The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-09-05 00:00:00

NISI PRTUS COURT.•-WEDNESDAY.

VAN CASTEEL AND OTHERS V. BOOKER AND OTHERS.
—This was an action of trover brought by Abraham Van
Casteel and John Edward Knight, merchants, at Rotter-
dam, against Josias Booker, Francis Shand, and others
of the directors of the Liverpool Royal Bank, for the
recovery of £ll,OOO, being the value of a cargo of coffee,
the alleged property of the plaintiffs, and which the de-
fendants had disposed of for the benefit of the creditors
of Messrs. Barton, Irlam, and Higginson. The defen-
dants pleaded that the plaintiffs were not lawfully pos-
sessed of the cargo.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Jervis) opened the
case in a speech of an hour and a half's duration, in the
course of which he entered minutely into the details of
the transaction, and explained the points upon which the
jury would have to give an explicit judgment. It appeared
Barton, Irlam, and Higginson were in difficulties. It was
shipped at Rio in the Vigilant, one of the vessels belong-
ing to that firm, and the bills of lading were made out
" unto order or assigns." Mr. Lyon, of the house of
Lyon, Schwinde, aneCo., of Rio, who acted as agent in
the transaction, obtained from Mr. Higginson an autho-
rity to take the cargo on its arrival into his own care, the
sum of £9,000 having been advanced upon it by the plain-
tiffs, and he being desirous to protect their interests in
case of any embarrassments arising between Barton and
Co. and their creditors. The learned counsel contended
that this authority was voluntarily given • that it was not
a fraudulent preference to the injury of? Barton's credi-
tors ; that it was fully warranted by the mode in which
the bills of lading had been drawn out; and that through-
out the whole affair the character of his client was per-
fectly irreproachable.
The case lasted a great portion of the day, and a num-
ber of witnesses were examined, and documents put in.
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury in a very able speech
for the defendants, contending that at the time Mr. Hig-
ginson transferred the cargo to Lyon he contemplated
bankruptcy, and that, therefore, the cargo belonged to
the assignees.

The JUDGE summed up in his usual perspicuous man-
ner. He observed that there were one or two very im-
portant questions for the jury to decide. If they believed
that, at the time the transfer was made, Higginson was
not merely pressed by his creditors for payment—for that
would not be sufficient—but that he contemplated bank-
ruptcy, then the defendants would be entitled to recover;
but if, upon the other hand, he did not contemplate it, or
that they had any doubt relative to the bill of lading,
then the verdict ought to be for the plaintiffs.
The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict
for the defendants.

The grounds of the decision are, first, that a shipment
made in an owner's vessel, on owner's account, is a deli-
very ; and, secondly. that when the bills of lading were
handed over to Van Casteel, the house of Barton, Irlam
and Co. were insolvent. The case is worth reading, as it
involves the important principle of how far a bill of lading
is security to a third party ; many supposed it would be
protected under all circumstances.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY.
WALLEY V. M'CONNAL.

