Star.
London, England, 1826-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, Dsc. 10.
LEWIS IP WOOD AND LEE.
This was an action against the defendants, Sheriff's
Officers, for a trespass, in breakinz and entering the
dwelling house of the plaintiff, and taking therein her
goods and furniture.
The defendants pleaded Not Guilty ; secondly, that a
writ was issued in the Palace Court against the mother
of the plaintiff, at the suit of one Edward Castelle, and,
in order to execute a distress warrant, they, as the Of-
ficers to whom it was directed, entered the house, the
door being open, and took the goods
The plaintiff ( Miss Lewis), in her replication, denied that the
door was open.
It was proved, on the part of the plaintiff, that she
took the house in question, viz. No. 1, York-street,
Grosvenor-square, of the landlord, a Mr. Jackson, and
that there was no pretence for saying it belonged to
the mother.
It appealed that the plaintiff, who is a young woman
obtaining support by her ti erary talent, had procured
'everal sums of money by writing hovels. She was the
author-ss of a woi k called Ambition, and another called
Olinda. With money -o acquire), she purchased the
goods of her mother. wbi rece;ved the same Irons Mr.
Costelle. The mother, having been sued for the
amount. took the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act.
She had previously resided with her daughter, and at
the time the defendants committed the trespass, the
house was shut up. The defendants finding it impos-
sible to dictrain in the ordinary way, resorted to stra-
tagem. They employed a chimney sweeper to go to
the house of a neighbour, and state that another boy had
got confined in a chimney, so that it was necessary to
go through the neighbour's house to extricate him._
T, e person finding a boy in that situation, consented to
let him go up to the roof. The chimney sweeper then
made his way over the houses to the top of No. 1, and
finding the trap door open, went in ; he then opened the
street door, and let in ihe defendants, who distrained
the goods of the plaintiff.
A number of witnesses were called, to prove that the property
belorird to the plaintiff.
On the pats of the defendants, it teas contended that
tie goods were the property of the plaintiff's mother,
and that the Officers were ju • tified in making the distress.
The Loma CHIEF Jusries left the Jury to say, fist,
whether the defendants got into the house by breaking
and entering ? It they did, his Lordship said, the plain-
tiff was entitled to damages for the injury. The Jury
had also to consider, whether the transfer of the goods
was only a colourable transaction to keep the property?
The Jury retired at two o'clock, and returned at six o'clock,
with a verdict for the plaintiff. For the trespass, damages 40s.—
For seising the goods, M.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GLILDHALL, DEC. 19.
WELD V. NOSTRA AND ANOTHER. •
This was an action on a policy of insurance, brought
by the plaintiff against the defendants, who are the Di-
rectors of the Star Life Insurance Office, to recover
3,0001. the amount of a policy of insurance wh;ch had
been effected in August, 1890, in that office, on the life
of Lady Ilunlock. The defendants pleaded, first, the
general issue ; and secondly, that a misrepresentation
had been made on the part of the plaintiff with regard
to the age of Lady Hunlock, the assured.
Mr. Sergeant WILDK stated the case. The plaintiff
formerly carried on business in the City, but having
accumulated some property, he had now retired, and
was not no* engaged in any mercantile transactions.-
1 He thought proper, however, to employ Messrs. How-
ard and Gibbs, the well known money agents, to nego-
tiate annuities for him. These Gentlemen effected an
aunuity on the life of Lady Hunlock to the amount of
9,0001. It became necessary to insure the life of this
Lady, and a policy was granted by the Pelican Office
for the amount, of the plaintiff's interest: This policy,
as he should chew, was however transferred from this
respectable office, to the Star. This was most unfor-
tunate for the plaintiff, for had that never taken place,
he would now have been in possession of his money, and
would not have been compelled to have recourse to legal
proceedings in order to recover it. It would here be proper
to inform the Jury, that the Star Company had been
created by Howard and Gibbs for their own advantage,
and with a view of effecting policies on those annuities
which hid been neglected by those individuals. This
Company was conducted, and its business transacted,
in the house of the persons who had given it birth--
Messrs. Howard and Gibbs. These Gentlemen had
thought proper, without any authority from the plain-
tiff, but solely on their ottot responsibility, to transfer
the policy in question from the respectable office in
which it bad been effected, to the office of this Com-
pany of their own raising. The Learoei Sergeant then
called the attention of the Jury to the rates ot assurance,
which mere adopted by each of the offices, and adverted
to a sum of 941. which, when the transfer was made,
they had returned to the Star, which they still re-
tained, and for which they had given no acknowledg-
ment. He understood that the defence to the present
action would be, that there was a statement in exist-
ence relative to the age of Lady Hunlock, which they
said had been misrepresented, she being more advanced
in life than had been stated ; if that were the case, it had
arisen out of a mistake on the part of the plaintiff, and
was not a wilful error ; but even admitting that error
to exist, had not the Star, by retaining the 941. more
than repaid itself ? The transfer which had been men-
tioned to k place on the 10th of May, 1820, and no
mention was made about it until the November follow-
ing, when a negotiation was commenced to redeem the
annuity. Upon this the plaintiff sent his son to the office
to make the necessary arrangements. It was then, for
the first time, that the Company started an objection,
and told the son that they understood Lady Hunlock
was 69, instead of 63 years of age, and they called on
the plaintiff to pay up the additional premium which
would be required on her mole advanced age. from the
crate of the policy being effected: The plaintiff would
have had no objection to have pa'd the additional pre-
mium from the time of his commencement with the
Star ; but they insisted on a payment in full from the
time the policy was effected in the Pe:icatt. This ap-
peared to him most unreasonable, and he refused to
comply. Negotiations on the subject were, however,
persevered in until the death of Lady Hunlock, which
effectually stopped thtm. The detenoants, however,
now refused to pay a single farthing. This was a
statement of the whole facts of the case; he should call
witnesses who would prove its truth, and he trusted he
should entitle himse.f to the verdict of the Jury.
The policy, dated on the 10th of August, 1820, was
then put in and read by the associate. It contained a con-
dition, by which it appeared that if any ca .e of mitre-
presentation should occur with regard to the age of the
person assured, whether it were wilful or otherwise, the
policy should become void.'