The Sun.
London, England, 1812-02-27 00:00:00

ROBINSON V. NYLIE.

This was an.a&ion upon a policy of insurance on
goods underwritten fOr 2001. on a voyage frotn Hull
to Oneage and Archangel, and back again to any of
the ship's ports of destination in Great- Britain or
Leland. The vessel was totally lost oft the coast-of
Laphald, and .1-he crew saved by the most ruiracti-
lons tiverference of Providence, they being drifted
On shore upon a part of the wreck. The defendant
had made an adjustment on the policy, at the rate
of tool. per cent. payable in one month.
The facts of the case being admitted, and the ad-
justment upon the policy proved, upon the cross-ex-
atnination of Mr. Cliffo'd, clerk to Messrs. Robin-
son and Clarkson, the brokers who effeded the po-
licy, it appeared that he policy remained in the
custody of the brokers, from the time it was effe&-
ed, until after the final adjustment, as was usual in
such cases. He denied that the brokers were in-
debted to the defendant, either before or subse-
quent to the adjustment.
Mr. GARROW, for the defendant, said, he had a
wry short but conclusive answer to this a&ion,
which went in confirmation of one the plainest
-principles of the law of insurance, and this was,
the policy being left in the hands of the b-oker,
and he being indebted to the defendant, the pay-
mtnt was allowed in the account current between
the broker and the underwriter, and the defendant
having thus settled the amount of the policy with
-the house of Robinson- and Clarkson, the plaintiff's
broker, the defendant was discharged from the pre-
sent demand.

Mr. Robinson, one of the partners in the house of
Robinson and Clark,on, being- called, denied that
this sum had ever been allowed in any account
whatever between him and the defendant.

The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the
plaintiff.

SMITH V. CLEVERLEY.

This was an a6tnn brought to recover the value
of tfe pL:intiffs horse, which was killed by the neg-
ligent driving of the defendant's chaise.
The plaintiti was the proprietor of the Bedford
waggons, the defendant a nurseryman, residing at
Newir•gton. On the 23c1 of September last the
plaintiffs waggoner was riding the horse in question
at an easy canter along the Islington road, going to
join his waggon, which was on before, when just
as he was passing the turn of the road leading to the
Angel Inn, the defendant came (hiving furiously
along in a one-horse chaise, in company with an-
other man, in the opposite dit cation, and vi hen he
Came nearly opposite the angle leading to the Angel
Inn, turned suddenly short, by which the shalt of
the chaise came in contad with the waggoner's
horse, t lire sr both horse and rider, broke the horse's
rib, and penetrated his side; and, notwithstanding
immediate assistance was procured, the animal died
in a few hours after. At the moment the accident
happened the defendant, with his companion, rode
away, and did not attempt to stop until pursued by
a by-stander, who witnessed the transabion.
The facts were proved oo the part of the plaintiff,
and the value of. the horse ascertained to be about
161. or 171. •

It was attempted, on the part of the defendant, to
shew that ttris was a.inere accident, and occurred
irather by the negligence of the waggoner than by
the fault of the defendant:but failing in this proof,
the Jury fiund a verditt fir the plaintiff—Damages
161. and costs.

AEROGATIVE COURT, DOCTOR'S COMMONS