This was an action to recover compensat'on in damages.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had caused him
to be illegally arrested and committed to prison for four-
teen days.
Mr. Sergeant WlLKirls briefly stated his case. The
plaintiff, Hugh Walley, is a young man, acting in the
capacity of porter or carman, about the docks of Liver-
pool ; and the defendant, George M'Connal, carries on
business as a linen draper, also in this town. Some time
ago, a person named William Ireland was foreman to Mr.
Wilson, a car proprietor, and filled the situation at present
held by the plaintiff. Ireland contracted a debt with
M'Connal for linen drapery, and the latter frequently had
occasion to apply to him for payment, without avail. On
the 26th of August, 1847, a summons was issued from the
County Court against Ireland, which was put into the
hands of an officer of the court to serve. The officer
(Jenkins) went to the dock, where the plaintiff was in the
habit of standing, and asked him if he was Wilson's fore-
man, to which he replied in the affirmative. The officer
said he had been looking for him, and had found him at
last ; adding that he had a love letter for him, at the same
time putting a summons into his hand. The plaintiff said
the summons was not for him, it was for a person named
Ireland, and threw it on the ground. The officer, how-
ever, took no notice, went away leaving the summons on
the ground. The plaintiff afterwards took up the sum-
mons, and gave it to Ireland, the person intended to be
sued. Subsequently other orders were issued from the
County Court against the plaintiff, and on every occasion
when they were served the persons serving them were
distinctly told that tney had made a mistake, the name of
the person served being Ireland. About the middle of
January last, the plaintiff was standing on the east side of
George's Dock, when the officer Jenkins again accosted
him as Ireland, and though he was told that was not his
name, the officer replied that it was a falsehood, and he
(plaintiff) must take the consequences of the summons.
On the 28th of January an order was issued by the Judge
of the County Court, that William Ireland should be im-
prisoned fourteen days, and on the following day the
defendant with one of his young men, and two officers of
the County Court, (Smith and Jones,) met together in
Brunswick-street. Smith went to the plaintiff, and asked
if his name was Ireland, and he replied that it was not.
The defendant's young man said he was the man, on
which, Jones, the officer, recommended the defendant to
be careful of what he was about, because, if he had mis-
taken the man, and should send him to prison, he would
find it a serious matter. The defendant, however, was
positive, saying he was the person they wanted, (Ireland,)
and ordered him to be taken to Kirkdale Gaol. He was
accordingly taken there, when Mr. Wilson, the plaintiff's
master, having discovered that he had been taken for Ire-
land's debt, went to the County Court, but not getting
any satisfaction, as the principal officers were absent, a
solicitor was consulted and an application made to the
court. Affidavits were made that the wrong persoh had
been arrested, and the defendant was sent for and told the
circumstance. The defendant, however, notwithstanding
all this, persevered in his former statement that the plain-
tiff's name was Ireland, and ordered him to be kept in
orison. He was, accordingly, detained there for fourteen
Cl:ays, attired in the prison dress, denied access to his
fricndo, and treated as a person who had committed some

Sept. 5, ISig.

outrage on society. It was for such injury that the;rolt
tiff sought compensation at the hands of the' jurhavilll
Witnessesfwthearecacaael,leada
openedwhose
bytestthime
ponlaymstuiffpvs counsel'orted ths
main
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defence,
contended that Mr. William M'Connal, nephew to the
defendant, was shown the plaintiff on the first occasion,.
and asked him his name, to which he replied that it wilt
Trekand. He said he had called for the debt due to-Mr'
M'Connal, draper. The plaintiff said he did not owe Nu'
M'Connal any thing, nor did he know him. At the One
Jenkins, the officer of the court, went to serve the 00'
mons, the plaintiff said his name was Wm. Ireland; an •
subsequent occasion he did the same. The learned counsel
„
argued, that though the plaintiff was not the person
mentioned in the summons, he was bound by law to sIP
pear before the Court, and cited a case which came before
Mr. Justice Coltman, wherein it was decided that a mall
representing himself as the party upon whom the summons
is served, was bound to appear in answer to the summons!
and liable to any judgment taken against him for no
appearing. .

A number of witnesses were called who supported the
facts as stated by the learned counsel.
After a long consultation, the jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages, £5O.

ACTION ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.
CLARK V. THE NORTH OF ENGLAND INSURANCE CO;
PANY.—The plaintiff, John Clark, was a silversmith P.'
jeweller, carrying on business in Church-street in OFs
town, and the defendants were the proprietors of ,the
above company. The action was brought to recover the
amount of an insurance policy.
Mr. BAINES stated the case. The plaintiff had insured
in the above-mentioned company in the early part of ,the
year for £lOOO. On the evening of the 24th March Jr'
Mr. Clark left his establishment in company with larl
Howell, next door, about half-past eight o'clock, and
about an hour after the premises were discovered to be?!
fire. Immediate information was conveyed to the Fire
Police Station, and in about fifteen minutes after the ee.
gines were got into play the fire was completely extin-
guished, but not before considerable damage was done t°
Mr. Clark's premises.
A number of witnesses were called to prove the value of
the stock possessed by the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN replied for the defence, and urged at
considerable length that the plaintiff had not produced
any witnesses to prove from whom the stocks were plir'
chased ; no invoices had he produced, nor any information
afforded by which an accurate estimate could be got. At
considerable cost witnesses had been brought from Lon-
don, Birmingham, &c., and invoices had been procured
and valuations taken, which would prove that the stock
could not have exceeded between £2OO and £3OO. The
case was then adjourned till Friday, when it was en-
pounced that the parties had agreed to refer the dispute
to arbitration.