Star.
London, England, 1804-12-21 00:00:00

L 4:10' INTE LLIGENCB.

COURT OE KING'S BENCH, DEC. so.
scums v. :same.
The Plaintiffs are fugar-000pers. the Defendant
is the Treafurer of the Weft-India Dock Company.
Mr. Gamow Paid, the objed of thisaftion was to
recover a compenfation in damages for otaftration
given by the Directors of the Well-India Dock Com-
pany, to the. plaintiffs, in their occupation as fugar.
coopers. He now fought a verdict, but he did not
with that it mould extend to the whole reach of the
ferions injury, during the•throe years the plaintiffs
had fuffered by this obftruftion; the object was rather
to obtain a • folemn decifion of the Court of King's
Ilench, in 'the form of a fpecial vcrdid, than to obtain
perfonal redrefs on the prefent occafien s and eonfif-
tently with the liberality that might be expefted front
a great public inftitntion. the decifion was to be ob-
tained at the expence of the Company. not of the
tradefroen for whom he appeared, Previous to the
ereltion of the great monument of our commercial
wealth, over which thefe Direflors preftded, coopers
were employed, firft on board the Weft-India (hips,
to pot the hogfleads into a condition to pars the flings
and this was called—cooperage on board the (hip..
Secondly, there was a cooperage on landing, and
this was diftinguifbed as—land coopering. Tbirdlyi
in the cafe of exportation, there was another kind of
preparation of the hogfheads., which was called--;
cooperage fur exportation. All the coopers in thefe
three honcho were perfeitly cliiiind, and the plain-
tiffs in the prefent action were of the latter daft, or
export coopers. The whole of this bufinefs was con-
cluded on the legal quays, until the prefeut 'raft ebb-
liflimcnt was caneti‘•ned thc authority of Parlia-
ment. A merchant of confiderable eminence bad
employed his clients in the trade, and. wifhed to colt
time them as his coopers, for the fugars he poffeffed
in the warehoufes of the Weft India Docks. ..The
plaintiffs offered to fulfil the orders they had receiv-
ed for this purpofe, and were obfirtifted in the exe-
cution of this duty. They (aid. if the goods remain
at the docks, the hoglheaLls mutt be repaired by the
coopers employed by,the inftitution ; yet if you pre-
fer to have them conpered by your own agents, tab%
them away ; you are at petted liberty to do fo. To
this it might be anfwered, that prize fugars cannot
be removed : and further, is it fit that the proprietor
fhould pay immenfe duties incident to extracting his
goods from the Welt India Docks, in order that he
may employ the coopers in whom he has been !semi-
tomed to confide
EILSR INI, Giiss, and Karr, on the part
of the defendants. interrupting Mr. Caeaow' laid.
there was no probability there would be any differ-
ence on the fads of the cafe ; a verdift was therefore
entered for the plaintiffs, fubjed to the opinion of the
Court of King's Bench on the point of law.

MILLS V. 11•IN1lt11101.
This was an aftion to recover the freight of goods
from Malta to Liverpool.
Mr. ES.SILIIIS for the Plaintiffs, Bated, that the ,
Plaintiffs. Mar's. Mills and Hunter, were eminent
merchants at Malta, ant, had been employed by Go-
vernment to fupply them with flour. The aaioa was
brought for the freight of 786 barrels of raffia; af-
flgne4l by the Contignee of the Plaintiff to the De-
fendant at Liverpool, who received them, and, after
keeping tbem two months, fent a letter, Bating, that
they were of no value, and that if the Plaintiffs
re-
fufed to take them back, they would fell 'them by
audio% and commence an aßion for the recovery
of the lots, alfo declaring, that no part of the freight
demanded would be paid. The Plaintiff's, for the
conveyance of thefe goods, purchafed the (hip Leo.
vine, which was the identical veffcl that carried Bo-
naparte to Egypt ; he underftood it was a complaint
of the Defendants, that the was not fea-worthy ; he
wilted heartily the had proved fo when conveying
that great perfonage acrofs t Mediteranean ; hut,
unfortunately for mankind, ihe t proved otherwife.—
However, to make the matter (port, it had been al-
ways decided, that the freight Ihould be paid; and,
if the Defendant chofe, he might bring his ation
for the damage the goods fultained. This being the
opinion of the Court, the Jury found a verchit of
4171. ss. Sd. for the Plaint.as.

