Star.
London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

WADDINGTON.

His LORDSHIP was again attempting to retire, when
Waddington rose, and begged to be heard.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—You wish to move for
a new trial ; we will hear you another day.
Waddington.—l understood this was the last day
on which I could move.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.—No; give in the name
of the case to the officer, and we will hear you ano-
ther ddy. We will not prevent you from making
your motion.
Waddington then spoke to the officer, and the
Judges retired without any further interruption.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 8.
USURIOUS WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.
Mr. Serjeant LENS applied to the Court for a Rule
to have a warrant of attorney set aside, and the exe-
cution entered upon it revoked, on the ground of usu-
rious extortion. The facts were these :-.--The party'
granting the warrant of. attorney had applied to a
person for a loan of- money, and was told by him,
that as he had a large family, he could not lend his
money without good interest, and he then received
the warrant of attorney in question from the plain-
tiff for a sum of 5001. although he advanced for that
security no greater sum than 4001.—Rule granted.

PALMER V. ANOTHER.-INSURANCE CASE.

Mr. Serjeant Bosatwurr moved for a Rule to set
aside the verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this
cause at the last Sittings in Guildhall, upon a point
reserved, which affected the admissibility of particu-
lar evidence. The real question in the cause was
this—Where a total loss of ship and cargo had oc-
curred, was the assured, upon an open policy on
freight, entitled to recover for the gross freight, with-
out any deduction for those charges to which the
ship would have been necessarily subject had she
duly arrived in port ? or, whether he was only to re-
cover for the net freight ? Defendant contended for
the latter, while the plaintiff maintained the former,
and obtained a verdict subject to reduction in that
Court. The case was defided upon admissions. It was
admitted that there was a total loss, and that the
gross freight was 0068, clearly receivable had the
ship arrived ; but then there would be, in that case,
payable fur the ship (the Juliana) three hundred
pounds seamen's wages beyond what had been
actually paid in the case ; pilotage £4O ; light dues
£2O. 1 ls. 6d. tonnage dues,. 492. I 7s. 6d. dock dues,
£246. making a total of nearly £7OO. Why, then,
should not that sum be deducted from the gross
freight of £3068 ? Evidence was admitted to prove
that the practice at Lloyd's• Was, in an open policy on
freight, to make up the gerieral average without con-
sidering these contir?ent charges upon the arrival of
the ship ; but he (the Learned Serjeant) contended,
that such evidence of usage was inadmissible—for it
would clearly contravene the law of tht land. A po-
licy of insurance was by law a contract to indemnify
the assured for a particular loss, not to exceed a loss
and give him, as in this case, £7OO beyond what his
loss really appeared. If that construction were per-
mitted, a great inducement for the loss of ships
would be held out : this never could be the meaning
of the law. It was true that all the witnesses con-
curred in stating the rare occurrence of an open policy
upon freight : still justice required that the deduc-
tion of expenditure contingent upon the arrival of the
ship should be made frog► the claim of freightage.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that the uniform
evidence of experienced members at Lloyd's for the
plaintiff was, that such a policy was uncommon, but
that they never knew of inch a deduction as that con-
tended for in the case—they .believed the average to
have been properly taken. There were, on the otter
side, witnessesequally experienced, who,could merely
*say that they had no recollection of this particular
form of policy, and were them efure unable to I:peak of

•
the usage in such a case. There was only, therefore,
on the Part. of The usage the former evidence, an
that w,as decidedly in favour of the plaintiff There
was no reason. for supposing the usage to be cone
trary to law..
Mr. Justice PARE was of opinion that the dridente
respecting the usage had been properly sfdmitted for
the plaintiff, and it was certainly open 'to the de•
fendant to have rebutted. that evidence, if it were
practicable to do so.
Mr. Justice BURROVON concurred with the other
Judges, and the Rule was refused.
BA RRERIL PIGKWORTH. •
Mr. Serjeant Vatkinkr stated the plaintiff's cases
The action, he said, was brought to recover compen•
cation in damages for an unprovoked and violent as.
sank committed by the defendant, who was a young
athletiecoal-merchant, on'the plaintiff, who was an
elderly Gentleman of high respectability, who, during
the war, had been the confidential Secretary and
chosen companion in arms of the Wrist' ions Sir Sid,
ney Smith. On the evening of the 27th of August
last year, this Gentleman, accompanied by a fiienrl
of his (the Rev. Mr. Radford) went into Sawyer's
Rooms, in St. Martin's-lane, to take some oysters, and
had not been long in the room, when they heard a
person in an adjoining box repeating their conversa-
tion aloud. Mr. Radford observed there was some
low person in the room repeating what they said ;
the plaintiff replied, it was better to take no notice of
him. The defendant immediately came out of his box,
and asked whether they meant him ? 11)0 plaintiff
replied they could not mean him, as they did not
know he was in the room, nor had they the honour
of knowing who he was. The defendant said that
would not satisfy hin2, and the plaintiff replied, if
he wished for further explanation, and would call
on him in the morning, he should be happy to give
it. The defendant last:int:ly struck him violently,
and not content with striking him with his fist, threw
a decanter at him, by which his hand was so much
•, cut, that he had lost the use of his thumb.
The plaintiff's case was proved exactly as stale,',
by tke Rev. Mr. ltadford, and by Mc. Willis, the
surgeon who attended him..
Serjeant PEAKE addressed the Jury for the dc;crid-
ant, and called the landlord of the house and the
waiter, neither of whom saw the origin of the quar-
rel, but did not calla female who was in the box
with the defendant from the beginning.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH, in charging she Jury,ob-
served, that the defendant, in not calling the female
witness, shewed that she could not contradict the
plaintiff's witness..
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages £7O.

NEW6ATE *No LE. 1 DEN HA LL MAUI( ETS, Nt.v. 8.
(By the (Locase.)
Beef Is 41 to ‘2% 8J 1 Veal oi Od to 4s Cd
Mutton.. ls 8d to 2s 44 I Pork "s Od to 3s tid
Lamb 2s Od to Zs 01 .

PRLCES or HAY •rzu STRAW YESTERDAY.
ST. J A ES S. lIITWA:M
Hay 31 is Gd to 41 4c Od I Hay... 31 13s to 41 4s 011
Straw 11 5: 6d to 11 16s Od I Straw 11 lOs to 11 16i Od
Clover 3110* ()d to 41 41 od Clover :51 104 to -11 104 la

PRICE 0

HOPS.

NeW ►OCKRTS.
I Kent
Sussex 2l Os to 21 18s
F..ssex
Farnham 6l Os to 71 7s