The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-11 00:00:00

TEE NAVE

Her Majesty's ship Childers, 12, Commander W.
Swinburne (1858), which was paid off at Chatham
yesterday, has been in commission nearly four
years, having sailed from England in the early
part of 1855. She was commisssoned at Chatham
by Commander V. G. Hickley, who held the com-
mand of the Childers till he was promoted to be
Post-Captain on the Ist of April last, when he was
succeeded by Commander Swinburn, formerly, of
the Pluto, 4, steam vessel, employed on the coast of
Africa. Since the Childers has been in commis-
sion she has been employed exclusively in cruising
on the west coast of Africa, where she was at-
tached to the squadron of Commodore C. Wise,
during which time she has sailed over upwards of
100,000 miles in watching the slave trade, but was
unsuccessful in capturing any prizes. Of the
officers who left England in the Childers not one
returned in her to be paid off, some having died
from sickness, and three of them having been
drowned, Several of the crew have also died from
sickness, and one man was killed by falling from
aloft. On the crew being paid off yesterday gra-
tuities for good conduct were awarded, by order
of the Lords of the Admiralty, to Thomas Spiller,
quartermaster ; Wm. Foord, boatswain's mate ;
Colour-Sergeant Wm. Lucas, and Corporal Wm.
Brett, Royal Marines. On the previous day a
number of medals were distributed to several of
the crew who were engaged in the Arctic exploring
expedition, and likewise to those who were in the
Baltic expedition. The Childers has been placed
among the vessels in ordinary lying in the Med-
way, and is not expected to be ever agair in com-
mission.

The Supply, steam store vessel, yesterday un-
shipped. at Portsmouth the immense statue of a
lion, which formed portion of a tomb,' situated
about 20 miles from Bondrom, or the ancient city
of lialicarnassus. This immense statue is a beau-
tiful specimen of sculpture, and weighs 10 tons
4 cwt. It is enclosed in a case of wood, and has
been. placed on a truck for conveyance to the British
Muscum.

The following appointments were made rester
day at the Admiralty :
Surgeon—Samuel W. Webb, to the Madagascar.

Assistant-Surgeon—George B. Beale (acting), to the
Herald.

Assistant Paymaster Francis M. Wright, to the

Fisgard

Mr. Edgecombe Chevallier (naval storekeeper at Halifax),
;0 be Storekeeper at Pembroke Dockyard, vice Chiles,

superannuated.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 10.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

'Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term before Lord
Campbell and Special Jury.)
SCULLY V. INGRAM.

Mr. Bovill, counsel for the defendant, at the
sitting of the court, directed Lord Campbell's atten-
tion to the fact that the jury in this cause had not
distinguished, as his lordship had directed them,
the two points in respect of which damages were
awarded.

Lord Campbell said he would stay execution, but
he did not expect to hear any more of the case.

HUTTON V. WATERLOO LIFE .SSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Salter conducted the
case of the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant_ Shee, Mr.

Huddleston, and Mr. Bercsford that of the com-
pany.
The action was brought by the widow and execu-
trix of the late Mr. Thomas Hutton, wine merchant,
of Suffolk-street, Pall-mall, who died in November,

1856, upon a policy of insurance for £2,500, effected
April 20, 1854. The Waterloo Life, Educational,
Casualty, and Self-relief Insurance Company dis-
puted their liability on the ground that Mr. Hutton
had fraudukntly concealed the fact that he was of
drunken habits, and falsely represented that his
habits were temperate.
Mr. Edwin James, in opening the case, said the
insurance was effected in April, 1854 (although the
office executed no policy until after Mr. Hutton's
death), as collateral security for money which was
borrowed to pay Mr. Bishop, the chairman of the
company. The premiums were duly paid. The
office, in its prospectus, represented its policies as
" indisputable," but that might be taken as a mere
trap for the unwary, as in law it meant nothing at
all.

