The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before the LORD CHIRF
BARON 'and a Special Jury.)
CASTLEMAN V. CAPPER.
This part-heard case was resumed this morning. It was an
action of assumpsit, brought to recover the sum of 1,000/. on
a policy of insurance, effected on the brig Alarm with the
Marine Insurance Company, of which the defendant is deputy-
chairman. The defendant had pleaded, denying his liability,
except as to 500/., which he paid into Court.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Cleasby appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Jervis, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Wilde, for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff was a gentleman of property, residing in Dor •
setshire, and the defendant the deputy-chairman of the Ma-
rine Insurance Company. In August, 1842, the plaintiff;
being the mortgagee of a brig called the Alarm, effected a
policy of insurance with the defendant's company upon the
vessel for 1,0001., the sum he had advanced upon her, which
was to extend over and remain in force for a period of
twelve months. The Alarm was engaged at the time
in the coasting trade of South America, and continued
in the same trade till the subsequent June of 1843, when she
sailed on a voyage from Monte Video to Paraguay, a small
place lying between Monte Video and Rio, and in the course
of this voyage she encountered some very severe and bois-
terous weather. She was struck several times by the sea, and
once touched upon a bank on the coast, known as
the English Bank. On her return to Monte Video it was
found that she had received so many injuries as to render
her not sea-worthy, and past all repair. She was, therefore,
sold as a condemned vessel to a Spanish ship-breaker for
2001., and the plaintiff ultimately brought the present action
to recover the amount of insurance he had effected upon her.
The master of the Alarm was called to prove
the manner in which she bad received her injuries,
and one of her Majesty's Marine Surveyors, named
Hodges, spoke to the nature and extent of the
injuries. She was, he said, so much damaged, that it
would have cost more to repair her than she would after-
wards have been worth. Had she been in England the cost
of her repair would not have amounted to more than one-
quarter ; lout both labour and materials were cheaper here than
in South America. The carpenters of Monte Video received
double and sometirnes treble the wages of an English carpenter,
and one of the latter would do the work of four of the former.
Besides, the Monte Videan carpenters and artizans were quite
independent of their employers, and if the latter happened to
say an angry word to, or remonstrate with, them upon their
idle habits, they would eollect their tools and leave the work
they were upon undone.
Mr. JERVIS, for the defence, contended that the injuries of
the Alarm were not so great as to justify her condemnation,
sinoe the expense of her repairs might have been most extra-
vagant in Monte Video, but she might with safety have
been brought over to this country at a very moderate out-
lay, and then made equal to a new vessel at a trifling cost,
compared with what it would have been in South America.
The injuries, therefore, of the vessel must be taken in
the light of a partial loss, and not considered as being suffi-
cient to entitle the plaintiff to recover the same damages as
in the case where a total loss had ensued. The plaintiff had
been amply remunerated by the money paid into Court for
the partial loss, and he submitted that the verdict ought
to be for the defendant.
'Witnesses were called to substantiate this defence, after
which Mr. CROWDER replied, and
The LORD Crum, tianort summed up, explaining that a con-
structive loss did not mean that the vessel was totally de-
stroyed, but that it had become utterly useless to the owner,
and leaving it for the jury to say whether a prudent man,
who was not insured at all, would have sold the vessel
for 1951, under the circumstances related by the two wit-
nesses for the plaintiff. In point of laW, a vessel could not
be condemned on speculation, or, as in this case, where the
actual damage had been guessed at, but not ascertained.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 18.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMEB.)
GEARY I'. LATTER.
The plaintiff in this action is an ironmonger, in Holies-
street, Clare-market, and the defendant, a surgeon, in the
Adelphi-terrace. The action was brought to recover the
sum of EV. Os. 6d. for goods sold and delivered.
The defendant pleaded that he never was indebted.
Mr. Cross, for the plaintiff, said that the delivery of the
goods was unquestionable, and the only defence which could
be anticipated was, whether the plaintiff, who carried on
business under the firm of Geary and Son, was in partner-
ship or not.
