Star.
London, England, 1826-12-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, Dec. is.
/1171ITOX V. COMM
This was an action to recover 80 guineas. for the al-
leged use and Occupation. of a house hired by the
defendant, Mr. Lumley Saville.
-The question was, whether the state of the houpe was such as to
justify Mr. Saville in refusing to occupy it?
It appeared that Mr. Saville, who is a Gentleman of
fortune, wrote to his tailor in London to look out for a
furnished house for the reception of himself and family,
near Park lane. In his letter he described the house he
wanted, and said he would have no house where there
were bugs or smotey. chimneys. An application was
made to Mrs. MArih, house agent, who wrote a letter,
off ring a{hou.se furniihed* ip Gloucester Place, to Mr.
Saville, at the.ireekly rent of '2O guineas: On ttie kith.
of. June last the defendant t00..k loasesiiion, but finding'
ihe furniture dirty, refused to occupy the house. The
nest day the key was returned to Mrs. Mardi, the
plaintiff's agent, and .at the end of the taking for four
weets an actum.!itris•brought.
The 1403/ID 011E7 Ammo& left the Jury to decide,
whether the defendant found the house in such a con-
dition that liewas justified its not occupying it? If they
thought it was not in a proper state for a Gentleman's
family to inhabit, they ought to find a verdict for the
defendant.— The Jury found a 'vett for defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dir. 16.
commas /MO ANOTISER V. LAMM BEAUMONT aND MITI&
Tills was an action on a policy of insurance granted
by the County Fire Office, of which the defendants are
Directors, In August last. the plaintiffs were furriers
in Sarah Place, Old.street Road. Their house was de-
stroyed by fiie about six weeks after it was insured.—
The damages were laid at 9001.
Mr. Sergeant VAvonatt stated the case. If the de-
fendants dared to insinuate that his clients bad set their
house on fire, he challenged and provoked them to any
inquiry they might be pleased
.to institute. But he un-
derstood the claim of the plaintiffs would be met by
an endless number of legal objections. It appeared
that, according to the conditions of the policy, the
plaintiffs had offered to refer their claims to arbitration,
but that offer was declined, as they would not allow the
whole matter in dispute to go before the referee, but
only the question of the amount of the compensation
they should receive. The certificase of the plaintiffs
neighbours, also required by the conditions of the policy,
was put in evidence, and several of those who had
signed it were examined, to prove its statements true.
They admitted, however, that they knew nothing them-
selves of the plaintiff's affairs, except what the plaintiffs
had told them.
A a itness, named Raphael, proved that Isff: Barber'
Beaumont had admitted, since the fire, that there was
no objection to fulfil the policy.—On cross-examination
he said he was brother in law to the plaintiff Goldstone.'
In Novembers 1824, he was living With his fathet-in-
law, in Pi inces.square, when a fire happened there. In
December, 1825, his father in law had another fire,
when living in Bedford-street, Commercial Road. In
Oct. 1825. witness had a fire himself—he was insured.
The watchman, and two other witaesses, stated the circumstances
attending the fire. The two plaintiffs made their escape iu a state
of nudity.

A work-woman, named Harriet Faulkner, give evidence at
seine length, to prove the plaintiffs possessed a largo stock of goods.
Mrs. Tubas, a fur merchant, wholesale and retail, of
East Smithfield, prOdticed two invoices of goods sent
to the plaintiff's ; but in cross-examination she admitted
they had been written afresh since the fire, at the request
of the plaintiffs. She copied them from her memoran-
dum book. She was sent by the Lord Chief Justice to
bring that boob into Court; when she produced it, it
was manifest that the entry had been recently made.—
I After a little :frevarication, she acknowledged that it
had been made since the fire.

Phineas Isaacs, a seal skin manufacturer, was called
to prove his extensive dealings with the plaintiffs. He
had known one of them (Marks) for two years. He
had supplied him when he lived in Nightingale-lane.
He knew nothing of any fire.