The following evidence was given :
Mr. John Lee said—l was formerly manager of
the Café de l'Europe, in the Haymarket, and in
1850 became acquainted, in the way of business,
with the late Mr. Hutton. I saw him almost daily,
as he lived very near, in Suffolk-street, Pall-mall.
He often dined with me, and I have dined with
him. I knew him up to 1854, and I never knew
him to be intoxicated.
Mr. Samuel Hemming said—l am cashier to
Messrs. Powell and Co., Solicitors, of Lincoln's-inn,
and I was acquainted with the late Mr. Hutton for
many years down to his death. I knew him more
socially than in any other way. The Cafe de
'Europe was kept by my brother, and he supplied
the wines. I apprenticed my nephew to him in
August, 1854. I thought him a man of extremely
temperate habits. I did not see much of him
during the last year of his life.
Cross-examined—l have understood that deliriu»l
tremens or something of that sort was the matter
with him before his death. I never knew that he
kept a double establishment—a wife at one place
and a woman, by whom he had a family, at an-
other. I did not know that he spent most of his
time out of business, at West Ham, with a woman
by whom he had children.
Mr. Henry Roake said—l am a teadcaler at
Mile-end. 1 had known Mr. Hutton for many
years before his death, and was frequently in his
company. I was very often in the habit of dining
with him, both privately and at public dinners.
Up to 1854 I should say his habits were temperate.
Cross-examined—l was not aware of the sepa-
rate establishment at West Ham, or that he had
delirium tremens.
Mrs. Sarah Ann Hutton said—l am the widow
of the late Mr. Thomas Hutton. I was married
to him on the 7th of May, 1842. For three years
he carried on the business of a haberdasher. He
commenced the wine business in Suffolk street in
1850, and carried it on until his death in 1856. I
lived at Dolby-terrace, Islington. Previous to
April, 1854, my husband's habits were very tempe-
rate and steady indeed. After 1854, and within
eight months of his death, his habits had become
less domestic, and he was less at home than pre-
viously. I had no personal knowledge of another
connexion. We kept a brougham, and I was in
the habit of fetching him at 6 o'clock every even-
ing. He always dined with me. After he had
effected a policy in the Waterloo Company I knew
of it. My husband was very intimate with Mr.
Bishop, the chairman of the company, and I under-
stood was advised by him to insure. Mr. Bishop is a
colonial broker, and my husband had business re-
lations with him. At the time of the insurance I
knew that my husband was indebted to Mr. Bishop,
and that he borrowed £l,OOO of the office. I do
not know whether he received the £l,OOO, or what
he did with it if he did receive it. In June. 1853
he was absent from his home for nearly three weeks.
I did not know where he was. He was brought
home. I understood that he was pressed for money
which he could not pay, and that was the cause of
his going away. During the last six months of
his life I observed that lie had become intemperate
at times. He was a very nervous man at all times
and rather excitable. I have six children living
by Mr. Hutton, and I have had 10.
Cross-examined—lt never happened before the
year 1856 that he would go out two or three times
a week after dinner, come home very late, and some
times not at all. The police were employed about
a week to find him on the occasion of his going
away in 1853. When brought home he was not
drunk. In 1856 he was brought home twice
by a policeman, but hot drunk. He had rheumatic
fever in 1851, and was ill for two months. Ido
not know that had delirum tremens in 1855. His
hand continually trembled, because he was so
nervous. It trembled as much when I first married
him as it did afterwards.
William Hobbs said—l was coachman to the late
Mr. Hutton. I entered his service in 1850 and
continued to the time of his death. Up to 1854 I
never saw him otherwise than steady—always
capable of business. I took him to business in the
morning and home at night, and I never saw him
otherwise than sober.

Mr. Francis Hughes said—l was the manager of
Mr. Hutton's business from 1850 to 1856. Up to
1854 his habits were decidedly temperate. During
the latter period of his life I observed that he be-
came intemperate and unsettled. In money affairs
he was a nervous and excitable man. In 1853 he
was pressed_ for money, and was absent from busi-
ness altogether for about three weeks. Mr. Bishop
was pressing him for £lOO. I did not know of any
connexion at West Hain. Before 1854 I had seen
him twice, and only twice, the worse for liquor.
Cross-examined—After June, 1856, I saw him
rather more frequently the worse for liquor.
Mr. Wm. Ranger said—l am secretary to the
Carlton Club, and Mr. Hutton supplied the club
with wines during the whole time he was in busi-
ness. I used to see him 12 or 14 times a week. Up
to 1854 he was certainly of temperate habits.
Mr. W. C. Bucknell said—l used to go on fishing
excursions with Mr. Hutton, and I always found
him quiet, social, and temperate.
Cross-examined—He was not a teetotaller. He
used to take wine like other gentlemen, and would
sit an hour after dinner.
Mr. John Wilson, silk manufacturer, of Spital-
fields, and other witnesses gave similar testimony,
some saying they had never in their lives seen Mr.
Hutton intoxicated.
Mr. Sergeant Shee having addressed the jury for
the company, called the following witnesses
Eliza Gaby said—l was housemaid at Mrs. Hut-

