1805. appears by this record; nor have they a right to come ^ into the docks. The very first object proposed in the

Mid Another erection ot them was to secure the property from pu* S^!t« lage, but this right vihieh is now claimed would expose the docks to such a continual resort as would render them equally liable to pillage, with the ordinary wharfs in London. By these acts, ships outward bound for the West Indies, may take in their cargoes either in these docks, or at any other part of the river below the canal at B/ackzcali* Ships outward bound for any other part may be laden at any place whatever, including all West India property. Amongst other precautions, as to all ships which are bound to come into these docks, the hatches are to be sealed down at Gravesend; the goods are to be landed by the company's servants; they are to examine the damage done to the casks; and they are to take samples. Almost every thing which might be done formerly by the owner or persons employed by him is to be done now by the company. This operates therefore as an implied exclusion of all persons to do work on goods at the docks, but there is no express exclusion of any persons excepting the seamen. By one clause, the company may appoint labourers, and take security; but this will be of no avail if the owners are to send their own coopers It must be admitted that the construction of the claim* of compensation lo the company do not include the cooperage on exportation. As to the right of using the legal quays, the law did uot impose upon the owners of the legal quays an obligation to permit this cooperage to be done for exportation. Cranes, indeed, are instruments necessary for lading and unlading, and therefore the owners were obliged lo keep them : but they are not bound to permit this to be done there which maybe done elsewhere;

[ocr errors]

end if the coopers had a right or liberty of coming on 1805

the legal quays, it must have been by contract or per- ^

mission, and not by strict legal right vested in them, and Another The verdict only states that it was usual to do the coo- giTiiu. perage on the quays. If indeed, any damage were done in the carriage to the quays, it might create a necessity of repairing and coopering the casks there. And such a necessity might also arise in case of fire on the quays; in which case the owner might have a right to go with his servants upon the quays for the securing his casks; but all such right of going there must be understood at the utmost as arising out of necessity, and as being subject to some qualification. Supposingeven that, by the length of time during which the owners of the legal quays had permitted this resort to the quays, a usage would be presumed, and a right would thence be derived, yet that could not extend to the present case. It is said that a great deal of work is to be done to these casks which cannot be done at home; but that is absurd; for the more there is to be done the greater the necessity of doing it at the proper workshop of the cooper. The hardship is much less in preventing these persons from coming to do their work here, than it would be upon the other merchants, whose property would be exposed to plunder, if they were to be permitted to enter the docks. The remedy of the coopers, in case they have a right to enter the docks, is misconceived, it should be an action against the merchants only.

Lawrence, J. "If the merchant has a right to have his casks coopered there, docs not tlie contract with the merchant give him (the cooper) also a right to go, and is not the obstruction an injury to him r"

Lord Ellexborough, C. J. "Is there not a general right to maintain an action for the prevention from exercising a trade in any place where the party is not by law prevented from exercising it? It is not found

1805. in the verdict that this work must necessarily be done b(>tiit upon the wharfs. If it is not so, I agree with the Soaad A.. ther ikifor General, that it may be a nuisance. The i-ooiut'-TM Pers da'im rather too large a right; for the company do not exclude the owners from having that done which may bo necessary for the safety of the goods. At the same time the verdict does not state any legal right to go on the old legal quays. I believe the legislature did not think it necessary to mention thh case; it was thought that this business might be done by the company or their coopers; but if there is a doubt we ought to lean in favour of the antecedent rights. There is no stipulated price for the use of the docks upon importation or beyond the 12 days upon the exportation. In the act are the words " for delivering the same from the warehouses:" what does that mean r* Why not deliver out of the lighters? There is also this expression, "Such coopering as they may want after being unshipped.+" This the plaintiff must Bay applies only to the coopering upon being unshipped 3'et he admits too that it applies to coopering for delivery in town; and the words are large enough to apply to the coopering for exportation.

Cur. adv. mtt.

And on this day the judgment of the Court was delivered to the following effect by

Lord Ellen Borough, C. J. After stating the case. "This special verdict is so defectively stated that no judgment can be given thereupon for the plaintiff's. The right of coopering, in this case, it • claimed on a supposition that the premises of the dock company are from the moment of their being put in the place of the legal quays, subject to all the rights of entry and user which are legally claimed there in

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

pxercising the plaintiff's' trade upon those quays. But jgos. the special verdict is detective in not stating expressly the rights claimed by the plaintiff * to be exercised Blld Aiimhei upon the legal quays. It state* only, that they used ^'*'* to cooper sugars there tor shipment for exportation. 'But this being only an actual practice of a trade, might, for all that appears to the contrary, have been upon the license of the owners. It i» not evci slated that the plaintiffs had a right to do so, or that the muster had a right of sending his servants. No agreement, supposing that to be ever so clearly stated, of the owners of the legahquays can entitle the coopers to come upon these docks to exercise their business as they would have done under such agreement. It should seem also that these docks are not liable to be used by the coopers as a workshop, for work to be done to the casks which might be done elsewhere previous to their exportation. And although oul of so many hogsheads some of them might of necessity require to he coopered, and that cooperage might be necessary to be done in that place, yet we cannot take that upon us as a fact, unless it is expressly so stated.

Judcment for the Defendant. A venire de novo, being prayed for by Wood for the plaintiff's, the Coukt refused it, saying, that it a plaintiff states a defective case, upon a special verdict, he is never entitled to a new trial, by a venire de nolo. If he were, it would be a most convenient mode of procuring a new trial for him, buln most vexatious •ne for the defendant,

Siiarv against Gladstone.— 12tl> Nov,


Upon an embargo or detention where there is an abandonment of Embargo. boln ship and freight tit the respective insurers and the uzc- General****, tier it paid as for a total lost, and, not withstanding, the ship rae

1805. ** rebated, and earns freight; the wages of the crew, Me ~ port, and other charges are quasi, a general average or

Minn salvage on the ship and freight, according to the particular

GuMTtn. nature of such charges and the persons to whom they belong;

and in an action for money had and received by the underwriters on the freight against the assured who has received it, he may deduct the same out of the sum to be recovered.

£]ASE for the opinion of the court: Declaration in assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, with the usual money counts; plea, general issue. This cause was tried at the sittings at Guildhall, after last Hilary term before Lord Ellenborough and a special jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 1001. with the further sum of 161. with interest, from the 24lh day of February, 1802, to the 8th day of May, 1805, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case:

The defendant as owner of the ship Jane, caused a policy to be effected thereon for a voyage from liverpool to Petersburgh and back. He also caused another policy to be effected to the amount of 8001. on the freight from Petersburgh to Liverpool, as interest should appear, to which last policy the plaintiff was subscriber for 1001. On the 5th day of November 1800, the ship being at Cronstadt upon the voyage insured, and being a seeking ship and not a chartered ship, had taken on board a considerable part of her homeward cargo on freight, and the remainder wag then loaded in lighters in its passage from Petersburgh to Cronstadt. The master had signed bills of lading for the said cargo, which was shipped by different merchants, each upon a distinct engagement for freight. The ship would have been ready to sail in six or seven days on her voyage home. On the said 5th day of November, 1800, by order of the Russian government, ♦he ship was forcibly seized, the master and crew were compelled to quit the ship, and were marched into th©

« ForrigeFortsett »