The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Sept. 2.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)
BRUCE V. JONES.
Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Mr. Quain appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Milward (Mr. E. James, Q.C., with
him), for the defendant.
The plaintiff, William Wallace Bruce, was the
owner of the ship Hero, which foundered at sea,
and the defendant, William Henry Jones, was a
member of the firm of Messrs. W. H. Jones and
Co., insurance agents, of London. The action was
brought to recover £2,400 on the policy of insu-
rance. The defendant pleaded a denial of the loss
of the vessel ; that the voyage was abandoned ; and
also that there was delay, concealment, and misre-
presentation on the part of the plaintiff; that the
ship was unseaworthy; and that a number of other
insurances were effected with other underwriters,
and. that under those policies the plaintiff had re-
ceived the full value of the vessel.
Mr. Brett, in opening the case, said that it raised
the question as to what was the proper mode of in-
suring ships. The jury would also have to consider
whether the mode of insuring the Hero, both as to
amount and disclosure, was fair; whether there
was an inexcusable delay in starting the ship from
Cardiff ; and lastly, what was the proper mode of
valuing ships for the purpose of insurance. The
Hero was classed red A 1 in 1857, and he should
show that she was an extraordinary ship, having
been lengthened. It was contended that this had
weakened her. She had been used in the China
trade, and Mr. Bruce bought her for £2,000 in
1859 to continue in that trade. He then expended
nearly £BOO on her ; and, in order to get her to
China, entered, in June, 1860, into a charter party
to take out a cargo of coal from Cardiff to Mnnilla.
On the 11th of June he insured her with the
Bristol underwriters for £5OO, valuing the ship
at £3,000. When loading at Cardiff she was over-
looked, and as some bolts had started and other
defects were observed, she was again put into a
graving dock and strengthened at an expense of£4oo.
She was then surveyed and reported seaworthy,
and in July, 1860, she sailed with 500 tons of coal.
Before the last repairs Mr. Bruce had insured her
at Aberdeen for £725, valuing her at £3,000. On
the 2d of August he insured the ship for the voyage
for £2,400. The moment she left Cardiff, however,
her misfortunes began. She was about as unlucky
a ship as ever sailed. She encountered bad weather,
which continued for some time, and was obliged to
put into Cadiz in distress. kr. Bruce went to
Cadiz, and, rather than incur the ruinous expense
of repairing the ship there, was advised by Mr.
Brackenbury one of Lloyd's agents, to send her to
Gibraltar, to sell the coals there, and then send
her back with ballast to England and have her
again repaired. The plaintiff sent a telegram to
Mr. Jones apprizing him of what was going to be
done, and an answer was returned to the effect that
Messrs. Jones and Pa4mer sanctioned the proposal.
The coals were, therEfore, sold according to this
alleged agreement, and also with the consent of an
agent of the charterer, who was at Gibraltar at the
time. The ship was again overlooked, and then
sent to Cardiff with ballast. There the crew, all but
the captain, was discharged, and the vessel was sur-
veyed by Mr. Edwards and other gentlemen, who
said that before she could proceed to sea she must
be stripped and be re-sheathed ; and it was esti-
mated that the expense of repairing her would be
£2,470. The plaintiff subsequently told Mr. Jones
that the charter-party to Manilla would be finally
cancelled. On receiving the estimate for the last
repairs, the plaintiff told the defendant that, as the
repairing was likely to be a long job, they had bet-
ter adjust the matter on the basis of the estimate.
Mr. Jones did not object to that at once, and said he
would take time to consider. After a time, how-
ever, Mr. Jones said he was not liable for the losses
on the ground that she was unseaworthy when she
left Cardiff. Finally the plaintiff brought an action
for losses. Knowing, however, that the ship was
ultimately going to ikanT,i-6‘. and in order to make
3.a...setf perrectly .;gut with regard to the future,
he went to the defendant and got him to endorse
on the policy the following agreement :—" It is
hereby agreed that the return of the ship Hero,
hereby insured from Cadiz to Cardiff, via Gibraltar,
shall not be considered as a deviation from
or vitiate this policy, such return having been
made with the consent of the underwriters." It was,
therefore, clear to Mr. Jones that the ship was to
sail to Manilla, but with a new charter-party. This
was the state of things in February, but in April a
most important conversation took place between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The effect of it was
that Mr. Jones asked the plaintiff if the ship was
going to Manilla. Mr. Bruce said not until the pre-
vious dispute between them was settled. He told
Mr. Jones that if he had any objection to continue
the risk he could reinsure or cancel the policy if he
(Mr. Jones) would pay the extra premium. Mr.
