The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-10-01
COURT OF KISc's BsNcH, July 90.
Sitting i:'aye Lord ENenboronsb and Social 5;uj:
.iee5 Of London Merchants, at GuildbaR.

Sitting Lc'aye Lord ENrn6oroasb and S.rciaI 5ujc
siee5 Of London Merchants, at GuiidhaR.
ROBINSON y. TURIN.
This was an action of comfortable moment
to the mercantile intereft.
The Plaintiff was the confgnee of certain
goods on board Swedilh veflei difcharging its
cargo at Blackwell; and the Defendant was
the tghterinan employed by the Plaintiff Ia
bring the cargo 20 conigned to him from. on
board the fhip. 1t appeared that ON the 9th
November, 1908, the Defendants lighter came
aioneiide of the ihip in queilion, and that the
perfon who had the charge of it ordered goo
barrels OF pitch, con6gned to the Plaintiff, to
be flowed on board his lighter. He was infor-
med that hrs order could not be completed that
day, but iliould, on the next morning, or at far
theft in the courie of the day. The iighterman
came down, on the day of the 10th, for amo
ther lighter which he had there, at which time
the people of the ihip were in the aet of loading
h,s lighter with the goods in quea,',. The Ia
ding was completed about O'Clock that day,
about O'Clock the tide became lack, when,
as they had been in0rueaed by the lightcrman,
the people belonging to the fi,in put the lighter
out a.ftern of the fhip, to prevent the preiItlre
OF other vefiels, from the turn Of the tide. Be-
tween the hours of l2 that night, and l O'Clock
or the morning ofthe 18th, the lighter funk, &
or the 200 barrels of pitch only IS were reco-
vered. Torecover compensation for this lofs
was the object of the preftnt action.
The cafe rcfolved 6r,ply into this on whom
did the burden of caring for the lighter lie ;
On the ihip owners, or on the Lighterman?
MIR. Solicitor Generaland Mr.. Parke, for the
Plaintiff, adduced feveral witneiIIs tn fbew
that the general understanding had always been,
that perfon ihouid be left on board the ligh-
NV ltc t< 4
itow the goods. This was particularly pccc,.
iary, where, as in the prefent inaance, The
L'ghterman was employed, not by the lhip
owner, as was offen,he' cafe, but by the con-
hgnee of ths goods.
MIR. Frikine, for the Defendant, on the other
hand, atduced number of witneiTes, princi-
paliy Ship Owners and Lightermen jointly, 70
prove that, from the moment the lighters came
aongfidc the vefirl from which they were to
carry the goods, from thence To the period oil
their complete fading, and, if that ihould hap.
pen at night, TO the period of the next NOR.
ming S tide, the cuRody and burden of the lieh.
ter lay on the Ship Owners.
The Solicitor General was about to addrefs
the Jury in reply, when
Lord Peterborough interrupted him by rcmar.
king that no ufage, however general, could a.
vail the Defendant in this cafe. The ufape, il
niage it was, of the f,ips from ON board OF
which the lighters were to convey the goods
taking charge of the lighters, could only have
refued from the neglect of the Proprietors ot
the latter to leave proper perfons to take charge
OF them. In doing TO-, they efIentially depar.
ted from the contract which they mutt be pre-.
inmed from the moment their lighter had com.
mcnced taking the goods on board to have IN.
dertaken. 1t became, from that moment, the
duty of the proprietor of the lighter to LOCK
after the goods put on board of his lighter, &
to have a Perfon conftantly in readinefsto car.
ry Il off when the lading was completed. Nc
man could be allowed to urge a practice, ori.
ginating out of his own fault, as one of which
he was to avail himfslf
The jury accordingly found for the Plain.
! tiff to the full extent Of his demand.