Star.
London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OP CHANCERY, Just 23.
WILLZSLIT V. THE DUCE OF BEAUFORT.
Mr. SHADWELL put in three additional affi tavits oU
.the part of his clients in this cause ; and, in dOing
observed, he understood they would be found mater-ally
contradictory of the allegations contained in K.
Wellesley's last affidavit.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR adverted to the letter ap-
pended to the document in question; and expressed his
belief that it was only part of a communication from
the Duke of Wellington to Mr. Wellesley. The Ct.urt
wished to know what hid been done with ir.
Mr. SHASIWUL believed it was in the hands of Mr. Hart or hip
client.

The Logs Cualccectoa was desirous of getting the letter back
The Court should have it, as it constituted a part of the evidence.
The Somproa.OIINCILAL had not the letter in his possession, and
thought his Lordship had Mantel, returned it to Mr. Hart.
After ►ome time, tike letter was handed.up to the Iluch by 31r.
Sbadwell.

COURT 07 ZING'S fiIiNCA Jws t 3.
&tuatara. 9. THE ROYAL, EXCUAKOZ ASSURE:TB

COAMANY.
This was an action of covenant oa a policy of aysu
ranee against fire. Plea—Non infregit coaventionem
The trial of this cause c3mmenced yesterday a tertiouti
about two o'clock, was adjourned at seven, and rt-
newed this morning.
It appeared chat the plaintiff was a tallow-chandler,
at No. '2.5 Limbeth Marsh : his candle manufactory
being i.l Stangate Mews, in the parish cf Lambeth.
lire policy declared upon was for 1,0001. stock in trade
and utensils on the premises in Stangate Mews. In the
ei4ht of the 28. h January, 1825, a fire happened in the
plaintiff's factory, and he tent in an estimate of his loss,
to the defendants, amounting to 8401. The claim was
resisted on the ground of fraud, goods to that amount
not being, in fact, as was alleged, on the premises con-
sumed ; whereupon this action was brought. " very
considerable body of evidence was adduced, on the
part of the plaintiff making out a strong prima fade
case in his favour. _

For the defendants a great number-of witnesses were
called, to substantiate the ground on which the claim
was resisted. The principi witnesses. whose testimony
was relied upon, were, Thomas Robinson, a shopman,
its the service of the plaintiff; William Shaw, a foreman
in his factory; and Richard Wise, a tallow-chandler,
employed by the defendants to investigate the plaintiff's
claim. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appeared
that the plaintiff had commenced business in the pi e-
mises.in question, in February, 1824, and had entered
into an agreement to part with them early in Fcb.1825;
Ithat although he made a claim upon the office for can-
dles to the amount of 3001. and for tallow to the amount
of 1731. supposed to have been destroyed by the fire,
the whole amount of his loss, in respect of these articles,
could not have exceeded 1201. or 1301. It further ap-
peared, that he had endeavoured to tamper with his
foreman, and propose 3 to him to go traUcks for all
claims which he should establish against the Office
above 5001. if he would swear to an estimate which be
had given him to copy; and offered to give a score
(which the witness understood to be 201.) to the tallow-
chandler employed by the Office to investigate the
claim, on condition that he would send him in bills of
parcels, to make up the apparent deficiency in the ac-
count of goods lost, as sent into the Office. There
were other circumstances of suspicion attached to the
transaction.

Finding the evidence for the defendants two strong to be com-
bated with, Mr. Guam signified that be must yield to its effect,
and therefore submitted to be nonsuited.