Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-01-27

tUdt case vas pEliECsiy III 80. - 49, -
ply this that man shall not BE- permitted
20 abandon ard recover for atotal loss,
when he knew a, the time Of his offer 70 a
bandon, that his property which had bssu
lest, was restored an the voyage very l's.
lie injured. But ia reading the opiaion o.
Lord Mansfield, We find q want OF aecura.
cy with which that grea; man was sei LOO
chargab!e. Some tiresis appears as 1t ne
thought the period for fixing the rights Ct
the iusurers and insured WAS the coa-
mencemens Of the suit somc times the
time of abandonment add some tlmss he
even seems TO have extended dis ldsas so
far as The time Of the vereiict. But finally
he explicitly declares, that be decides
noshiag bat the paint before him. -H
seems to have fsl.a little sore at the In.
proper application Of some general ex-
pressions used by h:na in the case ct Goss
VS.. Withersl Anxious 10 eu. OF ali pre-.
stence for Doing the same in hamilton VS..
Mendas, he has taken too much pains TO
avoid The possibility Of Misrepresentation.
Hence his srgumens considered IN the
whsle is not altogether clear and consist
en.. Upon the whole Of this case Of Ham
ilton Us. Mendez, Thick il noss safe TO
conhne It's authority to the point actually
decided, Which was very different fron,
ths, WIS ara now considering. Some per-
cd mus, be 6xed for deter mining the right
Of th4 parties. To limit it 10 the time ct
commencing the action you'd be Of lials
service to ,he insurers for the law be.
ieg ence SO established, an acsion weuld be
brought ia every instance on the first de.
tsult ii paFmvnt. The tine OF abandon.
msnt seems the most natural ard conve.
ntsn, period because the assured must
make his election to aEanden CT nos, in
reasonable and shor, time after be hears
o. th loss, snd tie property being rans-
Jared by tbs establishments, can ne.ef at
terwasd be slammed by the assured - Want
Of mo ual:y IS want of jlssise. There IS
no eason why The sarsd should be
bound, bu, lhs assu.er ieft free 20 take
adsas'ags OF events subsequent 70 the a.
bandoIasnt.
Il has been san,endad BY the plaistia's
counsel shat the right 10 abandon would
not hare been affected, even II the pro
p.rty had been restored q, tbs time OF
abandon because the restitution was
unknown 10 tbs plaintiff. "A to this lg,ve
no opinloa. l, is unnecessary because
il is ts,ea that the vessel rem aimed ia the
custody OF The cGpiors. at tn time ot,he a.
banaohment The defendants COUNSEL.
have urged that this was the faa' ct the 3
taefain or Of ore OF the owners who was
then a, New Providence because after
cecies Of acouisai, a'wris IT resri,uuos
might have bsen sued out, Bat it not
beng stated ,ha. that there was asy faul,
or n=g!igsnce' in the captain Or owaer, /
do DOT shink that The ceurI can infer it,
Il bting stated that The vessel rcmaiard III
the custody 81 the eap,crs, We must pre-
sumo hat ,hecussody was Legal Whe-
lherfor the purpose Of giving ths captors
en- opportunity Of esserins an appeal, or
for what purpose 1t was the restitution
was delayed, We are at a loss to determine
--8us as restitution wss aos &C aaily made
and as the pla:ullf was ignotant even oil
the decree of acqutal, his right TO aban
doa remained um Impaired.
Upon the whsle | an Of opinion tina, the
plaintiff is entitled 70 recover TOR total
loss.
Extract from Mr. Daa,sl's speech ia the |
Virginia senate, agalas. the resolution
for addressing tbs presidrnt, &c.
{ lhi' rfsslMioa syas rsjectsd-5Jiesn to
.fvs
those who are SO anxious to shisli [
ths administration agsisst the consequence
Is OF dissent watch some give to these
particular measures, should IN nay iudg- |
ment be Careful to Distinguish the ais Of
The administration from this policy which