The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-02-09 00:00:00

CAMIILLO •. RRITTOV.

6
%

This was an action on a policy of insurance on gun-
powder and bird-shot, at and from London to Pernam-
buco. When the ship arrived off that port, she was
seised by two Portuguese ships of war, and carried to
(labia, where her cargo was condemned, on the ground
that the gunpowder was contraband, and that the ship
had been guilty of breach of blockade.
The enderwilters resisted payment of the loss, chiefly
because there was not a snffinent license from the Eng-
lish tiorernment for the exportation of the goods, as the
license which was granted did not extend-to the shot,
and a proper hied had not been given for the exporta-
tion of the guagoseder ; and because the plaintiff toeing
.a Portuguese sehject, the capture was to be considered
his own act.
Mr. Loarazu., for the plaintiff, contended, that a li-
l'crioe to export the bird-shot was unnecessary, as a li-
cruse is only necessary for the exportation of that which
is to be considered ammunition of war.
Mr. Justice BUT. —Can bird shot be considered am-
munition of war?
Mr. CAMPBBLl.—Certainly not, my Lord, unless war
should again break out between the Pigmies and the
Cranes I He argued that the bond was sufficient for the
exportation of the gunpowder ; and that the seizure,
beteg a wrongful act of the Portuguese Government, the
underwriters were liable, although the assured was a
Portugueie subject domiciled in London.
Mr. Putt.an, on the other side, insisted that bird-shot
was amusenition, requiring a license to legalise its ex-
portatloo, and that the bond was insufficient, being exe-
cuted by the mannfacturer of the gunpowder, instead of
the merchant. lie inslifted, moreover, that Mr. Caotoello
being a Portuguese suldect, the seizure was to be consi-
dered his own personal act, as the citizen or subject of
every State is snpposed to concur in all the acts of his
.••••••••••• Lir mai norme if • . -

ren'r" et Ito' ;timer
eines—irtt'llirent.thyeynfha do
they
the no
bond,
upon except with
tooime to
1 l COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Fes. S.
PUTT V. CONANT.
• Previously to Mr. Serjeant VAVONAN rising to reply,
liperjeant BOSANQUITT said, that he had forgotten
he former day to allude to a difference which existed
between the two reports of Rex v. Wilkes. In the
hooks whit 11 contained that case in Mr. Serjeant Wil-
son's note, Lord Camden is made to say, that ." it is ab-
surd to require surety of the peace or bail from a li-
beller ;" while In the State Trish, vol. 19, page 993, the
passage runs--" Upon the whole, (hough it should
he admitted that sureties of the peace arc requirable
trove Mr. Wilkes, still his privilege of Parliament will
not be taken away till his sureties have been demanded
and refused."
i Mr. Se cant VAUGHAN, in reply, observed, that the
dries' lent toad contended for the right of a Magistrate to
issue a warrant, and hold a person to bail in tin ease of
a libel, although no actual breach of the peace had oc-
curred. He (Mr. Serjeant Vaughan) had used his ut-
most exertions to prove that the preposition was adverse
to the spirit of one laws, and the fundamental principles
,:f sue constitution. Ile had the satisfaction of knowing
that very few cases, authorities, or diets were added to
whit be had originally brought forward ; and the reason
for this was, that there was so little in all thelooks that
tended towards a justification of such * proceeding. His
!opened Friend hadrt ?el with !tad mg, that the law,
•