The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-15 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

RICKMAN V. CARSTAIRS.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Justice,
at the last sittinas at Guildhall, when a verdict was given
for the plaintiff. h was an action on a policy of in-
surance upon a vessel,,and the policy was to take effect
twenty-four hours after she arrived on the coast of
Africa, and continue until her arrival at a port in Eng-
land. The ship was lost on the coast of Africa 12 months
after the policy took effect. The defence was that there
was not property on board amounting to the policy when
the loss took place, and, therefore, the Counsel for the de-
fendants contended that the question of value should be
opened, in answer to which the plaintiffs contended that it
was a valued policy, and, therefore, that they were entitled
to the full amount.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved, on behalf of
the defendants, for a new trial, and that the question
of value of the cargo be opened, unless the plaintiffs chose
to submit to an arbitration. The Learned Counsel cited
authorities on the point, awl mentioned other parts of the
case in support of the motion for a new trial.
The COURT granted him a rule Nisi.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY).

READ V. ELLIOTT, ESQ.

This was an action brought by Mr. Frederick Read,
against George Henry Elliott, Esq., a Magistrate, of the
county of Berks, to recover the sum of fifteen guineas,
being the price of a portrait of the defendant, painted by
the plaintiff.
Sir .JAMES SCARLETT conducted the case for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. TALFOURD for the defendant.

It appeared in evidence for the plaintiff, that in 1826
the defendant was introduced by Mr. Palmer, to the
plaintiff, at his house, in Greek-street, Soho. The defen-
dant sat several times in that year, and in 1827, in
which year the sittings were concluded, the portrait
was completed to the satisfaction of the defendant, who
wished it to be exhibited at the Royal Academy. The
plaintiff, in order to insure his reputation as an artist,
thought proper to make some alterations, with a view of
improving its appearance. At a subsequent period the
defendant complained that there was such an alteration in
the picture, that he had no hope of its being restored to
its original appearance. Various letters were read between
the parties, which passed for a considerable time after-
wards, and the correspondence ended by the present ac-
tion being brought—the defendant having refused to sit
any oftener than he had already done for his portrait.
A great number of witnesses—portrait-painters of emi-
nence and others—spoke highly of the plaintiff's talents
as a miniature-painter. They admitted that the portrait
was now in an unfinished state, but they added that from
two to four more sittings would complete it, and make it
a correct likeness.

Mr. TALFOURD addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and said that, whatever should be the result of the acion,
Mr. Read would have great cause to be satisfied, for if he
lost it anti bad to pay the costs, he would have as good a
puff as any man could possibly wish for. He contendtd
that the defendant was not compelled to be chained to the
painter's arm chair as often and as long as the painter
chose; he had sat a number of times in 1826 and 1827,
and the picture was done to the defendant's sath-
faction, hut it was afterwards se altered and, indeed,
was now in such an unfinished state, that the de-
fendant was not bound to pay for it. The plaintiff
charged that he had bestowed great labour and pains
on the picture, and was willing to bestow more, and
that the defendant had promised to sit for it a reasonab'e
number of times, but bail refused to complete the requisite
number. Of his refusal to sit there was no proof what-
ever, and, therefore, he was not entitled to pay.
His Lordship having summed up, the Jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for fifteen guineas.
Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE said the portrait in its pre-
sent state must be delivered to the defendant.

Mr. ELLIOTT, addressing the Cuurt, begged to dec:i...e
receiving it, as he was not obligtd to have it.
Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE—Oh, no; you are not com-
pelled to have it.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

DEAN AND OTHERS, U. THE LONDON ASSURANCE COM

PA N Y•

This was an action on a policy of insurance for 2,000/,
which was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the London
Sittings, ger last Term, when a verdict was returned for
the plaintiffs. The cause then occupied the Court from
ten in the morning till the same hour in the evening.
Sir J. SCARLETT this morning applied for a rule to
show cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial had, on the ground of its being against evidence,
and that his Lordship had improperly left the case to the
Jury. The plaintiffs were shipowners at Cork. In N0v.1831,
they had a vessel going from Spithead to Cork ; sbe had
gone out several times, but had always had to put back
in consequence of bad weather. At last, on the 25th of
November, she finally went out and was lost. Th
plaintiffs, on the 3d of December, insured her for 2,000/.
with the Company's agent in Cork. At the trial th
defence set up was that the ship had been improper]
balasrei with loam, in place of shingle ballast. The
vessel was leaky, which reduced the loam to water, and it
of course shifted with the heaving of the vessel. Another
ground was, tbat the plaintiffs had conceded a ma-
terial fact at the time of effecting the policy, which
would vitiate it altogether. It was proved that the
London agent wrote to one of the owners who
lived at Cove, that the vessel had sailed on the 25,1,
of November. The policy was effected on the
3d of December, when the patties begun to get alarmed,
as the passage was only a four days' one. However, they
gave no intimation of their fears to the insurer ; all
they said to him was that the vessel was safe at Spithead
on the 25th. His Lordship left it to the Jury to say whether
Dean, who effected the policy was aware of the fact that
the ship actually sailed on that day ; he (Sir James Scar.
lett) contended, most respectfully, that if the owner, who
resided at Cove, who was the person that managed the
correspondence, knew of the fact, the result was the same
—the policy was equally vitiated.
Lord LYNDHURST raid he might have used the name of
Dean in summing up, hut he did not mem so to confine
it, for he considered that fact as the most material one in
the cause.—Rule granted.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)