Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-03-13
SouEy or K1sG's BENCH, Nog. q.
ERIE VS.. ROWCROFT.

! ui5 WoS al aSItou upon d POtfty W 'ti.
surance loss by bsrratry Of the master
The harratry proved was this: The mss,
ter sailed for Cape Coast, TO procure slaves
--bu, finding them scarce there proceeded
to Dalmeida, a Dutch fort, where by the
good understanding which prevailed a.
raongst the traders Of the two counties,
he was permitted to trahc without molvsia-
ton, notwithstanding there was war Sub.
sis.ing between the two countFirs.-- He
traded there for negroes and was then
captured by an English frigate. Amongst
other ,hingsshc seid to the Dutch for ne.
groes, powder add ola noskets, such as
are asually sold ia the African trade. The
captain prof@ssed 10 act for the benefit OF
his owners, and was to gain noth:ng by
going to DalneiGa, except that by aeee!e.
rating the purchase of tie slaves, end set
ting earlier TO market 10 ,ke Nes, Indies
he would get spee'icr vent fox his ovo
privileged slaves. The instructors given
by his owners were to proceed as e$pedi.
,ioasly as possible 10 obtain slaves and %
procure market, and this was i.as aaosI
ezPe diiious mode IL was argued that scting
for the benefit Of the owners, Il coG:d no;
be tarra!ry in the master --barratry ne
cessarEy implying a l'sud u?oa tae own
ers,
The opinion Of the cour, was nov. De.
livered. After expressing srrprae that
ba.ra,ry should ever be loss .wishin the
policy Of insurance, since it laid the insHr>
ers open te SO many frauds between the
captain and ..ae owners, lord s!Ienborough
took clear review Of all the cases in the
books upon The subject, and also Of several
in manuscrip, furnished by NJ ] Lawrence
from the notes Of Mr.. Ford and orhers. &
concluded that although The probable ;,aIn
of the master was often considered 10 those
cases as. al evidence Of fraud, it was never
considered as a NECESSARY ingredient Of
barratry.
hat barratry appeared to be, from The
derivation in Du,reue's Glossary, and from
the cases, a fraud ex ,nue6cio Of the m as
ter, whereby the owners are injars d !; that
here the Instructions were siien: as 10 the
express. .act Of going to Dalmrida: and
that therefore the Instructions to the mas.
ter could not be supposed u authorize The
captain to violate the laws Of his country,
by trading with an enemy in time of war !;
and nuch less by Supplying the enemy with
gun-powder. and musksts, which are war
like stores. His lcrdship went through all
the cases, in a. manner. in which i. is im.
possible 20 follow him here, and coneiud.
ed, that this act Of trading at a Da,ch
fort, in time Of war, without the leave Of
,he owaers, whereby the ship was forfeit
ed, to barrasry ia the master; and that the.
plaintiff Nigh, recover, and consequently
that the verdict should stand fer the plain
Tiff. 80
CARR V. OSBORN.
This was an action for money had and
received, with special count that the de
f=adans. having insured the freish. Of goods
10 the ship George, from Riga to London,
(Which was detained by the emperor Of
Russia) abandoned the freight,to the plan-
tiff. and agreed 20 make him an egsctual
asslgomen: thereof.in consequence Of which
he paid the loss, but that the defend as-
forwards abandoned the chip to other per-
sons, and thereby, although the ship re.
turned safe and earned freight, yet the as
signment by the defendant Of the freight
was rendered of no avail.
Mr.. Park stated the case, which CORES
pended with the above sta;ement Of the
special court, with some additions. The
plaintiff first abandoned the ship and thsn
the freight, and both were assigned 20 the
same trustees, in trust for the several ua-
derwfiters on each. The snip was char
tered for the voyage, and the freight earn
ed uodsr ehe chafler.psr,y. The counsel
stated, that this action was founded upon
the principles arising cut of the case of
I" M'Carry u.Abel," S. East, 1888; and
very nearly resembled the case of $ Shsr-
ny v. Gladstone" 7. East, a. butt diff.