The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Common Jury.)
MILLS V. UNDERWOOD.

This was an action brought by William Henry Mills,
the proprietor of a paraffin oil warehouse, to recover a box
of trinkets and some silver spoons.
The case of the plaintiff was, that being very much en-
gaged in business, and his wife, who had been a widow
with two children by a former husband, being very ill, the
property in question was entrusted to the care of Mrs
Underwood, the defendant, who was a cousin of Mrs. Mills.
The plaintiff also gave the defendant £2O, but there was
no question about the money against which there was
a sot off which was not disputed. Last year Mrs.
Mills died, and the defendant refused to deliver to the
plaintiff the property she hell, on the ground that it was
entrusted to her for the benefit of the children of Mrs.
Mills by her first husband. Tho plaintiff admitted that
the property was given into the care of the defendant by
his sanction, but he denied that it was given for a specified
period.

Mr. Inderwiek appeared for the plaintiff, and M. D,
Seymour, Q.C., for the defendant.

His lordship said that the only question was whether
a trust so created was recoverable or not. He did not
know of any authority bearing on the question. The
Lord Chancellor had considered the subject, but he did
not know what was the decision.

After some discussion, it was agreed by counsel to take
the decision of the Court as to the point of law.
Ms lordship said that ho considered the trust was too
loose to be binding on the plaintiff, but ha had no objec-
tion to the question being discussed before a full court next
term.

A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
JENNER V. JENNER AND BALLINGER.-JUDGMENT.

His lordship delivered judgment in this case, which had
come originally before his predecessor. It was an applica-
tion on the part of the petitioner for an order of the court
enabling him to obtain a portion of a sum of £7OO, which
had been settled on his wife at her marriage, with a rever-
sionary interest to her children at her demise. He said he
had carefully read the notes of Sir Cresswell Cresswell,
and saw nothing in the circumstances of the case to take
it out of the general rule applying to settlement of property.
It appeared that the wife had been duly served with the
notice of the present application, and did not offer any
opposition, but seemed desirous that her husband should
have the money he required. The Court did not feel jus-
tified in any way dealing with a fund ultimately settled on
the children, but the trusts might be administered as if
the wife had died during the lifetime of her husband.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Boden, Q.C., and a Common Jury.)

IMPORTANT ACTION AGAINST A FIRE INSURANCE OFFICE-
CUMBERLAND V. THE ALBERT INSURANCE COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages in a case of al-
leged trespass by the defendants, after a fire had occurred
on the plaintiff's premises, and a point of the very greatest
importance was raised as to the right of insurance com-
panies to take possession of the property of their insurers
when a claim is made under the policy.
Mr. Telford Salter (instructed by Mr. Steadman) ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Shaw (instructed by Mr. Wal-
ker), representing the company.
Mr. Salter, in opening the case to the jury, said that his
client sought to recover damages for a trespass committed
by the defendant, under circumstances of very great im-
portance. The defendants were the Albert Fire Insurance
Company, and the question for the jury and the court
would be whether a fire insurance company had a right to
put a man in possession upon the plaintiff's premises after
a firr had occurred. No doubt a fire company was entitled
to look after the salvage under certain circumstances,
but the learned counsel contended that they had
no right whatever in law to put a man in posses-
sion, much less against the will of the insurer. Now
the facts of the case were these :—The plainiiff was a bird-
stuffer and dealer in bird skins, of London Wall, and he
had insured his premises with the defendants for £550.
His occupation consisted of a ground, first and second
floors. On Nov. 28, 1865, a fire broke out and consumed
the first and second floors, leaving the ground floor com-
paratively uninjured. On the morning after this fire no-
tico was given to the company, and they put a man in
possession, and that person kept possession for two months.
Plaintiff considered himself very much ill-used by this,
and he brought his action to recover damages.
The claim of the plaintiff was considered by the insur-
ance company as excessive.

Mr. Shaw, for the company, urged that there had been
no unreasonable occupation.
Mr. Salter said that although it was reasonable for the
company to enter premises, thore was no law under which
they were entitled to do so. He trusted the jury would
give substantial damages.

