The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, MAY 29.
DE LIZAAR V. PRATT.
'MIS was an action on a policy of insurance on goods, on
board the Nancy,.at and from Rio Janeiro to Lima ; lot:savo-
red to. be by capture.
• The plaintiff's case was conducted by• Mr. SCARIXTT,
GynxEY, and Mr. Triomf., and the defendant's by Mr.
MATIRYAT, Mr. PULLER, and Mr. "5" BELL*
The plaintiff was a merchant' at Rio .I:meiro, and in October,
1820, shipped a cargo of woollens and other English manufac-
tures to the value of about .10,000/: oa board the Niuicy, for
Lima, and gave instructions to his agent in this country to
effect insurance. The defendant, an under Writer at 140 yd s.
subscribed the policy for 10001. at a preiniuni of five guineas, per
' cent. The'vessel arrived.. at Pisca, on the, Pacific,' on the hth
January, 1021, where the CaPtain was informed that the coast
Of Peru was in a state of blockade by the roiotk fleet corn-
mantled by' AdMiral Lord Cochrane. He dispatched a mes-
senger to the consignees at Lima, who added him of the
danger he was in, and recommended hint to quit Pisea, and sail
for some other port for safety, until the vessel could proceed
on her destination. After a tedious passage, the vessel arrived
in March at St. Bias, where an attempt was made to find a
market fur the cargo, but the goods being adapted for a cooler
climate, no sales could be effectetl. The Captain then deter-
' mined, at all hazards, to return to Rio Janeiro, and in his
Vplunge thither. in consequence of a fog, be by mistake put into
ista, then in possession oldie Patriotic party. lie was imme-
diately seised,: thrown into prison, and the ship and her cargo
condemned in the Admiralty Court as Spanish property under
colour of the English flag. For the loss thus summed, the
present action was brought upon the policy underwritten by the
defendant.

The defence set up was, first, concealment from the under.
writers as to the real character of the goods, which it was said
were not English but Spanish; second, a deviation in going to
St. Max; third, negligence on the part of the Ckiptain An going
into Pisca with a knowledge of the danger he.must encounter,
and whereby the property was condemned ; and, fourth, un-
reasonable delay in the pursuit of his voyage.
The. Loan Cuter' JUSTICE intimated his 'opinion that the
plaintiff could not recover. If the Jury thought there had
been unreasonable delay, or any want of caution on the part of
the Captain, in not taking steps to avoid the danger into which
ho fell by going to Pisca, under the circumstances of the case,
the action was clearly not maintainable.
The Jury seemed inclined to decide in favour of the Learned
Judge's ruling, and Mr. Searlett elected to be nonsuited.

TIES KING D. SAMUEL HAZTSU.
This was an indictment charging the defendant with perjury,
In an affidavit made to support an application in the Court of
King's 13ench for a new trial.
The action from which the proceeding arose was brought by
Mr...lsaac Shannon, against Abraham Owen and others, assig.
tees of Cohen, a bankrupt, to recover the value of a *vessel,
which they had forcibly taken out of Mr. Shannon's possession.
Mr. Shannon claimed title to the vessel under a bill or sale
from a parson named Phillips, bearing date the 10th of Fe.
bruary, 1015 to which two persons named Baker and Slow
were the subscribing witnessea.; The vessel had been pre.
viously assigned to Phillips by Cohen, whoseossignees assert-
ing that the assignment Was fraudulent and void, seized the,
vessel by force. Mr. Shannon brought an action thLP
to aecover its value, and succeeded in obtaining a verdlet-mr-
-7301. at the last Summer-Assizes. ter Essex. At this trial, SS
the defendants were unable to prove.the bankruptcy of Cohen,
the question of the
validity of the sale did notarise, since they
failed in making Dot any title in themselves witielreona autho-
rize:them to interfere with the plaintiff's potseasion. • In the
following, Michaelmas term they made application for a new
trial, and obtained a rule to show C2US!, In support of this

application, an affidavit was mule by Mr. Baxter, -who had
been the captain of the vessel, in order to show that the merits
of the case were with: the asiignees. In this affidavit, he stated
that he was present at the execution of the billuf sale from
Phillips to Shannon, and that George Slow, one of the sub-
scribing witnesses, w.as not present ; on this allegation the
assignment of perjury was foitnded.
To prove this statement untrue, George Slow himself, the
subscribing witness in question, was first called, who stated that
he was.clerk to 111 r. Baker, the broker, who negoeiated the
bargain at the time, and at whose house the assignment was
executed ; that he was present at the execution; and that he
believed the defendant was not present. Mr. Baker, his master,
who was the other subscribing 'witness, also stated that Slow
was present, and wrote the attestation at the time, and that he
believed Baxter Was alisent.
The bon 4 CruEr JUSTICE intimated that he did not per.
ceive in what Manner the allegation on which pesjury was
assigned was material to the result of the application for a
new trial.

