The Sun.
London, England, 1814-12-24 00:00:00

DYOTT V. DYOTT AN!) OTHERS.

" This was a lii!1 filed by Mrs. Dyott agaitist her
IM-strand, the General, who lately recovered da-
n►ages in an action for Critn. CoA, against Sur-
geon-Duni!, another of the defer.dants, and the
Trustees of her marriage settlement, prayini..; an
order to be paid a sum in, gross -settled upon her,
and withheld by het.: Ithsband ; as 'also to be paid
one halt-year's instalment of pin-money, which is
8001. per annum.
Mr. HART moved for the plaintiff; and'Alr.'llow-
PELt, for the defendants, was desired to proceed
tO-morrow.—ftojourned. " •

COURT OF KING'S VENCH, Dec. 23.

JORDAIN!,: V;CORNWAI.I., BArt:r.

Mr. PARK sated, that this was an section to re-
covet tht-! IoSS paid by an underwriter upon an in-
surance of goods on boird the Themis, detained
by the government of Russia, under an ag,re'Cnient
that if the ship should be restored by the
government, the defendant wouldplae,e the Plain-
tiff in the the saute situatipn .no'dete'tition
bad taken plac'e, and in case ut coMpetisition by
the Russian government, payhim such prOpor-
tion thereof as his subscription bore to the' value
61 the property • insured. The plaititiff alleged
that the ship was restored by the Russian govern-
ment, and the defendant reftted to return the loss.
The defendant. did not abandon", being still in
hopes of restoration 'and a profitable market in
Rtissia.' The goods thus re:;toreil, after-
wmrds sold in the defendant's name, but met with
an-unfavourable market.

Lord Er.ti7,inoitauc sahl, that the words of
the agreetnept -did not convey the par: its' inten-
tion : it did not say, as if the phtintitl'had not paid
the money, but as if the ship' had not been•de-
iained. Now this would nt:tke the underwriter
irresponsible for any damage the goods might-have
sustained by the detention.

. .
• The ils-rtottN ;GENERAi,„ for 'the defendant,
said, he had a-perfect case, and had paid enough.
into Court to ails Wer the pla int i:l's jnstrdeniand, for
he was able to prove tb :t .tbere had not been
coulplete n'stoiation of the goods, mud.
thltt what was rostored %vats obtained only
by but in= the-present happyreiations
-tr..e.en_ the countries, liis client•had consented to
retkr it to an arbitrator, to say what part of the
loss *ought to he returned-to the plaintiff.
.Mr.Tar.K.—My.clicut is willing to pay the ex-
proses of procuring restitution, but does not
want to be fixed-with the sale accounts-:
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended for the de-
duction of the money•which his 'client" had paid
to procure the restoration. •

Mr. PARK would-be very hard upon under,
write's to come upon them for every sum of mo-
ney paid to,the authorities of.any country on'ac-
count of the subject matter insured. • They are
entitled to deduct only their hair expenses.

Lord FIi.ENBMIOUGII.—That Wotllll exclude the
wlAde in this case, for none of the expenses are
fair.
Mr. ,ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Whatever we„:bona
fide paid.
.•
• . Mr. PARK agreed.
Lord ELLENBORpUOII.---Bona
,fide on the 'part
of the person- paying,7-pessinia fide on the part of
the receiver,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Still contended that
if ,the restoration should hot be found to be en-
tire, then the arbitrator slim)!! Say what.
.part of
the deficiency the underwriter 3110111il bear.
Lord ELLENEOROUOII ruled, that if the goods
were restored quasi in integro, though they should
not be found to be so., that should he considered
a restoration, and. the money . returned. His
Lordship wished that assureds would always aban-
don, and then they would know what they were
about.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.