His lordship, in summing up, said in the first place tho
jury had to say whether plaintiff could recover at all, and
in the second what damage he lead sustained, supposing
that the jury should consider that he was entitled to re-
cover. In point of law, in the abstract, the company had
no right to go on the premises at all, but when a fire oc-
curred the jury would say whether they had a reason, and
a good reason, for going in to investigate it. If the jury
thought that the defendants kept the man in an unreason-
able time, then the jury would say what damages he had
suffered.

The jury conferred and found a verdict for the plaintiff,
£5O damages, the full amount claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

COMBINATION AGAINST A FOREMAN.—David Ryan, a la-
bourer, was charged as follows :
Mr. George Hotten, foreman in the employ of Messrs.
Scrivener and White, builders, at some works going on
in Riding-house-street (the building of the Portland British
Schools), said the prisoner was employed at the works as a
labourer, and he had to discharge him in consequence of
absenting himself from drinking. On his doing so prisoner
said, " You —, you discharged me, and I'll knock your
brains out," and then struck him in the face and turned
him out of the office.
Hugh Facey, another foreman in Messrs. Scrivener and
White's employ, said that he was going to pay the pri-
soner for what work he had done, when he said, " I'll
knock your brains out," and the prisoner then laid hold of
Rotten and struck him a violent blow in the face, and
afterwards incited a number of the labourots to leave the
job.

Thos. Rosekilley, one of the warrant officers, said that
when he went to execute the warrant ho was surrounded
by the friends of the prisoner. The prisoner, who was
very violont, made a rush at the witness Facey, who would
have been violently handled but for his (Rosekilley's) in-
terference.

In answer to the charge, the prisoner called two wit-
nesses out of a number of labourers in attendance, and
from tho rambling statements they made it was clear that
they were actuated by far from friendly feelings towards
the complainant.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said he considered the assault a very bad
one, inasmuch as it was setting a bad example to the other
men, and was likely to create a feeling of insurbordination
amongst them. He should therefore fine the prisoner £5
or two months' imprisonment.

ELECTION COMMITTEES—This Day.

HARWICH.

The members of this committee, consisting ;of Mr. Ga-
thorne Hardy (chairman), Mr. Sergeant Armstrong, Mr. J.
Floyer, Mr. K. Hodgson, and Mr. Huddlestone, met to-day
for the first time to try the merits of the two petitions
against the return of the sitting members, Captain Jervis
and Mr. Kelk.

The first petition was presented by Mr. M. Wells, one of
the unsuccessful candidates at the last election, and sot
forth that, under a statute of Anne, was disqualified from
holding a seat in the House of Commons, by reason of his
holding the situations of assistant superintendent in the
loyal Small Arms establishment and deputy-clerk' in the
office of the Secretary of War. The petitioner prayed that
Captain Jervis's name should be erased from the return,
and his own substituted. The second petition proceeded
from Mr. Burt, M.D., and other electors of Harwich, and
alleged corrupt practices on the part of both members.
Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, and Mr. Phil-
brick appeared for the petitioners; and Mr. Sergeant
Ballantine and Mr. H. James for the sitting members.
Mr. nine, on opening the case in the first petition
against the return of Captain Jervis, said that the petition
did not involve the usual question which formed the sub-
ject of inquiry of election committees in general. The
whole case would turn on the construction of an old
statute, and one of more modern times, and the points that
he would have to establish were that the situation held by
Captain Jervis was clearly contemplated in the Act of
Queen Anne, and rendered him ineligible for a seat in
Parliament at the time of the election, and that
due notice had been given to the electors of
Harwich that it would be useless for them to
record their votes in favour of Captain Jervis. The
learned counsel proceeded to argue the case at consider-
able length, and quoted the authority of some of the
most eminent writers on constitutional law.

The inquiry promises to be rather protracted.
HUDDERSFIELD.
_ _

The further evidence on behalf of the sitting member
was resumed this morning.

