c.
Much of the smaller furniture has been saved, but the larger, with
a great msny valuable books, pictures, and paintings, of which there
was a rare and magnificent collection, are, I fear, destroyed. I
was there yesterday morning. Lord Forbes was cool and manly.
I was, I confess, so affected that I could hardly speak to him. He
seemed sensible of it, and shook me most cordially by the hand. Of
that noble, venerable, and respectable old building, or rather pile,
which gallantly held out against the Irish in the Rebellion of 1641,
nothing remains but the walls. It was of great magnitude—the fury
ol:\ the fire irresistible. It was little more than twelve o'clock when
I sikw it, yet had it not been for the various occupations of the mid-
titudearound, it would have appeared to have been uninhabited for
half a tantury ! The loss must be immense, and in some respects
irreparable! We are all here exceedingly distressed, and so indeed
is every individual in the country."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, OCTOBER 24.
lIIPORTANT TO MASTERS ON SHIPS.
STRONG V. HART AND OTHERS.

The Arroftaxv-Gaaartar. said, this was an action to
recover 4641. for freight of a vessel named the Atlantic.
The defendants were the firm of Hart and Company,
carrying on business in London, and also the firm of
Hunter and Company. The action was originally
brought against Hart and Company, but that firm said,
you are wrong in suing us alone, because we are con-
cerned with Hunter and Company. The plaintiffs had
then to abandon their action, and bring it against the
parties jointly. The Atlantic was at St. John's, New-
foundland, with a cargo of dried cod fish. Two agents
of the defendants, who were also there, became shippers
of the cargo. A letter was seat to the Captain, in which
the defendants stated, that having become joint shippers
of the cargo, they begged he would endeavour to con-
sult with their friends, Payne and Noble, at Oporto,
AS to the course he was to follow. Should he discharge
the cargo at Oporto, which they thought very probable,
their friends would pay the height according to the
bill of lading. •
The Atlantic sailed from St. John's with the fish, and
when she arrived at Oporto, Noble and Payee were not
prepared to receive the cargo. They therefore desired
him to go to Bilboa, and at that port he delivered the
cargo to a Spanish house, of the name of Aitcher and
Bazzozabel. The fish having been delivered to the
consignee. the Captain, who is one of the plaintiffs,
took a bill for the freight upon a person named Ugarti,
in London. The bill was dishonoured, and when ap-
plication was made to Hart and Company, the shippers
of the cargo, the latter said, of No, you should not have
delivered your cargo without payment of freight in cash
from the consignee." The Attorney-General was per-
suaded the Jury, upon the law and merits of the case,
would find a verdict for the plaintiffs. The above
statement was proved by witnesses.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendants, contended, first,
that his clients were not joiutly liable : and, secondly,
that the Captain had forfeited all right to recover by
taking a bill of exchange for his freight instead of cash.
By the general rule of law, the master of a vessel had a
lieu on the cargo for his ft eight, and he might refuse
to deliver one ounce of the cargo without he received
payment. The Captain was not obliged to take a bill
of the Spanish house at Bilboa, and it by doing so he
had given up his own hex, he could not come against
the shippers. The question was, whether the bill of
exchange had been forced upon him? There was no
evidence to prove he was obliged to take it, and as the
shippers wete not parties to the bill they were not liable.
Mr. MA ItitYATT, as Counsel fee Hunter and Co. con-
tended, that the consignees of the goods were to pay
the freight, and not the shippers. He was also pre-
pared to chew that it was the custom of the Spanish
trade at Oporto and Bilboa to pay height in cash, and
not in bills.

Two witnesses, who had been several years in the
Spanish trade, proved that freigat was usually paid in
ca•h by the consignees.
The LORD CHU/ JUSTICE dirf ctei the Jury first to
see whether were was en,,tigh in the tr Insac von to make
the defendants joint contractor. The p.incipal feature
in the case arose out of the letter, vdtich formed an
important part of the contract. The defendants were
not in a general partnership together, but they might
have made themselves jointly partners in a pat iicular
►ransaction. The I...ained Judge then adverted to the

.

letter to theaCaptain, in which they c .117 d themselves
joint shippers. The question was, whether they did nn'.
make themselves jointly interested in the adventure?
If they did, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Then
there was artoth,o- point. When the Captain reached
Oporto, Payne and Noble desitei him to go to Bilboa.
In pursuancl of that- aJvice he delivered the cargo.
It was true that the master of a ship was not hound to
part with his cargo unless paid his freight. He had a
right to detain the cargo until he received payment ;
but the qoestit.n was, whether he might not, under
certain circumstances, part with it, and seek his freight
from those who employed him ? In this case the
Captain was told to place his cargo in the hands of
Bazzoz 'be!, at Bilboa, and he did so. The custom
was to deliver the cargo and seek payment of freight.
If it had been proved that he might have had cash, and
that he took a bill for his own accommodation, the de-
fendants would have been entitled to a verdict, but that
was not proved to be the cam The fact most probably
was, that he took a bill because he could not get money.
If the Jury thought there was evidence of a joint con•
tract, and that the Master of the ship took a bill's the
best thing he could do, their verdict ought to for
the plaintiff.

Tile Jury foun.l for the plaintiff—Damages 464/.
BRAIN V. HARDEN AND OTIIERS.

This was an action of trover for tnenty puncheons
of French brandy, which it was alleged the defendants
had wrongfully converted to their own use.—Plea,
Not Guilty.
The plaintiff is a wine and spirit brAer, and the de-
fendants are agents for a Fte.,ch house at Cognac. In
the begin&tig of February last, Messrs. Matson and
°Co. wine and spirit merchants, of Tower-street, pur-
chased of the defendants, as agents of the Cognac
house, twenty puncheons of brandy, and upon receiv-
ing the bills of lading, gave a bill of exchange for the
amount. On the 20th of February, Matson and Co.
re.old the brandy in the plaintiff, a t an advance of price,
and on the same day the plaintiff accepted a bill of
exchange in their favour for the amotmt. At that time
Matson and Co. were indebted to the plaintiff in the
sum of 5,0001. On the 21st of February, Matson and
Cu. stopped payment, and in a day or two afterwards
the plaintiff was in the like predicament. When the
brandy arrived, the defendants, having received in-
structions to that effect from their principals, stopt itin
transitu. Under these circumstances the present action
was brcibght, and the question was, whether the de-
fendants had a right to stopple brandy in transitu?
Mr. SCARLET?, Mr. DENMAN, and Mr. TINDAL, for
the plaintiff, contended that the action was maintain.
able, anci they cited the case of Lickbarrow v. Mason,
2 T. It. 63. where it was held that the consignor of
goods may stop them in transitu, before they get into
the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of
the latter ; but if the consignee assign timbals of lading
to a third person, for a valuable consideration, the right
of the consignor as against such assignee is divested.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. F. POLLOCK,con•
tra, did not deny the principle of law laid down in the
case cited, bat they contended, that the sale to the
plaintiff by Matson and Co. was not bona fide, and for
valuable consideration, and the!efore the consignor's
right to stop in transitu, remained still in force.

The Loan Cuter JUST= charged the Jury. that if they were
of opinion the sale to the plaintiff was not bona fide, but fraudulent,
he had no title to the brandy as against the original consignors, who
had not been paid the value of the goods.
The Jury immediately found a •erdict for the defendants.