H. Fox examined—Was formerly foreman to Mr. Geary,
stn., deceased. Went in June or July last to do some trifling
jobs at defendant's house, when defendant desired him to
make him a pattern of some wire screens for his approval.
Witness caused one to be made, but it was not approved;
ovo others were made, neither of which pleased his taste, but
they were ultimately left with him. The chsrges were fair;
the master was entitled to charge one-third more on wages,
as well as profit on the material.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHARNOCK—Mrs. Geary had two
sons. 'Witness was consulted about their being taken into
partnership, and he objected that one son should be set be-
fOre the other, and the bills were made out " Geary and
Son." He always looked on Mr. Atlas Church (Mrs. Geary's
son) as master; he hired and paid the workmen and ser-
vants. There was a common cash-box between the two,
and each had a key. The bills produced were signed Geary
a:0 Co., and he kept the book.
'Mr. Atlas Church was called, and swore positively that he
was not a partner, but a servant, at 225. a-week, and that
there was no cash-box, as described.
CHARNOCK addressed the jury, and said it was apainful
cake. On either side one party or the other was guilty of
deliberate perjury, but the only one interested iu supporting
the action was the last witness. He called
A witness, who estimated the value of the work at 4/. 15s.
The SECONDARY lift the case to the jury whether there
had been a partnership. if so, the verdict must be for the
defendant ; if not, then the jury would estimate the value of
the goods. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5/.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
IV 01?Til ERN CIRCUIT.—York, Dee. 16.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
Thomas lons, otherwise called Illinter, was indicted
for having, on the 2d day of February, in the year 1843,
along with dicers others, at Goodmatiham, in the Ens,
Riding, feloniously assaulted Thomas Marshall, and
ettien from him six sovereigns and a watch, the said
Thiomas lons and the others present being armed with a
gun and other weapons.
Mr. Overend appeared to conduct the prosecution, and
Mrl. Blanchard and Mr. Farrar the defence.
Mr. OVEREND said that he must beg of the jury to
give this case their most attentive consideration, as it
wa one in which there had already been four men tried
lon he same charge, all of whom had bean convicted upon
it a d transported; and from what the jury would hear
from the principal witness he should now call, they would
perceive that, it' they had reason to believe that witness
to Lie speaking the truth, they must also conclude that
the Tour men so convicted were innocent of the charge
for :which they were now suffering. The evidence of
the witness alluded to, however, was of a kind to require
some corroboration, as he was, by his own admission,
an accomplice in the crime of which the prisoner was
accused. That witness, Francis Haythorn, was now in
gaol, and under sentence of transportation for a different
felony. The prosecutor, Mr. T. Marshall, was a farmer,
and lived at Market Weighton. In his house, at the
time of the robbery, there were only three persons, him-
self,,a man servant, and a female servant. The accom-
plice would now state circumstances similar to those de-
tailed on the trial in 1643, and it appeared reasonable
frorri that statement, and from the evidence which would
be given by a woman with whom he lodged at the time,
to conclude that the prosecutor, who had identified two
of the men transported, and the woman who had identi-
fied the other two men, were mistaken, and in fact that
it was a different party of persons who had committed
the deed in question.
Francis Haythorn stated, that he was now in confine-
ment' under sentence of transportation. On the 30th of
January, 1843, the witness and three other men, of the
names of Robinson, Batchelor, anal Thompson, went to
lodge with Jane olden, otherwise called Turner, at
Market Weighton. William Trainer and his'wife were
lodging there. Knew the prisoner, and had known him
long ; seen him hundreds of times. The prisoner came
to Mrs. Holden's on the 30th of January, 1843. He
lived . at Market Weighton, and on that day he
was playing at cards with the rest at Holden's. On
the Ist of February Luke Robinson, called "Blue Skin,"
went out along with the prisoner into the market. Wit-
ness has been a witness against " Blue Skin." He is
now transported. When the two came back to Holden's
the prisoner said they had seen a man in the market who
had got a quantity of money for some turnips. The
prisoner said the man lived about three miles off, and
that he had been upon a jury at the sessions, when he
(the prisoner) was once convicted of felony. The
prisoner and Robinson then agreed to rob that man, and
afterwards witness himself, Trainer, Thompson, and
Batchelor came into this agreement. They went that
night to the house of Mr Marshall, but they did not
commit the robbery then, he not being supposed to be at
horn:. He did not return to Holden's that night, as they
all went poaching, and stayed out till five o'clock the
next morning. On the following evening they set off,
the prisoner showing them the way to do the robbery.
