The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-18 00:00:00

k 43.,. AeIIOFIATIoN.

This wee an artists brought by the executrix and executor
of the deceased Hoary Fowkes, commercial traveller and
agent at Birmingham, to recover the into of 1,0001. og a
policy of iesurance. The defendants pleaded fraud rela-
tive to the witpaphhoerlding of certain information required by
the proposal
Mr. Huddleaton, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel
for the plaintiffs. Mr. Serjeant Sbee, Mr. Mellish, Q.C.,
and Mr. T. Joust were counsel for the defendants.
The proof rusted with the defendants, and their case was
beard first. The fraud relied on was that the deceaaed with •
held from the company the fact that be bad suffered from
gout ; and further, that he bad been accepted in another
office at the ordinary rates. whereas he bad been declined.
The jury ultimately retired, and upon returning into
court answered certain questions put to them by the leaned
judge which amounted to a verdict for the
A verdict was then entered fur the plaintiff—Damages,
1,0621.
SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Niel Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and•
Common Jury.)
NOTICE TO AN/TIM.
This morning, in coosequenee of the non.atte•daoce of
some of the jurymen, hie lordship .had the list called over,
and upon the clerk of the court informing him that the
greater portion of the absentees had never attended during
the sitting, he ordered them to be fined 31. each.

COURT OF COMMON PLICAS.—Doc. 17. ;
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prim in Leedom—(Before Mr. Justice 1
Willa and a Special Jury.)
/NIGHT AND AIIOTLIZZ V. THI OCSAII 3/AIINX DTSURANCI
COMPAIrt.
The plaintiffs in this we, Mews. Knight sad Coleman,
Lad been engaged as brokers in disposing of the shares in
the defendants' company whilst it was being established,
and their case was that their oonimission upon the 40,000
shares would amount to 5,0001., but that instead of
their being paid in this way it 1,11.11 arranged that
they should receive 750/. and 500 charm in the
company, and that in additiou they should be ap-
pointed permanent brokers to the oompeny. They now
claimed damages upon the ground that they had been dis-
missed from their position. There was a plea upon the
mooed alleging that the plaintiffs had nut performed their
duty efficiently, but early in the day that plea was with-
drawn, and it was admitted that there was no imputation
upon the plaintiffs.
Mr. Royal mid Mr. N. Williams appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Mellish, and Mr. Garth were
for the defentlasts.
It was stated that the formation of the company was I
eownenoed in IMS, and that the plaintiffs were employed
for many months in getting fit persona to join the company .
and in disposing of shares. They were appointed brokers to .
the company by the provisional directors, tad motioned
to sot in that capacity until September, 1501, when
they learned that some other brokers had been
'dived to make an investment ; thereupon the plaintiffs i
wrote saying that they still held the uurevoked appoint-1
meat as brokers to the company, and asking for as exploits.
ties ; and the directors in reply repudiated any appointment
such es would restrict them from employing any other
broker if they thought fit ; and is this way the connection
came to en cod. In the course of the plaintiffs case it was
stated that they bad been offered the valuable appointment
of broker' to the Themes and Mersey Dammam Company,
but they declined it because it was thought that they could
not hold it consistently with their duty as brokers to the
defemlants.
Some evidence was given, and in the course of the day
his lordship supported an arrangement, and he more fully
communisited with the leading counsel in his private room.
Mr. Smith, upon their return, said that the plaintiffs'
eusasel felt that he could not mowed ia establishing that
the plaintiffs were appointed perpetual brokers to the com-
ps,. and he (Mr. Smith) had to say that the directors had
not the slightest wish to complain of the conduct of Masers.
Knight and Coleman in reference to investments made by
taw. It had appeared in the wane of the cause that the

lelainhfts bad been asked in a friendly way to withdraw
eheir letter claiming to be permanent broker% but declined,
sad the direeten felt that they could not admit any such
claim. Under the circumstances it had been arranged
the litigation should terminate by a juror being with-

Assere. ' -
Mr. Justin Willis laid that there would have been a
great deal of difficulty in the way of the plaintiffs esta-
blishing that they were permanent brokers to the com-
pany, but the prised* object of the plaintiffs being to
show am publicly as they could that the defendants ceased
to employ them without any fault upon their part, sod
this basis( been established, be wu glad to say that the
Miseries was sow at an end.
Juror withdraws.