The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-27 00:00:00

LAI; REPORT'.

COURT OF KING', BENCH, JULY 26.

ITT rTN:;s BEiORC, LORD.ELLENHOROCC,iI AND A SPECIAL

;URY

rturrs PAREEIt.

This was an action by the Hama, who is a sad-
dle-tree inanufatturer in Shoreditch, in which he
de fared that he had made an insurance from fire in
the Sun Fire Offif-ce upon his house, goods, stock in
s!r3de. &c. for 0001. and was interested to the va-
lu:! of 12001.; that a fire broke but in his house and
d,.:stroyed it with his goods ; and that the Detend-
ant had maliciously slandered him, by sayitig-that he
set his house-on file, by which the Plaintiff was in-
jured, and the Sun Fire Office had refused to indem-
nify him for his loss by the fire. The Defendant
had insisted upon the record that the,words. were
tgie. A witness of the name of Dickins was called,
who had subscribed the policy of insurance as the
attesting witness; but upon being' examined, he
said he did not see the deed signed, sealed, or de-
livered, and it was usual for him to attest deeds in
that way.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. held, that this deed
could not be read in evidence;. and observed, that it
was a very great inconvenience to the public, that
from what he had observed upon trials at the Old
Bailey, and from the testimony of the witness,
.it'
'.appeared, that none of the policies were, duly exe-
cuted, so that any person could legally recover upon
them. As there was no count in the declaration
which did not state the special:damage, the Plaintiff
must be non-suited..

ATTORNEY-.GENERAL argued, that the at-
testing witness not having seen the party sign, it
was just as if there was no attesting witness, and
then it might be pro'ved by giving evidence of the
hand-writnig, and- lie cited a case of a will which
was so proved, after
.all the subscribing witnesses
had been called, and had denied the execution of it.
, Lord ELL.ENDOROUGH, however; over-ruled this
argument, and said he considered that case as pro-
ceeding upon the ground, that there was a eon-
The Plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL advised the witness
nevcr to attest policies in this manner, for the Plain-
tiff 'night bring an action against him, for pretend-
in to hare seen the deed signed, when he had not
seen it, and he would ix...liable to pay all. the
cues iii this action.

LINCARD V. PETO.

The Plaintiff is an Attorney, the Defendant is a
Bnilder, mho had contracted to erect certain build..
ings near the Old Bailey. The Plaintiff had bu-
siness to transaq at the Ot-Bee of the Clerk of the
Peace end • of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, the
usual way to which is through a passage turning
from the Old Bailey on the right hand, just befine
you come to the Justice Hill. This passage is the
only way to the office, excepting during the Ses-
sions. The Defendant had dug a large hole in the
passae,of the depth of. seven feet, Jus't before
thiA huie,t here was an iron gate, which might have
been made fast, and of this the Defendant had the
key .given hint. earth had also been thrown
between this gate and the street in form of a
mound, about five feet high ; and the Defencliint
}lad pit up lights and a board, direling the people
to go round to the Office by another way. The
Plaintiff, on the 12th of September, 1807, was
going to this Office to take out a Suhpcena, and en-
d::%avouring to pass the usual way, fell into the hole
and broke his lei; in three places. . He was taken
immediately to St. BartholoTew's Hospital,.'it be-
ing thought dangerous to remove him so far as his
own house, which is in St. George's Fields. He
continu7d there till March following, and is inca-
pable of walking at this time without crutches.
Several witnesses were called to prove .the hap-
pening of the accident.
Mr. GAR Row addressed the Jury on behalf of the
Defejidant, and endeavoured.to spew that all proper
precaution had been taken to prevent accidents.
Two witnesses were then called, whose duty it
Was to have watched the place ; and they said, that
they had tried to lOck the' doer, but it had sunk by
the removal of the earth, and could not be locked,
and that the key which was given them would not
lock the door.

'the Clerk to Mr. Shelton, at the Old Bailey; and
likewise the liothiekeeper there, contradicted these
witneises, and said, that the key which had been
given to the Defendant's witnesses would have lock-
ed the door, and prevented the accident; and that,
in faa, itiiteclately after,vards the door was locked
Without difficulty by means of that key.:
The Jury, under the direaiion of his Lordship,
gave a .verdia fur the Plaintiff—Damages 6°l.

COURT OF COMMON PLtAS, JULY

DUVELL V. 1110XON.

This was an anion of (rover brought. to recover
Certain goods that had been confided to the Defend-
ant, the Captain of a trading vessel, to cnvey from
Sweden to England, upon a contraEt that no freight
was' to be paid. The Defen.lant,, on his
"except
in
England, refused to deliver up the goods a
reasonable freight was allowe:1. Two questions arose,
first, whether this was properly titer, as there was
no , evid:Mce coMTersiOn except the mere re-
fusal to deliver could be so c;nsidered. Second,
whether a contrac;t%by, a Captain of a vessel to carry
goods tree, was !awful ? The second question was of
importance in the opinion of the Judge, as, if these
con t r:tds were Lobe held legal, a (loaf might be opened
for rnuch'impoiition on the owners of ships. A ver-
dict was taken for the Plaintiff, with leave for the
Defendany to enter a nonsuir, if the'oPinion of the
Colrt should be in his faveur On both or either of"
the above questions.