The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-11 00:00:00

tab) inttlitgout.

EQUITY COURTS.—Jmor 10.
(Wore Chancellor Sir J. Siatert.i
THR 0002411298 DULA MA V. LORD nasoN.

Mr. Wins, Q. 0., was proceeding to make an applicatioo
to the ooart in this ease, in consequence of a telegram re-
ceived from Turin, whither the countess had been summoned
to visit one of her children who was dangerously ill, when
The Vice•Charicellor said he had understood that a notice
of this case, which he had, on the final consent of all the
counsel engaged in it, heard in private, bad appeared in the
public prints. A more base and improper thing could not
have been done • and whoever was responsible for the publi-
cation
of the proceedings in any case which the court
thought proper in its discretion to hear in private, wadi not
only guilty of contempt of court, but in this particular
instance must, his Honour thought, have acted from one
or otter of two motives—a pecuniary or a malevolent
one. He was glad, however, to be able to nay that no mis-
chief had resulted to the infanta in this case, from the un-
justifiable aurae which some one had pursued : and be
desired it to be understood that in family matters, where
all parties wished to have a case heard in private, and the
court thought it advisable, and for the interests of any
parties in the suit, so to hear it, he should do so. The praotice
was not confined to this branch of the court. It
was only the other day that the Master of the Rolls had
heard a cams in which infants were interested, in private.
He begged to say that, if an soy future omission he found
any officer of thin court lending himself to any such dis-
graceful, but at the same time contemptible, coarse of pro-
ceeding, he should certainly commit him for such contempt
of court.
Mr. Mills, here interposed, and vindicated his client from
any complicity in the publication which his Honour con-
demised, and the solicitor also stated, with some warmth,
that he knew nothing of the mode in which the report of
the use bad got into the pipers. rename bad applied to
him from some portion of the public press for information as
to the case, but he had refused to give them any.
The VioelManoellor regretted the necessity for the re-
marks which he had felt it hie duty to make. The benefit
of the infants and justice to all parties was alone the object
which the court had io view in all such cases as the present.
This case was in the paper for the hearing tomorrow (Satur-
dey), and would then be disposed of in open court.
Mr. Bacon, Q. 0., Mr. Greene, Q.C., Mr. George Lake
Russell, and Mr. H. Stevens, appeared in the owe.
His Honour directed Mr. Malin' present applicatioe
(which was in the form of a eummone) to be disposed of in
chambers this afternoon.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Joan 10.

Sittinp at Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Lord Chief
Juitice Erie and a Special Jury.)

MESON V. TEE COMMERCIAL ASSORANCE COMMIT-11M

- -
BURNING OF TILE INDIAN EMPIRE STILLIIIR.
This was an action upon a policy against fire for 10,0001.,
effected upon the Indian Empire steamer, which was
burned in the Thames last summer, sod the pleas raised
the defence that the policy was not current when the file
happened.
Mr. Boni], Q.C., and Mr. W. Williams appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Lush, QC., Mr. Kandake, Q.C., and Sir
George Honyman for the defendant..
The plaintiff was formerly the mayor of Hull, and in
1862 he bought the Indian Empire for 15.0001., and having
undertaken extensive repairs, be contracted to sell her to
the French government for 35,0001. The repairs would of
course take some time, and the plaintiff effected a policy with
the defendants against fire for 10,0001. for three months
from the 14th May. The policy described the ship as
lying in the Victoria Docks, and it was stipulated
that she was to be at liberty to go into dry dock
and to have her boiler fires lighted once or twice during the
currency of the policy. The ship was taken to Lincllev's
dock at Deptford for repairs, and the lower segment of her
Elle-wheels was taken off, so that she could go into the
The work io dock having been done, she was taken
to the government buoy io the Thames, where the segment
of the paddle-wheels was replaced. This occupied about ten
days, and the very day that the work was completed alas
took fire and was totally destroyed.
The plaintiff's counsel stated that the first question was
whether the statement in the policy that the ship was in
the Victoria Do lur limited the liability in this way, that
she should be nowhere else than there ; but he should con-
tend that there was no such limit, and that the words "in
the Victoria Docks" were simply words of description.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he should hold, for the
purposes of the day, that the words " in the Victoria Dock"
were no part of the contract, but simply words of descrip-
tion. . . .

The plaintiff*. counsel, in contiouation, said that this at
all events wu cle►r, that the ship was to be at liberty to go
from the Victoria Docks into the dry dock, and be should
contend that the plaintiff was entitled to effect this
removal in the usual way. The abip was of 2,200 toes
burden, and the usual course wee with suck l►rge ships to
remove the lower part of the paddles, sou to be able to
put them into dry dock ; and when the repairs were done, to
take the ship to the nearest convenient buoy in the river,
and there relit the wheels. Now this wee precisely what
bad been done.
The defendants' counsel, on the other hand, contended
that it was by no means the usual course to remove the
lower parts of the paddle...heels before usage went into
dry-dock. though, of course, if the reseal was taken to a
dock that was too small for her, it was necessary to do so.
Another fact which he wished to state was, that of course
the rate of premium for insurance was in proportion to the
risk, and in the Thames theld■nger from fire was much
greater than it would have been in the Victoria Docks. In
the docks there was an organised system for putting out
fine, whilst in the Thames there was nothing of the kind,
and the probability was that if the fire had commenced in
the Victoria Docks it would have been put out without
any serious damage being done. All necessary repairs
could have been done in the graving dock attached to the
Victoria Docks, where the risk from fire would have been,
u he had said, much less than in the Thames.
Evidence having been given on both sides, it was agreed
that the only question for the jury was whether it was in.
tended that the ship should return to Victoria Docks after
the repairs were done.
The jury found that it was intended that the ship should
return to the docka, eu4 a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff for 10,00 W., subject to the opinion of the full court
upon the construction of the policy.