The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-06-21

U. 8. Cmcur CouRr, June 1s-Before judge Mel
-Loring Meiss, survivor, &C., The Sun Mutusi
Insurance. Conpany.-ln the report of this cause In
Fridays Herald reporter stated the cotton was
against the General MutuaInsurance Company instead
sum claimed from the former company was $4,000 in
stead Of 1000 The Of the error was ths:-The
Upon coming in hewas handed the declaration against
the General Mutual Insurance Company by person
and thinking that theirs was the cause on trial
the declaration The action against the General Mutual
Insurance Company is yet to be tried
The summing up on both sides was finished Friday
evening His honor Judge Nelson charged the jury
Saturday morning He said the jury In the OF
the trial heard that this action policy of in
surance which effected upon the ship Joseph Megs
whaling ship, her outfits tackle apparel and furniture
The voyage begin at Mattapoisett in Massachu-
sets and to continue for limited period Of after
her return her cruise at the port and until
she was there moored twenty-four hours in good
safety In order to call your attention more par
ticularly to the material part Of the policy, will
refer to it and its terms as the whole question de-
ponds the proper understanding of the particulars
clause indicating the determination of the VOYAGE and
of the risk The insurance was made upon the
vessel lost and from the port OF Mattapoi
set on September 1874 and to continue during
stay and until her return with liberty to stop at all
ports ana 10 o~ tSe
tackle furniture outfit, and takings of the whaleshp
Joseph Meigs from Mattapc isett, on whaling voy-
age, commencing the 25th September, 1874, and TO
during her stay In the harbor and until her
arrival back again, and was moored for twenty-four
in good safety and the takings safely landed at
ttapoisett with liberty to trade at all ports and
places for advice refreshment and to sell catchngsn
This is the material clause the policy and upon which
the whole hinges Thus you will perceive that this
clause is material in respect to the insurance OF the
ship well as of the cargo In the one instance the
risk ends the arrival in the port of Mattapoisett
and on her being there twenty four hours in
good safety but in the other instance, respects the
cargo the risk does not end until it Is safely landed
In respect the cargo only objection has been ia
ken to the right Of plaintiff torecover 1t Is this that
by that she had not on board
peten number of hands to take care OF and keep
watch Now the fact that she had performed her voy
that appears in evidence in the cause the presump-
ton of the fact is that she had been during all this
time properly named and in every respect eaworthy,
and tay the defendant to that at the time ofthe
loss she not named with sufficient complement of
hands With that fact established to satisfaction,
it is sufficient the ground Of recovery,
in respect of the cargo it not then far as this
branch the ease concerned the plaintiff is entitled
to your verdict-the main question, however, is in
pect OF ship has been already stated in the course
the VOYAGE hSd ended within the meaning Of the clause
Of the policy before the happening Of the loss OF the snip
part the defendant it is insisted that 1t had and
the part of the plaintiff that 1t had not This clause
contains the express stpuatons Of the parties and
legations The decision Of this you win therefore
perceive involves the proper Of clause
era rule lay this down to be the meaning Of the clause
that in order terminate the risk by the under
writer's by virtue Of the clause the voyage must have
port delivery and the moorlng of casting anchor
ut the usual anchorage ground at the port for the pur
pose of delivering her cargo Of refer to the
port Of delivery in which the voyage is to determine
The question to the usual anchorage ground in
given port is question Of fact and to be determined
according to the usage and custom of the particular
port He continued at great length to comment the
evidence in the cause and concluded by stating that
the propositions he had laid down the main question
of fact in this cause which belonged to the jury under
the instructions he had given them and 1t for them
say the whole case whether the casting anchor at
the place drawing fourteen feet of
moorng and casting anchor within the meaning of
the claus of the policy at the usual anchorage ground
and whether not the usual anchorage ground at Mat
tapoisett the usual place of unloading and deliver
ing the cargofor this is the great question in the
have submitted to you all the views have deemed
to conclusion The jury found verdict for the
plaintiff for $4,000 subject to adjustment by of
the officers of the Court according the actual loss
This arrangement agreed upon by the counsel
both sides previous to the delivery Of the charge