ton's for aboiit five years previous to 1854, when I
left her service, and I have since married. Mr.
Hutton was not regular in his habits. I have let
him in at all hours of the night, and most times he
has been drunk. He used to come in at 2,3, 4,
and even 7 o'clock in the morning. I recollect him
being brought home by the police in 1853. He was
drunk then. I have seen him drink brandy and
water at home after breakfast, before going out to
business. Sometimes I have seen him drink more

than one glass. When he has stayed at home he
has not been what may be called sober.

' To the Judge—He used to get tipsy by himself.
Oftentimes he would go into the pantry and drink

;here.

Cross-examined—l was not dismissed, I gave
notice mS•self. I cannot swear to the year when I
saw Mr. llttton takebrandy of& morning. I will

not swear that I have seen him take it once a week.
Mr. G. Birmingham said—l am medical officer
of the Waterloo Life Insurance Company. I ex-
amined the late Mr. Hutton and reported upon
him before the insurance was effected. I asked

him the usual questions. He said he was tempe-
rate. I asked him whether he had ever been
affected with delirium tremens, and he said " No."

Cross-examined—ln my report upon Mr. Hut-
ton to the office I said :—" He scarcely looks so old
as 39 years. He has a healthy look, and is mode-
rately stout: The organs of the che.A arc perfectly
sound, and their movement equally so. The pulse
is full, equal, and steady, at 72. The heart i 3
healthy. In is of sound constitution, and likely to

ice as.long as most persons of his age. There is
lo appearance of any disposition to hereditary
isease. His appearance presents conditions of
lealth, and warrants the most favourable opinion.
'he life has had acute rheumatism, but may be

ken to be a first-class life."
Dr. henry Jefferson,—l was called in to see
e late Mr. Hutton in consultation with Mr. Clif-

ton in February, 1855. He was then suffering
from delirium tremens, In 99 cases out of 100
drink is the cause of that disease. I saw him only
twice, on the 20th and 21st of February.
Cross-examined—Delirium tremens is generally
the result of a continual habit of intoxication, but
sometimes it may be caused by a prolonged de-
bauch of several consecutive days.
Mr. N. Clifton said—l am a surgeon at Isling-
ton, and attended Mr. Hutton in 1851 for rheuma-

tic fever. I attended. him once or twice in 1852.
I attended him several times in 1853. I remember
!iis being b roaght home by the police. He was
nearly insensible—stupidly drunk. From the sub-
sequent effects I should judge that he had been
drinking for several days. He was very much
shaken by it, but not actually in a state of delirium
tremens. The effects lasted several days. I at-
tended him saveral times for the same sort of thing
between 1853 and 1855, when Dr. Jefferson was
called in to consult. I afterwards attended him
for similar .attacks in 1856, up to his death in No-
vember oft hat year I certified that his death was
caused by delirium tremens.
Thos. Evans said—ram a sergeant in the police,
and was in the police-in 1853. In consequence of
instructions I did my best to find the late Mr. Hut-
ton, and found him at a private house in Paul-
street, West Ham. I made my way upstairs and
foundhim insensible from drink in bed. There was
part of a bottle ofbrandy by the bedside. I remained
two hours,and when he became sensible he was very
excited. He said he would not come until I threa-
tened to send for his wife. There was a woman and
a lad there. He consented at last to go with me,
and I took him to his house at Dolby-terrace. He
was much better then, On two other occasions I
found him in the same state, and the last time he
was not with the same woman.
Inspector Brennan said—ln 1856 on three occa-
sions I found Mr. Hutton drunk and took him home.
Thomas Rands said—l am the son of the person
with whom Mr. Hutton had a connexion. My mo-
ther lived at Kennington previous to 1851, and then
went to live at West Ham. I saw. Mr. Hutton
fre inently. Before 1851 Mr. Hutton was moderate
in his habits. I saw him at West Ham for three
weeks in 1853, and during the whole of that time
he was in a drunken state. He would drink a
bottle of bwandy a' day. I have been sent by kim
to fetch it...
Mrs. Mary Lewis—l am a sister of Mrs. Rands,
who is dead. I had known Mr. Hutton ever since
he was quite a youth. I saw him every day that
ho was at West Ham, during the three weeks he
was drunk there. I had seen him there. before June,
1853, two ox three times. I never saw him there
after June, 1853.
Cross-extunined--With the exception of the
drunken fit in 1853 I never saw him exactly drunk.
Re-exautined--I hare soon him rather fresh.
To the Judge—l only saw Mr. Hutton on two
occasions at West Ham previous to June, 1853,and
not at all afterwards.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, in addressing the jury for the
office, laid. great stress on the fact that Dr. Cobb
was not the usual medical attendant of the deceased,
and that by the false representation that he was the
policy was -void.
Lord Campbell interrupted the learned counsel
to put upon his notes the evidence as to this point,
his attention not having been previously directed
to it.

