66

upon the policy. Upon the letter of the 19th of June, it appeared 'that the assured had abandoned the idea of a cargo for Spain, but if one had turned up, he would still have taken it in; and the defendant's agreement was procured to permit one for England, as late ast the 27th of July, if it should be found expedient:" this was bearing upon a winter risk, which it had been proved commenced on the 31st of August. It now appeared by the evidence, that the convoy for which the ship waited was formed by a mass of merchantships themselves, and did not consist of a ship or ships of war; and for the collection of such a convoy it was necessary to wait: had it been the case of armed ships, it might have been said that waiting for was different from joining; but there must necessarily be some time spent in collecting such a convoy as this ship waited three days for. The question was, whether the assured had abused this liberty, and made it the colour for delay. The Jury found for the plaintiff.

Court of King's-bench.-Thursday, Nov. 8.-Special Juries. Warwick and another v. Scott.This was an action upon a policy of insurance, brought by the executors of the owner of the ship Pomona, which was captured on the 1st of April, 1813, whilst proceeding to Portsmouth to join the Mediterranean or Malta convoy, with which she was about to sail, in compliance with the conditions of the policy which effected in the club called the British Association, whose rule respecting convoy was, that ships

was

should be allowed to sail from their loading port direct to a place of rendezvous to join convoy, on condition, that in case of capture, so sailing, a deduction of 15/. per cent. should be made from the sum insured on the loss sustained. It appeared, that the ship was chartered to Malta, left the London Dock on the 26th of March, and went down the river on the 27th and 28th. On the morning of the 28th three of the crew were pressed, and the Captain (Tucker) went on shore to try to get them off. While he was petitioning Admiral Foley, at Deal, to that effect, a signal was fired from the lugger Speculator, which was the convoy, and the Captain went on board immediately, but not before the Speculator had got under weigh. He made all dispatch, but had not time to get sailing instructions; and soon lost sight of the Speculator, from her being a mile a-head, and the weather being hazy. The crew consisted of 20 men and boys; and nine would have been a full complement. The Captain deposed, that it would not have been prudent to have worked down before: the wind had changed half an hour before he got under weigh; he should have been under weigh sooner, if his men had not been pressed.

Lord Ellenborough said, the question for the Jury was, whether this was a sailing direct from London to Portsmouth. As only three of the 20 men had been abstracted, and nine or ten would have been sufficient to man the vessel, the pressing of the three was not a justifiable cause of stopping. If the ship could have

-

The Attorney-General v. Borradaile. The defendant was prosecuted by information of the Attorney-General, for the penalty of 501. incurred by his neglect to make a return, under the Property -Act, of the joint profits, as managing owner, and precedent acting partner, in the ship Elphinstone, of which the defendant, and other persons whose names appeared on the register, were part owners, and which ship was chartered to the East India Company.

A verdict was taken for the Crown last Michaelmas Term, in the penalty subject to the opinion of the Court, on a special verdict on the point,-1st, Whether each ship of this description was a separate adventure or concern in the nature of trade: and 2nd, If so, whether the defendant, as managing owner, and ship's husband, receiving and distributing the whole of the earnings, was the precedent acting partner, and liable to make the return of the whole of such profits, in order to a joint assessment and payment of the

Property Tax in the first instance, and before a dividend or distribution, as in other partnership con

cerns.

The case having been twice argued before their Lordships, the Lord Chief Baron delivered the opinion of the Court in terms, that each ship was clearly a-separate adventure in the nature of trade, and was a partnership concern, of which the defendant was liable to make the return of the whole profits, as managing owner or husband, and precedent acting partner, in order to a joint assessment, in respect of each ship, distinct from any other concern.— Judgment for the Crown in one penalty of 50%.

This decision of the Court establishes the liability of the managing owner, or husband, of every trading ships, to return the whole profits, as precedent acting partner, under a penalty for default; and confirms the general construction and practice, under the Property Act, in regard to a joint and distinct assessment of the profits of each ship as a separate partnership adventure.

