The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-08 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

The Court was occupied this morning with the Crown
Paper. No case of any public interest ocourred up to the
time of our leaving.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HAMILTON AND OTHERS V. BHEDDAN.

Mr. ALEXANDER moved fora rule to show cause why the
verdict for the defendant should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, He said it wasAr, action upon a policy of insurance
which was tried before Mr. Justice Coltman at the late As-
sizes held at Liverpool, and he moved now on the gound of
misdirection.. The insurance was effected upon a vessel of
170 tons for
,a voyage to Africa, and the policy was worded in
the same manner as all policies which now governed the Liver-
pool trade with Africa, so that if their Lordships should agree
with the Learned Judge who presided at the trial, the merchants
there must adopt entirely new regulations. The policy was
dated 17th March, and contained the usual powers granted to
vessels going such trading voyages, viz., a power to ship,
tranship, load or unload, barter, sell, or exchange, any of their
goods, in any port, river, or island in Africa ;_ and it also con-
tained a power for the vessel to act as tender to any other
vessel in the same employ, or otherwise. The policy was
dated in March, the premium being 71. 7s. per cent., and the
vessel, called the Clipper, sailed to the river Benin in May.
She arrived there in June, and commenced her trading voyage.
Sic remained in the river twelve months, and daring that
time four of the plaintiff's larger vessels came -out, and.
acted as tender to them, they not being able to cross tls.e tar with
a full cargo. One of them, .named the Laurel, in coming out, by
missing the proper time of the tide, struck, and was unable to
proceed on her voyage. Tho Clipper was tendering her at the
time, and as she could not go on her voyage the Clipper took her
cargo to Cammeroons, a sail of thirty hours, where the plain.
tiffs had a factory', and tile goods were put on board another of
the plaintiff's ships, called the Dedalus. The Clipper then
took in a cargo and proceeded on her voyage home-
ward, but struck, and was afterwards plundered by pirates
and sunk. The defendants pleaded that the voyage to Cam-
meroons was A at:o;4ocm. His Lordship at the trial decided it as
a point of law, and at once directed the Jury accordingly not
leaving the point for their decision, He (Mr. A.) appre-
hended that the words of the policy most clearly gave such a
power, and that the act was no more than tendering to vessels
in the same employ or that if the Court were against on
that point, then he would contend that the plaintiff had a right
to act as he had done, under the power given in the policy of
transhiping in any part of Africa; His Lordship had also di-
rected the Jury very strongly on the point of the policy having
been voided by the delay which had taken place in the river.
New, from the very nature of the trade, it was impassible that
' it oould be carried on without these small vessels, as they
would not yield any profit by merely going out for a
cargo. Their use was in tendering and assisting the larger
vctoht, anti same delay must necessarily arise. It was well
understcod that an African voyage of such a vessel was from
two to three years. The case was one of much importance,
and he trusted their Lordships would send it down for further
consideration,

The COURT were unanimously of opinion that the Learned
Judge INTS correct. The voyage to Canmeroons was a clear
deviation, for there was no proof of the Clipper being engaged
in any trafile thole. She was not then tendering any vessel, but
was a mere transport. As they had decided that point against
the plaintiff, it was unnecessary for them to consider the (Alley
one.—Rule refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

( Sittings in Banco.)
DOE, DEMISE OF SIMPSON V. SIMPSON.

This was a special case, the arguments on which occupied
the whole of the morning, being purely technical, and invo:v-
ing no point of public interest up to the time when our re-
porter 14t.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice PARKE.)
GREENWOOD AND OTHERS AGAINST COOPER.

