The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-04 00:00:00

cause why the verdict for the plaintiff in this case should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence. It was an action
upon a policy of insurance tried before Lord Denman at
the sittings after last term. The insurance was effected
on the 26th December, 1834, with the Netherland Insu-
rance Company, upon a Dutch steam-vessel, the Pybrdes,
of and from Rotterdam to Batavia, and the declaration
averred that she was lost by the perils of the sea. The
defendants had pleaded, first, that the vessel was not sea-
worthy, and secondly that at the time of making the insu-
rance, the plaintiff falsely represented that the vessel was
quite new, and that the policy was made on the faith of
such representation, whereas the said vessel was not new.
He (the Attorney-General) would show by the evidence
for the plaintiffs,' as well as for the defendant, that that
representation was untrue. It appeared that there were
policies effected in this country upon the Pyladcs to the
amount of 27,0001., and there were not less than sixty-five
actions brought against the underwriters and Insurance
Companies who had taken the risk. A consolidation rule
was obtained, by which it was arranged that only one case
should be tried, and if the verdict was satisfactory to the
Learned Judge, all the others should abide by it. From
the evidence at the trial, which lasted four days, it ap-
peared that the Pylades sailed from Rotterdam on the 29th
December, and came upon the soft mud of the river Maaze
as she went down the river, but was got off without damage,
and at four o'clock in the afternoon of the 2d January,
she passed the headland. At half-past four it was dis-
covered that there was water in the hold, the weather
having been all through very fine with a little swell, and the
water gained upon her so rapidly, that between six and
seven o'clock the fires were extinguished—at eleven the
ship was abandoned by the crew, and immediately went to
the bottom. No cause was proved, nor none suggested for
the loss, except that the injection pipe might have been bro-
ken, but this was negatived by the witnesses: The poliey
in the present case has been effected by the plaintiff, a re-
putable insurance-broker of London, on the application of
Hobbicar and Co. of Rotterdam, who acted as the agents
of the Netherlands Steam Packet Company. A gond 401
of correspondence had taken place between the partite, and
the fallowing extract from a letter to the plaintiff would
skew the statement, upon the faith of which the insurance
had been effected :—" The Pylades is a three-masted ves-
sel, schooner rigged, &c,,, steam-engines, boiler, &c. of the
best quality:' after which followed these important words,
is she is quite new, having run off the stocks last winter,
and subsequently finished under gayer. She is built of
good dry oak and Atrielatt wood.' Now, from the evidence
at the time it appeared that the history of the vessel was
as, follows the year 1826 the Picuk,k, and another
steamer, the Orestes, were built by the Netherlands
Steam Company, for the Data Government, and were
intended to cruise againat the pirates in the West Indies.
But the fallowing year the Government discovered that
they were unfit to be sent to sea, and put them up to
auction, and in the year 1829 they were re-purchased by
the Netherlands Steam Company, by whom they were
brought into dock, where they lay till 1832. The Orestes
was then found to be completely infected with the dry rot, and
was broken up. The .Pylades was also infected, but was not
so bad, and she underwent a thorough repair, all the unsound
timbers having been taken out ; but the assertion of her being
a new vessel was completely and entirely negatived.
Lord DENMAN—There was a strong impression of her
sea worthiness from her sudden loss, and there was a strong
ground for presuming that the vessel was not new, ftom the
history you have stated. Was there any thing objectionable
in the direction given to the Jury ? Because, if so, it may be
necessary to go into some further details,
The ATTORNEY-GENEKAL-..There is no objection taken to
,he charge or direction of' the Judge.
COURT— You may take a rule.