Star.
London, England, 1803-12-28 00:00:00

TUNNO IP. CHRISM;

This was an 2E:lion on a policy nf infitrance nn the
thip Juno, from Charleflown, which was captured in
her pathtge to this count: y.
Mr. Guess, fur the plaintiff, flared, that it was
purely A legal queition there two fails being admi•-
:et!, that fhc was dillingoilded AS au American ill :he
policy, and that fhe was condemned as not an Ameri.
c.ot by the French Court of Admiralty. On this lall
Ft (pond, the tinder writer held hiinfeif n't liable, his
wt i• tcn contraa bciuq cn American and the
dei beiny eleterntined t,t he otherwife in 4 inte.gll
(.7,1!t. " cafe (bud tie Learned Courtin) of
ll d and Aqdrtim pr c;11-Is appiits to the pi efent•"
Lord kNIIGMAJC•i:.—Doct ttct the cafe of Lt)

thian and Henclerfon apply ? I hold the fentenee of
the Foreign Court coticlufive.—Verdict for the de-
fendant.
Mr. Gives fetid, it should be entered on the record,
and the Bill ot exceptions,. that it might be argued,
fhould it be tendered, as it was a caule in which the
Americans were conccrncd, and they were anxious to
have it formally decided.

MICE:4IIKit 27 - C9PPINCER-AND CO.V. JOHNSON.
This was an anion to recover the value of a cargo
of clover, difpofed of by the Defendaat under the
following circumtlances The houfe .1 Adler and
Co. at Rouen, configned a cargo of clover to Cop.
pioger and Co. in London, defiring them to get an
infurance upon the cargo, and to make the necer
fary entries at the cultom houfe. The Plaintiffs did
this, and accepted bills to cover the value configned
to them. When they had proceeded thus far, they
received frefh advises from Adler at Rotten, defir-
ing them not to accept the bilis for the clover, as it
was fold through the Defendant to Betterton and
Co. The Plaintiffs infided the confignors at Rouen
could not change the confignment after they had
accepted the bills, and that they had a right to Te-
-1 ceive the cargo ;—at lead to the infurance money,
the faetorage, and a commiffion of two and a quarter
per cent. upon the cargo for brokerage, the tame as
if they had difpofed of it.
Mr. GARRUW contended the Plaintiffs had no
right to the commiffion they demanded ; and that it
was important foreigners fhould in future know
upon what grounds they were dealing with Britilli
favors. Was it to be ito.lled that the Plaintiffs
were to have a commiffion upon a file they never
effaled, and upon a fadorage that never came to
their pollefLon ? Or was it to be Paid a confignor
was not to difpofe of his property, becaufe he had
called upon a broker to find him a purchafer ? The
Defendant had profered to the Plaintiffs any in-
demnity they thould think fit to cover their accept-
ances ;—No, they would accept of nothing but the
cargo. But what is the cafe (laid the Learned
Counkl) ? a confignor intends fending a cargo to
the London market, and writes to his agent to that
effeet ; I agree that agent is entitled to commiffion,'
if he ails. The confignor, for reafons of his own,
changes his agent, and fends to the Defendant, who
difpofes of the cargo agreeable to his inftruftions.—
I agree the Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid for the
trouble of making the prime entry at the Cullom-
Houfe, alto for the infutance :—and if the law is,
that a confignor, after writing to his agent, cannot
change that agent, though he fhould know him to
be in the jaws of bankruptcy, then are the;Plaintiks
entitled to.their commitlion."

Mr. Barnwell, one of the Special Jury. remarked,
that it was a rule, when a cor.fignor took his cargo
out of the hands of a confignee, to allow halt the
regular commiflion.
lord Ettsusoanur; H obferved, that when a con.
fignor authorized his agent to make infurance up-
on a cargo, to enter it at the Cullom Houle, and
fhould aattally draw bills upon that agent for the
amount of the cargo, he had an uncountermandable
right to receive and fell the cargo fo configned.—
But this, continued his Lot dfhip, is only where the
confignee is made liable, by accepting bills. He
thought the Plaintiffs in that condition, and that
they were entitled to charge their conuniffion in ad-
dition to the infurance, &c.

Verdia for the Plaintiffs—Damages 2481. The
Nies undertaking to give up their acceptances.
COHEN V DOBREI. _

This war, an action to recover 7001. the amount
of feveral bills of Exchange the Defendant had un-
dertaken to accept.
Mr. ER's°. s faid, the cafe lay in the narrows&
compafs. The Plaintiff was a merchant at Gaeta.
fey, and had agreed to fupply a perti.n, named
Gilbert. with a quantity of fpirits, the Defendant un-
dertaking to guarantee the payment. When the
goods were on heard, Gilbert wrote the Defendant
not to accept bills on his account ;—but the fpirits
having been furnilhed on the Defendant's guaran-
tee, he could not go from his refponfibility.
Mr. ERSKINE °Nerved, that if Mr. Gilbert chore
to fmuggle, the Plaintiff was to be paid for his goods.
Mr. Glass laid, that Mr. Desbree was of opinion

Mr. Cohen ilioula he paid for his goods, and that
he had been compelled to defend the anion in con- i
ierprenee of Mr. Gilbert's forbidding the acceptances,
as it was•the only thing to efiabliflr his right of anion
againlt Gilbert, if he was compelled to pay. 4' Not-1
withllanding this, (laid Mr. Gibbs), Mr. Cohen
could not recover, he having aflitled the fmuggling
tranfanion, by flinging the calks, and aiding in the
illegal fhipment."
„Cord ELL es aoaouon faid, the only quellion was,
whether the Plaintiff had affilled the contraband in•
tentions of Gilbert ? The law laid, that no importa
thin of fpirits could take place in lefs veffels than Go
gallons ; the spirits, in the shipment alluded to, were
tlung in i 6 quarts. The Plaintiff was bound to
prove it a valid fide ; but, if it was for contraband
purpofes, it was not a valid Cale, and the Plaintiff
mull lofc his demand, that ia, if the Jory thought
him privy to the intention.—Verdin for Defendant.

k4t HT 0. JOHN VIN AND THONLIV.

The Plaintiff is a Cheefemonger, and the Affignee
of a perfou named MaiTey. The Dzfendants are
Merchants, and in that charaeler are Agents to fome
creditors of Maffey's in Ireland. This cafe very
nearly refemblcd the 'ail we have glazed.
Mr. GARIVIW, for the Plaintiff, laid that the De-
fendants in this cafe had, in the appropriate phrafc,
fasept him clean; for they had taken every thir g that
was caeable of being conve}ed from the plemires.
The dates of the Bankruptcy, and of the clearance
being proved by the ftrvants of the B trlctupt, the
Jury found a—Vetdiet fur the Planitiff, iyo7l.
t4s. ad.