Mrs. Hutton was recalled, and, in reply to his
lordship, said Dr. Cobb had known her ever since
she was a girl, and she called him in to attend her
husband the latter end of 1851. Dr. Cobb attended
again in 1652, but sho did not call him in again,
because he had retired. from practiee.
Mr. Sergeant Shee resumed his address, submit-
ting that there were men of all ranks who got
drunk on the sly, and Mr. Hutton was one of
them ; that Mr. Hutton led two separate existences
—a respectable existence between 9 and 4 o'clock,
and a drunken existence between 7 and 2 ; that
Mr. Hutton had formed an illicit connection with
Mrs. Rands, and spent his evenings there in such
enjoyment as he'could obtain from drinking brandy,
and that the very fact of his dying at the age of 41
of delirium tremens conclusively proved long pre-
vious and continued habits of intemperance.
Mr. James, for the plaintiff, characterised the
attempt to vitiate the policy because Mr. Hutton
gave the name of Dr. Cobb as a medical attendant
as a miserable quibble—an afterthought when the
office found the case of delirium tremens melt away
by their own evidence. The previous question was,
"What has been your condition of health for the
last five years ?" Mr. Hutton said, " Good," and
gave the name of Dr. Cobb, because Dr. Cobb was
the only medical man who knew his state of health
for the previous five years. The learned counsel
contended that down to 1854 Mr. Hutton, though
he gave way to excess on one occasion in 1853, was
generally of temperate habits, and that Mr Bishbr,
the chairman of the company, who had probably
received his debt out of the loan raised by the
policy, had not been called to contradict the many
witnesses who had proved the deceased to be a
temperate man.
The learned Judge summed up. He could by no
means commend the practice of life assurance offices
professing that their policies were to be indisput-
able. He had previously expressed his disappro-
bation of it„ and he was glad to be told that the
more respectable offices had ceased to introduce
such words into their prospectus, &cause they cer-
tainly had a tendency to, produce delusion—he
would not say fraud. His Lordship, in reading
over the evidence, remarked upon Eliza Gaby, that
her deportment in the witness box was by no means
satisfactory in his eyes.
The jury found, without hesitation, that when
the policy was effected the deceased was a tem-
perate man, and that there was no attempt at fraud.
Lord Campbell asked whether they considered
Dr. Cobb was the ordinary medical attendant of
Mr. Hutton, intimating that he should, in the event
of their saying he was not, then ask whether Mr.
Hutton made that statement with a fraudulent in-
tention.
The Foreman—May we take into consideration
the previous question in the proposal, as to what
had been Mr. Hutton's general state of health for
five years previously P
Lord Campbell—l think you may fairly take the
two together.
The Foreman—We consider that although Mr.
Clifton was Mr. Hutton's attendant in 1854, still
the naming Dr. Cobb was right, and that there was
no attempt to mislead or defraud.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—That is no answer to the
question, my Lord.
Lord Campbell—Yes, it is. The jury say that
Dr. Cobb may be considered the ordinary attendant
in their opinion, and that there was no attempt to
deceive or mislead.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Will your Lordship ask
if there was another ordinary medical attendant?
Lord Campbell—l will ask no more questions,
Mr. James—The company did not ask Mr. Hut-
ton if he had two medical attendants.
The Foreman—Consequently we find our verdict
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Will your Lordship stay
execution ?
Lord Campbell—l shall consider about that.
Mr. James—l trust that your Lordship will not
do so without ordering the company to bring the
money into court.
Verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, £2,500.