The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-15 00:00:00

MARINE INSURANCE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 1,000/. upon
a policy of insurance on a brig called the William
Thompson, which had struck on a sandbank in a voyage
from Alexandria to Trieste, being at that time laden
with cotton belonging to the Pacha of Egypt. The
plaintiff claimed as for a total loss, and the defendant
pleaded never indebted.
It appeared that the vessel was driven ashore by a
current and in a gale of wind on the 17th August, 1843,
and, being embedded eight feet in the sand, it was
thought impossible to get her off, and she was accord-
ingly abandoned, after which the hull was sold for
410 dollars. She was subsequently got off, with
the aid of 70 men, and a cost of 550 dollars.
Having undergone extensive repairs, amounting
to about ten thousand dollars, she was taken to
Leghorn and sold sor 6,500 dollars. The defendants con-
tended at the trial that the vessel might have been got
off by the captain if proper means had been adopted for
that purpose; and also that he was most intemperate in
his habits, having been frequently taken to his ship at
Alexandria in a state of intoxication: from which they
sought to make out that he was, at the time of the acci-
dent, incompetent to manage the ship.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. WATSON afterwards obtained a rule for a new
trial, on the ground of the reception of improper evi-
dence—the rejection of evidence which ought to have
been received—and that the verdict was against the
evidence.
Sir F. THESIGER (with whom were Sir J. Bayley and
Mr. Bovill) now showed cause against the rule; which
was supported by Mr. Watson, Q.C., Mr. Bramwell, and
Mr. H. Hill.
The case occupied the greater part of two days, but
the points discussed were entirely of a technical cha-
racter.
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HAXILTON V. COCHRANE.
The Court was occupied until its rising in hearing the
argument of Mr. Montagne Chambers upon a rule for a
new trial in this case. It was brought for the infring-
ment of a patent for cutting timber used in ship build-
ing by the aid of machinery, and was tried at the last
Surrey assizes, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The Court rose at four o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, .Nov. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LONG v. RENNIE.

This was a rule to arrest the judgment, or for a new
trial, or to enter a verdict for the plaintiff on the third
issue joined between the parties on the count for an ac-
count stated. The cause was tried before the Chief
Baron at the sittings after last Trinity Term, when it
appeared that the plaintiff was an engineer, employed
by the defendant, Sir John Rennie, in 1845, to survey
certain contemplated lines of railway for companies to
which the defendant was engineer-in-chief. The claim
of the
.plaintiff was in the first instance upwards of
4,000 L, a considerable portion of which was paid, leav-
ing a balance of something like 3,0001. The plaintiff
pressing for this balance, and the companies not being
prepared to pay off the defendant, an agreement was come
to between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which it
was ascertained that his balance should stand at 2,300/.,
which should be met by 1,000/. in cash, a bill for 500/.
payable in a month, and 800/. within a month after ;
the claim of the defendant should be liquidated by
the companies, there being a further stipulation that if
Sir John Rennie's balance should not be paid within
6001. by the compani. s, the balance of the plaintiff
should be reduced by 3001. It also appeared that Mr.
Freshfield, the solicitor of the defendant, addressed a
letter to the plaintiff, stating that Sir John Rennie was
negotiating for his balance with the companies, but, as
there was a diffi ailty in getting his accounts settled, ex-
cept at a reduction, it was put to the plaintiff whether,
fir the sake of insuring prompt payment, he would n,,t,
in common with all others so situated, accept a re-
duced sum. In this letter the writer expressly stated
that Sir John Rennie was not anxious to cut down
the plaintiff's claim, or to dispute it, but would rather
increase it if possible, he being actuated entirely by a
desire to bring about an amicable settlement of the ac-
counts, in which otj,-ct he claimed the assistance of the
plaintiff Under these circumstances, the present action
having hen brought to recover the full amount of the
plaintiff's balance, it was contended for him that
Mr. Freshs,l,l's lr uer boand the defendant not to question
his accoulfs, and reliance was placed on that letter as evi-
dence in stilton of an account stated. On the part of
the defsrtlant it was dented that the letter in quesd,in
amounted to anything more than a polite and courteous
offer t. 3 compromise the claim of the plaintiff, while it
left it open to the defendant to go into measure and
value, asad cut dewy the claim of the plaintiff, which was
asserted to be too high. It was further contended that
the agreement had put an end to the original claim of
the plaintiff, and had substituted a new state of things
altogether, leaving the right to sue for the balance of
8001., there arrived at, contingent on the settlement of
the defendant's own cla;m3 by the compvies, which had
not yet taken place. The jury having found for the de-
fen !ant on these points, the present rule was afterwards
obtained, and now

