The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-07-24 00:00:00

,1.1.P.1.

-

.

••=•••••••••

k

eh.

vas

law 14 rstuellNCS.
COURT OP KiRO/1 stcn, Ji,LT ri.

RATNER TP. uotmosa.
This was me action epos a Policy of Insnranee on
a cptantity of corn damaged in the conveyance from
S•lby to HaWait. The corn was sent in a barge
w'lich moored in a dock. in consequence of some re-
pair making above the dock, the water was drawn
or, and the barge sinking upon a pile at the bottom,
which had formerly been part of a bridge, let in the,
water and destroyed the corn.
The defence war, that it was not a loss occasioned'
by the perils of the sea, against which the Under-
wri►ers had specifically insured.
The Learned JUDE, was clearly of opinion that it
was a loss to which the Defendants were liable, and
that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover.
'the Joey found a verdict for the plaintiff, 2001.
dawagee.

lIIIIINETT V. TIIR VPIDIRWRITRRS.
This was an action ou a Policy of insurance on the
ship Susanna, from the Cape of Good Hope to New
Brunswick. Os the 26th of Jalv, 1620, the ship ar-
rived at Ne.r Brunswick, and was hove down upon the
carpenter's repairing weys, for the pnrpose of ex-
a,nining her bottom. On the 15th of October, a
sn Iden gust of wind carried away her mast, broke
the lashings which fastened her, and the consequence
was, that she fell on her *Wand was so much injured
n% to be edit Co. farther service. The vessel after a
survey was condemned, and sold for the benefit of all
parties.
The SOLICITOR ORNIRAL, on the part of the ni-
dei criters, contended, that this was not a loss by the
perils of the sea, against which the ship was insured,
but an accident on shore. Ile cited the ease of a
vessel destroyed on Gosport Beach ; this action wss
hrosglit against the Underwriters, and the defenee
was, that the loss nas not hr the perils of the seq.
Judge Mansfield gave his opinion that as the damage
happened on land it could not he a lu,s by the perils
of the sea, sad non-suited the pl.titititf. This case
was similar, and the plaintiff could not recover.
Mr. SictIILETT sail, it was a loss far which the Un-
derwriters were liable.
Jn itexe said it W4i one of the pelils against
whieh a plaintiff might be protected by 11:s pliey,
but it wss not a loss by peril of the sea. In the ab-
sence of special statement as to the li.thiiitc of the
Defendants in such a case, Ow plaintiff sot It be non-
suited.

The Plaintiff was rinnsuited, with 1i: arty to wove
the Court to set the nunsuit aside.

COURT OF COMMON Pf.r. %S. it; Lv
Parts C. THI BANK OF ENGLAND.
The plaintiff in this ease, Mr. Horatio Davis, sought
to recover the value of 10,000/. Bank 3 per Cent.
enosoli fated Annuities, and 751. per annum Bank
tong Annuities, transferred by the Bank under a
pauer of attorney, to which Captain Davis, else
plaintiff's broth's, had forged the plaintiff's name.
The defence relied upon was, that the plaintiff.
having withheld the communication of the fact of his
h:nther's forgery from the Bank, for a considerable
time after it had come to his knowledge ; and having
received certain sums of money from his brother.
ail.;ell it was contended were part of the produce of the
sale. whereby he had adopted or tanctioned the trans-
I .r, had conducted himself in such a nay its to debar
blrn of all right to recover in this action. It appeared,
amongst other circumstances, that on the dey before
t 1..• peet dividend, after the transfer, 11811 fallen Jur
.laimary, 152.00 the plaintiff received from
his brother, which was the precise amount of his di-
vidend on the 10.0001. consols ; and on the next day
Le called at the Bank and threw 201., the amount of
ill year's dividend on 5011/. Navy S per Ceut.
without applying far any other. The decentl-
y.- rs Counsel insisted that it was manifest front this
t'.st the p!aintill was then aware of the transfer, and
c^ly drew the 2111., cittiscions that that was all to
ieh he was entitled. lit his answer, however, to a
of discovery filed by the defendants, the plaintiff
.ore that at that time he had no knowledge of the
f.:gerv, and merely drew the 20/. as having occasion
f,:r that sam to make some purchases at an auction
w! ;Os he was roing to attend. But he admitted, that
n- the sth of Mardi, two days after lull heotli-r had
Len taken into custody for committing a f ,raery
on
the Messrs. Drutninond for 6,0001., he called upon
Vet in Oiltspur-street Compter, and aslied hint, "as
tre had been eatuntitting forgery upon strane•ers, if he
1.14 mint:lett with his property F"Fo which he re-
pled. that he had taken the 10,0001. consols. and
Long Annuities." (In the 7th the brother esea:,e,l
from the Compter in the disgnise of his servant. pre- I
a iottsly to tehleh, hr ~ave the plaintiff an order on his
hankers far whatever balance of his remained in their
land=; and amcnnting to 231., he r..reivo,l.
'Cle nett dividend bell dui in July, but the plaintiff
r site nu applieetion to the Bank until September.
vt.en ha wrottel letter from the country to Messrs.
Itiv.tlen, his brokers, stating that in consequence of
Lis mother's protracted illness, occa'ioned by the
shock she had received, he was prevented from coming
to town, and would therefore thank them to prepare
a power of attorney for the purpose of receiving the
tlleitlends due upon the stock (specifying it) in the
Bank in his name. In reply to the broker's answer,
informing him that there was no such stock in the
Hankdn his name, he wrote back to sad-, that he had
Bitten no paver to any person to transfer the stock iu
question, and he therefore hoped the mistake would be
rectified. Upon this the denouement took place. These
were the leading circumstances upon which the de-
fence was grounded ; and it was argued, that by the
sappr...seitit of the forgery when it came to the plain-
tiff's ktuewledge, the Bank had been preeladed from
takirigmeastires to have the brother secaretl, or to
bare reCovered the property which hail b.,n lost.
Haring, therefore; as far as he was able, prevented
civil reOponsibility, and obstructed criminal justice,
the plaintiff MA forfeited all claims to remuneration.
The Leurned .Itulge in his charge said, that before
he proceeded farther in this very singular case, lie
shoold-oliserve that the Directors of the Bank had
done right in brineine it before a jury. The situa-
tion of the plaintiff was greatly to be lainented ; for
throne' affertion to his brother, he hall deviiued wak-
ing the disclosure of his crime ; and that affection, If
the defence prevailed, would min hint. It was admit-
ted by the Coined for the Bank, •
that if this were a

