The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-20 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

S.ittings at Nisi Mini in Lonilnn.—(BcfnreLo rd Chief
Justict I. ovill anti a Special Jury.)
EIRE' AND ANoTHER THE CoMMEHCIAL ONION
• ts.,CR• %NCI: COMPANY.

The plaintiff.; in this case were executors of the late
Mr. John Gibbc, ;old they sued to recover 2,0001., the
..n.ount of a policy of insurance against fire effected upon
sonic hags deposited at Thames Tunnel-wharf, and which
were burned on the 16th January, 1866. There was a
second action of a similar kind, and the whole amount of
was 11 (01/. _ _

Mr. Brut, Q.C. Mr. J. I:rownelQ.C., and Mr. Griffits
appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir Geo. flonyman, Q.C.,
said Mr. W. Williams for the defendant.

The ewe for the plaintiffs was that Messrs. Levy and
Davis carrie.l on the business of bag manufacturers at
Thames Tunnel-a harf, and that for some years Mr. Gibbs
bad made advances of money to be employed in this busi-
ness. As security for these advances he had a
lien upon the goods purchased ; he also had
an underlesse of the wharf, and he from time
to time effected policies of insurance upon the goods.
In May, 18.11:;, it became necessary that the superior land-
lonl should grant a new lease of the wharf ; and it was
verbally arranged that a new under lease should be granted
to Mr. Gibbs ; but this agreement did not appear to have
been carried out. The tire was believed to have been wil-
fully causal by a person who was arrested on the night of
the fire, who vas charged with setting fire to • abed in the
neighbourhood, and was convicted of arson. The learned
counsel said he believed that the main question was whether
Mr. Gibbs haul an insurable interest in the
goals, and this would depend principally upon
whether the jury should be satisfied that there was an
agreement that Mr. Gibbs should have • lien upon the
goals and an under lease of the wharf. Another question
would be as to the quantity of goods upon the wharf at
the time of the fire ; but upon this part of the ton he
should show that there was at least property to the extent
of ILION. there, and indeed the 'mirage after the fire
fetched 1,3641._ _ _

Sir George Honyman, in answer to his lordship, said that
he should dispute the alleged lien, and also the plaintiff's
right to recover to nny extent beyond the amount of the
lien as trustee for Messrs. Levy and Davis. He showed
a further dispute to the amount of the loan, and upon this
point he might mention that the defendants had seen the
hooks of the firm. A que.tion would also be raised upon
a condition in the policy, that the insurance should be sub-
ject to average.

The witnesses' were onlered out of court, and the number
of gentlemen who retired upon thin order evidently excited
sonic alarm in the minds of those who had to try the cause
at its prol,ahle duration.

Brett, however, said that if it should be found
neceseary to go at length into the question of the amount
of loss, he should be willing to refer that matter to some
gentleman out of court, and the other questions, he be-
lieved, could be dispose.' of within a reasonable time.
[The case wan proceeding when our report left.]

COURT Ft R DI FORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CASES.
(before the Judge OnUnary.)

F tt, I. P 11a HEARD.)
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the petitioner ;
Dr. Spinks, for the respondent.
In this =SC, which was begun on Saturday, and of
which an outline hex already appeared in our columns, it
will be remembered that the wife of a shipowner
soul for a judicial separation on the ground of cruelty.
Path the parties had been married previous to form-
ing the present connexion. The petitioner had a. for-
tune of 100/. a year and 2,0001. in ready money,
1.000/. of which she hail settled upon herself.
Her second marriage wax in June, 1864, and she
resided with the rinpondent at Shirley, near South-
ampton. Her acco^.st of her conjugal troubles was
that her husband wanted to get her 1,000/. from her, and
that on her refusing to let him hare it he ill-used her.
This went on till about a year ago, when be broke some of
her ribs, and she then left him. On cross-examination,
however, she admitted that besides the money question
the respondent hail quarrelled with her about a certain
Captain Hartnal, but she said his jealousy was a mere
hallucination.
For the defence, the respondent stated that in 10:16.7
he had lodged for 18 months with the petitioner, who was
the wife of a captain. Then he lost sight of her till shortly
before the marriage, when aim hailed him on the course
at Southampton r.icea. At that time he bad a brig;
he was worth about 1,400/. or 1,6001., and was making
abouta hundred a year. As to the allegations he utterly
denied the acts attributed to him. He protested that never
hail man loved woman as he bad loved hie wife, and he
wished he could only forget her now. He charged her,
however, with violence of conduct towards him• and with
continuing her acquaintance with Hartnal after he had
expresses, disapproval of it. He stated that, while
on a visit to Mililleaborongh, a daughter of
Hartnal came to him and made certain dia.
closures to hint. When he told his wife of them, she
made a great outcry, and in holding her still his thumb
might have pressed somewhat heavily on her cheek bone,and
given her what she had described in her evidence as a black.
eve. The boys of Shirley, it was stated, bad a custom
of •• tin-kettling" people that went astray ; and they paid
the petitioner this attention. However, he made up the
affair as well as he could. He admitted that he had once
thrown hi. trousers at her while be was dressing ; but that
w.... only in play. They often played together, and on such
csasions she would sometimes " towel" him. (Laughter.)
(The witness was under examination when our report
ha.]