The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-01-27 00:00:00

MELLISH V. ANDREWS.

This cause stood for argument in• the peremp-
tory paper of the day, upon motion for a new trial.
It was an action upon a policy of insurance upon
goods by the ship Minerva, from London to the
Baltic, with warranty free of seizure in Itrtr port of
i discharge. The loss was by seizure and detention
in a Swedish port ; and the Defendant obtained a
verdict upon the grounds, that the notice of aban-
donment was not given in due time. The question
for the decision of the Court was, whether any no-
tice of abandonment was necessary ; And, if so,
whether such notice had been given in due time ?
! The vessel in question put into a Swedish port to
' relit, and during her stay there on the Bth of De-
cember, 1810, was detained by the Swedish Govern-
ment. Advice of the detention was immediately
forwarded to the assured, who served a notice of
abandonment on the underwriter in this case, on the
17th of January, which notice was dated the Bth of
January.
Messrs. PARK, TOPPING, and TARDY, • in sup-
port of the verdict, contended, at great length,
that in cases of all seizure or detention, notice of
abandonment was necessary ; that the notice in this
case being dated the Bth, .and not served until the
17th, when then too late, and therefore, the Plaintiff
was not entitled to recover as' fur a total loss.

' MELLISH V. ANDREWS.
Mr. SCARLETT moved to set aside the verdict ob-
tained for the Plaiutitf in this case, and for a new
trial.
This was an action upon a policy of insurance
ups goods at and- from Heligoland to any port
or place iu the Baltic ; and the loss was, by seizure
and detention in the port of Gottenburgh (the ship's
destination being that of Koningsherg), and the
declaration stated the loss to be, that the goods were
in a forcible manner taken, and detained by persons
unknown, and thereby were wholly lost. The ves-
sel sailed from Heligoland on the 26th of August,
1310, and on the 12th of October, went into Got-
tenburgh, for the purpose of refitting, when the
Captain found it expedient to unload the cargo, and
deposit it in warehouses of which the correspendt,tits
of the assured kept one key, and the Custom-house
Officers another. In this state the cargo remained
unfil the 7th of December, when a chi.ng • took
place in the politics of Sweden, and an order of the
Government was made for the detention of all Eng-
lish goods. The ship itself was still in the nossession
and under the coutroul of the Captain, who rmnain.
ed at Gottenburgh until the month of Noverni,er
last, and had in the interim made various applica.
dons to get the goods hack, but the only answer he
received was, that the matter was not vet deter-
mined, so that there still remained a doubt whether
the goods might not be restored, as they continued
under sequestration. No abandonment wa4 proved
upon the trial. The first objection of the Learned
counsel was, to the mode of stating the loss in the
declaration; it was there averred to be a loss :tts
seizure and detention of goods on board ship, where-
as the goods were in fact on shore, and not on board
ship. He had looked into several cases upon this
point; but, particularly in the case of Burt v. Whit-
more, the Court held, that the loss should be stated
according to the fact.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that in this case
the loss was stated in the usual and ordinary way ;
and as his Lordship considered that this was not
a material averment in the declaration, the objection
Was overruled.
The next objection was, that there had been no
abandonment ; and in order to entitle the Plaintiff
to recover, as for a total loss, he should have first
abandoned to the underwriters.
Lord Faxemeonoveu was of opinion, that this
was a total loss, and the Jury had considered it as
such, and found their verdict accordingly : for
bow long was a party to wait, in such a ease as
this, before be could bring his action ? The seizure
was actually made, and front that moment it be-
came a total loss: for a the party were to
wait for final condemnation, they might wait ad
Ofinitam. The condemnation being still pending,
the assured held, as trustees, for the underwri-
ters, and had undertaken to assign to them.—
He therefore thought the justice of the case had
been properly disposed of: and the rest of the
Court concurring in this opinion, the Rule was re-
fu

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the other hand, in
support of the rule for a new trial, contended, that
there was no necessity for an abandonment at all ;
but from the time of the seizure and detention, the
Plaintiff was entitled to bring his action, and re-
cover as for a total loss, as the assared would still
be considered as trustee of the goods for the under-
writers.