Jones said there was not likely to be any extra pre-
mium on account of the largeness of the repairs. Mr.
Jones then asked if the ship was going to Manilla.
Mr. Bruce replied " If she was going elsewhere, how
would you treat this policy ?" Mr. Jones then asked
Mr. Bruce if he would reinsure, and he said he
would inquire of the brokers. He did inquire, but
could get no quotation, That was communicated to
Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones was asked if he would
cancel the policy and return the premium, and he
said, " No ; I consider her a better risk than she was
before." It was therefore clear that Mr. Jones un-
derstood that the risk was on. On the sth of June,
1861, a Mr. Bailey made an award, but awarded a
very small sum for the losses that had happened to
the ship. On the refusal to cancel the policy Mr.
Bruce purchased a cargo of coals, and the ship sailed
from Cardiff on the 3d of July for Manilla. What
Mr. Bruce had now spent upon the ship had im-
mensely increased her expenses, and he therefore
effected an insurance in London on the voyage for
£3,000, valuing the ship at £5,000. Now, that ship
had cost him more than £5,000. The ship had no
sooner left Cardiff than she again encountered bad
weather, and she was obliged to put into Milford in
' distress. She again went on to Manilla, but again
met with hard weather, and on the 26th of August
she foundered at sea and went to the bottom. In
October the plaintiff made a claim on the defendant
for the total loss of the ship, and a correspondence
took place, in the course of which the defendant
requested information of the .total amount insured
on the freight and cargo. He also said that the
mate had come to the defendant, stating
the captain had "scuttled" the ship, but
he would not say anything about it if he (the
mate was paid £ll4 for some boots which he had
taken out
must consult the underwriters in London as
t
as a part of the cargo. The defendant
said hee
tthhmatecourse to be pursued. The defence now
made was,
not that the ship was scuttled, but that
Mr. Bruce eth
didnott disclose, when he made the
policy, that
he plaintiff had
He been(th paid the e
learned
counsel) understood
be had already insured the ship over
her value, and that
full value by the
underwriters.
that the defence would be that
the ship ought to e.
have been insured at the market
value of shipping of
c her tonnage and class at the
time and which thise
time the insurance was made,in
instance would have been about £2,800. That
principle, however, he contended, was absurd, be-
,hipping depended on
cause the market value of intilf had recovered
the demand. Supposing the P
the whole
of the insurance, be would then have
lost 11 the ship, leaving •
ip, eaving out o
consideration what
eed safely at her
would ha .
rrl
ye gained had she a destiniktions
The
the
stated were then deposed
to by the pittii-t7 Mr. Brett Young, the late
captain of the ;Ire. and by Captain
Mr. Milward 4:3*
that the
contended, for the defence,
questions for the jer
her there
was any misstatem
entwere—firstly, whet
the part of the plaintir
bmaterial concealment on
induced the defendant to
eater which he might have
learned counsel then procel
weed
into this risk. The
was. The next question dto show that there
for which the ship was incur, whether the voyage
liability of the underwriters was abandoned, the
abandonment. ending with such
The defendant was then called and
and Mr. Brett having replied, Milward
His Lordship summed up, and the '
a verdict for the plaintiff for £3 168,jury returned
Mr. Justice Mellor and a special jury hay
engaged the entire day in the hearing of
j3e been
.v. Milligan and Others," which was tried atattohne
Spring Assizes last year, when a verdict Was given
for the plaintiff. A new trial was subsequently
ordered by the Queen's Bench. There is no pros-
pect of its being brought to a close to-day.

The Salut Public has the following :—" M.
Mires has just purchased some ground at Douai, and intends
building a house there."