Star.
London, England, 1811-08-01 00:00:00

JULY M...-.lioXAlf d. TITOUPSOW.
This was an action to recover back the sum of
£1660, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the
purchase of a vessel named the Crescent, which was
sold by public auction, under pretence that a fraudu-
lent representation had been made by the person em-
ployed by the defendant to shew the vessel and the
state in which she was.
On the part of the plaintiff, it was stated that the
vessel, which, at the time of the sale, was lying in the
Surrey canal, was deep in ballast, and filled with
lumber, in order that the faults in her bottom and
keel might be the better concealed, by her lying deep
in the water. To prove these facts, Mr. St. Barbe
was called, who stated, that he was employed in the
sale of the Crescent. She was sold by public auction,
and was to be taken with all faults. He went on
board her previous to the sale. She had a great
quantity of ballast on board ; and there was some
lumber in her ; in fact, she was in the same state in
which she came from the Mediterranean, where she
had been in the transport service. The lumber pre-
vented her bottom being easily seen ; but he had no
reason to suppose it had been placed there to prevent
her being fairly looked at.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, from the evidence of
this witness, it did not appear that the ballast or lum-
ber had been put there artificially. She was exposed
for sale, to be taken with all faults. If there appeared
to be any difficulty in examining her, it should only
have served to make them inclined to buy more cau-
; tiously. The plaintiff, however, had made a foolish
1 bargain ; and now he seemed to think the Jury would
be still more foolish, and give him damages for his
) folly.—Plaintiff nonsuited.
SMITH, ST. BARRE, AND CO. V. COLES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who
are ship-brokers in London, against George and
Charles Coles, who were also brokers, to recover a
sum of money received by them for the sale dif Danish
prizes, under the following circumstances :
At the time when the Danish prizes were seized in
the ports of this country, it was thought proper by
Government to appoint Commissioners to superintend
the sale of them when condemned. These Commis-
sioners
found it prudent to employ brokers to dispose
of the property, and account to them for the pro-
ceeds. They accordingly, on the Ist December 1807,
entered into an agreement with certain brokers for
that purpose ; and amongst these were the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Smith, Martin, St. Barbe, and Co. Messrs.
Campbell and Co. and Messrs. Kymer and Mactag-
gart, and Messrs. T. Coles and Co. This agree-
ment was signed by all of these Gentlemen, and they
thereby rendered themselves jointly and severally re-
sponsible to those Commissioners for the value of the
property they should so dispose of'. In addition to
that, they afterwards had a meeting, at which they
passed a resolution, by ohich they engaged to ren-
der themselves responsible to each other for their
respective firms, and to make good any default
that might arise during tile continuance of the said
contract. Whenever a vessel seas condemned, the
Commissioners handed the sentence of condemnation
to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Smith, Martin, St. Barbe,
and Co. who acted as the chief agents, and, aczord-
ing to convenience or agreement, sent the necessary
documents to one or other of the houses, who were to
act with them in this business ; and the house to
which it was so handed were to send an account of
the proceeds, and pay the amount to the Commis.
sioners whenever the prizes were disposed of. In the
months of August and November, 1808, in pursu-
ance of these agreements, the condemnations of the
vessels called the Hercules and Alancion, were han-
ded by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Thomas Coles and
Co. for the purpose of their disposing of them, and,
in the regulat course of the business, they (the defers-1
darts) should have accounted to the Commissioners I
for the proceeds, amounting to £,3tB 17s. 2d. ; but,
although they had succeeded in disposing of the
prizes, they had never so accounted. Messrs. Smith
and Co. the plaintiffs, knowing they were answerable
to all the rest of the brokers, thought themselves
bound to make good that sum to the Commissio-
GOLDSMID V. LAbiOTT. ners, and they now, by this action, sought to re-
This was an action against the underwriters upOn cover the amount from the defendants, whose duty
a policy of insurance on the cargo of the Prussian
it was to have paid it. The honse of Thos. Coles and
This was one of the causes called Baltic risks.
ship Augusta, at and from London to the Baltic.— Co.
had dissolved partnership, upon the death of the
"
father of the defendants, in July, 1808, and the same
The vessel and her cargo arrived sale at Stralsund,
firm was afterwards carried on by William Coles, one
where she was laid under embargo ; and, having sus-
