Star.
London, England, 1828-04-17 00:00:00

GUPPY V. STEPH Via.

The LORD CHANCELLIIR delivered his judgment in
the appeal of Guppy v. Stephens. confitming th..: decree
of the Vice Chancellor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Gottaam, Atm 111.
ULLOCIC AND OTHERS V. RIDDELIEN.

This was an action on a warranty on a quantity of
wine sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs, who are
London wine merchants. It appeared that in April,
1825, the defendant, who is a foreigner, residi 1g at.
Lubeck, wrote to the plaintiffs that tie had a qnaruity rsf
the very finest Damlliac, of the vintage of 1622, suited
to the London market, and that the price of it was 161.
per hogshasil; The plaintiffs, in answer, desired to have
the wine sent _over, provided it was of tee quality de-
scribed: Tire defendant accordingly sent it, having
shipped it at Hamburg's, to which place' it as sent by
land from:Lubeck. On its arrival in London, about
the middle of June, it was put into a cellar in the Lon-
don docks, having been previously, for a short time,
placed in a shed. It was not tasted until October, and
then it was fund to be in a state of hie fermentation.
Thedefendant was appriz:d of this; and it being found,
after some time, to be getting worse and %%one, tl e
plaintiffs at length sold it for a very small sum, some-
thing less than the dock charges and other ezpeises in-
curred. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs now
sought to recover the difference between the sum tI by
had paid for the wine (36 hogshead.), and that which
they had sold it for, together with the charges for
freight, keeping it in the Loridon docks, and other inci-
dental expenses.
Several eminent wine brokers were called to speak
to the unsoundness of the wine. They stated that it
was of a most inferior quality, and gave it as their opi.
nion that it could never have been genuine Batillia4 as
it had been described to be.

For the defendant it was contended, that at the time
the wine was shipped at Hamburgh, it was of the quality
stated, and that it had been spoiled by being, after its
arrival in London. placed in the shed, and kept there
for some time during the hot weather. To prove that,
it answered the description given in the warranty at the
time it was shipped at Hamburgh, a foreigner, named
Stahm, a wine merchant i f Lubeck, se as called. He
stated that he was present whin the defisndant selected
the wine at I3ourdesuz. lc uas genuine Baulliac—
strong bodied, and was .hipped froth Bourdeaux ditect
to Lubeck, *here it arrived in April, 182 S, in very
good condition, and was placed in a good dry cellar
until it was sent off to Hamburgh to be shipped to the
plaintiffs.
Lord TR/MENDEN. said, the question was-.-whether
the wine was of the qVality described at the tinsel' was
shipped at Hamburgh? If the Jury were of opinion
that it was, their verdict must be for the defendant ;
but if they thought otherwise, the plaintiffs were entitled
to their verdict.

The Jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages, 6371.14 s
VIG3 V. BURGE.

This was an action of trover by the Commissioners
under the Paving Act (suing in the name of their clerk,
Mr. Vigo) .to tecover the value of a quantity of paving
stones.
The defendant, it appeated, was a contractor under
the St. Katharine's Duck Company, and had removed
the stones in question for the purpose t.f making cer-
tain excavations specified in the contract; Ily the Paving
Act, the Dock Company ate bound to pay to the
Commissioners the v,lue of the stones taken for the
purpose of the Company's work. The defendant, as
contractor, had taken the stones in qt estion without
making any compensation to the Commissioners, and
the present action, therefore, was brought to teeover
their value. The sum claimed was 584. 12s. 9d.
There appeared to be no substantial defence to the
given, pur sts..nt to the
action, but Mr. BROUGHAM took two objections—first,
6
and
ddc Dock
of Middlesex,
do
tdf
eat h:
eet e t
av e
nh o
rut
eegGhuett
er George ee ly
at.
the.
C.
d
that no notice of action had been
s
iS t1n0.5 lsiletLondonch.arli7n2ei n;ss tape
same Act.

Lord TENTERDEN, however, holding, that the ton-
version in this case was not a matter done in pursuance
of the Act, directed the Jury to find for the plaintiff.
'Verdict for the plaiotiff—Damages 581. 12s. 91

COORT01C0)111102t PLIAS, Anal is.
nAWKINI W. ItIKLATSON...
This wa.Stait.ici,ion brought by. thellsiptain of the
barge Hopse; against the defendint, who is Captain and
ovener of the strain vessel Superb, under the following
circumstances, as spited by Mr:Sergeant BUMPUL4 for
the plaintiff.•
...2
'The barge Hope• was lying at . anchor in the river
Ulittie below B;istol, heavily laden with stone,
when the Superb steam vessel, followed by the George
the Fourth (another steam vessel), • in ionSigig up the
river, struck her across the stern; and she Immediately
sank; The plaintiff lost his clothes in consequence, and
was sometime out of employment, is, v.er e also three
orher siilors belonging to the Hope, and all of them
brought actions against the defendant. The following
facts were 'then proved in evidence:—The barge was
lying across the stream, with her head to the wind, there
being no tide to swing her round. °ire of the witnesses
deposed, that when she was struck, the four seamen
were thrown into deep water, and must have been
drosvo:d, had he not picked them up in his boat,: that
the George the Bluth stopped A 94 assisted, but that the
Sopetb did not until she got to the Swash. It also ap-
peared that the defendant had actually paid 1401. to the
owners of the barge, which became eventually a wrecL
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, said, .that
the present. actions were not thought of until some
months
.after the defendant had compromised with the
owners of the barge, and although repeated application
was made to the Attorney, to know the amount of
damage claimed, it could never be ascertained. He
should prove, however, that the barge was never struck
at all by the steam packet, but that a small boat along-
side was stuck, and, not the barge. The fact was, that
rile barge lay in such a manner across. the tint., that
there was no room to pass, and the Superb, in endea-
vouring to get by, actually took the ground, having
previously stopped her paddles. Finding that she had
grounded, she laid on her steam again, and then it was
. that the barge was sunk by the swell, being so overladen
that the water • ran over her gunwale. The Learned
Sergeant then called two witnesses._ who swore that the
barge never was touched by the Superb; but they
would not swear that there was no room to pass with-
out either touching the mud or the barge.
The CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury, that they must
find for the plaintiff, and the; must not think that they
were confined in their damages to the offer of compen-
sation which had been offered to be taken by the
pia:ll-tiff, provided he wtre not pat to the trouble of
an action.
. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Dama-
ges Forty Pounds.
A verdict was then taken by agreement in each of
the other two cases, with 151. damages. The fourth
action had already been settled at Thirty Shillings.