Star.
London, England, 1817-07-19 00:00:00

HARRIS V. T••DD AND NIORRISON.

....
This st as all ac i .11 bioughi by-
the plaintiff, a rib.
bon-menufacturer, to recover from the defendants,
tieberd ers ail,, bilk.nsercers, the sum of £3ll 64.
for goods sold end felivered. From the evidence
produced by the plaintitt, it appeared, that on the
mentioned in the declaration he called on the de-
fendants and offered them a quantitji of ribbons fur
sale. They retetred him to a person named Crowe,
et that time in their employ, and who managed this
pat ut their business Mr. Crowe looked at the
ribbons. and agreed to take them at the price of
BJI I 6s. wishing, however, to communicate the ar-
rangement he had made ire Messrs. Todd and Mor-
rison, he desired the plaintiff to cell for pny•oent of
his bill the following dits. He accordingly did so,
when the defendants refused payment,•alledging, as
their excuse for do.ng so, that the property had been
taken from them by the assignees of the plaintiff's
fethLr, who chimed it as the property of the bank-
rupt. In tuns: pence of this refusal the plaintiff
brought re present action.
Mr. Come was called, and stated, that he had
agreed for tl e purchase of the ribbons, but desired
the plainAf call for payment in a day or two.
The plaintiff With sway, and the same evening one
iit the elder Harris's Assignees, accompanied by a
Messenger iii bankrupts, came and claimed the pro-
petty, which was given up to them. Witness believed
the Ai.signee was in the shop at the time the ribbon
were left by the pl
Mr. Justice Anaorr held, that the defendants in
tins case were liabw. They had entered into a con•
tract with the plaintiff and received the goods: they
could not afterwards alter the property. If any dis.
purr existed as to the right, it should have been de-
cided by an ection brought by the Assignees against
the present plaint ff. Verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, £3l I 6s.—Costs, 40s.

RUSK V. THR ROYAL EICHANOR ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Tllib was an action upon a policy of insurance, to
recover the sum o► seBoo, being the amount of the
defeinants' subscription upon the Russian ship Caro-
lina, at apd from Amsterdam to Petersburgh.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Thema,
that the ship, Captain, and crew, were Russian; that
on her voyage from Amsterdam to Petersburgh she
met with tempestuous weather, and was forced to
take refuge in the Sound of Viotti), where she arrived
on the 9tii of last November, and the frost having
set in, she was locked up in the ice until the fbh of
January last, when- she was consumed by fire ; that it
WAS the custom amongst all Russian vessels, on re-
turning to a Russian harbour, to have all the crew
immediately discharged, and the vessel to come im.
mediately under the protection of the Maritime Po.
lice of the port; that only a Mate was left on board
this vessel, as a watch for security, and that this man
on the Bth of January, having left every thing sate
on board, and the weather being intensely cold, he
went on board another Russian vessel, where he re.
mained all night ; but that at four the next morning
he came on deck, and sap his Ship on tire.
Captain Ward, of an English ship, in the Russian
trade thirty years, said that there WAS no prohibition
to have fire on board ships in Viotto Sound, although
it was prohibited in Cronstadt and some other Kos-
__

,sian ports. He knew of the custom of discharging
the crews from Russian ships, as soon as they le-
turned at the end of the voyage. He sent his own
mer. ashore at this time, but had a house for them,
leaving his Mate and cabin-boys on board. He went
himself lour times to l'etersburgh while his ship was
frozen up in the Viotto Sound; but on his return lie
always went on board of her, and slept there.
Some other witnesses were examined, to prove the
custom of discharging the crews.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendants, contended they
had been deceived at the time of subscribing this
policy—for they were never apprised that the ship,
Captain and crew, were Russian, or they certainly
never would have taken so small a premium ' • on the
contray, they were taught to think the vessel, Captain
and mariners were English, and therefore reckoned
upon the security which a ship so navigated would
derive from the skill and care of British mariners—
who never would have abandoned the vessel to the
care of a single person, and left her liable to the
plunder of her cargo, her rigging or stores, by any
set of marauders who might walk on board over the
ice—or to be set on fire through the malice of ene-
mies, or the gross negligence of a single watchman.
as in this case. Therefore, the accident having oc-
curred from gross negligence, the insurers must be
discharged from all risk,
The Jury found for the Defendants.