Goods In The London Docks...
The Times, 1824-02-04T00:00:00

. . . - - .- I-, I. .. 1. 1. t . .;. - - -- . , -, .? . ; , . '; I a, ..; - '.'. ;? I : t- I., ADVrATIrr.%frv..e..i. " . . . , . . . . I ,-5W~ .,Qie aR mTicpc qtyCUkT OF .M-iStnut?.of P (outtCoDur ectogsD? Ite, Lontdon Dbock Corn- p4OyP 99avpgbte.4.iLis&d In the .aiiY nW.spaners, as a pustifi cation o6thp.cqidettey savte .putsu& in rEflusing to filltI ibteir gngesUex tpc t,Qi'etth.egoies &{fc6d ubder.Eeir. eate the Upi.. mettee rt4ierb*n.5s aipPoiriW by the meetnin hibld' at" the Ilaltic Ceree-Ihrsc fle1 .t tCr?tinhenton them to niotV.eethe miaoejrrions bo.th oLiet.r:o .e4~ zawV lsrcli thfat minute contains. ,. -- * The"s srir.prise stWlo wich tild Direcoors say tbefliave read the resoletions,passed a~t the 14sldt (Ooffbe.hr.Ouse, c4 ptbegteater than that of' the Comnrdttee of Sfrchanesion'the petusai of thei.miiute .in questxon rind,they apprcji&sarl, that ?ry -this tinme the IDirectors may of,eel,,so,hei taion O,f. rxiet.tl bavibg piut frfth ,a docuument whi,ch,ls~ sanythrrng out J.seti$a ry.justf!cation, :,,The hretorsade~eted= 'considler the resolutions and state, rrenjt " to,,befoundead Up-dti ' erroneous views of .the subjqct on .wTucp they'.tretat ' tfs- Coanulrtie, ir to the law 'of -the case. are Rflyc6qteli to 1 harepli the viers. of the late Lords Olief Justices enahri1boror,gli sart Gibbriithepregeet Iord CChief4ustice bbott and Justices Bayiey, nChQ. atdl.BelSt, WaoppogdS..Y.ap!ut anony- rpouj asuthority, and ra,s to rnercantile usage, they are not aware of anyalathority at -ll contrary to the4octrine maintained in 'the reso- lutions of the 11th of Ndyernber,. for.even.the Directos th,remselves express on this headt.oubt and uncer7inty. The 9'.terns" ina which the documents put forth by the Diree- tors are. cxpress6d, appear to the' Coiittee to be quite as little w warranted by. circunstanees,i" nud quitemas ruch-' at variance 'with I:.spiritof kcco!modatiolo, as any thing that has hitherto ap. -p-ar4d on the rart ot ltet- e ante. . If the Pirectors "had always heen tbankful for any suggestions which coiuld,tend to the perfection of the system pursuedht theDock, and which afforded facdities to commerce," they would have xe- -ceivecd yith some portion of that thankfulness thc su gestioni which they say' creAted their'eiarprhso and regtret; and had tey 'it adopted such suggestions as -far as the l.aw permitted," they would have spared theniselvTs aend: the other parties *cpsreerned ranch useless litigation,, without inethceleast endangering' the property ofthe pro- prie orsplaced undertheir managerient-." .The 'bshin statcrentir!t of the Directors sets out with a truism .Which nobody ever dreamed bf controverting._namely, that "the' law which Illol the stoppage of goods in tr4ns'it is of np recert drate, and ha5s been ict4&. uOon to, great extent uinder the admiidis tratcoof.-the highestiudietal at thorities *' but when they proceed ,to. assert that " the gedtlernien signing the declaration are desirous the-Directors sboul dlisregara the imnportant privilege given by this law to parties engaged in trade," they bring against those gentlemen aeharge-notonly:unfounded, but in everypoint of view unwarrant- able. . The Comnmittec wtiln not descend to argue that-the gentlemen in question really have a regard for the haws of their countrv ; but they leave itto the Directors to reconcile the contrary surmise with that ' spirit of accommodation" by which they aver their conduct to be regulated. ,If the he bad been ias the Directors supposed, still it weuld not follow that they eould in honour refuse to fulfil their own eigaige- merit, voluntarily contracted by their own tiansfer