The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-06-05
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
Corr, Of Kings Bench, Guildhali, Jan. Is. I'd
5ouraed Sittinss, before Lord EL,enbOrough ana
. Nbsc III

Coar. Of Kings Bench, GuiLdhdl, Jan. Is I'd
iOuraed SittinSs, before Lord EL!enborough and
Special Jurors.
BELL and OTHERS .. REED.
This was AN action policy ofinsurance, efec-
Red on goods shipped on board the lmogen, bound
from Petersburg in Virginia, to any port or ports
in the Baltic, with liberty call at amy port in the
British Channel. The first count in the declaration
stated the property to belong to John Bell, OF PEI
Tersburs, Virginia and the second placed the in
t-rest in certain merchants re siUent there.
1t appeared from the evidence, that tie gocds
were shipped by John Bell of Petersburg, who
in partnership with Messrs. Bell, in London, and
AIR. Beasey, who resided in Hamburger. MIR. john
BELL, and Messrs. VIM. and Walter Bell, were the
Plantfsin the present action-PriOr to the period
OF the vessels sailing, Mr.. John Bell dispatched
letter to Messrs. Bell In London, desiring them to
effect an insurance. which they accordingly did.
The shipon her passage touched AZ Falmouth, pur-
suant to order, and was there directed, by the
house OF Fox x Co. to proceed to Hamburger. In
stead of going thithe, the imogen went to Gotten
burgh, where Mr.. M'Neash, the agent OF Beasley,
resded-On the 18th of April, 1911, MIR. Reasley
to Mr. M'Neagh, desiringhirn send the fl. ST
of his vessels, which he named, aud among them
the lmogen, that should arrive GotteRbursh i'm
mediately to Elsineur, to wait for orders from the
hose of Bafour aud Co. there. The Imogen,
which arrived first, dispatched accordingly, and
taken of E.isineur by Danish prvateer. On
the 18th OF August following she condemned in
the Prz Court at Copenhagen. For this loss the
assured now sought to recover. :, p
Mr.. Garrow, for the Defendant, commended, that
the policy had been effected under misrc resenta-
ton The underwriters conceived that the proper
~ was American, anti Of course bearing neutral
character. This was not the case, Mr. John Bell
of Petersburg, was partner with Bell s. Co here,
who were interested in the goods. The underwri-
tiers were therefore ignorant of the risk It in
fact, sending British property cotton and tobacco
into the enemy's mouth.
Lord Peterborough observed, that the evidence
did not prove that Bell y Co. of London, had any
interest whatever in the goods.
MIR. Garrow then argued, that Mr.. John Bell of
Petersburg, though domicied in America, could not
divest himself of his allegiance to the Sovereign of
this country, OF whom he the subject. Now if
ne sent the goo for sale to Elsineur, was ma
n.f-st he did, since the advice of Bafour s. Co who
resided there, to be taken on the subject, it was
trading with an alien enemy, which he, as a natural
born subject Of the Crown of G. Britain, could not
do, without licence from the British Government
1t was, otherwise, centraycntion of his allegiance
and he had no right 10 recover &,
Lord EIenborough expressed his readiness to save
this point, which was accordingly done.
The Attorney General, for the Plaintiff said that
the partnership aliedged exist between John Bell
nf Petersburg, aud Messrs. Bell, of; London was
proved from the evidence, to have been only for TN.
purposes of factoragc. Messrs. VIM. and Walter
Bell could not be considered ao principals, but sim
ply AS agents. They had no more interest in the
cargocs than any gentleman of the Jury They had
merely entered into the partnership to procure con.
signments, on which they received commissions. As
20 the circumstance Of an American vessel tocbino
a
neutral should do so, for the purpose of receiving in.
formation as TO the state of the market, &c in the
place ut destination. The. evidence of the CAPTAIN
vent clearly to prove, that the vessel proceeded Ia
Els'neur not to dispose of her cargo there, but to
wait for orders. =.
Lord Peterborough said, the case resolved itself in
foa very narrow compass. With respect to the point
which had been reserved, aud which would hereafter
nndergotul considerations lie had he station in stat
ing the law peremptoriy. Ii "a British subject, doni
tilated in America tur the purposes of commerce. per
formed any by which he contavened s allegiance
90 the sovereign, lac anenable to the Is w. s. as
liable to the penalties of such act even though his life
we're affected, as If he resided in this country. Whe
fher the act executed in the present case was or wat
got Illegal was question for future discussion I'm
.ier all the circumstances, the Jury had better fine
Tor the Plaintiffs subject to the ultimate decision
tic point reserved.
Verdict for the Plaintiff
Bell and others Os Burton. ~
This case was pceeisely similar to the lact A YER
dict was taken for the Plaintiffs subject to the above
point" Whether British subject, domiciled in A.
Inerea can send goods AM enemys port not beine
furnished with British license, without departing
from his allegiance P'
>LScSC--srse-'~--