IRVIDOIS 9. POTTS.
This was an adion upon a policy of infuranee
upon goods on oard the (hip Edward and Jane, lod
by the perils of tbhe fea the policy was effeaed on
the 29th of September, 1795, fubleribed for tool.
Mr. ERSKINE, in dating the Plaintiff's cafe, ob-
ferved that they were refident at Malaga, and this
aftion was brought originally in the year 1796; but
unfortunately, being foreigners, great delay occur.,
red ; a bill in equity was filed, anfwers put in, ex-
ceptions taken, and In it continued till iSoo. Some
of the folicitors died, Come were changed, and after
all thefe obdruaions it came at lall before the Court.
The Ship in queAion was bound from Malaga to Lon-
don. and loft by the perils 111 the fea, and after to
many years, the only witnel" they had, was the Cap
taro, who commanded her before her lift voyage.
The policy, &c. were then proved, and it appear-
ed that a fum of money had been lodged in Court.
Captain Soule dated, that he had been Captain of
the Edward and Jane previous to her lad voyage ;
but in confequence of a difpute with her owners, he
gave np the command. She was a very tight Tact.
perfealy fea-worthy, and had Shortly before under-
gone a complete repair. He Saw her Safe moored,
without the Mole Head, at Malaga, on the evening
he left her. He underdood it blears a korm, wind
welleily, in the night, and he caw her upon the
rocks next meriting, where She went to pieces.
He was examined by one of the Jury (Mr. St.
Barb), who had beets in that quarter of the globe,
and fume vasiation as to the wind appeared in his
teftiwsetiy.
The defence was, that there had not been fufficient
proof of the caufe of the lots, of the date of the
weather, &c.
Lord Leetasnanvc a told the Jury, that the quef
*ion came to a mere matter of c,a, whether the ref
fel was 101 l by the pails of the tea, or the negligence
of the people in hoard ! and it was open to the De-
fendant to thew 'he latter, if ha cosild.
The Jut y, aficr '.•mc confaltation, rnire.l, and,
in about an hour, t ,:tu:ned to vti; ertA.n !r,,rn CaptAin
Bottle, if there w-,e coth:ient : ..n..1, o•. hoard to
work the Chip ? and, isCitg anfwere,l in the affirma-
tive, 11,cy again retired fo: nzat halt an hour, when

•.• .• k• 1:4#10
they found a yerdia to; the Mama 1.1041 WW•
the money InJged in Cutlet. ,
His Lordthip then ditlmfed of twb e41.11111/leisfY
caeca of no moment. which clofed the Odor al
Guildhall.