Court of King's Bench.--Thursday, Dec. 22.-Carstairs, v. Stein.

The Court was occupied from 9 o'clock in the morning till after 10 o'clock at night in trying a most important action upon the case directed by the Lord Chancellor between the assignees of Messrs. Kensington and Co. the bankers, and the assignees of Messrs. Stein, Smith, and Co. who were made defendants by the Chancellor's order, with power to examine them; a power of which the defendants' counsel availed

themselves. The question was, whether the plaintiffs had a right to prove, under the defendants' commission, a demand of 314,5817. 3s. for advances to the Scotch house of Messrs. Scott, Smith, Stein, and Co., and 55,448/. 15s. 4d. to the London house of the defendants. It appeared that in January, 1803, the defendants opened an account with Messrs. Kensingtons, for their house in town; and on the 3rd or 4th of August afterwards, for the Scotch house, through the agency of Mr. Thomas Smith, and that it was agreed that no advance of money was to be required from the bankers, and that they were to have 20,000. running at a time in bills; for the trouble of negociating which, the bankers were to have a commission of one-half per cent. The agreement, however, was immediately departed from in practice, and the bankers were soon and perpetually in large advances to both the Scotch and the London houses, insomuch that the commission upon their advances averaged 167. 8s. 8d. per diem. The partners of Messrs Kensingtons' house were all examined at great length, as well as the defendants, and they contradicted each other as to the circumstance of the former house knowing that Mr. Scott, of the Scotch house, died in 1797. It appeared that Messrs. Kensingtons never knew Mr. Scott, and dealt with the Scotch house only through Mr. Thomas Smith. They admitted, however, that they heard of Mr. Scott's death in 1806, but always afterwards considered that his family derived some benefit from the trade of the Scotch firm. On the 24th of

June, 1806, the bankers entered. into an agreement with Thomas Smith, reciting that the defendants kept an account (which was altered by Mr. Edward Kensington to "accounts") with the bankers, and that they had applied, and might have occasion again to apply, to the bankers, for discount and advances, and therefore Mr. Thomas Smith agreed to deposit with the bankers the lease of the defendant's premises in Fenchurchstreet, and a certain policy of assurance for 8,000l. as a general security for the repayment of all advances, past and future, by the bankers to the defendants, or (altered to and) Messrs. Scott, Smith, Stein, and Co., or either of them. The defendants also deposited with the bankers securities in bills of exchange, and of lading of spirits, &c. the Messrs. Steins being engaged also as distillers in Scotland. These securities were changed from time to time by the defendants. The defendants' assignees now contended, that the whole of the advances in question were made under an usurious agreement for one-half per cent. under the name of commission; and that, therefore, the plaintiffs had no legal right to recover and Lord Ellenborough left it to the Jury, whether the bankers had not, under an unfortunate lure of a large commission, been thus tempted to take more than 51. per cent. for their advances. If so, the law was irresistible that this was usury. The knowledge of the circumstances was brought home to some of the partners, and the law was, that the knowledge of one partner was the knowledge of all. If Mr. J. P. Kensington

had interfered further than he did in the management of the bank, it appeared that the house would not have fallen into its misfortune. If the bankers had abided by their agreement of never being in advance, there would have been no usury, which must be taking more than 57. per cent. for the loan or forbearance of money: but if the commission was connected with the fact of being in advance, and operated as an inducement thereto, then it was unquestionably usurious. It had been rightly held, that when bankers were put to trouble and inconvenience collateral to the advance of money, such as was occasioned by sending specie up to London, entailing an expense in the disposal of it, and by keeping houses and clerks in town for the management of their business, they were entitled to a fair compensation to meet these charges; but if they overstepped what was bona fide due to them for such compensation, and mixed with it the consideration of their advancement of money, that was This his Lordship laid

down as unquestionable law. The plaintiffs' counsel adduced evideuce, that one-half per cent. was the usual charge for business, such as the bankers transacted for the defendants; but in the cases adduced, the parties mixed up the risk they were at upon the bills negociated as part of the consideration, and his Lordship ruled that that was usury too, and refused the plaintiffs' counsel to take Messrs. Kensingtons' risk into consideration, offering to seal a bill of exceptions, in order that the question might be set at rest before the House of Lords. He concluded

