The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-17 00:00:00

ANDREWS V- SMITH.

Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Honeyman were counsel
fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Arnold for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case was a valuer at Peckham,
and he brought his action against the defendant to
recover the sum of 221. 15s. fur having made a valua-
tion of the stock on a farm at Beckenham, Kent,
which the defendant had been about to take. After
some negotiation the affair went off, and then the
defendant refused to pay the plaintiff his charge, and
was obliged to bring the present action. The defen-
dant paid 51. into Court.

The defence was Olt the plaintiff had done more
than he was authorised. Witnesses were called on
both sides.

The jury found a verdict for plaintiff-17/. 105.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 13.
LAIONE V. ELLIS.

This was an action on a policy of insurance of a
vessel, called the Napoleon, of Christiana, the risk
in which attached upon a voyage from Monte Video
to Havre. A previous policy had been effected at
the Falkland Islands, for Patagonia, Monte Video,
and Falmouth, on a cargo of guano, to be taken in, but
when the ship arrived at Monte Video, the captain
was required to take in a cargo of hides. To avoid
the payment of duty to the French Government he
was paid 150/. to alter his flag to the Monte Videan,
and then a new policy became necessary, as the port
of destination was to be Havre. This was the policy
upon which the action was brought. The original
policy was for 450/., and according to the charter-
party the captain was paid 250/. on leaving the
Falkland Islands, for the first month. The question
now was, whether this money was recoverable as
freight under the second policy. The principal
matters urged in defence of the action were, that
this money was not to be had back as freight, that
it was, in fact, demurrage, and that there was a
fraudulent concealment in not stating this, as a
large portion of the cargo consisted of guano, in
which case the rate of premium would have been
much higher.
The jury retired, and after a considerable absence
retured into court at an advanced hour with a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 300/.

COURT OF INLAND RI VENUE, Dec. 15.
(Before HART DAVIS, Esq.; C. J. HERRIES, Esq. ;
and CHARLES PRESSLEY, Esq.)
Thomas Hough, of Bagnigge- wells-road, chemist
and druggist, was charged with receiving into his
stock and vending spirits, the produce of illicit distil-
lation. The case was similar to others reported at
previous sittings of the Court.
The COURT convicted the defendant in the full
penalty of 100)., with liberty to petition the Board for
mitigation.
John Slipper, of 87, Leather-lane Holborn,
chemist and druggist, was charged on a similar in-
formation.

Mr. Anstey, Surveying-General Examiner, said
that being empowered to put down the trade of illicit
distillation, he went on the 4th of September with a
search-warrant to the defendant's, having told him
that information had been received of illicit spirits in
his possession. In the shop found several bottles of
spirit polish that defendant said had come from Pitch-
ford's. He produced the invoices, which nhowed that
the whole of the articles had been purchased below
the charge for the duty alone.
The defendant then addressed the Court. lle said
that he had never used cheap polish until he had
purchased the cheap spirits that had been seized at