note, to*eliver to the vendee or his order only,' especially as they detive as very considerable incomue from the charge which they make for transfers in their books. But the'fallacy on the part of the Directors is, that they assume goods to be in tratqsifta when the transituw is wlholly at an end. The Comittee certainly " inpugn the conduct of the Directors for having paid attention to notices to stop tallow, which the parties giving those notices ailege h2as ilot been paid for ;" and they impugn it because the law impugns it , tbey impugn it because the allega- bon is-insufficient to render the notice of any weight in law whatever, when the person giving it-has previously directed the property to be transferre into the name ofanother, and it has bee-l so transferred. It is a singular notion of the legal dloctrine of traoisiUrzs, that the iransituscontintes till the goods are paid for ! When the ovwner of any goodlsells them, it isjusticeand-honesty that if the buyer can- not ray the te seller,shall have themn back and 'tierefore the aw gives the former an equitable right to stop them, so'long as they are in transit from his own legal posse;sioi to the'legal posses. sion of the buyer; but the transit ends when the holder, by direc- tion of the vendor, has transferredl the gools into the name of the binyier,and recognized and held him out to tlre world as owner; and, to use the words of a learned Judge, " if the question (of owscr- ship) "rises, not between the original vendor,and theoriginral venidee, but 'between the original vendor aLnd a purchaser fromi the vendee, that purchaser having paid the full price for the goods, then where is the -honesty and justice and equity of the case '?" Tbe Directors assert that "s pome of the geatlemern signingthe de- lareti on have theinseLves upon forniler occasions given similar nio- tices." The Committee are at a loss to know what this has to do with the principle in relestion. They complain, not that the notices aregiven, but that they are attended to. So lon-o as the Directors think lit tqattach to theseunotices an effect beyona the law, so long parties that can resort to them will naturally do so, in order to put themselves oni a level with their competitors. It is in vain for the Directors to ascribe their disputes with the Dock Customers to " a ne-v system adopted by the importers and dealers in tallows." If the 'system were new, " a spirit of accom- tnodation" foight have induced the Directors to have paid some small attention to the convenience of so considerable a branch of trade; but it is a systemn- of several years' standing ; and what is more important, the principle maintained by the Doclc Directors is rot contined to the trade in illow, but is of universal application,'i and is universally prejudiicigil ; insoniuch that my Lord Chefi'Jus- tice Abbott emphatically olwerved, " To treat this as a case of stoppage iat ransit,s wold have the efFect of putting a stop on a verv large portion indeed of the commerce of the city of London." The Coimmittee distinctly deny thlat " mercantile men are well aware that there is not a coniplete delivery of anv goods wvhicli re. quire weighing to ascertain their quantitv until after the weighing hias taken place: asd that such part only as has passed tile scale is lega)ly in the possssion of the buyer, unless a weight shall have been agreed upon; or, as is the case in coffee-wyarrants where the goods are taken at theilanding scale." They call upon diie Directors to produce their mercantile authority for a doctrine so contrary to every day's experience: and if the Dock Directors were originallr of that opinion, how came they ever to transfer property in