Cross-examined.-:Did you never hear he had $ fire there ?—I
have heard so, but I did not see k.—(A laugh.)
How did you hear it ?—I heard it from him. He told me he
was burnt out.—(A laugh.)
Don't you know, also, that Goldstone's father was burnt out
twice ? No, indeed. a.
But you have beard that Marks wits?—/ am not sure of it. I
have heard some people say he had a fire.
Did you not say be had told you himself ?—I don't recollect
whether I did or did not.
The Loan Cumr Joirtcs.—You said, this very moment, that he'
told you be had been burnt out.
Witness.—My dear Sir, I never said so. I think, if I did, I
was mistaken.
The Loan Curer JUSTICE manifested strong indignation, and the
witness withdrew.

Larcie Goldstone, a brother of the plaintiff, gave
evidence of the propetty in his brother's possession. He
was cross•esamined at great length as to the fires that
had happened in his family. He admitted that several
" small accidents" had happened at different times, but
he denied that his father was known by the name of
IGuy Fawkes._

The plaintiffs ease was dosed at half-past five • and as Mr.
Sergeant Wn.oa stated for the defence that he should evidence,
the trial was adjourned till Monday morning.
Yesterday, Mr. Sergeant WILDE for the defendants,'
made some remarks upon the propriety of submitting
such casts as this to arbitration, which, in this instancc,
had been refaced. He should clearly prove that the
defendants were entitled to a verdict.

The Rev. Robert Crosby, Curate of the parish of Shoreditch, in
which these premises were situate, and who had signed the certifi-
cate, was called by the Lord Chief Justice, who asked him whether
that signature was his handwriting?
Mr. Crosby r: plied it was. lir stated that he did not of his own
knowledge, know of the circumstances, but seeing the names of
sake of hi:parishioners, whom he knew, he signed this, as he does
hundreds, professes.
The Lou) Cuter James was exceedingly sorry that a Gentle-

man of Mr. Crosby's undoubted respectability shikuld have acted
so extremely Injudicious.
Mr. CROCIT begged to say, that In his immense parish, with the
numerous documents of this sort he had to sign, it was morally im-
possible personally to ascertain the truth of all—be would be more
cautious in future.

James Peacock, a watchman, was passing the house
when the flames broke out. He broke open the shop
door, but the flames were too :strong to permit him
to enter. The fire was then confined to the middle of
the shop; nothing was removed from the precnises.
Several times since•the fire, the plaintiffs have met him

(in company with a person who represented himself as
an attorney) on his beat, Ai also came to his watchbox,
ond pressed him to drink, and told him if he would not
'peak they would make it worth his while.
John Leary, another watchman, was one of the first who arriv.ed
at the fire ; he plainly saw the shelves, upon which there were
neither boxes nor any thing else.
John Terry, a fireman of the County Fire Office, at.
tended -on the morning in question:: . After the ruins
were cleated, he searched the place; he saw no remains
of skins, or any other goods ; the boards in the middle
of the stop were consumed, but those on the sides were
scarcely scorched. His opinion was Crunded upon nine-
tren years experience—they had the greatest part of the
property that was then on the premises in C.,urt, which
he produced. They were the remain of six caps,
six tippets, and 600 old hat brims. It was impossible
for so many as 800 or 900 skins, to haste been on the
prenii-es, as they always burned to a black substance,
which they must have found. The walls were scorched
a little.