Mr. MARTIN showed cause, citing a variety of cases to
show that the agreement in question operated as an ac •
cord and satisfaction of the original cause of action, and
that the rule ought to be discharged on all points. At
the conclusion of his argument,
_ _ _ _

Mr. M. D. HILL. who appeared with Mr. Willes,
prayed that the further hearing of the case might be
ferred to a future day, as it had come upon him by sur-
prise, and ha was n )t prepared to argue it.
The COURT, after ascertaining that the parties were
ready in the next (13i1: in the list, consented to the appli-
cation of the Learned Gentleman, and it was ultimately
understood that tho case should be called on on Friday
next.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 14.
(Sitting.; in Error.)
IN RE BIRNARD GREGORY V. THE QUEEN.

A motion wad ma It in this matter to suspendthe
judgment which had bcen obtained, because the principal
ground of error was that a general judgment had been
given on the indictment, which contained several counts.
A rule had been granted by the Court of Queen's Bench
to show cause why that judgment should not be amended.
The present application was, therefore, that the judg-
ment should be suspended until the amendment had been
made. _ _

Mr. Baron PARSE replied, that the suspension would
of course take place until the roll had been amended.
The Court then rose.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov, 14.
THE CAPE PACKET.-SALVAGE.

This was a case of salvage in which the sole question
was, whether the salvors had forfeited the whole or any
part of the reward to which they were entitled by negli-
gence or unskilfulness, to determine which point, de-
pending, upon nautical questions, the Court was assisted
by Trinity Masters. The vessel salved, of 349 tons
burden, bound from London to St. Helena, had en-
countered very boisterous weather, in the course of
which she had lost nine of her crew, was met with, on
the sth of March, not far from Plymouth, by the Rose, a
fishing-smack, of Dartmouth, and by the Surprise, a
pilot cutter, of Plymouth; and the master gave charge
of his vessel to these parties, who carried her towards
Dartmouth, but, on making for the harbour, they took
her to the northward of the E astern Blackstone Rock
(which was described as a large rock standing high, sur-
rounded with water), and attempted to pass between this
rock and the mainland, in which attempt the vessel ran
against the rock, beat heavily, and suffered damage to
the amount of 5001. On the part of the owners,
this attempt to pass through the inner passage, between
the rock and the mainland, with a vessel of such a
size, in her disabled state, was alleged to have been an
act of gross negligence or unskilfulness; whert,a; the
salvors contended that the passage was safe for a ship of
that size at any time of the tide, and that the accident
was occasioned by some sudden shifting of the wind, the
loss of the jib, or the catching of the anchor in the rock;
in other words that an unforeseen alteration of circum-
stances, for which they were not in any way responsible
not the locality, was the cause of theit
occident.
Dr. Harding and Dr. B ford were for the salvors,
and Dr. Jenner and Dr. R"Phillimore for the owners.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON put.it:taol the Trinity Masters to say
whether or not, looking
that
circumstances of the
case, it was consistewaithmit
might
degree of knowledge
and skill which the salvors
passage between
be expected to possess
to proceed through the
mainland, instead of taking aween the rock and the
another course, to enter
Dartmouth Harbour. There might be negligence so
gross as to forfeit all claim to swalovuaigde,bor there might be
the effect of
negligence, not gross, which
away. the claim diminishing, not taking
He wished the gentlemen to say, thererafoorf the
salvors.
adopting the course they did, the salvors therefore, in
themselves with the ordinary skill and prudence
conductedn
should be expected from persons belongie toe
gfishing
smacks of Dartmouth and Plymouth.
The Trinity Master: were of opinion that the salvors
were not justified in risking a disabled vessel, by taking
her between the Eastern Blackstone end the mainland.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—The value of the property is 6,775/.
The vessel was in great distress, and the service was a
very meritorious one. I shall diminish the sum I in-
tended to give in the proportion I think right and fit,
and I shall allot to the salvors 6001.