The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-21 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

-----
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Beforo Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a Special J-...ry).
GIBES AND ANOTHER V. THE COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE COMPANY.

The plaintiffs in this case were executors of the late Mr.
John Gibbs, and they sued to recover £2,000, the amount
of a policy of insurance against fire effected upon some bags
deposited at the Thames Tunnel-wharf, and which were
burned on Jan. 16, 1866. There was a second action of a
similar kind, and the whole amount of claim was £ll,OOO.
The case for the plaintiffs was that Messrs. Levy and
Davis carried on the business of bag manufacturers at
Thames Tunnel-wharf, and that for sane years Mr. Gibbs
had made advances of money to be employed in this busi-
ness. As security for these advances he had a lien upon
the goods purchased ; he also had an underlease of the
wharf, and he from time to time effected policies of in-
surance upon the goods. In May, 1863, it became
necessary that the superior landlord should grant
a new lease of the wharf, and it was verbally arranged
that a new under-lease should be granted to Mr. Gibbs;
but this agreement did not appear to have been carried
out. The fire was believed to have been wilfully
caused by a person who was arrested on the night of
the fire, who was charged with setting fire to a shed in the
neighbourhood, and was convicted of arson. The learned
counsel said he believed that the main question was whe-
ther Hr. Gibbs had an insured interest in the goods, and
this would depend principally upon whether the jury
should bo satisfied that there was an agreement that Mr.
Gibbs should have a lien upon the goods and an under
lease of the wharf. Another question would be as to the
quantity of goods upon the wharf at the time of the fire ;
but upon this part of the case it was shown that there
was at least property to the extent of £ll,OOO there, and
indeed the salvage after the fire fetched £1,364.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed, but directed that an examination of ac-
counts should take place, and also put the interest charge,
able on the defendants at 8 per cont.

POLICE INTELLIGEgCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ASSAULT ON THR MANAGER OF THE QUEEN'S CONCERT
ROOMS.—Albert Jones, a respectable-looking man, de-
scribed as a merchant's clerk, of Charlton, Keut, was
charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt with assaulting Mr. Fish,
the manager of The Queen's Concert Rooms, Hanover-
square.

Mr. Fish said—Early this morning the defendant came
to the Hanover-square Rooms in a state of intoxication,
and wanted to be admitted to the ball-room, whore a ball
was going on at the time. He (defendant) was requested
to leave, but, instead of doing so he pushed past the
stewards and got into the ball-room, from which place he
was obliged to be removed by force. The defendant then
went into the drawing-room, and remained there a few
minutes, and then rushed towards the ball-room again,
although he had been told that he could not be admitted,
having no ticket for •the ball, and being drunk. The de-
fendant then struck at me, called me very gross names,
and kicked me on the thigh, and but for the fact that I
stepped back I believe I should have been seriously hurt.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—Was the defendant dressed for a ball?
Mr. Fish—No, sir.
Defendant—Did I kick you ?
Mr. Fish—Yes,
Defendant—No, I did not; I tried to do so, but I did
not succeed. Was I not dressed for a ball ?
Mr. Fish—No, you had a greatcoat on and an umbrella
in your hand.
Sergeant Hum, 22 C—l was called to the Hanover-
square-rooms this morning, and beard the defendant told
that he could not be admitted to the ball-room, as he was
drunk. The defendant abused the last witness, and
forced his way into the ball-room. The defendant, after
being ejected from the ball-room, tried to force his way in
again, and struck at and kicked the witness. I then took
him into custody.
' Defendant—l am very sorry for what occurred. I was
drunk. I had a ticket for the ball.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—you are described as clerk. What
clerk are you ?
Defendant—A merchant's clerk.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—You will have to pay .£5, or be im-
prisoned for 21 days.
STREET OUTRAGE.—EmiIy Chapman and Amelia Col-
lins, two " unfortunates," were charged with assaulting
Mr. Francis Tress, accountant, of No. 39, St. Mark's-cres-
cent, Notting-hill ; and Collins was further charged with
assaulting Mrs. Esther Bates, aunt to Mr. Tress, and re-
siding at No. 19, Porter's-road, Paddington.
Mr. Tress was with his aunt and sister standing at the
corner of Tottenham-court-road, last night, waiting for an
omnibus, when, without the slightest provocation, the
prisoners pushed the two ladies in a violent manner, and
Collins struck Mrs. -Bates in the eye. Mr Tress de-
fended his aunt and his sister as well as he was able
from the violence of the prisoners, and in doing so was
struck and kicked by them, they all the while making use
of very bad language and threatening the ladies with more
violence. The prisoners were afterwards taken to the
station by Eldridge, 39 E, who, in answer to the magis-
trate, said the prisoners had been drinking, and that Chap-
man was the worst of the two.
The prisoners had no defence to the charge.
Mr. D'Eyncourt said it was a most unprovoked assault,
and he should commit Chapman for three months; and
Collins for one month, with hard labour.