SOPHIA STAMM, O. 'ANVIL LOILD ITSIIOI OF.. sr.
ASAP H.
;
-* This was an :aflion- upon covenant. brought open
two leafes of the Defendant, when be was Prebend
of•Caddington Major. • 4ll
Mr. Hotaorn, for the Plaintiff. read fevelah pleas
from the record. ' Firft, the Defendant pldads that
the indentures of leafi; are not his deed; fecond•
ly, that the Plaintlff might have enjoyed the leak,
without the- interruptiou of any one entitled 0:1 inter-
pole ; thirdly, that Dr. Winftanley, the facteffor to
the prebendary, confirmed the kale, by receiving
the rents, .and the Defendant travetfes the right of
Dr. Winßanley. There are other pleas upon the dd.
turbance given to the Plaintiff. - •
Easitoi a (aid, that- althoogli the pleadings
were voluminous, the qnellion was in a very narrow
comps& The aCtion was brouglu againft the Rev.
Prelate] formerly Iliftanp of St. David's, and fubfe-
I glumly trangated us the See rf Rochefler. The fine
in queiion amounted to 'sot 1. t 6s. which the plain-
tiff ltei paid to Dr. Winttanley, now chi Prebend of
Gaddirgtett Major, being upon the leafe of five houfes
on theltbroth.fide of St. Paul's Church-yard, inhabit-
ed by4leffet. Green wed Pellet, glafs•manufaCtuters,
and agliers. The-Learned Couefel Paid, that the
leak had never been confirmed. and that therefore it
was not only-voidable. bat utterly null and void...-.
Thefe kafes mull obviotrfty Rand upon the footing
of a leak at common law,which would be nugatory
for want of confirmation. The cafe may be a fob.
jea of ferii e. complaint with the Billion, but from
neglea on his part, the leffee has been obliged to ob-
tain a neer leak, at the facrifice of the lam Rated,
and therefore flue has regularly and legally claimed
this amount. It was true that he (Mr. Ertkine)
would. rather have facriflced the soool. than bate
received it, under there novel and extraordinary cie-
cumftaneet, of which Dr. Winftanley had sonde-
(moiled to avail liithfelf. [lt being whifpered to
Mr. Ltfkine that Dr..Winflanley was prelate. *p
Learned Advocate repeated more emphatically his
dbfervation, and Aid, he did not Confider it among
the misfortunes of his life. under fuch circumftances,
to differ in opinion from this Learned and Moral
Divine.)
The witneffes were then tailed, among who&
were, Mr. Walker, Regifter of the Billion of Lop-
don, and Mr. Robert Hofer, agent of Dr. Winam-
ley. It appeared, that the latter, on entering the
premifes of Metres. Green and Pellet, had executed
his duty with fo much delicacy. that a doubt aide
if it could be legally confidered a diftorbance of,*
tenant.
Mr. Gasaow in reply. commented with much Ice-
men on the letters of the learned Donor, who had
been fo frequently mentioned in this eaufe. He had
on the aid of Odober, 1802, written a letter to the
following etre& to Mrs. Strong; .
- amine,
• I Sake the liberty of writing yes cm • blip& INA
obNged uiattend to trans a newt us rayons reenny. s sorwer-
Cation with a Gentlansa.he enquired If the leaks al the Iwilks)ta
St. Past's Cbureb.yard bedlam, confirmed ? To this I reediatia
the negative ; and he immediately Waved to me they ma be.
Madam invalid. In confegamee of this totormation.l (wank-
el with three ream eminent la the law, who have reggae*
theoploion given by this gentleman, and who afire me, that
He
mete receipt of the rent will not raider theft hales
" I am. tae"
Lord E LLLLL 01031/010—,, This is nothing with to
(pea to the caofe, it may merely be confidered as an
oraisr efroleietica."
Mr. Gaaaow—gi Noihing more or lefs. The Gen-
tlemen of the jury would not forget, that among
the moral and religious duties which this Divine re-
fpeEted, was a regard to his own family. He had
d
heard from carders obf of human natureg w
had more regard to the title of poetical cotnpofiden
than to correttnefs of fentiment. that
" A hide learning ts a dangerous thing."
—The reverie of ill'' as trice; and that the noon
domellic duties would be ken us be fo Marly con-
nefted wi h profound !moan; in this dignified Heft.
that the only fecurity for moral attainments is fu-
ture, he was convinced, Ihunid be conildered as the
conitant companion of great erudition. It was um
that he felt fome difficulties •in the prefent defence,
but under this view of the moral feelings of Dnexer
Winflan,ey. he could have no uneatinefs. either for
the plaintiff, Mrs. Sophia Strong, or for the Defeo-
dint, our Right Reverend Father. The moment
Dr. Wiußanley Mould perceive that the neceffary
confecmence of this etatiion of the soool. was. that
either the one or the other Gould be the futierer, be
would haiku from t:te Court, where the Learned
Counfel had now the plesfure of Peeing him. to the
table of his bankers, where he would procure the
money to exonerate them both ; and the verdid of
the jury would Se eclwing in his ears while he was
pounding at the door cf ihe Plalntiff, to return to
her the gold he had ignorantly, not fraudulently, En
tented Mr. Garton., in his defence. Inincipalty re.
lifted the aftion on two grounds—Flea, that the reale
was void I that therefore the Plaintiff and the Pre-
hend could alone be tonfidered in the light of tenant
from year to year, that this tenantry requires notice,
and no filch notice had been given ; neat, that it
moll be clearly made not that ditturbance had bean
given to the occupant by the Prebend fueemdiog the
Defendant ; and on the criticises it appeared no Welt
dillorbance had been given.
Lord Ettessosiouon-0 We cannot help regret-
ting that the Defendant fhotild he placed in this fito-
ation ; but it is not my duty m fpeak of the moral
feelings of either party—it is your province and aim
alone to attend to their Icyal rights. Dr. Winflanley
not having given the coo firmation. or the Dean and
Chapter, or the Biihnp, the legal rights of the kffee
are immediately affeeted, and the Plaintiff Chock' be
indemnified for the confequent deficiency in her title.
The value of the leak for forty years has bees given
at soool. and an intelltent vsitriefs has Rated, that
the term of thirty years enjoyed by the Plaintiff is,
according to that ratio, of the value of 4.3501. Yon
trill cnn'ider your verdift, and decide acc_nrdiacto
the fads before Toti."—Verdiet for the Plaints[
4.3 501. 11.1 V: a to the opinion of the Court 011 II fps-
ciAl c )le,

• -
, .
•