They formed themselves into two parties, three in each,
and went on the road, the parties at some distance apart,
until the prisoner had to guide them across several fields
towards the house. On their way thither they came to
a sheepfold in a turnip-field, and cut off some line from 1
the Sheep-net. Robinson carried a short gun, and all

• wood, engraver to calico printers, Manchester, Jan. 9—J.
M. Pratt, wine merchant, Berners-street, Oxford-street,
Jan. 9—J. Middleton, hay and straw salesman,Aveley, Essex,
Jan. 9—H. Kimber, wine merchant, Water-lane, City, Jan. 9
—E. Barry, victualler, Bristol, Jan. 9—R. B. Clarke,
plumber and glazier, Gower-street North, St. Pancras, Jan. 9
—J. Wild, glazier, Bristol, Jan. 9—J. S. Williams, master
mariner, Clement's-lane, Lombard-street. Jan. 9.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
S. Turner, R. Gilbert, and W. Shackell, turpentine and tar
distillers, Orchard Tlace, Poplar (so far as regards NV.
Shackell—Mary Clegg and IL Clegg, grocers, Greetland,
Yorkshire—L. Alexander and L.Aarons, tobacconists, Strand
Volckman, W. Volckman, and C. Volckman, confec-
tioners, Bi•hopsgate-street Within—l. Fletcher, A. Forbes,
and T. Fletcher, booksellers, Southampton (so far as regards
T. Fletcher)—J. Buckley and J. Buckley, cotton dealers,
Manchester—J. H. Page and G. L. Page, printers, Queen-
street, Cheapside—D. Leake and T. Hall, vessel builders,
Bywater, Yorkshire—S. Greenwell, W. Cook, J. Gladstone,
R. Greenwell, and T. Richardson, coal owners, Castle Eden,
Durham (so far as regards R. Greenwell)—T. Cresswell, H.
Forrester, and T. Peters, glove manufacturers, Orange-street,
Bloomsbury-square--G. H. C. Sowell and J. Harris, grocers,
Framlingham, Suffolk—G. Milles, E. Zohrab, P. Zohrab, and
J. F. Pinel, gum faccula manufacturers, Tottenham—J. R.
Barrett and C. Condell, attorneys, Copthall-court, Throg-
morton-street—L. Bishop and E. Wright, coal dealers,
Kingston-upon-Hull—B. Crompton and J. Screeton, book-
binders, Kingston-upon-Hull—C. N. Farebrother and W. W.
Hewitt, surveying instrument makers, Church-street, Lam-
beth—W. H. Nelson and H. N. Gill. goldbeaters, Dover-
road, Newington—J. Taylor, W. Clifford, and H. S. Bright,
corn factors, Kingston-upon-Hull (so far as regards W.
Clifford).

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
John Bain, merchant, Glasgow, Dec. 25 and Jan. 15, at
one, at the King's Arms Inn, Glasgow.
Archibald Donaldson, tailor, Peebles, Dec. 25 and Jan. 16,
at twelve, at the chambers of W. Blackwood, Peebles.
David Learmonth, William Learmonth, and James Lear-
month, farmers, Ronghmute, Dec. 26 and Jan. 19, at twelve,
at the chambers of Messrs. Russell and Aitken, Falkirk.
John Stevenson, William Stevenson, James Stevenson, jun.,
and H. Stevenson, power-loom manufacturers, Knows, Ren-
frewshire, Dec. 26 and Jan. 16, at one, at the house of J.
Kennedy Beith.