The Sun.
London, England, 1823-03-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,; MARCH 8.
SPURRIEV.AND OTHERS V. HODGSON.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN Stated- the plaintiffle case.... The
tion, he said, was brought by the plaintiffs, who are merchants,
on a policy of insurance at Poole for 200/., effected on the cargo
of -the schooner Chance, from. St. John's, Newfoundland, to
Placentia Bay, in the same island. The defence, he under-
stood, would'be,, that the plaintiff had some 'information of a
gale of wind having
rntaken place after the sailing of the vessel,
which he did not,comunicate to the defendant at the timenf
effecting the insurance. But it would be . proved that the fact
was fully known to the defendant, an account-of the gale being
posted at, Lloyd's,. and.piade the subject of conversation at the
time of the insurance between the defendant's agent and the
from
and the.premium of insurance raised in consequence
255. per cent.. to 60s. per cent.
- Mr, Wilkinson,- an insurance- broker, proved the execution-of
the policy by the defendant's agent on his account : the premium
in the policy was OOS. per cent., the usual premium was 255.
per tentl_ _

Mr. Waller, a merchant of St. John's, Newfoundland, proved
that he shipped ths,goods that were the subject of insurance on
board the schooner Chance, on account of the plaintiff's, in the
beginning of October, and that.she sailed for Placentia Bay on
the I 1 th of October,, with a fair wind, which became contrary
the next -day: -11e.bitd heard that the ship and cargo were That.
'The value of the goods he shipped for the plaintiff's was OW.—
He advised the plaintiffs of havingmade the shipments on the
16tb. of October.

The case for the plaintiff closed here.
IVlA,Borjeani PELb aehlreased the. Jury for the defendant.
The plaintiffs, he said, had concealed tt material fact from the

defendant at the time of effecting the insurance. A letter was
at that time shewn to the defendant by the plaintiffs' insurance.-
broker, in which the plaintiff's stated, "that the Chance had
sailed from the St. John's on the 1 lah of October, four days
before the gale came on, and that they hoped she had reached
Placentia. Bay in safety, as 48 hours of any thing liite a favour-
able wind would be sufficient for the voyage ;" and they con-
cealed from the defendant the information received from Mr.
Walter of St. John's, who, in his letter to them of the 15th of
October, stated, " that the Chance had sailed on the 11th,
and had 12 hours of favourable wind, but after that a gale to
the South, so that he doubted her having arrived," The
Learned Serjeant contended that this information ought to have
' been given to the defendant, who would then have, known the
danger of the risk it was proposed to hint to insure; and as that
information was in the plaintiffs
_possession aod withheld, the
defendant could not be bound by the contract. -
Mr. Wilkinson, the insurance-broker, by whom the insurance
was effected, proved that a letter was received from the plain.
tiff, dated Nov. 2, in which the/ mentioned having received
advice from St. John's of the shipment that was the subject
of the action, and made inquiry respecting the premium at
which it might be insured; in consequence of which, the wit.
ness went to Lloyd's, and made the Inquiry of the defendant's
agent, saying', he supposed the premium would be about 20s.
percent. The defendant's agent booted at hint with surprise,
and asked him whether he had been at the bottoin >of the
room, and seen the intelligence that was received of a gale of
wind that had taken place at Newfoundand on the 15th of Oc-
tober, which stated that several vessels had been lost—one a
schooner. The defendant's agent said, if the witness would
warrant the Chance safe from that gale, he would insure for 255,
per cent. ; but if not, he must have 603. ; observing, that as a
schooner was lost, it might be the Chance. Witness wrote the
plaintiffs an account of this conversation, and they wrote the
letter of the sth of November, which had been quoted by Mr.
Serjeant Pell, desiring the insurance to be effected for 2001.
That part of the letter which had been read by Mr. Serjeant
Pell, had been copied and shewn to the defendant's agent, at
the time of effecting the insurance.
Mr. Serjeant VAvrotraar replied, and contended, that the de,
Pendant had full notice of the gale, by the intelligence received
at Lloyd's ; and that it was evident the plaintiffs did suppose
the vessel had arrived in safety, as they only in'iured for 2001.,
although the cargo was worth 090/., standing their own insurers
for much the greater part.; therefore there could be no fraud in-
tended.
The Crime Jusvecr, in charging the Jury, said that whe-
ther fraud was intended by the plaintiffs at the time of making
the insurance, was not the question ; but whether they had with.
held any material information—any such information as would
probably have prevented the defendant front insuring, either at
all, or on the terms be had done. It was essential to the validity
of such contracts, that there should be perfect good faith on the
part of the person insuring. In the plaintiffs letter of the sth
of Nov. to their insurance-broker, in which they desired the
insurance to be effected, they made no mention of the parti.
cidars respecting the sailing of' the vessel, and the state of
the wind afterwards, that were contained in the letter of the
15th of October, which they had received froM the correspond..
ent in St. John's. If that letter contained any thing material
to the risk, it ought to have been communicated ' and, as it
teas not, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. If it did not
contain any thing material, they would find for the plaintiff.
The Jury, after a short cons ultation, returned a verdict fur
' he tide

ndant.

SHERIFF'S COURT, RED Ltosr-sQuattE, SATURDAY.
ASSIAULT.—onstE, GENT., V. MEREDITH, ESQ.
Mr. PHILLPS appeared for the plaintiff in this case. lie
stated that 41Ir. James B. Orme was the plaintiff, and Joshua
Paul Meredith, Esq. the defendant. It was an action of as.
sault, and this was the second time it had been brought into
that room. The person upon whom the outrage had been
perpetrated sat by his side; he was a Geutleman of a re-
spectable profession, which he was following with industry
and with honour. He was a Conveyancer. The person by
whom the outrage had been perpetrated was a Gentleman
too; upon his own showing he was a person possessed of
3or 4000/. a. ear. 3lr. Orme became acquainted with this
Joshua Paul Meredith in the way of his business. It hap-
petted that, on the day when this assault was committed, he
was invited to dine with him at his house in Thornhaugh.street.
They sat together at the same table—they drank together—
they pledged each other—and, to all appearance, the de-
fendant conducted himself as a friend and a gentleman ; but
what would the Jury say when they were told, (after an
evening thus spent in apparent harmony and conviviality,
during which not one word passed which was calculated to
excite a passionate feeling) that when the defendant got up to
show the plaintiff to the door—as he was walking away, wishing
him that rest which te of frids demane, he struck
him a terrific blow onh thecourtesy back of the head whicdhd felled hint
to the ground, and then endeavoured to preelpitatehim over the
bannisters of a well staircase. This case, he had already said,
had come into this Court before ; and the Jury on that occasion
had assessed the'damages at 2501., and yet Mr. 11Icredith had
declared that he never committed the assault.
Mr. PHILLIPS then proceeded to call witnesses.
Mr. WALFORD addressed the Jury in behalf of the de.
fendant.
The UNDER StkEittEr having summed up the evidence, the
Jury, after a quarter of an hour's deliberation, .assessed the
damages at Two Hundred and Fifty Pounds.