1812.

The KING against DEWSNAP and Another.

quantities of soot on the flags of his back yard. Others living at the distance of 48 and 52 yards deposed to the same effect, as well as to the unpleasantness of the smell and the soiling of their clothes and furniture; and further, that the adjoining streets were at times filled with the smoke.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. I did not expect that it would have been disputed at this day, that though a nusance may be public, yet that there may be a special grievance arising out of the common cause of injury which presses more upon particular individuals than upon others not so immediately within the influence of it. In the case of stopping a common highway which may affect all the subjects, yet if a particular person sustains a special injury from it, he has an action. This must necessarily be a special grievance to those who live within the direct influence of the nusance, and are therefore parties grieved within the statute.

Per Curiam,

Rule discharged.

END OF TRINITY TERM.

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Court of KING'S BENCH,

IN

Michaelmas Term,

In the Fifty-third Year of the Reign of GEORGE III.

1812.

FEISE and Another against NEWNHAM.

THIS

HIS was an action on a policy of insurance on goods on board the ship Eleonora from London to Gottenburgh, and from thence to Dantzig, or any port or ports, place or places in the Baltic, with leave to seek, join, and exchange convoys, carry and exchange simulated papers, &c. sail under any flag, touch, stay, trade, load, and unload at any ports or places, &c. at a premium of 10 guineas per cent., to return 27. per cent. for arrival. The declaration alleged the interest to be in C. F. Schnekonig, and stated a loss by seizure and detention by persons unknown. Russia being an enemy at the time of the insurance, a licence was previously obtained, granting leave to Favenc and Co., without more description, and others, to export the goods on board the ship Eleonora to Riga, which was the ultimate destination of the ship. VOL. XVI. Favenc

P.

1812.

FEISE against NEWNHAM.

Favenc and Co., it appeared at the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C. J. at Guildhall, were in fact agents for C. F. Schnekonig, the person in whom the interest was averred in the declaration, but whose name did not appear on the licence; and it was obtained by them on his account: and Schnekonig was at the time residing here under licence as an alien, granted under the alien act; in which licence he was described as "a native of and lastly from Prussia, merchant, known to Messrs. Favenc and Co., No. 58, Coleman-street." It further appeared at the trial that the ship sailed on the voyage insured bound for Riga, unless orders should be given to the contrary on her arrival off Dantzig; that when off Dantzig she was immediately ordered to proceed to Riga; but in consequence of damage at sea was obliged to put into Memel on the 11th of November 1810, where the ship and cargo were seized and condemned by the Prussian government. Schnekonig being described in his alien licence as a native of Prussia, it was proved on the part of the plaintiffs, in order to obviate an objection, that Schnekonig was a native of and resident before he came here of Dantzig, which though formerly Prussian had been separated from that state, and was now considered as an independent state. After a verdict for the plaintiff ;

Scarlett moved now to set it aside and to enter a nonsuit or to have a new trial, upon the general ground of objection that the licence to export having been granted to Favenc and Co. as for themselves, and not in quality of agents, they were not at liberty to transfer it to Schnekonig, notwithstanding the words and others. That this was a fraud upon the government; for by means of it

one

one person, whom the government would trust on his own account, might obtain a licence for a principal, to whom or for whose use it would not have been granted, and who might afterwards change his agent. That it did not follow because the government had granted Schnekonig a licence to reside here as an alien, within a certain district, and under control, they would grant him a licence to trade and thereby communicate with an enemy. [Le Blanc, J. observed that the argument would be the same if Schnekonig had been a natural-born subject: which was admitted. Lord Ellenborough, C. J. This licence was granted to a responsible person, who was at the very time in privity with the person for whom it was procured; being his agent in the very concern to which the licence was afterwards applied; and that is the security to which government looked in these matters; for it was granted to him and others.] Those others must be persons ejusdem generis, which the principal in this instance was not in relation to his agent. [Lord Ellenborough, C. J. While the principal is domiciled here and owing a temporary allegiance, he is ejusdem generis for this purpose. It is a grant to Favenc and Co. and others; and admitting that any other must have a connection in the business with Favenc and Co., here he had such a connection with them, through their agency.] He then argued generally, as in a former case of Mennett v. Bonham (a), that the crown could not delegate to Favenc and Co. the power which they in effect had exercised, of granting its licence to any other. For supposing Schnekonig to be a person ejusdem generis with Favenc, this would operate in effect as a licence to

1812.

FEISE against NEWNHAM.

1812.

FEISE against

NEWNHAM.

all the king's subjects; which if the crown meant to grant, it would have said so in terms. It is the peculiar prerogative of the crown to exercise its discretion in respect of the individuals to whom a trading licence with an enemy should be granted. The words "and others" have not been held to extend to alien enemies, or foreigners residing abroad, though they may extend to British merchants resident here (a).

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. This is an attempt to carry the principle of those cases further than the Court intended. They have held that the others using the licence must connect themselves with the persons to whom it is particularly granted; and here the licensees were the very agents of the party in the adventure.

The other Judges concurred; and BAYLEY, J. added, that if the government had intended to confine the use of the licence to the very persons named, they would have guarded against the use of it by any other by rejecting the words and others.

(a)Rawlinson v. Janson, 12 East, 224.

Rule refused.

SJOERDS