The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-07-29 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS...Ior.v 40..
Before Sir J. '3l.dxsriaLD • and a-Spada:joy.
lASSEStAN V. IfINIIATON.
This was an action tn,recorer from the Under-
writers the valve a ship and cargo, bound to Pil.
htu, and seised by the Prussian Government. There
was a proviso in the policy, protecting the Under-
writers against hostile seizure' by the Gavertithent in
the pert of disehargel• and the only question was,
whether the vessel, at the time of capture, was in
the port of Pilled. '
The Mate of the•ehip swot* the'ship wet anchored
two German (nine Etiglisit)-miles from theshore: the
Captain took the beat to o and see what was the
condition of things in the iserbonr : meantime a boat
came from the *shore with 50 soldiers and a pilot, who
took possession of the ship anti goods. Previous to
this, a censiderable portion of the goods had been
te.en out to lighten the Vessel, and enable her to go
over the bar.
Mr. Setjeint Lems contended, that the real object
of thepolicrwas, to protect the Underwriters, not
merely from seizure in port,.but from any seizure by
the Government, which, at that time, might betom.
pelted to seize a neutral vessel in spite of its • own
friendly disposition. •If this liberal- Constittietiois
should not be Ahmed, he contended that the' ship
was clonally in the port of discharge; as It'had be.
gun to unload its cargo.
Sir JAMES NIANIVIEVD. wag clearly of Oiiinion,
that the Underwriters could only he saved by a cap-
ture its the port of discharge, which had net beets
proved. The-goods which were taken out, weteevi-
dently removed only for the purpose of llghtentog
the.veasel, and not with the intent of untoaiNng,
The Jury immediately found averdict for the Plain-
tiff, 4761. •
The Counsel for the Defendant wished to have a
special verdict, to raise the question, whether, un-der the circumstances, the vessel might not be consi.
dered as in a port of discharge; but the Court said
there was no pretence'for suety a question.
arrwOos o. tot Ea.
This was an action to recover 201. igs. 9d. the
value of
.goods sold inidelieered to Defendant, for
which he pleaded that be had:paid by a bill of ea-
eh a recs. •
'Upon the part of the Plaintiff, Mr. Serjeent ten
eadressed the Court and Jury, and contended that
there was not a Shadow of ground for resisting the
Plaintiff's demand. The facts of the case were proved
by' the'following witnessre.
J. Conway stated, that he wns a clerk in the Om-
pleymeut of fsiesses. Hammond and Smith •, a short
time heck he called upon the Defendant, and receiv-
ed from him an order for goods to the amount of
the sum claimed ie the declaration. The Defendant,
when he gave the order, said he had a bill of ex.
thaw in his possession, which would cover the
'Mount of the goods ordered, and which Witness
agreee, to takes)* thr part of his employers, provided
it was citify. li6cerpted. The Defendant then gave
him the hilh.::4t
..silltvtiviiin upon a person named
Richard ittcliett. I..rfilt. bill witness took home, and
his emphaYirs,.sleifes.'llantriitifl and Smith, inad-
vertentlyiitievaried-it. ' Witness afterwards. left the
Dill for i&eptance at- ittikert house ; he calted'the
following day for the bill, When he Was told' Ri4kets
was oat; #r Oiled ittaSn fietieently on' *subsequent
occasiouS, 'l4 waist length 'tobY by Mrs. !ticket*,
that her husband would not et pt the lailtatefl,' as
there Was *in iniS.Statententin theitectitint of ,
Di-
diets, (iy wbom this ball war &vie. Daniels Iris. *AI
ipplled te, rind tie desire* MAK :to take sips ib
t[egainVtissesarni* .the bill, and tie would pay the
eapenees. Witness alto proved the delivery Wfthel
The bill hi question, which had bean pro.
dured by Rieke's, in ronsequente of a notice ritllitig
upon him to bring it ittto Court, was then put into
itnecs's hand—he ,aitl that was the bill which hehad
left for acceptance at Ilickett's house, the endorse.
inetit of Ifanitronf! and Smith Was that of his em. I
p!o)ers ; the' word re:eired, which wai also open I
it. he liclimed to he a forgery, as he WAS Whirled
the amount of the Bill had never b'eewreceived by
Iklessrs. Ilammoid and Ottifth.

A young man 'linned giovmers proved, that he
was resent at a conversation between Mr. Smith and
the Defendant, in which the latter spoke of the con.
due.' Rickets, and addged that steps should be
taken to force him to tleliveiap the bill.
This was the only evidence adduced on the part
61 the Plaintiff. _ _

Mn.Serjeant VAtiGnAlt,'ltir the Defendant, after
a few remark+, called
Richards Rickets, the Origin on Whom the Bill
had been dinWn, whO solemnly deposed, that the!
till had beeh presented 16 him for acceptance; that)
he did accept it, and that be efterivaids paid it.
Nfr-Serkant LIEF.T then spoke in reply, and left
it to the Jury to consider, whether twit Woeld be-
lieve the testimony of the clerk of Metistit:Akeemond
and Smith, who could have' no inter2Ot VreTtitte a
falsehOOd, •or that of Rickets, who,- ft 'woad •he
seen, if the present action succeeded, nould be liable
to pay. the Bill. •
Lord Chief Justice MAnsriti.n, in summing it
the evidence,, observer!, that this was a most extra-
ordinary case; two witnesses were examined, one of
whom was certainly -guilty of per/urp:, • Between
'those two peraoirs it was far the Any • taliktidi);
they would therefore take all the cfreitwarinces of
the case into their consideration, Ind form their
judgments accardingif. •
•
The Jury, after a feir moment's consideration,
found a 'vcrdi‘t•for Pli+inCli, damages 291.195. 9d.
Mr. Serpatit.Bcsr thin moved the Court to de-
tain the Lill, as it etas his intention to prosecute
for ptlurp • •
'24 ustice MAlS7lltili flld—"4 Most qr..
bill was Eccoidirigy 'detained • for

teLETT V. stlsgAltl.; . •
iction hrolhi by the son anciadmii.
late Central Paulett, for. a sum of
represented to be the amount of the
library of his fither,)vitich the De!.
by auction, pursoant to agreemeut.,,
Serradia,llrwr said, the,pKerlol .action
fur. !• money proiluced by the sole of Cad"
Ilitirary, :Abe; roamonen.t. crf which,
Isted to Piiiotipti R ri.glicteta,blel
Piccadilly. ;Lk that thdi
would be oci the. irounifs;

Rickets fur pec;..i
Lord Chic( Ito
!allay," and the
* that purpose.
o
. .
0.1 'Phis was ani !lc
statrator' of the Ii
: 1 14911. 116..,(30. Ft
• procetiat of the i•
' I feiula nt, hcd7sOld 1
• 11r-Iforrortitt,l
breaghe fur the,
) ArAtt ;. tigu it ell 7.1
b:44, beet) entrol
auctioneer 'iv P
Pleiatiti's claima