This was the hearing of a motion on the; that the underwriters were not liabi 37 L. J., Exchequer, 105, contending farther fo for the part of the defendants to have the plaintifis' loss of a particular parcel, even when the value of that particular parcel had been separately declared. 'There were many other eases he might adduce, but he need only mention Hedburg v. Pearcon and the judgment in Jansen v. Ralli, 25 L. J. In conclusion he submitted, first, on the authority of Hofman v. Marshal that the warranty' free of particular average was equally applicable to risk of craft as to ship; and secondly, upon Jansen v. Ralli, that this was only a partial loss, for which the underwriters were not liable.
Mr. Surru had no doubt that while what Mr, Rennie had said was very right and proper, there were ig Sager enolly favourable to be adduced on his side of the case. But he had not employed Counsel, thinking in so small a matter that it was unnecessary, He very much questioned whether, in the cases Mr. Rennie had referred to, there were such clauses as that in the policy before them, coreing: risk of craft to and from the ship, and risk of transhipment from wharves at
final fanding place, Shanghai on either side of the river, to the Mr. Rexsiz said he was not arguing upon the policy but upon the petition.
His Hoxovr observed that for the purposes of the present proceeding the defendants had admitted the statements of fact in the petition, Dut argued that they disclosed no liability on the part of the underwriter Mr. Sami said according to his reading of the policy, i covered his risk from the ship to the shore or to the final landing place; and he considered his case simply was who. ther or not he was entitled to recover in consequence of the partial loss of the goods. contended it was not a partial loss, Lut a total loss of apart, He was quite aware that, ae" cording to the terms of insurance, if the goods were damaged by sea water or from ill-usage while on board the ship, he had no claim whatever against the Lnuraace Company, Gases of that kind occurred every week, and no attempt was ever made to recover under such circumstance: If they could not recover from the ship, they were obliged to sustain the loss themselves. But here was a case in which it was impossible to Jand the goods altogether in one craft. If they had been totally lost on the voyage, or even if the mau in charge of the boat or lighter had abandoned them, he could have recovered their value from the Insurance Company.
His Hosovr.—Had you all your 75 packages on board 'Me. Sutri—No, only 43, and in conse: quence of a heavy' gale blowing, and the set of the tide, the lighter in crossing the chowchow water'canted over, and 8 of tae packages went overboard. If it were coaRsary> or if he thought it would support his case, he was in a position to prove that. persons had recovered from Insurance Offices under similar circumstances, but whether the Companies were compelled to pay he did not kuow,—that was beyond his province. Before decid-ug to bring this matter into Court, he con-nited his friends, not his legal ones as he had none, but his mercantile friends. He took their opinion, which was that prima facie he had a good case, and they wanted to know upon hat grounds his claim was disputed. To test the matter therefore he thought it worth
conducted their business on the same plan while to bring it into Court. His firm bad for the last 10 years, and had always been under the impression that they were entitled to recover in such a case as the present. He could name fifty. men in Shanghai who were also under' that impression, and who were at this moment of opinion that if they lost one bale out of a quantity. of -piece goods in cargo boat they would be able to recover insurance on it. He thought it would be a bad precedent to rule otherwise, for it simply amounted to this, Suppose on the arrival of 1,000 packages cou-take them off; the man took 50, not being igned to him he directed a lighterman to able to carry more, and, in consequence of bad weather, one was lost overboard; was he to be given' to understand that he was immediately to send all the rest after it in order to establish his (the shipper's) claim to insur rance? This was what it would mean; and for this reason he would like to ask the Court whether if he had lost the whole instead of a portion of the 43 packages he would have any claim upon the insurance.
His Hosour said he understood the Company tosay this: We are not liable unless all your 75 are lost, and if even the 43 in
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.