their books before it hadl been weighed ? The system describeti by the Directors to be praceisetI in the Tal. low. Trade, is no more than imay be, and in fact is, legally practised in othier trades. " Ah order given hiay receive twenty or more en. lors6irients, and even be passed throiigh the same lIatids more than ancepreviously to its being presented at thc Dock for a transfer or ideltvery-of the goods." When siicirrdcr is presented bv tie purchaser, and acceptetl and aited uponr'vtite Deck Comnpany, the property passes f'ro;n thie seller to tihc purchaser, arid the Dock (nmi. pany becomirc trusteec for tire latter, and not for the former. This tniounts to a legal deivery, aud it dlepends solely on the will of tihe prircilrser whether lie will havc the Foods actuaUy delivereri into iis hia,ils, or nmerely transferred into ius name; anti it is admitted by Ltic Directors, that " if ite tallows arc riot then veiglled, it is be- carrse they (thie purchasers) do riot direct it to be done." The rea- son whly thev do not unsually give such ihirections is dso stated bv the Directors, arid is a very reasonable onc.-namely, *' to savc tlic expense i)lrichv would be lthereby incurred," an expense wv iclh lhas now been provcd to be perfectly unnlecessary to give cffcct to the transfer of thic property to subsequent purchasers. Again, itis islostreasonable that tie Irsirchsers who have preselnt ed to thie DoCk (.Coinpany an order ftur transfer, shouild -" requtire somue evidfncc of tire goods beitig ilaced in their natnes in thie 1rarc- biorisekeepers! books." 'rhc Comrpany were riot compelled to give any partucular.cvidence, bitt thev do, for a valutable cotisideration, give a traunsfer note, No-w this notc, tirey.say, tley " givc for the accommrodation and] convenieince of trade." It isdifficult to conceive wvhat acconnrmoria-. tiou coulde bc afforded to trade bv a doctrircret purporting to be cvi-| detnce of a transfer, if ino. transfer at all ha(l taken tliace, ar(I pt.r- I ioroinig to convey a'titlc to the pronerty, if tro such title existed. Is it possible for IanFuage to convey a stronger assurance that the pro-1 perty is iu a certari individual thlae that which is conveyed' by the terrirs of the transfer note ? " I have this day transferred to yorsr ccount" sucI. and stich goods (specifying tierim), " you paying rharges" from such a day, " wichl goods will be dielivered to vou or yourorder ornly." What courld justify the Dock Colmpally in adopting this lanp4ag,e if thev iteatit raviolatc ctigagenientsso posi- tively and iunequiv&cally riLde ? Instead Of an accominotlations to ttade. it wnondhiv.j hrPsn a som- Af - .-r,, -A-- anid fraud. _PTh Directors ialk of thie Merchants .. now ....i...r .o colistruetbesetr*33sfer notes assubjecting the U(3O11pany to the liabi- hlty of delivering thletallow." 21;w is it possible to constrie theni otherwise? *Hitltertot hy bave iniiverSaly becn so-conttrued and, until the late extraorodiDry conduct of the Directors, they weec takeni as the syn5bols ot jiroperty r-'itlt as.hiLle esilti4noasMa .Baznir.oc is takeu as the s.yqihol otlhe stering money w'aieh it iepresents. The Directois say they kve " so desir6us of preventing any in- cotivehienoe to werchatits, tht thely did"-wliat ? Thev " proposed to deliyer the ta1ows to p*c parties In whose naumes they stood in the C6smpany's bonus, J3poD tlicit giving an indemnity." It aPpcersto. the Comoiltteea that this 'condition of an indemnity wvas one whict tbe Directbrs had notilie slititest right to impose and it is c6riiitly.not a little ex(raordinary, that a party should re- qurre to be indemifted for carrying into ef.ect his own positive and Iucojiditional engage.ne