The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGEECE.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.) !ir:
IMPORTANT ACTION ON A POLICY OF FIRE INSURANCE.

KNOWLES V. THE NORTH BRITISH AND MERCANTILE IN-
quitANCE Coscp.i..v.—This was an action to recover £5OO
under a policy of fire insurance.—Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Mr.
T. Jones appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. A ttorney-General
James, Mr. Milward, Q.C., and Mr. J. P. Cobbett for the
defendants.—Tho plaintiff is a cotton waste dealer, occupy-
ing some railway arches in Miller-street, Greengate, Sal-
ford. He had insured his stock with the defendants, and
the only question was whether under the terms of his
policy he was entitled to recover. Tho burden of proof
being upon the defendants, their case was first opened.
It was stated that there was at ono time great diffi-
culty in insuring cotton waste by reason of the great
hazard which existed ; but the defendants undertook to
insure it upon a warranty being given that only the
better sorts of waste should be insured, and not the
worse descriptions, which were subject to spontaneous
combustion. In granting the policy the defendants made
the insurer warrant that no oily, greasy, or dirty waste
should be deposited on the insured premises. The
plaintiff's premises were destroyed by fire in June, and
under ordinary circumstances, and without that clause in
the policy, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover ; but
when Mr. Longsdon, the agent for the company, and Mr.
W. P. Sharpe, their branch manager, went to the place,
they took a sample of what remained, and it was found to
be strongly impregnated with mineral oil and of a descrip-
tion against which the plaintiff had warranted. The com-
pany accordingly resisted the claim. When Mr. Sharpe
Pointed out to the plaintiff that he had vitiated his policy,
Mr. Knowles said he knew that according to the terms of
his policy he could not recover, but he alleged that he had
made an agreement with Mr. Longsdon to the contrary.
Mr. Brett, for the plaintiff, said the company had set up a
very mean and dirty defence. There having been a great
difficulty in insuring cotton waste, that company came for-
ward and undertook to insure the ordinary waste which
dealers had in their warehouses. The sample produced in
court contained oil, but was not what was known as oily
waste when the insurance was effected. Mr. Knowles, the
plaintiff, said that when Mr. jJongsdon came about the in-
surance he requested to be allowed to go through the ware-
house. Witness went with him, cut open for him several
bags of waste, and distinctly showed him the material. Mr.
Longsdon said, " You have an excessive risk here, and
we shall have to charge an excessive premium." lie wanted
two guineas per cent., and at that rate witness agreed to
insure for £5OO. When Mr. Longsdon came a fortnight
later with the policy, witness objected to receive it on ac-
count of the warranty being so loose ; but Mr. Longsdon
said that the meaning of oily waste was waste from rail-
ways, foundries, or machinists, and that he (Longsdon)
knew perfectly well that waste dealers could not conduct
their business unless they were allowed to have every sort
of waste that came from a mill. Tho waste which was on
his premises at the time of the fire consisted of all the dis-
tinct classes of waste that were made in cotton mills, but
none of the prohibited sorts. He denied having said either
to Mr. Longsdon or Mr. Sharpe that he know he could not
recover from the company.—The Judge said he was not
desirous of withdrawing this question from the jury, but it
seemed to him to be quite a waste of time to leave any-
thing to them in this case, because the plaintiff said that
the sample produced was oily waste. Even if it was not
oily, there were in the warranty the words greasy and
dirty, and there could be no doubt about that. The
plaintiff had made a great outcry against the com-
pany; but it was really a most unfortunate, though a very
common, thing for people to put in writing that which they
did not mean. They had better put nothing at all. The
law reasonably required, for the sake of the convenience
of all mankind, that people must be bound by what they
wrote. He must direct the jury to find a verdict for the
defendants. The foreman of the jury said that that was
their opinion. Judge—Do the jury find that as a matter
of fact ? The Foreman—As a matter of fact ? The Judge
—That is better than my directing you. It is a very great
pity that people will not take more care with their written
contracts. The Foreman—My lord, the jury desire me to
say that they cannot but find for the defendants, but at
the same time they think that the defendants are taking
rather a severe course, from the fact of that conversation
having passed. The Judge—Gentlemen, forgive me for
saying this—l dare say you are not directors of an insur-
ance company. You must leave them to mind their own
business in their own way. In justice to the defendants,
I must remind you that thet fireman said the fro broke out
in the place where this oily waste was. The Foreman—
That is quite clear, but we look at the rate of insurance.
The Judge—But a bargain is a bargain. A verdict for the
defendants was accordingly entered.

- COTTON REPUDIATION.
BROTHERTON AND OTHERS V. DALLAS.—This was an
action for breach of contract. The defendant pleaded denial
of the contract. Mr. Attorney-General James and Mr.
Pope appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Temple, Q.C., and
Mr. Edwards for the defendants. The plaintiffs-Messrs. T.
Brotherton and Co. are commission agents, in Manchester,
and the defendant, Mr. A. Dallas, is a Greek merchant.
On the 27th of January, the defendant gave to the plaintiffs
an order for 1,000 pieces of 51b. 27in. cloth, and 1,000 pieces
of silb.atl§.llicl. per lb. ; cleliyery to Iregin in, three YfOoks,

and finish in six weeks ; each delivery not to be less
than 250 pieces of each description of cloth. The first de-
livery was duly made, and on the 22d of February the
plaintiffs received a letter from the defendant, who said—
" Having examined three bundles of each weight of the de-
livery you made on the 17th, against my order of 1,000 pieces
of 51b. andl,ooo pieces of 511 b., I find the quality and colour
very inferior to what you delivered before, and therefore I
decline to accept them." The plaintiffs at once took steps to
ascertain whether the complaint was well founded. Mr.
Brotherton went to the defendant's warehouse,but only saw
three bundles of one order which had been opened, and he
was perfectly satisfied that the colour and quality were ac-
cording to sample. They subsequently made another de-
livery, and on the 27th of February received the following
letter from the defendant :—" I beg to inform you that the
500 pieces delivered on the 17th inst., as well as the 500
pieces delivered to-day, for the reasons stated in my letter
to you dated the 23d inst., and also for being wet and un-
merchantable, and not safe for shipping, lie in my ware-
house under your risk, and take notice of the same." It
was agreed between the parties that the plaintiffs should
re-sell the goods ; but, in consequence of their not being of
an ordinary description, and as there was a drooping market,
the sale could not be effected for somo time, and then at
less than the contract price.—The defence was that the
goods were delivered wet and not fit for shipping.—The
jury, in reply to a question submitted to them by the Judge,
said they were of opinion that the six days which elapsed
between the first delivery and the writing of the first letter
was an unreasonable time for objecting to their condition.
This prevented the possibility of raising any question as to
the Statute of Frauds in this case. Several witnesses were
called on each side to prove the condition of the goods.—
The Jury eventually returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
for the difference between the sum realised by the sale of
the goods and the amount of the contract.