The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-13 00:00:00

HARE V. BARSTOW.

This was an action brought by Sir John Hare, against the
Secretary to the Yorkshire Insurance Company, to recover
the amount of insurance alleged to be due to him for the
damage done by fire to his oil mills, situated in Bristol, which
had been insured by the Society. The defendant had con-
tended that the insurance having been effected on the oil mill,
the plaintiff could only, recover 2761., the amount of damage
done to that portion of the premises used for crushing linseed,
which sum was paid into Court, and that he had no right to
recover for damage done to any other portion of the premises.
The case was tried before Lord Denman at the Guildhall in
1842, and the jury had found for the plaintiff for 2201. The
Attorney-General bad subsequently obtained a rule nisi for a
nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the
jury, or for a new trial, on the ground that evidence had been
admitted as to the value of the machinery, which was inad-
missible.

Mr. Eats now showed cause against the rule, and contended
that it was a question for the jury to decide whether the term " oil-
mills" was used for the purpose of designating the whole of the
premises, or for the purpose of designating that portion
only which was used for crushing linseed; and it would be seen
from the proposal that the term oil-mills had been used to de-
signate the entirety of the premises, which were known in
Bristol as Hare's oil-mills ; neither could there be any doubt that
Sir John Hare had intended to effect the insurance upon the
entirety of the premises, and that he had imagined that he had
so effected his insurance. In a case of that sort could it be
said the construction of the policy should be lelt to the
Judge alone, and that there was nothing to go to the
jury? He apprehended not, and there was no ground
for making the rule for a nonsuit absolute. With re-
spect to the evidence as to the value of the machinery,
he apprehended that, as the question was one entirely of value,
the evidence was clearly admissible, and, as the contest was,
whether the insurance was meant to cover the whole of the
machinery, or only one portion of it, evidence as to value was
admissible as evidence of identification. He therefore sub-
mitted that this rule must be discharged.
Mr. ROBINSON followed on the same side.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court would hear the remainder
of the arguments to-morrow.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 12.
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)

THE QUEEN V. LORD GODOLPHIN AND ANOTHER, MAGIS.

TRATES OF THE COUNTY OF CAMBRIDGE.
Mr. GUNNING applied to the Court in this case for a man-
damus to compel the defendants to allow a certain rate to be
made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Cottenham, in
the county of Cambridge, en the Bth of December last. The
ground on which the magistrates refused was, that the rate
was not signed by either of the churchwardens of the parish.
It appears that the churchwardens were appointed, but they
were not sworn in, nor was it usual to swear them in for the
last five or six years. He apprehended that the magistrates
could only arrive at the knowledge which induced them to re-
fuse the rate by judicial process, which this Court would not
allow.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 12.
(Sittings in Banco.)
- LACKINGTON V. HETHERINGTON'.

'I his was an action by the assignees of a bankrupt to recover
the value of a quantity of deals purchased by the defendant
from the bankrupt since the issue of the fiat. Upon the trial
the facts were admttted, but the defendant having pleaded that
there was no bill of delivery, Mr. Justice Cfeswell, before
whom the cause was tried, held that this was fatal to the plain-
tiff's case, and accordingly directed a nonsuit to be entered,
subject to a motion to enter for the plaintiffs, should the Court
above differ from his Lordship's opinion.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL this day obtained a rule nisi to en-
ter for the plaintiffs in damages 250/.

JOHNSON AND ANOTHER V. EVANS AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the assignee of a bankrupt
against the Sheriffs of London and their officer, for illegal
seizure and wrongful appropriation of gnods in the possession of
the bankrupt, but legally the property of the assignees and pe-
titioning creditor. The verdict was for the plaintiffs, and last
term Mr. Sergeant Bompas obtained a rule nisi for a new trial,
against which Mr. Sergeant Byles showed cause, when the
further argument was postponed to the present term.
Mr. Sergeant Bompas this day replied in support of the
rule, and their Lordships took time to consider judgment. The
Learned Sergeant's.argument was confined entirely to the legal
points, and scarcely touched upon the facts of the case, which
were fully reported last term.

SMART V. NOKES.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1,0001. It
was tried at Westminster, in the nisi prius sittings of last term,
when a verdict was returned for the defendant, upon the plea
that the debt represented by the bill had been paid. A rule nisi
bad been since obtained for a new trial, the arguments upon
which occupied the greater part of this day, and was not con-
cluded when the Court rose.