Star.
London, England, 1803-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 2.
carom V. cos PS .1.141:0 OTHERS.
Mr. Guns, as leading Coto:fel for the Plaintiff,
flared that Mr. Cooper is a furveyor and an archi-
teq. and that he had been employed in that caps-
eity
by the Defendants for the purple of furrin-,
tending and direiing the buildings of a very coat.
derable rnanufatlure, which they were about efiab-'
!Ming. The Defendants were engaged in a projea
for making paper from draw, and other vegetable
fubfkances, from whence they promifed to themfelves
very large profits : and it was neceffary, in order to
put that projea in motion, that buildings to a very
confiderable extent fhould be railed at a very groat
expellee, and theft who were to be at that erpenee,
thought it for their interefi to apply to the ablea fur.
veyor they could find. Before the buildings were
begun, they applied to Mr. Cooper, and he did a
great deal of fervice for them before that time : and
there could be no difficulty as to the meafure of the
compenfatinn, becaufc what he claimed was by vir-
tue of a written agreement, by which the parties had
Itipulated to make certain payments. Before Mr.
Cooper had d. nc any work in confequence of this
agreement, be had done other work for thefe De.
fendants, for which they had voted him the Turn of
fifty guineas. The agreement was entered into on
the 16th of May ;Sot. It was read by the learned
C.unftl, and the ft:bib:lce of it was, that Mr.
Co. per was to have 4 per cent. on the. price of all
materials that were employed in the manufaeure,
and alfo on the price of the labour that was emplovi
et! in it. After this bufinefs had been carried on 1,
rf fume time. and to a certain tercet, it was found it
sToultl not anfwer; though that was not Mr. Cooper's
fault It appeared from fume of the evidence that
was produced, that the work could not fomctimes
proceed.from want of plans, and that the Plaintiff
had not performed his undertaking.—Plairaif non-
/mita
RIMEL O. SCHNEIDER.
:
This cafe, according to Mr. Easitriis, was an ac-
tion on a policy of infurance from Lianon to Cork,
and another port in Ireland. This velfel was loft in
the courfe of her voyage by the perils of the fea,—
On the nth of °Sober, one of the parties concerned
wrote fruits Lilbon to his correfpondent here. that he
etpuded the Portugnefe brig or fumy, 'the Ifabellino,
ss,hich was the nip Wired. would fail on or before
the loth of November next. winds and weather per-
mitting. There were nothing but heavy gales till
the 7tb of DAceanbera and the-had no opportunity of
poling till shit t9th of Decernlscr. and in the courte
of her voyage was to R. in "con&quence of flormy,
weather : and all the crew 'MO-alto have perithe'd,
had it not been for en American flip, that providen-
tial!' appeared and took them up.
Mr. GAR ROIT, on the part of the Defendant, con-
t2ndad, that the Plaintiff could be tolerably certain
when the (hip would be ready to fail, and lie alfo con-
tended, that he was bound to have failed on or about
the :nth vi November, according to his reprefenta-
firm ; and, as he had not, the rifle was much altered,
and tie underwriters ought to be no longer bound to
perform their ecntraift.
I.o: d Ettia soli:soca told the Jury. this was an
28:on on a policy of ildurance on Ihip and gpods, el-
f led on the 6th of November, tßoa. The cargo
:notified of fall and fruit. The letter that dittoed
an infurance to be made, listed. that the vetkl would
fail on or before the loth of November, winds and
weather permitting. There words did appear, prima
to. impart that, as far as regarded the cargo,
the Pain wood he in a condition to fail at that time.
'ft.:: was act a warranty but a reprcfcntatior, and
v Lich, if it was not falfe, in a material part, would
not vitiate the policy. Was it falfe ? the party who
‘‘l4.tc did not know the fa& to be other.. ife. No hit-
Yvan beir,g c. old know whether, according to the Sr-
raugemeat t 1 ti.: fL:p, which had then taken place,
the would not be. ready to fail againa the icth or
November. If it was a deception and .s falie repro-
fanation, the underwriters woti!.l nor be bound by
it. 'here was no fraud intended : if it had been a
thing impoffible, or even highly improbable, the an
tic:M.l'lre! s would have been free. It would have been
vri) ,:ttierrnt if it had been a sr.*, lanty, bccaule it
malt have been thinly complied v. i:h. The
her was, ttlit.ther there had been an- thing unfaii Iv
kept hack ? it was fen the jug to cte. Ic that quell
lion, and to lay whether the reprefentaii. n tva"Aalfe
is any material reflat..l?—Veriiii2 for Ilaha::cro.til.