Star.
London, England, 1803-04-19 00:00:00

McARTHY AND MMUS V. GLOVER.

Mr. Otzes (teed, this was an aelion on a policy
of infurance on freight,. from Riga to Chatham,
London, Portfmouth, and Plymouth. The affirm
was brought by the three Plaintiffs, who were the
Owners of the (hip called the Thomas, to recover
the amount of the Defendant's fubfcription, which
was zool. The (hip was chartered to proceed from
London to Riga, to take in a cargo of timber,
which the was to bring to this country at certain
flipulated rates. She arrived at Rigs, and had
taken in (even-eighths of her cargo, when an em-
bargo was laid on all Briti(h (hips in the ports of
Ruflia,by the late Emperor. The Captain and crew
were taken out of her, and ''were marched up the
country. Information of this arrived in this coun-
try, early in January 18ot, when notice of aban-
donment was given by the Plaintiffs to the Under-
writers on the freight. 'the veffel had been like.
wife infured, and notice of abandonment was alto
given to the Underwriters on the (hip, who accept-
ed of the abandonment and paid a total lofs. In
May, 18ot, an order was made by the Ruffian
Government for the releafe of thefe (hips and their
crews. In confequence of that, the Thomas took
in a full cargo, and arrived at Plymouth. A
queftion of very great importance to the commer-
cial world had arifen in this cafe, whether the in-
furers on the freight, or the infurers of the (hip are
entitled to that freight ? But in whatever manner
that queftion might be decided, there could be no
doubt that the Plaintiffs, who are the owners of
this veffel, and for whom the freight was under.
written, and who abandoned that freight, were
entitled to recover the amount of it from the Un-
derwriters on the freight. The veffel being feized,
and the voyage loft for a time, they had clearly a
right to make that abandonment. As the (hip
arrived Cafe and earned her freight, that freight
was due to fomebody, but was not due to them.
i They went for the amount of that freight which
they had originally an inchoate right to from the
Defendant, who, with others, infured to them the
lofs of that freight. Although it might be a very
confiderable queftion, whether the freight which
the fltip earned be due to the Underwriters on the
(kip, or to the Underwriters on the freight, in con-
fequence of the Plaintiffs' abandonment, it was
apprehended there could be no doubt that the ori-
ginal owners of the (hip were entitled to recover
the freight, from thofe who infured the freight to
them. On the other queftion there was very great
difficulty, and different opinions were entertained
among Lawyers on that point. And if his Lord-
(hip fhould think that the queßion as to whom the
freight was due had the leaft conflation with this
cafe—

Mr. Emus 2,leading Counfel for the Defendant,
here interpofing, Paid, that was a (Indian with
which he had no concern.

Mr. Guess obferved, that his clients alfo bad no
concern in that queffion.
After the policy in this cafe was proved, the
Counfcl for the Plaintiffs, at left, after a good deal
of difficulty, faeceeded in proving a notice of
abandonment given to Mr. Glover.
Mr. Easetu a on the park of the Underwriters,
Rated this cafe to be one of the plaine ft in the world.
The Plaintiffs infure their (hip with one fet of Un-
derwriters. They infure the freight with his client.
The (hip goes to Riga—(be there falls under au
embargo—there is an abandonment of the freight
to his client, and the other Underwriters of the
freight. I abandon to you ; that is, I place you
in my fituation by my abandonment. I confent
that you (ball enter into all my rights ; and if the
veffel (ball arrive afterwards, and earn a freight,
you (hall have that money in your pocket. But
though I underwrote the perils of the fea, and the
other rifks contained in the policy, that does not
prevent you from recovering on the contrad. The
veld arrives—the earns her freight. Why do they
not receive k ? They tell you, there is a policy of
inforance on the (hip : do they give any evidence
of that ? And in confequence of the abandonment
of the (hip, the Underwriters on the (hip received
it : and therefore you mull ecmteft that right with
them.

Mr. Conner, one of the Plaintiffs, and the mailer
of the (hip, received the freight himfelf. He after-
wards pays it over to the Underwriter son the Chip,
under an indemnity, in cafe there might be any
right to recover it back. And then he, and the
other two Plaintiffs, bring an aelion to recover
tool. per cent.
The Learned Counfel faid, he (hould prove that
Captain Conner had received poi. and then be-
caufe the Underwriters on the (hip had received
the remainder, the Plaintiffs torn round and bring
this action. The Plaintiffs mutt thew they have
done no one a& that was Incontinent with their
abandonment. He fobnaitted, the receipt of that
money amounted to a revocation of their abandon-
ment. And by an abandonment alfo of the (hip,
the Plaintiffs had done an aft, by which, if the Un-
derwriters of the freight were bound to pay the
Plaintiffs' prefent demand, they could not recover
it back.

Mr. ERsaira proved the receipt of soot by Cap-
tain Conner, on account of freight. But he had
no evideace to fubllantiate the influence on the
flip, and the notice of her abandonment.
Lord E LLLLL °ROUGH told the Jury, that they
had no evidence of any policy on the fhip, and
' therefore this was the common cafe of an abandon•
meat of the freight by the owners of the (kip, who
were then in a condition by law to abastdon.—Ver-
, dia for Plaintiffs, 2 oa.