The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-14 00:00:00

FRIEDLANDER V. THE LONDON ASSURANCE COMPANY,

This was an action which occupied two days in trying,
and was brought to recover the amount of a policy of in•
iurance upon furniture, stock in trade (jewellery,)
which were destroyed by fire. The Jury found a verdict
for the defendants.

The arguments upon a motion for a new trial were
partly heard a few days ago.
11r. HOLT, this morning, addressed the Court in sup
port of the rule, and contended, that in consequence of tht
rejection of material evidence by the Learned Judge, the
rule should be made absolute. A person named Lewin
Friedlander had been called for the plaintiff to prove the
sale of jewellery to him, and that these goods were
in the house at the time of the fire, but on the
invoice being put into his hand he swore that he
never supplied the jewellery therein named, and that h.
bad written the invoice at the request, and in the presence
of young Friedlander (plaintiff's son) and Nathan (plain
tiff's shoptnan). That evidence certainly came with some
astonishment on the plaintiff's Counsel, who then wished
to call young Friedlander and Nathan to contradict that
statement, and also to call Barnard Levi to prove the salt
of those goods by Lewin Friedlander to the plaintiff, and
that those goods were in the house at the time of the fire.
The Learned Judge, however, refused to adtait that evi
deuce. He (Mr. Holt) knew that it was against the rule
of law to permit one witness to be called to contradict
another upon a collateral issue, but he submitted that this
was a very important and direct point in issue. There
was also a letter accompanying the invoice, which it
was sworn was written at the plaintiff's request, but
which, it was offered to be proved, was not so, and that
evidence was also rejected. The plaintiff was therefore
shut out from showing what were the real facts of the
case.

Mr. FOLLETT followed on the same side, and contended
that the evidence whether the goods in the invoice were
bona fide purchased of Lewin Friedlander and were ou
the premises, was most pertinent to the issue; it could
not be called a collateral issue ; it was the very issue in the
cause; because if the invoice and letter were fabricated,
the goods could not have been on the premises, and the
plaintiff could not recover for them on the policy of in-
surance ; but if they were not fabricated, the result would
be the other way. He, therefore, submitted that the evi-
dence to contradict Lewin Friedlander, by the three wit-
nesses, was most material in the cause.

The COURT were of opinion, that the evidence whether
or no the invoice was fabricated was a material point in
issue, a s it involved the question whether the goods were
on the premises at the time of the fire. It was
also very material to show whether the letter accom-
panying the invoice was written by Lewin Friedlander at
the request of the defendant, or whether that was also a
bonafide transaction or not. Acting upon that opinion,
their Lordships thought the evidence upon those two points
was not of collateral nature, and, therefore, its rejection
was improper. The rule fur a new trial was then made
absolute.

THE KING V. SLANZY.

This .was a prosecution for libel at the instance of the
Hon. Mr. Fane, when that gentleman was a candidate for
the county of Oxford. Tt:e defendant was found Guilty.
A rule Nisi for a new trial having been obtained on a
former day, it came on this morning for argument.
Mr. Justice PATTISON commenced reading the notes of
the trial, and had not finished when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LIVERSEDGE V. THOAIPSON AND ANOTHER.

This was one of 10 actions in which, on the last day of
the last term, Mr. Wightman, on the part of the de-
fendant Thompson, moved for and was allowed a rule
Nisi to stop all proceedings, and that the matters in dis-
pute might be referred to the Master to inquire what
sums were due. He obtained the rule upon the affidavits
of two of the plaintiffs, who deposed that they never gave
any instructions for such proceedings.
This morning Mr. JOHN JERVIS showed cause against
the rule. He said the defendant Thompson had been in
partnership as a wire-drawer, in Flintahire, with a person
named Hayton, but having another work in the adjoining;
county; he was in this concern in the nature of a sleep
ing partner.
The defendant Hayton also carried on the business of a
shop on his own account, and Thompson having
reason to think that Hayton was using the partnership
money on his own account, came to the works in question
and stopped them, stating that he had dissolved the con-
cern. He also carried away everything in his power,
which enraged Hayton, who refused to pay any of tl e
wages due to the workmen, the plaintiffs in those actions, and
referred them to Thompson. On applying to him he also
refused to pay them, and told them to do their best. The
workmen accordingly went in a body to the town of
Wrexham, in order to get there cases heard by the Magis-
trates. An attorney of the name of Horne seeing so man;
together in the streets, and there having been disturbances
in the neighbourhood, was afraid that it would look like
intimidation if they were all to go together; he therefore pro-
posed to them that they should choose a few to go before
the Magistrates, and he would give them all the assist-
ance in his power gratuitously. They accordingly ap-
pointed three of their number, who did go before
the Magistrates ; but as Thompson did not attend, and
there was some talk about his going to dispute the partner-
ship, they advised that the workmen should put all their
cases in the hands of Mr. Horne, who would recover their
wages for them. The deputation went to their fellow-
workmen and reported this to them, when all of them in-
stantly agreed with the proposition, and the three of the
deputation accordingly gave such instructions to Mr.
Horne, who wrote to the defendant (Thompson), but got
no answer. Great part of the wages were recovered in
the County Court; but these ten cases were far too large
sums to be recovered there, and, therefore, he sued out
writs in this Court. The Learned Gentleman produced
affidavits to these facts from eight of the plaintiffs, who
swore that the two who bad made affidavits on the
other side were present, and consented to the arrange-
ment, and that now they were in the employ
of the defendant Thompson at his other works, which ac-
counted for their affidavits. Under these circumstances be
trusted their Lordships would discharge the rule with costs.
The LORD CHIEF BARON asked Mr. Wightman whe-
ther he disputed the debts ?

Mr. WIGHTMAN said no further than that these work-
men might be indebted to iLyton for goods got in his shop.
_ _

Mr. Baron BAYLEIr-That could not be a set off. That
concern was a private one.

Mr. WrowrsiAN—Certainly. Then as to the costs,
the attorney who happened to he so fortunately in Wrex-
ham at the time these workmen were there, had endorsed
each of the writs with 41. 4s. as the costs. This was de-
cidedly a question for the Master, and as to the general
costs of the rule, he hoped the Court would consider that
Horne could have recovered all these sums before a Ma-
gistrate.

The COURT were of opinion that the rule must be dis-
charged with costs. Thompson ought to have paid these
poor men—he bad had two applications for that purpose.
and had refused both. The conduct of the attorney bad
been quite correct, but the charge of costs was too much
The defendant must undertake to pay the debts in a week
after being served with the present rule, and the question
of costs be referred to the Master.