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
dune to that portion of the premises used, for crushing linseed,
which sum was paid into Court, and tLat be had no right to
recover for damage done to any other portion of the premises.
fhe case was tried before Lord Denman at the Guildhall in
1842, and the jury had found for the plaintiff for 2201. The
Attorney-General had subsequently obtained a rule nisi for a
nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the
jury, or fur a new trial, on the ground that evidence had been
admitted as to the value of the machinery, which was inad-
missible.

Mr. Ears now showed cause against the rule, and contended
that it was aquestion 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
linseed ; anti it would be seen
from
proposaltwhheiehwasused fo
that the term oil-mills -mills hail been used to de-
signate the entirety of the premises, which were known in
Bristol as Hare's ; 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
r crushing
so effected his insurance. In a ease of that sort could it be
said the construction of the policy should be lea 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-morrovv.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jan. 12.
THE srEEP—coLLIsioN.

This was a cross-action between the owners of the bark
Thames, of Newcastle, and those of the Speed, a large timber-
vessel, belonging to New Brunswick, to recover the amount
of damage which each vessel had sustained in a collision that
had occurred in the River St. Lawrence, near Orleans Island,
about 10 miles from Quebec, on the sth of October, 1842.
The Thames was a vessel of 150 tons, laden with coals and
glass, bound for Quebec ; the Speed had a cargo of timber, and
was coming from the same place. Ott the part of the Thames,
it was contended that the collision was occasioned by the Speed's
helm being ported. instead of being starboardedi On the other
hand,: the owners of the Speed alleged that the Thames had
run into that vessel owing to her not having lulled to wind-
ward, as it was her duty to have done. The evidence was, as
usual in these eases, totally at variance upon all essential points.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. }laggard were for the
Thames, and Dr. Addams and Dr. Bayford for the Speed.
The Trinity Masters, by whom the Court was assisted,
were of opinion that the Thames was exonerated from blame,
which rested solely with the Speed.
Dr. LosniNcTorr pronounced for the damage sought to be
recovered by the owners of the Thames, and dismissed them
from the action brought against them by the owners of the
Speed in both cases, with their costs.
THE BROTIERS.—COLLISION.

This was another case of consolidated cross actions, in
which the owners of the bark Brilliant and the bark Brothers
sued each other for the damage caused to their respective ves-
sels by a collision which occurred in the Channel on the 2d
of October, 1843, the Brilliant being bound from London to
Glasgow, in ballast, and the Brothers from London to the
Sandwich Islands, with gunpowder and general merchandise.
A similar conflict of evidence was exhibited in this case as in
the last, except as to the wind, which (contrary to mot
examples) both parties admitted to be about N. W.
After hearing Dr. Addams and Dr. Robertson for the
Brilliant, and the Queen's Advocate and Dr. H. Nichsll for
the Brothers.
The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the Brothers being
on the starboard tack, it was her duty to keep the wind, which
she did, and that it was the duty of the Brilliant to bear away,
and that, by attempting to cross the bow of the other vessel
the latter vessel had occasioned the damage.
Dr. LUSHINGTON was of the same ..pinion, and dismissed
the owners of the Brothers from the actions of those of the
Brilliant, and pronounced for the damage claimed by the
owners of the Brothers in both cases, with costs.