The plaintiffs in this case were the executors of Mr,
Stabeley, late an eminent solicitor, and the defendant, Mrs.
Cooper, a widow lady, residing in Upper Berkeley street, to
recover the value of certain property detained by the de-
fendant. Mr. Sergeant TALF9CRD conducted the case for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. PHILLIPS appeared for the defence.
The facts as detailed in evidence were these :—ln April
last, the deceased, Mr. Stabeley, took lodgings in the house
of the defendant, and caused furniture, books, and plate to
be removed there from the house in which he then
resided, in Grafton-street, Grosvenor-square. On the
Bth of May, he died at the house in Grafton-street,
and two days afterwards, the son of the plaintiff Greenwood,
with Mr. Winstanley, the auctioneer, called upon Mr. Cooper
to ascertain what property belonging to Mr. Stabeley might
be in her possession. Before they informed her of Mr.
Stabeley's death. they requested to be shown into that gentle-
man's apartments, and they then asked her if the furniture
belonged to him ? She answered in the affirmative ; but on
being told that he was dead, she said, that he had promised
to give her the furniture. She was then asked, had not Mr.
S. smt plate and books also to her house ? She replied
that he had done so, and she gave them up subsequently
to the executors without the least hesitation ; but posi-
tively refused to part with the furniture of the lodgings,
replying, through her attorney, to the applications of the exe-
cutors, that Mr. Stay-cloy had given her that portion of the
property left in her house. In the course of the communica-
tions with the defendant's attorney, the executors were re-
proached, to strong terms, with taking advantage of the de-
fendant, because she had no document or witness to prove the
gift, although they kno,Jthat her statement was true.
Mr. Pnit.tars, in addressing the jury far the defendant,
contended that her conduct, in at once surrendering the most
valuable part of the property of the deceased, without hesita-
tion or concealment, showed her honesty ; and that the fact of
the deceased paying a high rent for apartments in her house
whilst ho resided in another place, was a strong corroboration
of her statement that there existed between him and her such
an intimacy as would render such a gift both probable and
natural. lie contended also that the plaintiffs, by allowing
her for a long time to retain possession of the furniture, and
afterwards declaring that they would not force her to give it
Up, but for the conduct of her attorney, showed clearly that
they were conscious of the truth of her assertions, although
she had no witnesses to prove it.
Mr. Justice PARK; in summing up, said that the in-
genious and able speech of the Learned Gentleman (Mr.
Phillips). had at first misled him into the belief that
the defendant .had witnesses to produce. But in the
absence ut any proof on her side, it would be most unjust of
the jury, upon the mere elate-Acta of her Counsel, to cast
upon ti,) respectable witnesses for the plaintiffs the imputation
of foul perjury, and upon the memory of the deceased the re-
proach that such an intimacy subsisted between him and the
defendant, as had been plainly asserted by her Counsel. He
did not believe that the Learned Barrister would have given
his client such a character, if he bad not been so instructed.
But he (the Lean-led Judge) was bound to say that the defen-
dant had been very badly advised in the defence which he
bad taken.

Verdict for the vlaintiffd-731,. 103.1 NCith costs.

BAIL COURT.—(TINS DAY.)
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE took his scat on the Bench at ten
o'clock,
IN THE MATTER OP THE PARISH of LONG SUTTON. 4.a.
Mr. NIGHT moved for a rule to show cause whY a via'`
Inns should not issue, calling upon the Churchaardens
_e
Vestry of the parish of Long Sutton, Lincelusliire,
refused to restore John Barber to serve in the ceice of $
'Y't.b,
in that pa'tish. The individual in question was elected tn.l
situation in April, 1826, and a subsequent vestry was held
August, 1836, for the purpose of considering- the propietyda:
dismissing him or continuing him in his place. Orl 6! Is
of the election some opposition was shown, and a show of n"the
being demanded, the parties went to a poll but before
election terminated the books were shut up, Land the doors et
the vestry being closed, the individual on whose part the e. P'
plication was made was prevented having a fair chance of being
•
re-elected to fail the situation.
The COURT—Take a rule to shoat cause.—Rule granted.
OTIIO, KING OF GREECE V. whiGur•
Mr. Ricumms said he was instructed to apply for A rule tO
show cause why the illustrious plaintiff in this case should not
give security for costs, in an action which was pending betwees!
him and the defendant ; for although the royal plaintiff held
a high rank in society, yet he was residing in a foreign
out of the jurisdiction of the Courts of this realm, and haying
no property in this country, he was subject to comply with the
rules of the Court in giving the required security for costs.
The case arose Out of mercantile transactions entered into by
the agent of his Majesty. The action had been pending far
considerable tame, and the declaration had on a subscqnett
occasion been amendkl, and they we're now in a condititea to
1311 obliged to plead do 7iOVO. The defendant considered that
the verdict in the action would ultimately be ht his favour, and
was anxious to have security given -for the costs, and in tbe
mean time to-have all further proceedings stayed.—Role
granted. -
The Court then proceeded with Nisi Prius causes.