« PreviousContinue »
Cox and Others
1862. been twice or thrice re-coopered while they lay in the
cellar; and that on the last occasion (about three weeks
before the sale) they had been entirely stripped, and new The LONDON hoops put on. AND NORTH
Other witnesses were called on the part of the plaintiffs, who had seen the loading of the casks on the defendants' vans, and who (including the Landon port gauger) spoke to their being in a fit state for carriage by rail. Only one of the fifteen casks had been objected to, to Messrs. Thomas and Rough, and those gentlemen had at once directed the defendants to do what was necessary, and agreed to pay the expense.
The difference between the London gauge (taken immediately before the loading) of the contents of the casks and that taken at Liverpool at the company's station amounted to about 240 gallons. The London gauge showed the contents to be 2,278 gallons; that at Liverpool showed only 2,038 gallons. It was further proved for the plaintiffs that the leakage from the casks in question while they lay at Beal's Wharf was not more than the usual average leakage from oil casks.
Overend, in opening the defendants' case, said he would prove that the company had done all they could as careful carriers to insure the safe delivery of the goods. He would show that the casks were old casks, and were leaky when they came to defendants' hands, and they had suffered because of their own unsoundness, for which only the plaintiffs, and not the defendants, were to blame.
For the defendants a host of witnesses were called, including every person who had had anything to do with the oil from the time of its being loaded at Beal's Wharf until the time of its arrival at Liverpool. Their evidence went to show that the casks were very old and not sound; that the hoops were not tight on them, and they were
leaky even when received. It also went to negative the occurrence of any collision or accident anywhere along the line, and to show that due care had been used in the carriage.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the two main questions which he should leave to the jury were, first, did the damage occur while in the defendants' possession from any inherent defects in the casks themselves ? and, second, if there were defects in the casks, had the defendants knowledge, or reasonable means of knowledge, of such defects; and did the damage arise from such defects ? To prevent, perhaps, the necessity of other proceedings elsewhere, he should ask their opinion on a third point, in the event of their opinion on the other two being adverse to the plaintiffs, viz. if the defendants had not notice of any defects in the casks at the time of loading, but had such notice when they arrived at the goods' station, were they guilty of negligence, in fact, in forwarding them in their then state ?
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, expressing their opinion that the damage did not arise from any inherent defect in the casks when delivered to the company's servants; and further expressing their opinion that the company should not have forwarded the goods from their London station in the condition they were found to be in when there (a).
(a) Vide Higginbotham v. The London and North Western Railway Company, Vol. II., p. 796, con
firmed in error on bill of exceptions, T. T. 1862.
or whether it
Nerccastle, corum Mellor, J. Northumberland
JARDINE AND OTHERS v. LEATHLEY. Spring Assizes. In an action on THIS was an action brought by the owners of the ship a marine policy can for a construc
Glenmanna against the defendant, an underwriter, for a
total constructive loss of the ship, upon a policy of insurarising from a
ance dated the 7th of July, 1858, whereby the ship was that it was for the jury whe- insured “at and from Bombay to any port of discharge in ther the leak arose from the
the United Kingdom.” ship being un- Pleas, denying the loss as alleged. seaworthy before the voyage, either James, Q.C., Mellish, Q.C., and T. Jones for the plainfrom any in- tiffs. jury arising before the insurance, or Brett, Q.C., and Milward for the defendant.. from ordinary
f. From the evidence of the master of the ship, Captain
Rogers, it seemed that the ship Glenmanna, Canadian arose from the perils of the built, of 995 tons burden, sailed from Bombay in Decemseas in the course of the ber, 1858, after remaining there about seven months. She voyage insured, and whether
was surveyed at Bombay, and pronounced perfectly sound
and seaworthy. The heat of the weather, however, had abandoned in the exercise of contracted her timbers. Soon after leaving Bombay she an honest and reasonable dis- encountered heavy weather. After a heavy sea she sprung cretion.
her mainmast, and when nearing the Cape of Good Hope she made a good deal of water. Soon afterwards she sprung a serious leak. Every effort was made to discover where the leak was, but without success, and a part of the cargo had to be thrown overboard. Witness then made for Trinidad, in order to have the leak repaired; but learning from another vessel that there was a slip at St. Thomas's, he made for that place, and arrived there on the 31st of March, the water then making three feet an hour. Nu. merous surveys were made of the ship, the last being on the 11th of May, when it was ascertained that the expense of repairing the ship and putting her into a seaworthy
condition would come to more than the total value of the ship, and they recommended accordingly that she should be sold by public auction. She was accordingly sold, and produced 2,950 dollars.
Mr. Joseph Cunard said, that he valued the ship at 31. 10s. a ton, which would make her total value 3,4791.
The evidence of the surveyors who surveyed the ship at St. Thomas's, and likewise that of the British consul there, which had been taken on commission, was read.
The case for the defendant was, that the damage which the ship had suffered did not arise from any of the perils insured against; that on her outward voyage, before the policy was effected, she ran upon her anchor off the Downs, and in all probability by so doing removed some of the copper sheathing from the bottom of the vessel ; that subsequently, at Bombay, the worms got to this unprotected part of the ship's bottom; that, consequently, when she left Bombay, she was in an unseaworthy condition, and that the leak, which was the cause of all the ship’s disasters, took its origin from that cause, and not from any perils of the sea. It was also contended, that no proper notice of abandonment had been given to the underwriters.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, left three questions to the jury :
1. Was the leak, in their opinion, caused by the ship being unseaworthy at the time she left Bombay, in consequence of what occurred to her before the policy was effected, or from ordinary wear and tear; or was it caused by the violence of the winds and the waves after she left Bombay?
2. Did the captain, in abandoning the ship at St. Thomas's, exercise a reasonable discretion, and act as an independent uninsured owner would have done?
JARDINE and Others
'3. Was there, in fact, an unequivocal notice of abandonment given?
The jury answered all the questions in their favour, and returned a
Verdict for the plaintiff (a).
(a) See Lindsay v. Leathley, Vol. II., p. 696.
Coram Willes, J. Northumberland
THE QUEEN v. WARDELL. Spring Assizes. Forging and THE prisoner was indicted for forging and uttering, uttering an indorsement on well knowing the same to be forged, an indorsement to a
it cheque for 41. 10s., with intent to defraud. cashed by the
Knowles for the prosecution.
Knohre fra credit of the name:--Held, to support a
Campbell Foster for the prisoner. conviction for forgery, even
It appeared that the prisoner had been an attorney, and though the
being, from the failure of a partnership, in want of money, cheque was valid. he had gone to Chatburn, near Clitheroe, near which place
an old schoolfellow of his, the Rev. Reginald Remington, lived as curate of Downham. Having ascertained from the innkeeper at Chatburn where he lived, he called upon Mr. Remington, and, after a long conversation about old school days, asked Mr. Remington if he would indorse a cheque for him, drawn by his father, for 41. 10s., and asked him if he knew any banker in the neighbourhood. Mr. Remington refused to indorse the cheque, but said he would write a note to prove his identity, as he was a stranger in the neighbourhood, to his bankers, the Craven Bank, at Clitheroe, which would have the same effect. He accordingly wrote the following note, and gave it to the prisoner :
“Downham, Clitheroe, Nov. 27, 1861. « Sir, Mr. George Wardell, the bearer of this, is the son of the Rev.C.C. Wardell, of Winlaton Rectory, near