STA'

coasmea ease of stock transferred by forgery, without
the plaintiff's knowledge, he would be entitled to re-
ceiver. And here his Lordship felt himself hound to,
state his opinion, in order that the parties might make
what use they could of it hereafter ; which was, that 1
if then had bees a suppression of the fact of the for-
gery en the part of the plaintiff f.r a length of time,
so matter what his motive, or whether the defendants
received any injury through that suppression or not,
he was not entitled to recover. The first question for '1
the jury, then, was—when did he first obtain a know-
ledge of the transaction ? Was it in January, when
he received 1301. from his brother, the precise amount
of his dividend, the day before it fell due, and on the
next day drew but twenty pounds from the Bank, the
dividend arising from the Navy 5 per cents.? If be
had then known it, and he received that 1501. from
his brother as his dividend, that was evidently an
adoption of the transfer. But even if there were no
adoption, supposing him to have known it then, his
giving no notice of the transaction to th.." Bank until
the following September, would, in his Lorilship's ap-
prehension. deprive him of the right to recover. In
his answer, however, be denied that he hail at that
period any knowledge of the circumstance. But then
did be know it.on the sth of March? The conversa-
tion stated in his answer proved lie di.l. Ilad this
been a stranger, instead of his brother, it would hare
been his duty instantly to have given the Bank no-
tice; for who can say, that if the Bank of England'
knew that this man had romonitted a forgery upon
them to the amount of I 0,000/. tl,ev would not have
taken more effectual means to secure bias and a (*A-
in towards his own brother, however atitiaide, disc
not salter the legal effect of the r•tse. lint the sup-
pression did not stop there; for he made nu conomn•
nieation of the transaction until after that mockery of
writing to llarolen tool; place in September. His
Lordship's, opinion, th,refore, was, that by this sup-
pregsion the plaintiff had debarred himself ut the right
to recover.

The jury, without liesi!ation, found a verdict for
the defendants.

COI'llT OF Km:NE.

Mr. Day, the keeper of the Dog and Pear Inn, Sind 11
nark, was charged with having hail in Isis poszession a
quantity of smuggled spirits.
It appeared that a tnan was apprehended he •otne Ex-
cise nffwers with a parcel containing- •noigtfled spirit•,
coining front the Inn. 'Else officers immediately s•orclsell
the Inn, and in the stable found two anhers of ein, and
ttvo other vessels full. It was denied on the part of yr.
Day, that he Isaol. the slightest knowledge of the %pi:its,
or how they came there. Evidence was calle.l on Isis be-
half to prove that carriers from Sussex were in the habit
of putting up at the Inn with their carts: that they had
access at all hours to the Inn, and even to the bay loft,
which was seldom visited hv 31r. Day and it was possi-
hle that smuggled goods might be concealed there with-
' ont his knowledge. One of the carriers ha I been in
the habit of sending parcels sound ar to that found upts
the man. ►
The t!otuT thought that there was not tentlicient evi.
(tenee to shew that Jlr, Day hail the knowledge of the
spirits: they therefore remitted the penalty but con-
demned the spirits. They observed of huts itittels ins-
portanee is was to innkeepers not to he remiss its attend-
ing to. their guest from counties like Saws. as by waver
of vigilance they exposed themselves to all the 'penalties
incurred by the possession of contraband g. 00,14. In
this case the Court wished there haul not been so much
reason to suppose that the smugglers had left the spirits
seized behind them as a recompense fur shelter afforded
them.
Mr. Day was convicted in the mitigated penalty of IR
for having in his posse.ion a bottle of colouring. %chic!'
was found by the otfi:ors as they wire searching his
Charles P.plener, a Triblcan in the lioroagli, was con-
victed of a similar offence in the penalty of 51.

- -