The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-20 00:00:00

LAVVINTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

WESTMEATH V. V.'ESTMEATH,

Sir CHAS. WETHERELL stated that this petition was
ordered to come on upon the question of costs. The pe-
tition was heard before his Lordship, when Master of the
Rolls, and the object.of it was to have a new trustee ap-
pointed in the room of Lord Talbot. The Marquis of
Salisbury had declined to pay Lady Westmeath 500/.
a-year pin-money, the interest of a stun to which the in-
fant daughter of. Lord and Lady Westmeath will be en-
titled at the death of the Marquis .of Westmeath. Lord
Talbot had declined to act, and therefore Lady Westmeath
felt under the necessity of instituting a suit against Lords
Talbot, Nugent, and Salisbury, for the appointment of a
new trustee, and the payment of the arrears oilier pin-
money. Before the suit came on to a bearing, Lord Max-
well consented to become the trustee in the room of Lord
Talbot, which, being assented to by all parties, the suit
dropped, and the only question that remained in dispute
was upon the costs. Sir Chas. Wetherell now submitted
it was the universal practice that the costs of the suit, so far
as it went, should come out of the fund.

SuonEN contended that he knew the practice as
well as any man in Court, and he asserted that Lady W.
had no right to the costs out of the fund. The suit had
not been operative, the trustee had not been appointed in
consequence of the suit, nor had her Ladyship taken the
proper means to get a trustee at first. He was not in-
structed to oppose the costs being paid out of the fund, hut
his clients felt it their duty to see that the funds were not
paid away unnecessarily.

Sir Crins. WETHERELL considered the arbitrary spirit
shown on this occasion, by those who instructed Mr. Sug-
den, to he pretty much allied to the feeling of monopoly on
the part of Mr. S. himself, as to the knowledge of the
Court. The practice, however, as laid down by Mr. S.
was • perfectly new •to him, as well as to several of his
Learned Friends around him ; and he would 'just take the
liberty of saying he knew the practice of the Court as well
as Mr. Sugden.

His LORDSHIP said he would read the affidavits. He
understood the question to be, whether the suit bad been
properly instituted; and whether the Court could order the
costs to be paid out of the fund, if the suit had been pro-
perly brought.

• NEROT V. BtTRNAND.
This part-heard appeal was resumed in argument.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
CAPTURE OF PALEMBANG.

Dr. LUMINGTON stated the nature of the circumstances
under which this enterprise was brought under the consi-
deration of the Coiirt. In the year 1811 the English were
in possession of the Island of Java, and at that period the
reigning Sultan of Palembang entered into a plot against
.the Dutch settlement established at Palembang, which was
then under the protection of the East India Company. In
consequence of ttte treacherous conduct displayed by the
Sultan, an expedition was undertaken against Palembang,
the land forces being under the command of General Gil-
lespie, and the naval force under the orders of Capt. Bowen.
The result of this armament was, that the Sultan was
completely subdued, and finally deposed, and his brother
made Sultan in his stead. A considerable quantity ofarnis
and stores were captured in this expedition, part of which
were sold for 46,000 dollars, which Were divided amongst
the captors ; but, as the new Sultan was left in a very em-
barrassed state, in consequence of the escape of his prede-
cessor with the whole of the treasure, it was agreed that a
considerable part of the property captured should be va-
lued, and that the new Sultan.should give a bond for the
amount.. The property so valued amounted to 200,000
dollars, or abOnt 30,0001. sterling, for which a bond was
given by the Sultan to the East • India Company.
Subsequently, upon a settlement of accounts be-
tween the British Government and the East India
Company, Which comprehended a variety of trans-
actions, the Government undertook to meet all claims
against the East India Company, arising out of the Palem-
bang expedition. In the present case, therefore, the de-
fendants were really the Government, though nominally
the East India Company, and on the part of the captors it
Was now submitted that the 'East India Company, upon
entering into a treaty with the Sultan of Palembang, had
made themselves responsible to the captors for the amount
at which the booty. 'was valued. There was confessedly a
payment of 16,000 dollars, made by the Sultan to the East
India Company, and it was insisted on the part of the cap-
tors, that there were further payments of five thousand dol-
lars and twenty-three thousand dollars, made, in discharge
of the bond. The captors admitted the receipt of fifty-
five thousand dollars, which is to be subtracted from the
original claim 01200,000 dollars.

