The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENQE, —Dec. 1.

COURT OF QUEEN'S ,LENCH.
DOWELL AND OTHERS P. THE GENELAt STEAM NAVIGATION
COMPANY.
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. BramwPll, and Mr. Bovill,
appeared for the plaintiffs ; F. Thesiger, Sir II
Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr. Kno-41es, represented the '
company.
This was an action (part heard yesterday) brought by
the plaintiffs, the owners of 'th brig Harewood, to re-
cover compensation from the c,ropany for the negligence
of their servants, whereby Harewood was sunk by
the defendants' steam, ship -le Trident. The steamer
was proceeding down tb river, on the 4th October,
1853, and when a few yaJos below the North Light she
ran into the Harewood, 14.6:4 with coals, and sunk her,
when all on board perisll4,4 with the exception of the
master and one of the 64,07, named Mason. The ease
had been previously when the jury returned a
verdict for the plain'Arf, The only question for the
jury was which was to blame, and on this issue
a great nurr.;). : a witnesses were examined on both
sides.
Lord Camp; having summed up,
The jury, at Quarter-Past five, retired to consider
their verdict ;0'; up to a late hour they had not agreed,
and were loc, up for the night, Lord Campbell an-
nouncing tha officer of the court would take their
verdict shoulo !Iroy agree.
ATTENDANCE 021 JURORS.
During the l'Ay a juror prayed to be excused from at-
tending, en t'. ground that he was engaged in sending
Government gl; plies to the Crimea.
Lord Catn:!,;(:,,l told the applicant he should certainly
be excused, 3 to do his best to send the supplies.

CeJET OF COMMON PLEAS.

rust v. GC 'DE AND OTHEBEL-ACTION UPON A POLICY

OF INSURANCH.

This we-, An action against the defendants as represen
tatives of Westminster Fire-office, to recover 1,3501.,
the amourlof damage sustained by the plaintiff in a fire
which kppened in July, 1350. The matter came before
the cot cqion an issue from the Court of Chancery, and
the 7riscipal question raised was whether the plaintiff
ha.l.-iniplied with the condition in his policy, which
st.:ted that he should in the event of any claim being
made produce his books of account, and such other
proper vouchers as should be reasonably required in that
behalf, and that unless such books and vouchers were
produced, no money should be recoverable by virtue of
the policy.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. J. Brown appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Phip-
son for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a varnish manufacturer at Cheshunt,
and it was stated that his varnish was of a very superior
quality, and was made by a secret process, he himself
doing the principal part of the work alone, and 'frith
closed doors. When the insurance-office first applied for
the plaintiff's books and vouchers, his solicitor declined to
produce them, as they would expose his secret ; but the
evidence to-day was that the plaintiff had kept no books
or vouchers except a sale book, and it was submitted
that he having offered the testimony of himself and his
servants upon the matter, had offered all that could be
reasonably required of him. Several witnesses were called
to show the amount of the plaintiff's loss by the fire.
No witnesses were called for the defendants, but it
was contended that the plaintiff had not complied with
the above-mentioned condition in his policy, nor had he
furnished such information previous to those proceedings
as would justify the office in paying the amount claimed.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendants.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
THE ERNST KIRCIC.-PRIZE.
The arguments in this case, the facts of which have
already been reported, were resumed and concluded.
Dr. Lushington reserved his judgment.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
IN RE ELKAN LONDON.
The insolvent, a boot and shoe maker, was opposed
by Mr. Dowse for several creditors, and supported by
Mr. Sargood.
The insolvent is only 23, and had been four years in
business. The point in the case is a friendly arrest, and
that he had filed proper accounts. It was denied that it
was a friendly arrest.
A creditor in person alleged that he gave credit to
the insolvent's father, and not to him. The statement
was denied by the insolvent.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy ordered fresh accounts,
and the attendance of the insolvent's father.
IX RB CHABLIS MATTHIAS GUNNEL.
The case of the insolvent, a retired clerk in the Reuse
of Commons, was again brought before the court.
Mr. Nichols appeared for the provisional assignee,
and Mr. Sargood for the insolvent.
After a long discussion,
Mr. Commissioner Murphy intimated that he would
take the opinion of his learned colleague, and, if neces-
sary, the case could be argued before a full court.
His Honour announced that it was understood that
it would not be long before the Chief Commissioner
would be able to resume his duties.