The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-12 00:00:00

ROYAL EXCH•NUI

This wu a special 011•11,—. which lasted the greater part of
the day, and raised a question of some importance to marine
insurance companies.
The plaintiffs were the London agents of the Hoag Kong
Insurance Company, who were in the habit of insuring
cargoes which were to be shipped from India to Englead,
before the amount of the cargo was really known, or even
the name of the ship; but they never affected policies of
that kind above the amount of 5,0001. Between them and
the defendants there was an agreement that the latter
would undertake the risk of any exam should
the former effect any policies for larger amounts:
In the present iatann the plaintiffs bad effected
a policy upon certain goods which were to la shipped from
Calcutta to England, and the defeodants ui.,o_rtook the rink
of the guess, the policy being for the sum of
7,0001. Previous to the date of the policy, viz.
the 16th of March, 1859. the only musses that ever pseud
through the Red Sea cable arrived in London to the effect
that the Red Gauotlett had been burned and scuttled, and
that part of her cargo would perish. It wu admitted on
all sides that both parties knew of the loos of the easel
previously to the making of the policy ; bat neither of
them knew that the insured cargo was in her. The de-
fudanta, however, refused to pay the risk above the sum of
5,0004, viz. 2.0001., on the ground that the plaintiffs knew
the Ices of the vessel previous to the policy being effected
on the cargo.
Mr. Lush, Q.C.. sod Mr. Barmen were counsel for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Barak Q.C., and Mr. Watkyn Willis= for
the defendants.

Mr. Lush, os the pert of the plaiatiffs, contended that
the defendant, were liable to be charged with the excess. It
was true that the plaintiffs knew of the lose of the vessel
upon the 16th of March, 185% which was previous to the date
of the policy ; but their practice was to insure. in,
sbeforewasit was re what vessel they were to be whomeed n, sod
that the defendants knew perfectly well. At the time of the
making of the policy the plaintiffs had hot the slightest
knowledge of the contents of the Red Gauntlet, sad
therefore the iesitrahce was a perfectly good ow, hod ow
by which the defendants ought to be bawd.
Mr. Bovill, on the sort of the defendants, contended that,
inasmuch as the policy was made after the knowledge of
the loss of the vowel, it was a bad one, and one upon which
the assured could hot mover.

The Court were of opinion that the policy wu a good
one, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
Judgmoot for the plaiatiffe accordingly.

COURT OF PRORATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 11.
(Before the Jadp Ordinary.)

BLAKE (IN FORMA PAUPERIB) r. BLAKE AND GAdDINZR.
Mr. C. E. Coleridge for the petitioner.
The marriage was on the 25th of November, 1852, the
husband, Jame Blake, being then a shepherd at Wootton
Rivers. He lived happily with his wife till 18:15.
He then removed to • place in Kent, where
he took the co-respondent into his home as • lodger. His
wife soon afterwards, u it was alleged, eloped with Gardi-
ner. The petitioner fetched her home main, but she pain
ran away with the co-respondent, with whom she had mos
lived near Norwich, and bed borne him • child.

The case yes directed to stead over, is order to enable
the petitioner to Weed sod be examined sa to the cucum•
smoces which had led to the separation.