Lord ELLENIOROUGHI in pronouncing the judg-
ment of the Court, observed, that in all cases of de-
tention, capture wee to be implied, for there cer-
tainly was, pro Undo, an obstruction of the voyage,
which gave the assured a right of action, for at the
least, he must have sustained some loss on account
of that detention. But it had been thought, that
notice of abandonment was more essentially neces-
sary than, in his judgment, it really was ; at the
same time, he hoped the discussion would not in-
duce people to forego that practice, which, in many
cases, was found to be most convenient. He cer-
tainty thought the want of an abandonment did not
oust the party of his claim upon the underwriters,
but it was a most convenient practice, and should not
be discontinued.

- The Court, considering all the circumstances of
this case, were of opinion, that there ought to Le
a new trial, and, accordingly, the rake was
absolute.

• ,

NEW Lastsisto-TIME.---Mr.Thompsba, rf ,' atlMll
Lodge, near Nottingham, has, at the pre% early
period, almost a hundred lambs, of the M -.0 urc'd.
This gentleman, we understand, - ..ty con-
trives his yeaning-time to take .cut New
Year's Day, and the following fortnie• adducei
several reasons for his deviation tr, - general
practice. He contends that as the seaso,is have palpa.
bly and materially altered, it is the duty of breeders
to observe them, and alter their plans accordingly.—
He
states that out of the last seven years; the wea-
ther bas been, in six instances, milder during Ja-
nuary than Mare, the usual lambing-period of this
country. lief iher argues, that cabbages, turnips,
&c. are now in die highest perfection ; and.that a per.
tion of these, given to the ewes, have the effect of
causing a full supply of nutritive milk for the lambs ;
while the few green crops remaining' in March, are
then become void of succulence, and have no such
effect. The lambs, therefore, who fall at that pe-
riod, can have no milk from their dams, except the
scanty supply crated by dry food, and thus it con-
tinues through Z.pril ; while those lambs, which are
then three months old, eat hay in addition to the milk.,
Lastly, ikf.r. T. et:mends, that the most trying part,
IPLINDT V. CROCLAT. of the . t:imars life is the winter in which it is a bog
Mr. CARR moved, for liberty to enter a non-suit, or teg t and as his are three months older than those
• or for a new trial in this case. lambed at the usi.A time, they are so math the strong-
This was an action upon a policy of insurance on er to eaco .ster it. These observations we present
enodi on a voyage from London to the Baltic and the to our agricultural readers u worthy of considers-
Culph of Finland, and the loss was by French cap- tion ; more especially as we arc told that the young
tare, and tried the last Sittings at Guildhall, before animals and their mothers are very healthy, and that
Lord Elleuborough, when the Plaintiff obtained a little or ao loss has been sustained during the season
verdict, subject to the point reserved. The interest of yenning.
in the goods insured was averred to be solely in Wiwans THE SutoDE.—lt baying been asserted
itiessrs. Gnrnuck and Co. who were resident in Rms. and re-asserted in some of the daily Journal', • that
ais, with which country we were at war, both at the • Williams was a native of Coggeshall, in Essen; we.
time of the shipment, and the subsequent capture by are requested, hy.a elentleman of that place, to state,
the enemy. The licence was granted to Messrs. Cos- that this is an unfougded assertion; The young man
tendie and Co. British merchants, of London ; and of that name, who waa torn in Cogglinitall, is, we
the property in the goods insured being solely in are assured, at this manned whiting in Woolwich
Gurnuck and Co. who were domiciletsubjecti, and Warren, and his relations received a letter Item him
Resident in Russia at war with this Coantry, and not within theatfew days, *stating, that tw was
in Casteadie and Co.tb, Learned cionool contended. haditi, sad teaPtaa * luttlaa at WoaltHahs at
that this licence could• only protect thti propeityiof 141 tess'.4.lllula6.
- '
the latter. The Erie of Min* a. Read, which stood' If 111.11 at **Wady ai' •104.4.411 Ni4val 472.
far argument upon a special Indict, was nearly. a it-. AV 101044".thit q:l44±T 74111Prc Nom
attar case. ilttiliW7aeffraTilio'Wid jounds,.as. Ake'
•; • •
The
Court coscsiviog it question of great la- natio Isltfaidorable• .

'7"