CHELTENHAM.
Evidence in this case was also proceeded with.

Great Destruction of Property by Fire.

THIS DAY.

This morning, at a few minutes before one o'clock, the
quiet neighbourhood of Leytonstone, in Essex, presented
an universal scene of excitement in consequence of the out-
break of an extensive fire in a newly-erected 10-roomed
house belonging to Mr. W. Keate, situated in Belgravia,
Leytonstone. In the course of a few minutes the entire
building presented a great body of flame, and the fire seized
upon another house equally as large. Capt. Jones was
soon on the spot with the West Ham engine, followed by
numerous others. Plenty of w ater having been pro-
cured, the firemen went to work, but the fire could
not be extinguished until both buildings were totally de-
stroyed. The sufferer was insured in the Royal-office.
About half-past 3 o'clock a fire, attended with great loss of
property, took place in the premises of Mr. Hawkes, grocer
and tea dealer, No. 1, Wellington-street, Holloway. The
Volunteer and Metropolitan Brigade quickly attended, but
the fire could not be extinguished until the shop and con-
tents, and the upper part of the house, were nearly des-
troyed. A fire likewise broke out in the tea warehouses
of Mr. Eves, No. 24, Skinner-street, Clerkenwell. Con-
ductors Dunshire and Puty attended with two of the Royal
Society's escapes, followed by numerous engines, but the
flames could not be extinguished until they had travelled
through the building. Another fire broke out at No. 6,
Church-road, Dalston, occupied by Mr. Oliver, a green-
grocer, which destroyed the lower part of the building.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Royal assent was given by commission to the fol-
lowing bills :—Exhibition of Art, Cattle Sheds in Burghs
(Scotland), Forsyth's Indemnity, Parliamentary Oaths
Amendment, East Indian Military, &c., Funds and
Transfer, Columbia (Bethnal Green) Market and
Approaches, Central Wales Extension Railway,
Banbury Gas, Derwent and Shotley Bridge Road, and
West Middlesex Water.

The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Viscount
Sydney, and Lord Foley.
After the different bills had been gone through, the
house suspended its sitting until five o'clock, when the
LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack.
SUNDAY TRADING.

On the motion of Lord CHELMSFORD, a bill amend.
log the law in respect to Sunday trading was agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Stour-
bridge Gas Act Amendment, Thames Tunnel Company,
Eastern Bengal Railway Company, Thames Subway,
Dagenham Dock Railways, Roach River'Fishery, Hatfield
Chase Warping and Improvement (Railway), Ardmore
Harbour, and Putney and Fulham New Bridge.
The following bills were read a third time and passed:—
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society ; Heywood
Water; North Eastern Railway (Gilling, Helmsley, and
Pickering Branch); Leicester Water; Dublin Port Acts
Amendment; Dublin Port (Docks); Leicester Cattle
Market, &c.
On the motion of Lord CHELMSFORD the Attorneys
and Solicitors (Ireland), 1866, Bill passed through com-
mittee.

The house went into committee on the Salmon Fisheries
(Scotland) Bill, and the clauses with some amendments
were agreed to, and the bill was ordered for third reading.
The report of the amendments on the Sale of Land by
Auction Bill was brought up and agreed to.
POOR. PERSONS BURIAL (IRELAND) BILL.

The house went in committee and the different clauses
were agreed to.
PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.

On the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
this bill was read a third time and passed.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-=LAST EVENING.

The SPEAKER took tho chair at four o'clock.
Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY took the oaths and his seat for
Southampton.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed:—
Bury Gas ; Cleethorpes Gas; Congleton and Buxton
Road ; Ebbw Vale, Beaufort, Licc., Water ; Llynvi Valley
Railway; Macclesfield and Chapel in the Frith Road;
Manchester and Stockport Railway ; Manchester, Shef-
field, and Lincolnshire Railway (Liverpool Extension);
Merrybent and Darlington Railway ; and Wrexham, Mold,
and Connah's Quay and Hoylake Railways.