Court Of Common Pleas, Gu...
The Times, 1824-12-17T00:00:00

.L nis was an action ror a breacli ot contract. The plaintfis who are the owners of the ship Copernicus engaged in the South Sea whale-f6shery, had contracted with the defendant, who is a ship bis- cuit-baker at Limehouse, for a supply of ship biscuit of the best quality; but it was alleged, that on opening some of the casks in the course of the voyage, the biscuit was found to be a mixed kind, somiie part appearing to have been re-baked, and full of weevil-holes and small remains of cock-roaches, vwhich had been destroyed i., the re-baking. To this the defendant replied, that he had delivered very good biscult, according to order, but that, if damaged afterwards, it munst have been f'rom neglect In the coopering or stowing. Upon these pleas issue was joined. illr. CAIP3nELL opened the pleatlings. Ilr. Sergeant VAU911AN stated the case to the jrttr. It ap. prared from the evidence of Captain Al'Gregor, the master of the ship, that the defendant liad applied to himn for an order for the sup. ply of biscuit, and at the same time told hin that he had a quaatity of old biscuit, which lie would dispose of' at a reduced rate. The Captain acquainted the plaintiffs, his owners, with this, but they declined to have any other than the bestbread, and it did not matter about the price. He repeated this to the defendant, and afterwvards entered into an agreement with him for a certain quantity of the best bread. Hlc saw some bread in the stores which was very good, and it was for this kind he had agreed. Some of this was delivered in sacks for immediate use, nrd the rest was coapered up in casks to be used in the course of his voyage. The bread was delivered in Oc- tober 1821 and what was in the'sacks was verygood; but in the middle of tie next month some of the casks were opened, and the bread was found to be mixed. Some part was very bad and old, an' the other good. There were weevil-holes in the old bread, and on striking it on the cop3tan the dead weevils (which had been baked in it) camue out. There were, besides, the remains of cock-roaches, which appearedl also to hare been baked In it. Several casks vere opened from time to time, and it appeared they were worse in the centre than at the ends; and at last they were obliged to lay it by, and use the bread supplied by another baker, which' was very good. Some of defendant's bread became so very bad, that even the pigs on board would not eat it, and it was thrown overboard. In consequence of this. the men were pit on a short allowance of five pounds per man a week; and had they not fallen in with the Andromache frigate, and also got a gLtply at St. HIelena, they must have been very much distressed for ptovisions. On his cross-examnination, the Captain said that he had made no entry in the log-book of the bad state in which the bread was found. He had not done so, beeause he did not wish t9jiiritate the crew. Thc mate, stewatd, and another of the crew corroborated this testimony with respect to the state of the bread. The cook, a black man, also said the bread twas bad, but aU the. bread on board w.u much the aan2e. This was eha plaintiff's case. Alr. Sergeant NVWi,D, In addressing the jury fortheldefindant, complained of the disadvantage uad6r wlich he laboured in not having any of the bread produced by which the jury could judgc fronm its appearance whether or not it 4ad been re-baked, He would callwitnesses to prove, that all the bread which had been. supplied to the Copearicr4r by defendant was newr bread, and of the best qua. litv * and thtat if it was dieteriorated in the course of the voyage, it muxst have been by the neglect or mismanagement of those on board in the coopeting or stowing it. le then called thle defendant's foreman, who had becn in his ciii- ploy 18 years, and some workmen who had been several years en. gaged in baking for lhiin. They proved that the bread supplied to the Copcrnicu by their'master was all new, and sound, and of the best descripton. 'liere was no old of re-baked bread whatever mixed with it. On the cross-examination of 6ome of those witnesses, they. damit. ted that their master sometimes lealt in old bread. He purcbased it sometimes from captains, for selling it again as food for dlogs ; but such biscuit was never sold as new to captainSor others. One wvitness said, that his master hatl lately sold a quantity of old biscuit a.s degs' food at tdle rate of ] fis. fxi. per cwt. It btead get damage froxtidamp, it would first affect that at the stde iid the end of, the caske. MIr. Curtis, a gentleman extensively in the biscuit trade, proved that the-present price of' dog-biscuit is from .4Hs. to 1fis. per cwt. Thlat of good3 and new isabout22s. per ewt., with 7 Adiscount for cash. This was the defendant's case. Mr. Sergeant VAuorsAN, in reply, contendled that tbxe plaintifts' case was not at all affectedt by the defence, set- up. . There was no evidence of any inproper management of the biscuit-after itcamneon board . and unless his witnesses were perjured, av yerdilt.-iust be given for the plaintif&h. Thb amouct he did lot-so- mnueh.care for.. The plintiffs being ID extenslve busincss,.and. hzingv;many per- sons employed under themv, wished' to rescue, their character. froni even the shadow of an impnuxti6n that 1hoeywould send oui:hipis crew with a u.pplyof provisions ofabad qublgt. 'hey wished-to- let the odiumn ofthat lie upon those who merited it and- who' had suppliedl the inferior article, though paid, fori, itZ. ttte pdcerof ihe best. Tho plaintifl didl not 1vish.to press heid uapoun 41c def&ndant;~ hut if hi-e had chosen in order to put4litfteiltore.money fb hris pock. et, t deviate fforb the ath ofijusticeasid uii ralca -ie 1isustOtake1 the consequence. l,t tbe. try ealwtth,hless S5 they,pleased. * The L'oRnI CattJus'TiqeastiiedijpFo tlc3uxy 1f-was a question; he said,.of fAtet,,eut itwaxt, thrir -rovanceto ac.llea Me would.merelyolisgrve, tlA ipcsteblevtkiithe.sSetpss foe-the plaintiflto be perjured (forsvhich nib 012trobaJe motivsdeatnld.be- assigned), tbey must conelude dhat the con uctpithle defondasvwas grossly,fraudulent.. ' '' '. .' s'.' - '.. Sp The Jury, after a: rTt- uoside'f'stScn'tii ~a verdict for te 'plaintiffDamsges, 881. lOs. 9t1. and costs. COURT OF COM'l.MON PLEAS. GnITMTIATr..V 1nV 1IP ErELL AND AMOTHEIl V. COOKZ.