ts. It is a novel idea in cominerce, that no nan who considers his e aim to propeety indisputable, can objeet to ivirg ar3 inwdemnity to tbe'pers6n wt1o delivers it to hinp. No douibt undvidiitaLs. are at libertv so to "aTrattge theirelais"kwith tlreIfock Compaty, if theyltirll(fit; but thoe 'whose property has 'been at any tine " ubder'stoi"y or want of Ei3eir giving sudc indemnrity, aue entitled; in the opinioil 6f the Committee, to a ftil couipensatiosl froan the Coinpany. for 4a1.tbe loss occasioucd by so lnjust and ille. ga*l a dexpiand.. .: gal statid itat e Ithe.hyave not takan any step without being adtl vised hy the Comranip S Counsel," the Dircctors probablv ovirlook their irst error, w-Vich consisted in acceptine a notice of stoppavg fromil personis ot'ehnttliadto stop the goods; Having done this, tihey Apiuar.: t iave risorted for a. jnstifliation: to their lcegal advisers. iat did not die Directors suller a considerable interval to elapse be- tween thieir acceptaicenfEtolls apd their application to the counsel ? .And il4'they nptothreaten to file a. bill of irterpieader in Chancexy, *betbreiftey llat-taken4heiopinion ot'any Chancery counsel ont the subjtect and sa not tl It counsel of opinion notiuch bil wvil life after i mengagement of th Coiupany coniainedl in the transfer note? Since dse advice.of coutsiel iZeems' to b- tlpe only rational uiotifica. tionrivlictl-hbe Direcwre can ,alegefor their conduet,,it h-a,duty whih fiiie latter owie tqi tnernselves, 'ani 'to the mercantile worfd, to publish 4ie cases subButted:by the (Copauny4o iounisel, eidh the opkti'oms thereon,. nopve of vich t3 tey xbhave Ihitherto irodttile, al-' thotr'hthe.ywerp. trged by thodeputatioil of mlerchants topin-mun- nitatIle &e oascaes i-optnaom by-which thev profssed lohe' gWided: W'hipljpoceedinxl bt econie more. esentally requiWite' since Omc. ler-;cd J]ca d otf q: Kinog B,e.hisave As fully.-ep;ainvd.,hr_ eqtlitebkphec~lresof st~opxtge.zn ctransiztz ott the a e .aplt,ato for a ncw.trqal-1wit1Masc f1 " alwes. W'atsonW'-.0.a case evei iess stfong agailist tbedont than .he.case now p_ndifnigzgiast:oc' London Dock Oompja;ny..inasrxuc.it as thle transfer note of Illtssr;s. WNMatson dQ `.%Vconiin.*e rttdeable clausc, wbich siili de- hvered.to you oo rdei oi4y . . g- he Cptnwjttoc dq t,stuestkiss.dse." desirg of 'tije *Dseect6rs; to ac with steimparI'7atis i justki,-and to deliver thg ,7bi s.fo th psoper Paities . Xfuithiy arcnsrpueisd to find istitked, t1iatt'b DE)lreetpms I avXtt4ghe ~i,t, prjPrer do .pursue the coarse tbey litvg ad I * ttey ITiereanC usage inhIy have pre axltd $" ariif m WantlleXaagb qsd5no-fip. sltsh a ropst inn.}prant rule 'of. couduct in thl~Dock nopany. tolet the goods takce their ordibuxy course, un. l-ess the law bad clearly iaterpomed a restraint.- As respeqts the past, the buyers apliear'to hwte judlgedfrightIy of -thp Oer-whchavetbern. tfte;~t*r0e thy a,In that - 1; ~ wfo~PPeari' k hame-beei3jnorat~of ',Asres~tl~~,u~e," he D~ether&oert. i Ma i'Rifaje -. u :tJey.Are required, 0 Io.rdii hat. lisow, ~th 06Quiany,o ar'3ujcet,blaw. ? helegia question isn*41iaj opn(fo jf!Qumrje -ICOlnpletblyse-t ae-fst-jt3 thy,ajve ]l4thertg, a, honecesaarily ipa if;ELr Ie &"dfiut wYhich ;h& ewblytori~ ~ PTIon4 anhd cert;&iry&do ntQhr~ise,nukof a113,ptactg bjch obtaIns in tbe fallow..tra4 ey.:?.; * Aftertlie' xeouiP4((el,iin i b nierchantdl,aveb,p-. in verghe.po~t8 !ul~ nd entwIyccofiitjed hi- bigh iatho.' wbtlie th cnsue o te Dracor, cnveedby those documents, * (Sin~i} A. fl THO SoN,Chairman of-the Cuoiittee. GOODS&I XWEik LD.OAOOGKSND 21%, 5LO2VN. ; i..,: DOS.60eZ'eCOMPAWk'. li'LY OF. TZX COYfliTh7 MERC )IEO PTOD SY 'Tit~i(7 XAIMtTIC Cb6fEk&USV o.x