The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 5.
Sittings in Banco.
(Before Lord Campbell and Justices Coleridge, Wight-
man, and Erle.)
LEFEVBE V. LANCASTER.-DISQUALIFICATION FOR THE
OFFICE OF MAYOR.
This was an action brought by a burgess of South-
ampton against the mayor of that borough, to recover
501, penalty which he was said to have incurred under
the Municipal Corporations Act, the sth and 6th Wil-
liam IV., c. 76, by holding the office of mayor while he
was disqualified by having an interest in a contract with
the town council. On the trial before Mr. Justice Tal-
fourd at the last Hampshire assizes, the verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, pursuant to leave reserved,
now moved for a rule to enter a nonsuit. The ground
upon which the action was brought was that Mr. Lan-
caster had in 1840, with some other town councillors,
become the assignee of a contract originally made with
a Mr. Collier, for the supply of Southampton with
water. In 1846 the contract was transferred to the
water commissioners of the borough, who were to pay
4,0001. on the surrender of the works, and 8501. when
a certain quantity of water should have been supplied
to the town in 24 hours. The interest of the commis-
sioners was subsequently transferred to the local board
of health, the town council, of which the defendant was
a member. He contended that this was not a contract
within the meaning of the Municipal Corporations Act
so as to disqualify Mr. Lancaster from acting as mayor.
The court granted a rule nisi.
FOSTER V. THE MENTO INSURANCE COMPANY.-INSUR-
ANCE ON COUNT D'ORSAY'S LIFE.
This was an action brought by the representative of
the Britannia Mutual Insurance Company against the
defendants to recover 1,500/. the amount of a policy of
insurance effected by them upon the life of the late Count
D'Orsay. On the trial before Lord Campbell at Guild-
hall the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General now moved for a rule nisi to
enter a nonsuit on the ground of misdirection. It ap-
peared that in 1844 the Britannia Company effected an
insurance upon the life of Count D'Orsay for 4,5001.
The company subsequently came to a resolution not to
insure any one life for a larger amount than 3,0001.,
and endeavoured to transfer five insurances which
they had already effected exceeding that sum to other
offices ; one of them was upon the life of the Duke
of Beaufort, and as his grace was then considered a
bad life they had some difficulty in getting rid of it. The
defendant's company ultimately agreed to take the ex-
cess beyond 3,000/. upon all the five lives, and among
the papers which were transferred to them by the Bri-
tannia Company was the declaration made by Count
D'Orsay, when the original insurance was effected, that
he was not at that time suffering under any disease
likely to cause death. Upon the death of Count D'OrsaY
it appeared that at the time of the transfer to the de-
fendants he was suffering under a disease of that de •
tion. He (the Attorney-General) now submitted tnhapt-
his lordship ought to have nousuited the plaintiff, as
the declaration ought to be considered as having been
made by the Britannia Company at the time of the
transfer. It was not denied that they were at that
time ignorant of the change in Count D'Orsay's health.
The court granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ARNOLD V. HAMEL.-THE ALLEGED DOCK FRAUDS.
This case came on for trial before the Chief Baron at
the last sittings in London, when that learned judge
directed a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. E. James now moved for a new trial on the ground
of misdirection. It was an action of trespass, and there
was a count for work and labour and attendance to give
evidence as a. witness. It appeared that the plaintiff
had been arrested and placed in Whitecross-strect Pri-
son for penalties amounting to 7,5001. for buying the
dock sweepings ; and having been there three or four
months, application was made to him by some person
connected with the Customs to know whether he would
give evidence as to the part he had taken in certain
transactions at the London Docks. Having consented
to do so, he was discharged from Whitecross-street Pri-
son by the defendant, and was taken down to a frigate
lyinglin Dagenham-creek, where he was kept for eleven
months, and he was then brought to Westininster Hall
as a witness, but was not examined. After the case
had been opened on the part of the plaintiff, Sir F.
Thesiger objected to the reception of any evidence,
quoting the 117th sec. of the Bth and 9th Vic., cap.,
87, which enacted that no writ should be sued out
against any officer of the army, navy, customs, excise,
&c., " for anything done in the execution of, and by
reason of, his office," until a month's notice had been
given to him in writing. In the present case no such
notice had been given. The facts having been ad-
mitted, the learned judge directed a verdict for the de-
fendant, without hearing the evidence.
The learned counsel now contended that it could not
be held that the solicitor of the customs was entitled to
the protection of the statute for any illegal act which he
might have done ; and it should have been left to the
jury to say whether they believed the defendant was act-
ing bona fide in the discharge of his duty.
The Court were of opinion that the Chief Baron was
right in the course which he had adopted -, but, never-
theless, it was an important question, and ought to be
discussed.
Rule nisi.