Mr. titrnsr.i., who conducted the preseeutior!, argued that
the statement was material, SS. eying an air of fraud to the
Whole transacti. which it was necessary for the defendants to
impeach.
The Lonn CITIE r JUSTICE, however, thought that as no
question had been previously'rinsed respecting the execution of
the bill of sale, and as the main object of the affidavit was to
show that the Previous assignment of the- vessel to Phillips was
fraudulent, the matter was not sufficiently connected with the
grounds of the application, to be regarded as material to its
issue.

Mr. GURNEY then declined pressing the case farther.
The Jury, under the directions Of the LORD CHIEF
J usTict:, found 4 verdict of Not

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 29
ROMISGX V. 'WESTON.

Mr. Serjeant VAITGITAII stated, this was an action on the
warranty of a horse. The horse bad been the property of a
gentleman of fortune, residing near Peterborough, from whom
the defendant purchased it about the end of February last; in
.the commencement of the ensuing Month, the plaintiff pur.
*chased the horse from the defendant, under a warranty, at the
.price of fifty guineas. The horse had been rode gently once
or twice, and in a very short time proved to be completely
unsonnd, having an ossification in the fetlock joint of the off
fore
' The purchase and warranty were proved.
Mr. Se ell--I saw the horse on the 24th March last, and on
examining the outer branch of the suspensary ligament of the
(afore leg,. near the fetlock joint, 1 observed a callosity form.
stl ; this is a consequence of previous inflammation ; if the in.
jury were recent, there would be a general fullness and heat in
the whole joint ; this was a chronic diseased 'joint ; the horse
was in the same state last week as in March; when the disease
is not very extensive, rest would make it appear better, but on
the first exertion in carrying weight, the horse would go lame
again: This disease must have existed before Mr. Hodgson
purchased the horse.

Cross. examined-4 saw the horse about, ten days after the
purchase, and again last week. Horse* are very liable to in.
juries in that part by a twist of the foot; still, however, I think
the horse was diseased in that joint before the Bth ; if the
horse had been led up from. Peterborough without any weight
on -his, back, tiie
.part would not have been more injured; a
little gentle exermeotithout carryifig weight, is often belie..
ficiA to a horse:

Mr. Serjeant Pr t. addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Three witnesses .proved that they had ridden the horse be•
fore the purchase:by the plaintiff, and that he then appeared
perfectly sound.
3lr: Edward Coleman, Professor to the Veterinary College,
was then called; and said, I first saw the horse on last Illonday;
jfound the off fure-leg.enlarged on the outside of the fetlock
oint; the enlargement is an increased ossification of that hone
extending a little Way up the ligament. It is so obvious, that
any person the least acquainted *ids horses mit perceive it;
it is tmpossible td soy how long it has existed; it might .have
existed for years ; hot on the facts sworn to this day, I
think it -could not hay existed when the horse was puteimsed ;
the man who shod the horse might not have pereeivett the in.
jury, though the inflammation might then have been in exist.
rne:N as the smiths attend to nothing but merely putting on the
shoe. •

. -
Cross-examined.--I think the injury mire likely to have
arisen from a Idow than front a strain ; at the time.of the in-
jury there must have been tenderness and perhaps lameness
apparent. Re-examined—lf the part in that state had been
pressed upon, the horse would have' exhibited some symptom
of weakness.
• Bv the .Itrnor.—l should not have formed a better opinion
on tile 24th of Mardi, because it is impossible to state the time
required for the progress or a suffocation in every ease .its IT);
gress .isby no means regular, it sometimes proceeds with
greater and sometimes With less rapidity.
Mr. Justice rArt x Rumbled up. ' •
' The Jury, after a few morneote emmitrition, gave a' verdict
for the plaintiff—Datnages, 152 t, los. fur the horse, and 71. 10s.

PREROGATIVE coma, luAy 20.
LAWRENCE, ATTORNEY Or THOMAS, AGAINST MAIIRE
.I.NO 'BICKNELL.
This was the cause of.interest which we have YePllittlfflore
than once in different stages of its progress. The issue to be
tried was determinable upon the result of a pedigree, which
great pains and evences have been necessary, to prepare, the
original stock having settled in America. It is perhaps not
requisite again to state the line of descent which has been este-
bliActl, or the relationship in which Mrs. Thomas claims to
succeed, as next of kin and representative of the late Peter'
Ilarrison, deceased,
Sir JOHN NICHOLL, th•dar, pronounced her claim to be well
founded, and aniniadvertod at'sonte length on the enormous costs
to which the parties had been subjected by the oceurrenee7 of a
Clerical error. In the original papers upon which the suit had
proceeded,. the name of Mary Harris was inserter:l'in the place
of Elizabeth Harris. Now Alary Harris stood in one line of
relation, and Elizabeth Harris in another, to the deceased : the
enusequence of which was, that the d.tim of a second cousin
had been suffered to swot!, and be prosecuted against that of a
first cousin. The mistake was now rectified, and it might be
endeavettred to be exposed on the ground of the natural inch.
nation which most people had to overstate or to pnt too favour-
ably their own case: but if such errors were ever so frequent or
so natural, parties must abide by their effbcts ; and the Court
not only diinussed the petition which had been brought- in
against Mrs. Thomas's claim, but dismissed it with costs, con-
firming its decree of the fourth session of last.term, and direct..
leg probate to issue in Li days from this sentence.