his charge to the Jury, by saying, that it was not less painful to him to direct, than it would be to the Jury to find, that, in this case, the evidence was irresistible: that the commission was an inducement to the advances of money in question; and that, therefore, they were usurious, and could not be recovered at law, or proved under a commission. Both his lordship and the Jury were, however, bound to do their duty with firmness, however hardly the performance of that duty might affect those whose misfortunes ought to be treated with the tenderest respect, and who appeared to have deserved a better fate.

The Jury, nevertheless, after retiring for a very short time, found their verdict for the plaintiffs.

Guild-hall, Wednesday, December 22.-Sittings before Sir J. Mansfield.-Schneider v. Heath.This was an action to recover the deposit money (3971. 2s.) paid on the purchase of a ship, which ship had since turned out to be unseaworthy and useless.

Alexander Hutchinson, the broker for the plaintiff, swore, that on the 23rd day of July last he was present at Lloyd's, when the ship Juno was put up to sale:, he bought her for 1,580/., and paid down a deposit of 3971. 2s. The day previous to the sale he went to the London-dock to examine the vessel; as far as he could judge she was a good vessel; but as she was in the water, it was impossible for him to inspect her hull, and keel, and lower timbers. At the time of the purchase he signed a paper of conditions, one of which was, that the vessel should be taken

with all faults whatsoever. At the same time, however, a printed representation, signed by the defendant, was put about, and read in the public room; in which it was stated, that the ship was unusually well founded, and would require very little outfit; that her hull was particularly good, and her keel and lower timbers as sound as new. This representation was of course a great inducement with the witness to make his bargain. Immediately after the purchase, the ship was taken to the dock of Mr. Way, a shipwright, to be prepared for her voyage. He then had an opportunity of viewing her all over, and saw that her bottom planks were completely worm eaten, and her keel broken: he never saw a vessel in a worse state. When she was floating in the water at the London Docks these defects were completely concealed.

Mr. Woolcombe, the agent for the defendant, was next called. He sold the ship: he had seen her before and after the sale. He had drawn up the description of her according to the best of his judgment: he did not see her keel and hull, but from the appearance of the upper parts of the vessel, he conceived that the lower were equally good. He had seen her since; her bottom was much worm-eaten, and she certainly did not answer the description which he had given of her. He would not have described her in the manner which he had, if he had known the real state of the ship.

Cross-examined.-He said, that at the time of making his representation, he really believed it to be correct. The ship belonged to á club.

VOL. LVI.

Thomas Thompson deposed, that he was foreman to Mr. Ayles, the shipwright: the ship Juno was brought to their dock to be examined so long ago as the 19th of March last: (this was three months before the sale, at Lloyd's): her keel was then much broken, and her hull worm-eaten. Captain Rutherford (the captain of the vessel) saw the condition in which she was, but would not let them do with her what they proposed; he told them to put her into the water again, which was done the next day; he had not seen her since, till she was taken to Mr. Way's, when he knew her to be the same.

Christopher Wynne was clerk to Ayles and Co. Captain Rutherford was present at the inspection of the Juno in March last, and saw that her keel was broken, and her bottom worm-eaten; she was by his order, however, put into the water again next day without any repair. One guinea was charged for the trouble. Captain Rutherford said, he should see Mr. Wilson, the agent for the owners, and would get the guinea from him. The Captain then gave the witness the ship's papers to take to Wilson, and witness left them at Wilson's house. Captain Rutherford said, he feared there would be some trouble about the ship.

John George Wilson had received some papers belonging to the Juno, from Captain Rutherford : he was himself merely a by-stander at the time of the sale: he was secretary to the club to which the ship belonged: it was sold for the benefit of the underwriters: the club was chiefly ship-owners, and Mr. Heath was one. He himself never saw the ship, and he knew X