HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0011 and id is 1 raw text is: BROUGH V. WHITMORE
quitting the ship himself, or for suffering any seaman or passenger so to do ; and then
the Legislature considered what punishment should be inflicted on the seamen or
passengers quitting the ship; and enacted by the latter part of the same section, that
they should be imprisoned for six months, and should forfeit 2001.; for it says, if
any person shall so quit such ship, &c. namely those persons before described, the
seamen and passengers; and it proceeds to enact that every such person so
quitting, &c. shall forfeit 2001. This section therefore wholly relates to the captain,
seamen, and passengers, and not to persons in the defendant's situation.
Grose, J.-The Act of Parliament having given power to the King in Council to
make the order in question, and not having annexed any specific punishment to the
disobedience of it, is undoubtedly a common law offence, and must be punished
accordingly.
Ashhurst, J. then pronounced the judgment of the Court on the defendant, that
he be imprisoned in the King's Bench prison for a year.
BROUGH against WHITMORE. Friday, Feb. 11th, 1791. Provisions sent out in a ship
for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and
furniture.
[Referred to, Rodocanachi v. Elliott, 1873-74, L. R. 8 C. P. 669 ; L. R. 9 C. P. 518;
Roddic7 v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insarance Company [1895], 1 Q. B. 842 ; [1895],
2 Q. B. 386.]
This was an action on a policy of insurance on an East India and China ship; and
on tie tackle, ordnance, ammunition, artillery, and furniture of the ship. At the trial
before Lord Kenyon at the Guildhall sittings, it appeared that, while the ship was
lying off Bank-Saul Island, in the river Canton, it became necessary to refit her ; for
which purpose the stores arid provisions were taken out of her, and put into a ware-
house, called a Bank-Saul: and that while they were in [207] the warehouse they
were destroyed by an accidental fire. It was admitted that the policy covered all the
articles but the provisions, which were merely for the use of the ship's crew : but if
those provisions were not protected by the policy, then there was not an average loss
of 31. par cent. It was considered in the same light as if the accident had happened
on board the ship (a). For the defendant it was contended, that the provisions were
not protected by the insurance : but one of the jury (b) said, that it had been deter-
mined in Lord Mansfield's time that they were included under the word furniture,
under which decision the merchants in the city had since acquiesced ; on which the
plaintiffs obtained a verdict.
Erskine, on a former day in this term, renewed his objection, and obtained a rule
to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, on the authority of Robertson v.
Ewer; ante, 1 vol. 127 ; and two Nisi Prins cases there mentioned. But the Court
desired that some inquiry might be made respecting the case mentioned by one of the
jurymen.
Piggott and Marryat now shewed cause. They said that they had not found the
case mentioned at the trial, but stated the result of their inquiries in the city to be,
that the provisions, which were necessary for the use of the ship's crew, were always
comprehended under the word furniture; and that underwriters had frequently
paid the loss on such a policy as the present: but that provisions which were shipped
for any other purpose than the ship's crew, were like any other kind of merchandize
insured by a policy on the goods. The counsel then observed that this case was
distinguishable from that of Robertson v. Ewer; for there the loss happened by the
extraordinary consumption of the provisions by the negroes during the detention of
the ship ; but here the provisions were merely for the ship's crew, and were considered
as a part of the outfit. The case of Robertson v. Ewer arose on a policy of an African
ship, in which provisions for the negroes as well as for the crew are usually sent : in
that trade both the negroes and their provisions are considered as part of the cargo,
and insured as such. In the two other cases referred to in Robertson v. Ewer, the
demand was made for provisions consumed during the detention of the ship, and not
(a) Vid. Pelley v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 1 Burr. 341.
(b) Which was a special one.
976
4 T. R . 207.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0011&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)