Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Trinity Term,

In the Fifty-second Year of the Reign of GEORGE III. 1812.

MEMORANDA.

AT the beginning of this term Sir Vicary Gibbs, His
Majesty's Attorney-General, was made a Judge of the
Court of Common Pleas, in the place of Mr. Justice
Lawrence, who had previously resigned from ill health.
Mr. Justice Gibbs took for the motto of his rings, on
being called Serjeant, "Leges Juraque.”
The office of His Majesty's Attorney-General remained
vacant for some time afterwards, owing to the arrange-
ments not being complete for the new Ministry, upon
the atrocious and lamentable assassination of Mr. Per-
ceval, as he was going into the House of Commons on
the 11th of May; till on the 27th of June, when Sir
Thomas Plumer, the Solicitor-General, was promoted
to be Attorney-General, and William Garrow, Esq. one
of His Majesty's learned Counsel, and Attorney-
VOL. XVI.
B
General

1812.

General to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, as Prince of Wales, was appointed his Majesty's Solicitor-General, and knighted. At the same time Joseph Jekyll, Esq. one of His Majesty's learned Counsel, and Solicitor-General to the Prince, was promoted to the office of His Royal Highness's Attorney-General; and Mr. Serjt. Shepherd, His Majesty's learned Senior Serjeant, was appointed to be the Prince's SolicitorGeneral.

Friday, May 29th.

A return of non est inventus

procured by the plaintiff against the principal, in order to found

proceedings against the bail, is irregular, if the principal were at the

same time in

same sheriff

who made the return, though at the suit of another person; and the subse

BURKS against MAINE and Another, Bail of
RENTON.

HEATH obtained a rule, on behalf of the bail, for
setting aside the writ of scire facias issued against
them, and the subsequent proceedings, upon the ground
of irregularity; inasmuch as the defendant Renton, hav-
ing been arrested by the sheriff of Middlesex, at the suit of

the plaintiff, and having put in bail in Trinity term 1811, and judgment having been recovered against him, and a custody of the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum lodged with the sheriff, was afterwards arrested by the same sheriff on the 1st of November last, at the suit of another party, and committed to his custody, and continued therein until the 11th quent proceed- of November, when he was removed by habeas corpus ings against the into the King's Bench prison: and while he was in the sheriff's custody, the attorney of the present plaintiff, (who was also attorney for the plaintiff in the other suit,) procured a return by the sheriff of non est inventus, for the purpose of proceeding against the bail; on which the scire facias against them was grounded.

bail will be set

aside.

Peake

Peake opposed the rule, and referred to Hunt v. Coxe (a), and Barry v. Barry (b), as shewing that the Court considered the lodging the ca. sa. against the principal in the sheriff's office, and getting the return of non est inventus, as little more than form, and intended merely to intimate to the bail that the plaintiff meant to proceed against them; and shewing, also, that the sheriff's return was binding for this purpose.

But the Court said that the party procured the return of non est inventus at his own peril; and here he had procured a false return to be made, to the prejudice of the bail. They referred to Forsyth v. Marryatt and Grover, Bail of Clark (c), as in point to shew the irregularity, and made the

(a) 3 Burr. 1360.

TH

Rule absolute.

(b) 2 Stra. 717. (c) 1 New Rep. 251.

BUSK against BELL.

[blocks in formation]

Saturday, May 30th.

A licence to

trade to an ene

my's country, set of British merchants,can

granted to one

not be used to

HIS was an action upon a policy of insurance on goods by the ship Christiana, at and from St. Petersburgh to London; in which the loss was averred to be by capture and at the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C. J. at Guildhall, the principal contention was upon the fact, whether the loss was by hostile capture or by collusion; which fact his Lordship left to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff. But a question of law arose at the trial, which it was reserved to the defendant's counsel to move, upon the application of the trading licence, covering the adventure, to the persons in whom the interest in the goods others. was averred in the declaration and proved to be, who

[blocks in formation]

cover a trading by other British merchants, without connecting them together; as by shewing that the licensees were agents at the time for the

1812.

BUSK

against BELL.

were Dawson, Burrell, and Gascoigne, British merchants residing at Wakefield in Yorkshire. The licence issued by one of the secretaries of state, in pursuance of His Majesty's order in council, under the authority given by the statutes 43 Geo. 3. c. 153. s. 16. and 48 Geo. 3. c. 126. s. 2. was granted to Messrs. Robinson, Clarkson, and Co., of London, merchants; permitting them to load and export, on board the vessel Christiana, Schimmels, master, to any port in the Baltic, a cargo of British manufactures, &c. and to import from thence a cargo of grain, if importable, &c., and such goods as are permitted by law to be imported, &c. provided that the name of the vessel, her tonnage, and time of her clearance from her port, should be indorsed on the licence; (all which, with other stipulations, were regularly complied with in this case:) and a licence was necessary to legalize the voyage, inasmuch as Russia was at war with this country at the period of the adventure and assurance in question.

Carr, in moving in the last term to enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial, stated two objections to the plaintiff's right to recover under this licence; first, that there was no connection in fact proved by agency or otherwise between the grantees of the licence and the persons in whom the interest in the goods insured by the policy was averred to be. But secondly, if there were any connection between them, yet that the licence being specifically granted to Robinson, Clarkson, and Co., and not extending to others, or to other British merchants, as is commonly provided for in such licences, could not be used to protect any other property than their own. These licences, he said, were to be construed, like grants of the King, most strictly; and the very absence in the particular

case

case of the common words of addition and extension shewed that the government intended to confide personally in the individuals named to import as well export goods in this adventure; which personal privilege they could not communicate to others. A rule nisi having been then granted,

Barrow and Peake now shewed cause, contending that it was the particular cargo and adventure which was intended to be licensed, and not the identical persons named; the persons to whom the licence was transferred being also British merchants, and the national character of the adventure therefore remaining unaltered. In Feize v. Thompson (a), and Feize v. Waters (b), a special property in the cargo was held sufficient for the grantee of the licence to cover the adventure. [Bayley, J. Had you any evidence in this case to shew that Robinson, Clarkson, and Co., were the agents of Dawson at the time when the former took out the licence?] They were so in fact; Robinson and Co. chartered the ship, and shipped the homeward bound cargo for Dawson and Co.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. There was no evidence of agency given at the trial; but the plaintiff may mend his case at a subsequent trial. At present the rule must be made absolute for a new trial; for I cannot say that a licence to import a cargo given to one set of persons will warrant an importation by another set of persons, unless the latter can connect themselves with the parties licensed (c).

Per Curiam,

Rule absolute for a new trial

on payment of costs.

1812.

BUSK against BELL.

(a) 1 Taunt. 321.

(b) 2 Taunt. 248.

(c) See Klingender v. Bond, 14 East, 484.

YAR

« PreviousContinue »