Star.
London, England, 1817-04-17 00:00:00

Dad beetronee certlffed at theCtrattrin-House as
iteinglawrfatily imported, a party was suffered to im-
Ileach the:quality of the merchandise' sold under such.
certificate. If there had been no intervention on the
part of Government to impeach the legality of the
importation, it was not compete:t for third persons
to raise, such an objection, the Government itself
h vine, in fact, decided that the article W4E not con-
trahaed. There appeated to be no fraud on the part
of the plaintiff in seiltug the silk to the defendatit,
and it the latter were allowed to set up the present
defence, there would be no security for commercl2l
transactions. Supposing this defence were permitted'
to prevail, an action would lie against the/Custom.;
House Officers for making a false certificate, and
they would be liahle not only for the amount of the
articles certified, but for all the expense of the pre.
sent litigation. But his Lordship could not suffer
such a defence to be made, alter the commodity had
been certified asjegal. The presumption was, that
the silk was legally imported, and• unless positive
evidence was given to the contrary, he mist hold
that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. Rtcuaansou for the defen-
d int said, they were in a condition to prove in tact
that the silk in question was precisely of the descrip.
tion prohibited by Act of Parliament ; and they ac-
coailinglv called witnesses, to whom the defendant
had sold this silk, to prove that it was of the descrip:
tion called Italian tram. Some of it had been work-
ed up by them in the Manufactory of trimmings, ae.
Luri F.LcaNnontsuou again interposed, and said,'
that as the silk hadbeen srld by the plaintiff to the
Jara-dant Without fraud, 'it wet imperative upon the
latter vcrhave ebjeciVd to its quality on the instant.
It was sold as legally imported silk, and it the de-
fendant knew it to be oi a different curacter, he
shoUld immediately have taken the oOjecti in, and re-
tained it. Great part of the article had now 11,,en
worked up in manufactured goods, and his Lordship
would not suffer the legality of the article to he agi.
retied. after it had 'seised the inspection of the Cus-
tom-house. The objeetion came too late, and the
defendant was concluded by his not making it in the
first instance. Verdict for the plaintiff • •
ire TAME V. NONHaII.

• This was an action of assumpait upon a policy of
insurance on the ship Maria de Levee; at and froth
Gijon to Looduri: Loss,-s-perils of the seas. Into-
test. in the widow Maria de Lorre, De Imeva and
Sons. Policy dited 14th November, 1812, and sub-
aitified b'Y'the defendant, for 8150; add the action
*Os brouglictoyecover a total loss, deducting salvage
of 'oboist.%) per Cent.
- The 'circumstances of the case were these : the
*Wow, be iineva, and Sons, had per:hailed the ship
in 'qiiestiOn 141812, for the English :tide, and she,
was chartered•for the vortge;' with 'a cargo of Spa-
rtieh nuts from Ginn to Loudon. is the month ot
October,. the ship left her port of lading for Loodont
But b-fore she lbSt sight of land she'ettcousitered a
heavY gale of wind, and although she was a perfectly
new ship, and had only performed One- short voyage
before, she became so 'leaky, in toniegibente of her'
straining, that she was obliged the neat day; in
11) =
preserve the lives of the crew, to•put kite
clued; a small sea-port town, about twelve ledge*"
from Corunna, where she found it was impossible to
procure sufficient repairs to enable her to tesollter her
voyage. It was admitted that if the vessel .could
hare gone to Corunna, she could bole bbtalbed fht
weans of repair; but in consequence of th 4
she had Sustained, she could not be carried to that
pbrt. - The owners had not abandoned to the under-'
writers for a total loss, nor aim any eilideoce gives:
of what became of her afterwards. But it was at.
4lebtited to die*, that by the laws of Spain, when.
Wool was driven into port apparently a wreck, the,
Ooltatituted Authorities of the place took the veitel
oitt of the cootroul of the crew, and -dispaed of her
redlining the produce to the owners.
Lord Et was of opinion, that it was
msto ease of total loss. It was finally agreed that
dei.eseespe the plaintiff wig entitled to receive, be-
yond what was paid into Court, should be referred
to arbitration.

' APHIS. 16.—GRAHAM AND CO. W. DIOITIM.
This was tin. action (et, money had and received by
the defendant to chi plaintiff's use.
The case was this, the plaintiffs were therchants
residing at Liverpool, and had Consigned 5,59.1 bides
ao Meuse. Pilgrim lad Betty, their usual brokers in
Liadott, to be sold on their account. Before the
Otitis were sold the plaintifftdrew upon the brokers
ea anticipation of the proceeds, and they accepted.
After which the goods were pledged by Pilgrim and
Batty to the defendant, upon whom they drew bills
arerthange for the amount. These bills were after.
wards duly ratid; but those which were given by
Pilgrim and t y tti the plaintiffs were dishonoured
in conitoueneirol their 'stopping payment, -and owls-
Leipeot bettkitptey.' The present action was shore-
line brought againte the defendant on they groftd
this Pilgrim and Batty had' 'no. sight to pledge die
goods of their principals wididot 'the consent of the
.
latter. 44..
Lord-aoursottouttel raid With the plaintiffs, who
aseordingly had a verdict for 02,999.
• - WILDUAII W. *Login% •
nis was an •action upon a contract which-the de.
fondant bad entered into with the plaintirs broker,
Car the perceare-of 315 toss of head miner and
fii,,erns oil, at. 11811:1111. Bd. per tons innocaning in
/aloe to *boat ANA&
. The case was this, a brofter•named ;nil icatras-
pluyed by. the plaistiff to .soli the goods in questions.
which had anived•in .the ship*Wildrnans which-oho
the gorily ship with simile, coaissoditids thee ,at
mato. The defendant entered into s contract for"
the purchase et thi whole enig. at ite9 flks to
be tabs away at the end isktimirtfeis days and paid
fog by bilk at foul months: When the defendant
isemschsliodan fee his arceinatices at the god of
wolasitk ha refused' to ratify his bargain, id
of the arrival of another ship, -galled tbil
voisitt ?Natio nf 'the room kind, whkh pro-
desipg4 is ossideorpe Mat olioothe oil soreiket. the
woo getitifis:oss *Wields sold by the plaintiff at
pay& giesieer, .and .151 - the diffetetfte between thy
pineeeds
g Z ufrisepal-rwilroice price, the preimg.,
weir eft •
: ThA • 11111101kai Ile flytet•that.the contract bad fiat
beea i4lgilimered *wart the defendant; bet the
Pere • Itudti: 841 ho eireninstanbes nf &ream, feud
doer verdict Ociaprehialigs damages 09,878.