Dr. DODSON followed Dr. LUSNINGTON at the same side.
The KING'S AIIiDCATF. (with whom was Dr. .lENNER)
said that the Covernment was only anxious that the facts
of the case should he brought fairly before the Court. He
contended, however, that die captors made themselves the
private creditors of the Sultan, and that the East India
Company were in no degree responsible for any transactions
between the captors and the Sultan. The latter had agreed
to pay the East India Company one half of the treasure
taken away by the Ex-Sultan, if it could be recovered;
and the sums stated to have been received by the
East India Company were in liquidation of that claim,
and not in liquidation of the bond ; with the exception
of the sum of 10,000 dollars, which, as stated by Dr.
Lushiugton, was admitted to have been received by the
East India Company in payment of the bond given by
the Sultan to the captors.
'Dr. JENNEII having been heard at the same side, and
Dr. LUSIIINGTON in reply, the case now stands for the
consideration of the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
LAW PROMOTION.
At the opening of the Court this morning, Mr. CHARLES
FREDERICK WILLIAms appeared behind the bar in silk
robes, but having received the usual invitation from Lord
Tenterden, he took his seat within the bar in the cus-
tomary manner.

DOBSON V. SOTHEBY AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
merchant in Leadenhall-street, to recover from the de-
fendants, who were directors of the Beacon Fire Insurance
Company, the sum of 3001. on a policy of insurance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The plain-
tiff had a country residence at Enfield, in Middlesex, where
in 1826 be commenced building a barn. In December,
before the barn was quite completed, there being some tar-
ring and painting remaining to be done, the plaintiff ap-
plied at the Beacon office, and got the building insured at
300/. While the tarring operation was going on, it wasfound
necessary to keep a fire in the barn, for the purpose of
boiling the tar, and unfortunately on the 10th of January,
the tar-kettle'was carelessly left on the fire by the plaintiff's
servant, till it boiled over, and the tar caught fire, which
communicated to the rest of the building, in consequence
of which the whole premises was entirely consumed. The
Beacon Company had since been dissolverl, and transferred
all their policies to other Insurance Offices.
_ _ _

• Mr. Golding, who was Secretary to the Beacon Company,
proved the signature of the defendants to the policy, which
'was dated the 28th December, commencing from the 25th.
David Hargrave, the carpenter who built the barn, said
it was finished on the Bth of January, and
that it was
worth 3501.
Cross-examined by Mr F Por.LocK.—The barn con-
sisted of three divisions,tlia'er(*.e"tutre one contained some wood
when the premises were burnt.
Henry
was too late Young had sent an engine to quench the fire, but
. ,
Mr. FRED. POLLOCK' addressed the • for the de-
metrolhave the barn in
fondant. When the plaintiff appiiiile PuT
to
be2jaas a plain tiled
questionsinsured, he represented it
house, and did .not state that it was
tarred whereas
independent of the tarring, which was not
dallotted
adisclosed, the
premises were divided into three parts; one
for a cow, another for hay and corn, and the pthit:
saw-pit; all which Ise never mentioned. The insurancefora
was effected at Is. 6d. per cent, the lowest rate, but if
the premises had been fairly described by the defendant,
they could not be insured at less than 2s. 6d. There were,'
besides a fire • and a barrel of tar introduced into the
building in violation of the policy. Indeed, it would
appear, that the plaintiff had anticipated the conflagration,
because it was the 18th December that the fire was first
introduced into the house, and on the day following he ap_
plied at the office and got it insured. Under all these cir-
cumstances the Learned Counsel submitted, the plaintiff
was not entitled to a verdict.

James Goddard tari-ed the barn; the fire in which he
boiled the tar was first kept at'the outside of the build-
ing, but a few days before Christmas, the wind blow-
ing very high, the plaintiff, notwithstanding witness's
remonstrances, prevailed uponithim to remove the fire to
the inside.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having replied,

Lord TY.NrEItDEN, in summing up, said that the ques-
tion for the Jury was, whether the property was insured
on a fair description by the plaintiff. It appeared to him
that it was quite immaterial whether the house was used as
a barn, a cow-house, or a saw-pit. The policy did not
guard against any thing being introduced into the premises