Star.
London, England, 1817-11-27 00:00:00

wreck, and some diffienky arose as to what was to be
doge with the property saved from the wreck, sad.
which had been placed nadtuthe 'manage pent of
Dutch merchants of the firm of Messrs. De la Close.
The Captain of the vessel (Wrenrinore) claimed a
Hen upon this salvage, and in consequence of that it
was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants
that the latter should pay such freight as might prove..
to be doe, and also the balance between their claim and
the amount insured, and that they should, in return,
receive an order upon Messrs. De la Quer, for the
proceeds of the sugars and cottons which had been
saved from the wreck, to the amount of about thir
teen thousand pounds. This agreement had role-
*ence to the charter party under which the vessel
sailed from Calcutta, the plaintiffs engaging to pro.
duce it—.the defendants, as well as their correspon-
dents in India being ignorant of its contents. The
charter party, it afterwards appeared, was a special
agreement for freight, and was made between Em-
bry, the supercargo and agent for Prelin, and Wrent-
more the captain of the vessel, also the agent of
Prehn, and was dated prior to the bill of lading, in
Whice the words relating to freight were struck out.
The 4 ction %v.'s tried at the sittings after last Term,
beerier' the Lord Chief-Justice Gouts, sod a verdict
was loilnd for the plaintiffs for the sum of 44,312.
being the amount adjudged to be due upon a pro rate
freight from Calcutta to Holland, that being the;,
part of the voyage which the Patriarch had actuatly
'
accomplished. Ile verdict was subject, however,
to a point of law reserved as to whether Prehn. be'
being owner of both the ship and cargo. and therefore
not. in a capacity to make a claim of that desiriptitin. 1
At the commencement of this Term, Mr. Serjeant
LtNS, on the part of the defendants. moved for a
Rule to latest cause why the verdict should not be
let aside, and a nonsnit entered, upon the grounds
already stated, namely. that no freight could pos.
eibly be doe from a man to himself. The Court,
upon hearing the arguments of the Learned ser-
jeant. -granted the Rule. and on Monday Mr. Ser.
jeans VAUGUAII and Mr. Serjeant COPLCY showed
cause against it on the part of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGUAK entered into a detail of
the circumstances to the effect stated, and contended,
that though the freight was not due es.on the char-
ter party. until the arrival of the vessel at her ulti-
mate destination yet that in this particular case the
patties had put :bemselves in such a situation as to
be emitted to a pro rate freight, that was, to a pay-
ment for the part of the voyage performed. in the
same proportion with the larger sum stipulated for,
if the whole distance were traversed. The vessel
sailed from England on her return to St. Petersburg.
1 and was wrecked on the coast of HuUand, where,
she went with the intention of touching at Antwerp
for orders. Of the property on board 413,1100 was
saver' through the indefatigable exertions of Messrs..
de la Close, who acted As agents for Messrs. Thornton.
Captain Wrentmore, who was in charge of the ves-
sel, and. had the care of the goods, might, under
'these eircuinsances have said, that be would either
reship them in another, vessel, or sell them for the
account of the parties there. Under these circurn•
stances, the parties concerned feu their several prin.
cipals at home .met. and an agreement was signet.
by Fairlie and Co. stipulating to pay input* odd.,
and altirther sum equivalent to a pro rare valuation
of freight, on receiving a surrender of the propene i
saved. This iidaccordingly done, and the Inapsety
saved prod 413,d0
so 413,000. The defendants, after
they had contended this. agreement. and had the
goods consigned to them, ultimately refised to ratify
their part of- the contract and pay the pre rate freight.
the condition on which the agreement was made.
. Mr. Serjeant Com.rt. on the same side, maintained
the right of the plaintiffs, to recover upon the merits
of the agreement, atid is the course of his argument
alluded to a defect in the declaration, which in every
cattle stated. that the agreement was for freight pro
rattle, aestated ib the charter-party. whereas. an Net.
no such mention was made, the charter-party oMy
settling the amount of the freight from the place of
lading co the ultimate &ideate* at Sc. Petenburgn.
The Learned Serjeant, however. emended, that this
could make no essential feature in the ease at the
chartereparty could only form a basis on which the
pre reel freight was to be estimated in pursuance to
tee -agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and
defendants.
Mr. &leant lank in reply, contended, that the
agreement signed by the defendants was merely cob-
&Octal i they agreed to pay a pre rare freight, it that
were ultimately found to be elan claim.
Mr. Justiceßaau inquired how that could be the
ease. when they bad positively stipulated to pay
.0400, or whatever sum appeared duel
The Court here consulted fora short time.
Mt. Justice DALLAS then observed to Mr. Berjeast
Vaighan, that the declaration set forth the per roe
freight to have Ikea made in virtue of the charter-
?arty ; whereas, the fact was, that it wholty depended
un the latter agreement. The charter-arty was made
in India. and the agreement in England, and in the
former the freight was calculated at a main sum, and
within* any siterence to a pre rate calculatits: This
was of morn eaetely at to form, AO had IRO Witt
ease to the merits of the case, He. however) sug-
gested to the Coastal- for the laintiffs, whether they
would net do right in considering until to-morrow
morale' the peepfisty of agreeing to a new trial, en
the merit' of thi eese. if they Were without costs per-
mitted to amsid their declatatioi. OW have the new'
Vial alai iiide the Costs ea both sidei eliding the eveift. ,
Mr. &rifest VAUGWAJI consented to this arrange
meat, and the Matter stood over to this day, when
the Leaned berje.int expressed hiiieadiness to agree
to the rosisid Of fbe Court. .
Mt. Heelealit SOT . applied to the Court for costs, ,
hot' Mt. Jiiitlettfluntioccui said, that the objection
wits merely a technical nee i it had been side by
the.Ceiert; and not hy'the Bah. It was an objection
which the Court could not pass over, but as no pre-
vious reference had been made by Counsel for the de-
feadaatsi no advantage could be taken of it.
Mr. Ifiefjwi Bzav—" Your Lordship will allow
me to say-tUie words.—The feet le, that this action
is brought for the sole peOose tie taking 45,000 ors
of my ;Nemo pockets, and send* them to St. len
teesbufgh to get it back is they tin?'
Mr/ Joke PAns—is That es onthing to- the poi..
pose, ,Brother Best. The account given by. yaw
clients causal iker flat reel Wit of the case. The
Court could net have lnteeges!d if lbw* had bet
'thought it * Well-iousded. übjeetkeief. ,
)