In Stoveld v. Brewin, the marginal note should be as in the Inder, under PLEADING, 5.; and PRACTICE, 1. In Vol. I. p. 606. line 10. for executor read escrow. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE 1818. Court of KING'S BENCH, IN Michaelmas Term, In the Fifty-ninth Year of the Reign of GEORGE III. MEMORANDA. IN the course of this vacation, Lord Ellenborough resigned the office of Chief Justice of this Court, where he had presided since April, 1802. He was succeeded by Sir Charles Abbott, Knight, one of the Judges of this Court, who was sworn into his office before the Lord High Chancellor on the 4th day of November, and took his seat as Chief Justice on the first day of this term. Sir Vicary Gibbs, Knight, having also resigned the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, was succeeded by VOL. II. B Sir 1818. Sir Robert Dallas, Knight, (one of the Judges of that Court,) who was sworn into his office before the Lord High Chancellor, on the 5th day of November, and took his seat as Chief Justice on the first day of this term. On the first day of this term, the following gentlemen took their places within the bar, as his Majesty's counsel, learned in the law, Archibald Cullen, Esq. of the Middle Temple. William Owen, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn. William Wing field, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn. William Horne, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn. George Heald, Esq. of Gray's Inn. Friday, In an action against several defendants, as ship-owners, for damage sustained by the loss of goods laden on board their ship, it was WILSON against JOHN MILLER DICKSON, JAMES CTION against the defendants, as ship-owners. The declaration was in tort, and stated, that the plaintiff had shipped goods on board defendants' ship, to be delivered at Senegal; that defendants received the same for that purpose, yet that they did not deliver held that by the 53 G. 5. c. 159. s. 1., they were not liable in that character beyond the value of the ship and freight due or to grow due, although the loss was occasioned by the misconduct of one of the defendants, who was both master and part-owner; and, Secondly, That the value of the ship was to be calculated at the time of the loss, and not at the time of the commencement of the voyage; and, Thirdly, That in calculating the value of freight due or to grow due, money actually paid in advance was to be included. (a) The Judges of this court sat at Serjeants' Inn, on Monday the 26th of October and succeeding days, and heard this and several of the following cases argued by counsel, and delivered their opinions as upon former occasions, (see Vol. I. p. 1.); and the Court afterwards gave judgment on the day on which the cases are now reported. them goods were, by their negligence, There was also a count in troyer. them, and that the The defendants were joint owners of the ship Hope, which on the 19th day of October, 1814, was chartered by memorandum, not under seal, to the plaintiff, by the defendant, Patterson, therein described as master and part-owner, on a voyage to the coast of Africa and back; the ship was to proceed to such ports there as the plaintiffs should direct, the charter containing a stipulation, that the freight was to be so much per ton, register measurement per calendar month, two months' freight to be paid on the day the ship should depart from Gravesend, in prosecution of the voyage. The plaintiff, in pursuance of this charter-party, shipped goods to a very considerable amount, and directed them to be carried to Senegal and Goree. The ship, in prosecution of the voyage, sailed from Gravesend, on the 7th day of November, 1814, and two months' freight, amounting to 456l. 10s., was then paid. On the 8th day of January, 1815, the ship was captured by an' American privateer, and plundered of several parts of her cargo and ship's stores; the captors took out all the crew except the master and his son, and placed a prize 1818. WILSON against DICKSON. |