By the Loan Cum Justice—Had there been shelve. with caps
upon them, there must have been found the remains of them, even
had they been consumed, which was by no means certain.
Mrs. Good, of St. Agnes Circus, Old-street-road, just
opposite the plaintiff's house, saw the fire from the be.
ginning to end. Could see into the house when the blinds
,were up; but she never could see any stock—nothing
but a sort of a counter, at which a young woman occa-
sionally sat at York. She never saw any other property.
George Wright, another fireman, had had several
conversations with the plaintiffs, who told him that the
most valuable part of the property, sable skins, was
deposited in a cupboard on the left hand side of the
shop ; he dug and searched for them, but found the
remains of but very few, perhaps five or sir—had there
been many he must have found them, and likewise
known it by the smell that always remains.
Vass-examined by Sergeant TADDY.—Witness does not know
sable from &her skins; but the remains of all the skins found
were in the bag produced.
William Graham went there about eleven o'clock the
following morning, and gave directions to the firemen—
the things produced were carefully collected, and were
all, excepting thepld hat brims, the same which were
found. Witness found part of a Venetian blued, under
the grate in the back room, but that was not burnt—
which it must have been, had there been a fire in the
grate that night.
Elisabeth Mainwaring, worked for the plaintiff in
Sarah-place. She went there on the Ist of June; never
recollects but on one occasion when goods were brought,
and that was by Leveini Goldstone. She believes the
muff boxes on the shelves were ail empty; should think
the stock altogether not worth more than 1001. or Mi.
She was newer up stairs;
.she sew a cap she had left
unfinished on the night before the fire the next morning
at Raphael's haute in Pentonville. All the silk they
used was old gowns fur lining caps. Harriet Faulkner,
a fellow workwoman, told her that Marks had been
talking to her an the day before the fire, about a woruaft
who had V. for speaking about goods burnt at a fire.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN then addressed the airry for
the plaintiffs. He keenly felt the disadvantages under
which he was placed ; had he adopted the suggestion
of his Lordship, he felt that he should be sacrificing his
duty to his client. The Learned Sergeant spoke at
very considerable length. • •
The Loan Cuter Jusisca summed up. The question fir the
Jury was not whether these parties were guilty of arson, but whe-
ther this policy was vitiated by fraud ? -
The Jury retired, and after an absence of ball an hour, returned
with a verdict for the defendants.
The Loan Cour Jusrsas said it was a very proper verdict.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
_ &MIL V. SOVILEI4

Tbis liras an action, brought by the plaintiff, to re-
cover damages for breach of promise of marriage, on
the part of the defendant.

Se;geant :Wit.na stated the cue on behalf of the plAntilf, and
proceeded to can the following witnesses
Mts. Maria Daniel (an Italian Lady, assisted by an
interpreter)examined by Sergeant WILDIL—Is mother
to the plaintiff in this action ; her husband is au Eng.
lishman, connected with the Commissariat Department
of the English.army ; knew Captain Bowles in Italy;
he visited at their house at Pisa in the year 1825; he
was introduced to the family by Mr. Mataxa, law stu-
dent. at Pisa; Captain Bowles visited Italy for the benefit
of his health ; 'Mr. Mataxa told Mr.' Daniel, that "he
had the pleasure of introducing to them his English
friend, Captain Bowles, a Gentleman of high honour"'
as such he was received; the family,. consisted of five
daughters, the plaintiff being the eldest, her name was
Charlotte Augusta; she was eigluqn years and four
months old ; Captain Bowles told his friend Mataxa
that he was in love with my daughter ; he used to fre-
quent the house daily after being introduced; he spoke
to me iu five or six days' after, when, he said, he was
verymuch in love with my daughter Charlotte Augusta,
and desired to marry her; he said the same to my
daughter, who referred him to her father and mother
for their consent; I said he had better,speik to Mr. D.
as he was an English officer himself, and of coprse,
Captain B. could better explain the nature of his pro-
perty, connections, icc. to Mr. D. than to me. He ;sur-
mised to do so; he represented himself
.as being thirty.
five years of age; I once asked him if h, hsd ever been
married ? and he answered, " No, never." I communi-
cated this conversation to my husband. In the month of
March Captain Bowles renewed his overtures for my
daughter's hand ; she was sitting beside him at the
time, and did not object to his proposals. He said, he
hoped Mr. D. would offer no opposition to their union.
I asked him, did he wish any time fixed for the mar-
riage?. His reply was, that he wished to deter doing so
until_ he bad satisfied us.ai to his property, but he said
that from that time he should consider himself as my
son, the destined husband of Charlotte Augusta. This
pledge he deemed enough, as he was a man honour ;
I replied that I did not entertain any doubt of his ho-
nourable intentions. I then told him, that:as my daugh-
ter Was
.a Roman Catholic, I should like to have her
married according to the rites of that Church. He said
that he had no objection. .He continued his visits until
the April following. The connexion took place in the
interval. My daughter was confined in March, 1826.
She left her paternal home on the 30th of April, 1825.
In the September of this year. she was found at Ken-
sington, in lodgings
.prpvided fora her by Captain
Bowles: Before he visited its at Pisa, I lost an only