The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1832-12-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,-GUILDHALL, DEC. 22.
EICXMAN AND ANOTHER V. CARSTAIRS.

Sir J. SCARLETT stated that this was an action by Messrs. Rickman
and Co., who 112. d been for 20 years merchants in London, against Mr.
Carstairs, ah underwriter at Lloyds, on a policy effected by him for
them. The plaintiffs were owners of the ship Mary, which was pro-
ceeding to the coast of Africa, to commence trading there, and they
effected an insurance on the vessel and her cargo, the former for £l2OO
and the latter for £lBOO, to take effect 24 hours after her arrival on the
coast. The vessel reached Sierra Leone, 'but was not so successful in
discharging her outward cargo as was expected. she was engaged
trading at other ports for 12 months, and on the Ist of June, 1830, a
year after she-set out, was lost on the coast with all her cargo ; that
cargo at the time consisted of part of her outward cargo, and such
goods as had been taken in since her arrival on the coast He was not
aware what defence was to be set up. He was in a situation to prove
that at the time the Mary went down, the goods on board were of con-
siderably more value than the,amount insured by the policy, and that
the plaintiffs would therefore be losers to a large amount.
The Soticyroa-GENERAL.—We.wiII admit all relating to the vessel
and the amount insured upon it, but we contend that the amount of
insured goods on board when the vessel was lost was much less than
the amount of the policy, and therefore submit that the matter he
referred to arbitration, and that a valuation be opened. We contend
that we are not liable for any of the outward cargo which remained on
board when the vessel was lost.

Sir J. SCAR LErr.—That about the outward cargo is a point of law :
you would not refer a point of law to the arbitrator. lamin a situa-
tion to prove in a very short time that the value of the goods on board
was very much more than the amount insured.

The COun Curs F JusTicH.Lliiiif the arbitrator values the whole
cargo, and separates the outward from the trading goods, will not that
raise all the points required 7 .
Sir J. SeAnuirr.-1 believe I can prove the value by witnesses in a
few minutes.

WaneAses were then called to prove the value of the property on
bodrd • wln't the tosser wag lost,"ln continuation of the learned coun-
sel's statement.

The Sometron-GuN HUAI., in his address to the jury for the defend-
ant, said he was still of opinion that this matter, which was one of cal-
culation, might be much more easily settled by an arbitrator. There
was no doubt that the plaintiffs were entitled to the verdict, and the
question was merely as to the amount. -The learned counsel referred
to the case of "Forbes v. Aspinal," and contended, upon the decision
in that case, that the policy in question did not relate to any part of
the outward cargo remaining in the vessel at the time she was lost, but
(Ally to that part which had been received since her arrival on the
coast of Africa.

Witnesses were then called to prove the quantity and value of the
goods actually on board when the vessel was lost.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.
RICKMAN V. HUTCHINSON.

This was an action by the same plaintiffs against another defendant
on the same -policy as In the former action, and upon another policy
collaterally. By consent a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs on the
former, and the defendants on the latter, policy.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,-FRIDAY, DEC. 21.
HAMLET AND OTHERS V. RICHARDSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as the trustees of the
C Milan and Peruvian 'Mining Association, to recover back a sum of
£B3O, alleged to have been paid in their own wrong for the freight of
the defendant's vessel, the Aurija.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS, assisted by Mr. WHATELY, conducted th e
plaintiffs' case; • and Mr. Serjeant,do;iss,, assisted by Mr. Sim, the
defence.

On the 9th of April, 1825, the defendant's vessel was chartered by
the plaintiffs to perform a voyage from London to any.port or ports on
the coast of South America ; she was to be retained in the service of
'the freighters for 12 months, and not longer than 24 months, provided
'that if she was to return 'to an European port and be there discharged,
the freight was only to be paid for the time she was so employed : but
if she were discharged in any port of South America within the period
of 12 months, then three months' additional freight was to be paid.
The vessel was actually employed for 19 months, and then discharged
at Valparaiso. During that period freight-notes were sent to the com-
pany's office every two months and regularly paid. The defendant
also claimed freight for three months more, the vessel having been
discharged in South America, which was paid to him under (as alleged
'by the plaintiffs), ignorance of the real circumstances; and to recover
back that sum this action was now brought. For the defendant it was
insisted that the plaintiffs could not maintain the action, inasmuch as
they had full opportunity of knowing the provisions of the charter.
party, and must have known them, because it was not until after an
action. for the freight in question had been commenced against them,
and the subject discussed by the directors, that they gave checks for
the money. Having, then, put their own construction on the terms
of the contract, and paid the money in conformity with that, they
were now precluded from saying that they had acted in ignorance of
the facts. _

The Jury, after having retired for some time, returned a verdict for
the plahitiM—Damages XB3O.