Star.
London, England, 1827-07-19 00:00:00

LEWIN 11. ASHBY.

This was an acti• n brought by the plaintiff, who is a
miller residing at Norwich, to recover fiom the de.
lendant, who is a banker and miller, at Staines, the
sum csl- 451. the price 01 twenty sacks of Bout, sold
upon credit by the plaintiff, to a person named Chip
tiolnie, a baker, at Bromley, in consequence of the de•
tendant having made a false representation respecting
Chisholme's character and circumstances.
The. A T TOMMY • GEN ERA L, with whom was Mr.
Cum; having stated tic case for the plaintiff, called
several witnesses, bum whose evidence it appeared, that
lerevious to the month of Chtober last the defendant

supplied Chisholme, who was his,tenam, with flour---
that Chishnime's rent being at that time in *near, and
he bring then indebted to the defendant in the sum of
601. a book debt, the defendant-refused to supple' hies
with any more goods upon credit. On the 25th cf
October last, Chisholm applied to a Mr. Mason, the
plaintiff's agent in •London, for twenty sacks of flour
upon credit, but Mason not knowing Chisholme tasked
him for a reference, and Chisholme having referred him
to the defendant, be saw the defendant at the house of e
Mr. Russell, in Tower-street, and asked him whether he
(Mason) would be safe in giving credit to Chisholme,
for twenty sacks of floor? The defendant replied that
he thought Chisholme to be a very honest and indus-
trious man—that he (defendant) had given hini flout'
upon credit--that Chisholme was not a rich man, but
that Mason would be safe in giving him twenty,sacksof
flour upon Cbisholme's paying ready money for ten
sacks. Mason accordingly agreed to let Chiskolme have
twenty sacks of flour at 455. pet sack—ten sacks to be
paid for on delivery. When the flour was delivered,
Chisholme r.fused to pay for the ten sacks, es.the car.;
man was not provided with a stamped receipt. In a
day or two after the 25th of October, Chisholme sold
those 20 sacks, and 17 or 18 other sacks of flour, lot
ready money, to a baker named Penfold, at 415,6 d. per
sack, removed his furniture from his house at Bromley,
and absconded, leaving the debt due to the plaintiff un-
paid. It also appeared, that the defendant had written
lettere to different millers and floor-dealers, stating, that
he believed Chisholme to be "aa honest; industrious
man; that he (defendant) had supplied Chisbolsne with.
flour, and was willing to supply him with more, but
that Chisholme did not continue to use the high-priced
flour (50s. per sack) which be (defendant) dealt in ;"-
and, upon this representation, Chisholme received credit
from those persons, some of whom he had never paid.
When Chisholme absconded, no part of the debt due to
the defendant previous to October, was liquidated.
Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant. He contended, there was nothing in evidence to
shew that the representation made by the defendant
as to his belief of Chisholmess honesty sad industry,
and of his (defendant's) willingness to give Chisholm*
further credit, if he had not declined using flour of
the superior quality and price sold by the defendant,
was untrue. It had been insinuated, that the defend-
ant's object in making • this representation respecting
Chisholme, was, to enable Chisholme to pay, out of
the proceeds of the goods which he might obtain upon
credit, the debt due from him to the defendant; but
that such was the object of the defendant, there was nos
a tittle of evidence; on the contrary, there was evia
dente that the defendant was the greatest loser by the
insolvency of Chisholme. Under those circumstances,
he submitted, there was no season why the defendant
should be called upon to pay for the flaur supplied by
the plaintiff to Chisholm; or if the defendant was
liable, that liability did not exceed the price of ten
sacks, for to that extent only did the defendant's repre-
sentation go.
Lord TINTIRDEN, in summing up, said, that if the
defendant had not knowingly made a false replesento
tion, he was not liable in this action. He was of opinion
that the defendant, by concealing from the plaintiff's
agent facts within his (defendant's) knowledge, and
which ought to have led him to suspect that Chisholme
was in Insolvent circumstances, had not made such a
representation as ought,- under such circumstances, to
have been made ; and if the Jury should be of opinion
that the plaintiff's agent had given credit to Chisholm,
upon the faith of the representation made by the de,
fendant, then their verdict would be for the plaintiff for
the whole amount claimed.

The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaind
tiff—Damages 451.

TRAIN v. BINNITT ♦ND OVUM
This was an action brought by the plaintit, who wai
a private mariner on board the Phoenix, &nth Sea
whaler, to recover from the defendants, who are chi
owners of the said vessel; his proportion of the value of
a cargo of oil, procured during a voyage to and. twirl
the South Seas. in the years 1825 and 1826.
From the evidence for the plaintiff it appeared that
he acted as a mariner on board the Phcenix during the
voyage in question ; that the officers and mariners, in-
stead of receiving any fixed wages, were to receive cer•
lain proportions of the proceeds of the ,cargo, of which
the plaintiff's share, after making the usual deductions,
would be about 431. During the passage home, a sea•
man, named Tibby, and another, having been " sky.
linking," by throwing water over each other, one morn•
ing before eight o'clock, and whilst they were washing
the sides of the vessel were reprimanded by the Captain.
At eight o'clock the watch to which Tibby belonged
went below to get breakfast, and, after breakfast, the _
Captain ordesed Tabby to finish the work which he bad
left unfinished at eight o'clock, but Tabby refused to
resume work until the next watch (twtive o'clock) and
he was ordered to go below by the Captain, who said,
" You shall lose all benefit of the voyage, and so Shall
several others." The crew, who were present, asked
the Captain to sure whom be meant by several others?
but the Captain refused to do so; and several of the
men, among whom was the plaintiff, having declined
doing their duty until the Captain would gave the ex-
planation required, the Captain ordered them below,
land said that he could do without them, as he himself,
with the assistance of the doctor, some other seamen,
who did not join in demanding an explanation, and
the passengers, could navigate the vessel during the
homeward voyage. The men did not resume their duty
I for a day or two, and they then addressed a letter to
the Captain, expressing their willingness to return to
their duty without explanation, provided Tibby would
be allowed to resume his duty, or upon the Captain's
eating whom he meant by the words to several others;
but the Captain refused to comply with the terms stated
is the letter, and the men d:d not do any duty until the
ship arrived in the Downs, where the Captain took on
board four additional bands to navigate the vessel up to
London. Whilst the vessel lay in the Downs, the weather
became very stormy, and she having been driven upon
a sand bank, the Captain ordered all bands to assist in
getting the vessel off the sand bank. and the men, among
whom was the plaintiff, having obejsrd this order, got
the ve.sel off the sand bank, and continued to do their
duty until the vessel arrived in the London Docks.
Mr. Gt/RNZT, for the def. Want, *Omitted, that as
the plaintiff had, by disobeying the Qrders of the Cap-
tain, violated the ship's articles, which provided, " that
the mariners must obey their superior Officers, and that
any Officer or mariner who might refuse to obey the
orders of his superior Officer, or neglect' to do his duty
Juring the voyage, by day or by night, should be ex-
cluded from all benefit of the voyage," be
titled to maintain this action.

Tne Learned Counsel put in the ship's
taining provisions to the above effect, rad

tit

t

»Mlll* DOI CO. i
11
attic's'', ;Os.
called a sea-