of the former partners, along with a younger brother,
rained some damage on her voyage, part. of her car-
of the name of Frederick, while the two other brothers,
go, consisting of hides, was taken out and disposed
George and Charles Coles, commenced business toge-
of, to pay the expences of the necessary repairs. She
they under the firm of Coles and Brothers. The disso-
was finally taken possession of by the French, and the
lution of the original copartnership appealed in The
cargo has not since been heard of. The Jury found
Gazelle of the 6th August, and was also notified to the
a verdict for the plaintiff.
HAGADEN V. VAUGHAN. friends of the parties by circular letters—and in Febru-
ary, 1809, notice was given to the Commissioners that
This also was an action on a policy of insurance
the partnership was dissolved, and an application made
against a Baltic risk, on the Prussian ship Amelia
to them by William Coles, soliciting a continuance of
and cargo, at and from London to Gottenburgh.—
the employment, which application was answered by
The vessel arrived in Swinemunde roads, but, not
the Secretary to the Board, upon the 9th of that month,
being able to land her cargo there, she proceeded to
intimating their acquiescence in his request as to the
a port higher up the Baltic, also under the Prussian
re-appointment of his firm to the employment of bro-
Government. Here a Prussian military force came ker to the Commissioners.
on board, and took out part of her cargo; and after- , In support of these circumstances, Mr. Heighton,
wards a French privateer took possession of her, re- Secretary to the Danish Commissioners ; Mr. For-
moved her Captain and three men from her, and put
eusson, who was a clerk in the house of Thomas
a prize-master and ten men on board her, who took
Coles and Sons ; and a Mr. Symes, a clerk to the
her and her cargo into Stralsund. plaintiffs, were called.
The defence set up was, that the ship and cargo
were the property of an alien enemy, she belonging In defence it was argued, that the letter received
by William Coles front the Danish Commissioners,
to a Hamburgh merchant, and Hamburgh being un-
tier the controul of the French ; that the plaintiffs consenting to his re-appointment, rested the respon-
sibility upon his hotise alone, and excluded the new
were not entitled to recover. firm of Coles and Brothers, entered into by George
The Attorney-General, for the plaintiffs, put in the
licence, which was directed to A. B. and such other and William Coles ; and that the plaintiffs were fully
aware of the dissolution of co.partnership that had
neutral merchants.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, these could not be con- taken place ; but they, deeming the defendants more
responsible than William Coles, now made this en-
sidered as neutral merchants.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then put in an Order ot
e deavour to recover the amount of their advance from
these other brothers, who were latterly entirely un-
Council, dated February 26, which directed all Cap- connected with the transaction. The payment made
tains of ships of war not to molest vessels sailing with by the plaintiffs could not be said to have been upon
licences bound to any port, unless such as were ene- account of George and Charles Coles, as the Commis-
my's ports, or ports absolutely in the possession of the sioners had released them from all responsibility by
enemy. their letter of the 9th of February.
Lord ELIANSOROUGH said, this was merely a di-
Mr. William Coles deposed as to his having had a
rection, by his Majesty in Council, to the Common- conversation with Mr. Martin, one of the plaintiffs,
dens of his own vessels; but he was of opinion it by
relative to the dissolution of the partnership, and his
no means went to render an insurance upon vessels re-appointment to the office of Broker to the Commis-
bound to such ports a legal insurance. If,.therefore, sinners; and as also to their subsequent transactions
the Jury should be of opinion that, at the time the relative to the Danish Prizes—which shewed their
policy was done, Hamburgh was under the dominion acquiescence as to his sole responsibility.
of France, they would find for the defendant. Vera, L
ord ELLENDOROUGH thought that the Danish
dict for the defendant. Commissioners had, by their re-appointment of Wil•

LAW INTSLLICRArat

ADMIRALTY COURT, JULY 31.

Mary, Miller master ; and Sarah, Gill master.—
These ships and cargoes were ptoceeded against in
the Vice-Admiralty Court of Jamaica, for importing
certain commodities from St. Croix, where the ships
and cargoes were finally condemned under the Act of
15 Charles IL—From this sentence an appeal was
prosecuted to the High Court of Admiralty, where
the sentence was affirmed.

Primera Verde, Yalding master.—lt appeared that
this vessel, laden with gum, had got a-ground in a
dangerous situation in the River Senegal, and was
released by the exertions of four men, who came in a
boat to her assistance.—The Court decreed them
seloo, and expellees, and rejected the claims of the
other salvors.