The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-19 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1853.

Kato 3intellteence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Yrianosy.
agnrgAs AT N/11 PARS IN /AMUCN.--b.ro.f LuN CAAINIALL

AND • SP CI ALJcal.

SOLOMON O. iIARRI-.1:-Af:TT(7);;-A-G-A-1,111/ Till PMENIX

Fine INSURANCII COMPANY.
This was an &miens upon a policy of insurance from fire,
brought against the defendant, es the representative of the
Phi:rain Fire Insurance Company, to recover 1,1601.
The defendant pleaded that the goods were not burned ;
that the plaintiff had no interest in the goods ; that he had
not delivered an account ; sad that the statement delivered
was fraudulent. On these plea. issue was joined.
It appeared thst the plaintiff was • pawnbroker residing
in 'if mehest r, and the policy in question was fur the in-
'meanie of his household goods to the amount of 1601., of
pledges to the amount of 8001., and oink stock and fixtures
to the amount of 4501. The premises of the plaintiff were
partially destroyed by fire on the 4th July last, while he
and his wife were at Birmingham. It was to recover the
value of goods, Ate., destroyed upon that occasion, that the
present action was brought.
A number of witnesses having been examined,
Lord Campbell summed up. He rejoiced that this ques-
tion was to be decided by 12 intelligent merchants of the
City of London. lie trusted he should never live to see
the day when the resistance of a jury should be denied to a
judge in casulike this. There had been some talk about
abolishing a jury in catee of contract—this was a eau of
contract, but it was more fit for the jury than himself.
There were several pleas, but the only one requiring their
anxious consideration was the 6th alleging that the claim
was fraudulent. Now they must bear in mind the charac-
ter of the plaintiff. He had been convicted of an offence
against the law, and although he said he was not in tault,
they must take his conviction as proof of guilt. Remem-
bering this, and that the circumstances of the case were
undoubtedly suspicious, the company were certainly justi-
fied in bringing the case into court. They however must
look seriously and carefully at the books and at the evidence
before them, and upon that alone ground their decision.
The jury retired. In a short time they returned, and
gave a verdict for the defendant.
FREND V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—
TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
This was an action for an assault and false imprisonment
brought sgainstithe defendanta;for having,through Mr. H um-
platy, their station master at Canterbury, given the plain-
tiff into custody on Tuesday, the 12th October, 1862. ti pore
that (ley the plaintiff, who was the contractor for the Euro-
pean and American Telegraph Company, endeavoured to
bore beneath the defendants' railway for the, purpose of
passing his wires under the line. Mr. Humphrey resisted
the attempt, a scuffle ensued, the plaintiff waa given into
custody and taken before the mayor, who, however, dis-
missed the charge. This outrage was the ground of the
present action.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Welaby were for the
plaintiff.
Sir F. Thesiger (with whom was Mr. Willes) appeared
for the defendant, and argued that the plaintiff bad no
right whatever upon the railway. The carrying of the
wires under the rails was injurious to their safety.
Lord Campbell interposed and said, he should rule that
the Telegraph Company under their act were entitled to
crow the line.

Sir F. Thesiger then tendered a bill of exceptions to the
ruling.
Lord Campbell having summed up, the jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 601.
Lord Campbell said, now that the bill of exceptions was
tendered and the verdict given, he would put it to the jury
to say whether the plaintiff had acted lightly in boring
under the line.
The jury thought that he had acted properly.

ADMIRALTY COURT.-YurrADAY.
&roam Da.
Tx. AIUIONIA.-8411.Va05.
This was a cause in which the Ching smack Eliza of
Scarborough, sued the Ansonia, a Spanish schooner, bound
from Christiansand for Barcelona with salt fish, for ser-
vices performed on the 9th of October. The salvors having
seen the schooner in a disabled state, with the Spanish flag
flying half-peak high, and drifting :towards Filey Rocks,
steered for her through a heavy sea ; sad at the expense
of great risk, boarded her. They found that the crew were
all exhausted with their exertions during the previous gale,
and they stated that the Captain, who dad not understand
English. made signs for them to take the ship in tow, which
they did while the crew went below to obtain Nine rest.
The hawser at first broke, but with great difficulty the
vessel was made fest to the smack, aad she was taken
safely into Bridlington Bay on the following morning.
The value of the schooner, her freight, and cargo was cal-
culated at 1,8001.
. .

On behalf of the ownen it was alleged that the flag was
hoisted merely for a pilot ; that when the salvors came on
board they were looked upon merely as pilots, and their
services were bargained for 201., an agreement to MA effect
being signed before their services were accepted.
Dr. Haggard and Dr. Jenner appeared for the salvos ;
the Queen's Advocate and Dr. Deans far the owners.
The court reserved its decision. •

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YssmaDAT

SOMA ILL COMMIIIROIfIi Law.
BINOULAX Camel.
IN AN HINNY EDWAILD FannEx.r..
In this mu an applies' ion was made by the attorney of
the insolvent (IV% Archer) to file a petition under singular
eircumstancest—The insolvent, who was now in the
Queen's Prison, had been in custody more than three years.
He wu heard before the county court judge at Reading,
and had a judgment of two years. He removed himself to
the Queen's Prison, and was detained by a creditor whose
debt was omitted from the schedule He was still in prison,
and now wished to file another schedule, with the old debts
and some new debts incurred by his wife since his hearing.
An application was made to Mr. Commissioner Law, and
under the peculiar circumstances of the cue leave was
greeted to file a new petition. It had since been dis-
covered that instead of one debt omitted from the schedule
there were several debt/ which should have been inserted
in the old schedule, and the question was whether the court
would grant leave to file a new schedule.
Mr. Commissioner Law thought the case was altered by
the number of old debts omitted from the schedule, and that
an application should be made to the county court judge
of Reading, where the insolvent was heard. He was willing
to give leave to the insolvent had only one debt been left
out of the schedule. He was of opinion that the county
court judges had power to re-hear case., and he had so
expressed himself before. There was, he was aware, a
contrary opinion entertained; and if there was any diffi-
culty at Reading, the parties might again bring the
case under his notice, bat at present the application was
refused.