The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-06 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. PARHAM.

The question in this case was, whether the same
person might be appointed Judge of a County Court for
several districts, some of which are in Worcestershire,
and some in Herefordshire.

Lord DENMAN, in delivering judgment, went very
ully into the case, and said there was no impossibility
in the law for the same person to hold the office of Judge
or several districts. The point contended for was, that

there should be s separate Judge for each district. The
Court, looking at all the circumstances, was of opinion
that the defendant had been duly appointed by the Lord
Chancellor within the provisions of the statute, and that
there must be judgment in his favour.
THE QUEEN V. DYER.

The defendant in this case w ai appointed high Bailiff
of the County Court of Worcester and Kidderminster,
by the defendant in the above case, Mr. Parham, Judge
of the County Court of Worcester and other districts,
and the question here was, by what right he exercised
such office. In his plea he alleged that it was by an
order made by her Majesty in Council, on the nomina-
tion of Benjamin Parham, Esq. Defendant bad pre-
viously held a similar situation in the Court of R(7quests
at Worcester, which was abolished on the County Courts
Act coming into operation. To this plea the relator,
Mr. Wm. Merrefield, replied, that he had on the 22d of
January, 1843, been appointed beadle of the Court of
Requests for the borough of Kidderminster, by the Lord
of the Manor. in whom the appointment was vested; that
the Court of Requests had not been abolished as alleged
in the plea of the defendant, but that he (the relator)
was entitled to exercise the office of beadle in the said
Court.

Lord DENMAN now delivered judgment. The question
at issue really was, whether the County Court, as it
now existed, was, in law, the same as that which was
created by the statute 12 George 111., and upon that
question the claim of the relator in this case must chiefly
depend. The question whether the ancient Court for
the recovery of small debts was to be entirely abolished
on the County Courts Act coming into operation, was to
be left entirely to the disrption of the Queen in Council,
and that discretion had been exercised by an order of
the 13th of March, which unconditionally abolished the
Courts then in existence for recovery of small debts. The
County Court now in operation was, therefore, not the
same with the old Court, of which the relator was an
officer, and he had, therefore, no claim to the office in
the new Court. Judgment must, therefore, be for the
defendant.
The Court gave iudgment in numerous other cases,
and intimated that it would, on Wednesday next, de-
liver judgment in the cases as yet undecided.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
WIGHTMAN and a Special Jury.)

BARF OT V THE LEGAL AND GOISIIIIERCIAL FIRE IN-

SUR&NCE COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Petersdorff, and Mr. Miller
appeared hqs the plaintiff; and Mr. Crowder, Q.C.,
Mr. Co&•kburn, Q C., and Mr. Bramwell, conducted

the case for the defendant.
This was an action on a policy of insurance. The
defendants, among other things, pleaded that the plain-
tiff bad not rendered them an exact account of his
effects; that the account he had sent in was a fraudu-
lent one; and that he had set the house on fire in which
the goods were destroyed.
The plaintiff, it appeared, was a straw hat manufac-
turer, and had carried on business at 95, Wood-street,
Cheapside. In June, 1848, it was found necessary to
repair those premises, and Mr. Barfoot took his family
to reside at Holloway. He afterwards had occasion to
go into Luton, in Bedfordshire, to purchase straw for
his business. On the 17th of June his servants were

engaged in clearing up the litter left att.r the re-
pairs of the house in Wood-street. A portion of
this litter was burnt by them on the premises. They
afterwards left, believing the house to be perfectly sate.
During the night, however, it was burnt down. Mr.
Barfoot immediately left Luton for town, and on his
arrival in London he put himself in communication with
athe ia
rnsis
ttuacrwotaenandsscufeomt chueonadmp
that
yt
the insurance
On an
thei
although
sibuhorooaukngscheh
tandceobmeep examinationnan
saved.
company
plaintiff's
ha di
stocknlt o th
e
a cwwtt
eaadiss
wholly ,
now
wproperly with regard to these books. It was pro-
vided by the company's policies that a person could not
recover for a loss unless he sent in a true.and full state-
ment of the amount of damage within 30 days from the
date of the fire. The books immediately after the fire
were taken possession of by the company, and notwith-
standing repeated application to give them up, they were
detained until within four days of the expiration of the
time allowed by the policy to render an account of the
loss, but permission was given to inspect the books at
the office of the company's auctioneer. The plaintiff
had made out a general account, which he sent in, to-
gether with a letter stating he had made the best
account he could, but if the company wished it, he would
get an accountant to give a detailed list. After
some communication with the company, the plaintiff was
obliged to bring the present action on the policy. An
inquest had been held to inquire into the cause of the
fire; the jury had returned a verdict to the effect that
the fire was not accidental, but that Mr. Barfoot had had
no knowledge of its cause. The fact of the coroner
having held an inquest on the fire excited some surprise
among the Judge and Counsel, but it appeared that the
coroner had claimed this as a right, and had written a
book to that effect.

Numerous witnesses were called in support of the
plaintiff's case.
At this stage of the proceedings the case was ad-
journed until to-morrow.
PARRATT V. THE DUKE OE BUCKINGHAM

This case, which in the order of trial stood third on
the list for this day, and about which curiosity was on
the qui vive, has been withdrawn.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 5.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Chief Justice
WILDE and a Special Jury.)
SMITH V. HAMILTON.

The declaration in this case was founded upon a policy
of insurance from fire, effected by the plaintiff, upon his
atock in trade and household furniture; and the de-
fendint pleaded, Ist, that the goods were not consumed
by fire; 2dly, that the fire was caused by the procure-
ment of the plaintiff; and, 3dly, that after the fire the
plaintiff had been guilty of fraud, in delivering to the
company a false account of his loss.
Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Barnard
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Cockburn, Q. C.,
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q. C., and Mr. Creasy were
counsel for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this case was formerly in business at
18 and 19, High-street, Islington, as a draper and furni-
ture-waretious-man, and the defendant was the repre-
sentative of the Sun Fire-office. It appears that the
plaintiff was in
.business as early as 1840 at Brook-hill,
Clerkenwell, which premises he insured in the Sun Fire-
office for 7001., but that insurance expired at Christmas,
1847. In August, 1847, he took the premises at Isling-
ton, and on the 15th of February following he gave
instructions for a policy of insurance for 1,5501. upon
the stock and furniture at Islington, and on the same
day he paid the premium. The insurance, however, was
not to commence until Lady-day; and although the po-
licy was dated in March, it was not delivered until after
the commencement of the action. Oa the evening of the
17th of May, 1848, a tire took place, which destroyed
certain property insured against, and the action was
brought to recover 1,5501., the amount of the policy,
The plaintiff called a large number of witnesses,
who proved that between August, 1847, and May,
1848, they had supplied him with goods to the
amount of 1,7501., at Islington; and it al'o appeared
that he had some articles removed from Brook-hill to
the Islington shops. In addition to this, there were
a great number of witnesses who had seen the premises
from time to time, and who stated that the shops
were well-stocked, and continued so down to the time
of the fire. On the night of the fire the shops were
shut up about twenty minutes past nine o'clock, and the
gas was put Out by the plaintiff, and was tlUtled off the