The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-11 00:00:00

I LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

NISI PRIUS-TUESDAY, APRIL 4,
(BEFORE BARON' PLATT.)

The case of Evans v. the Royal Insurance Company was
resumed. The facts of this case, which we gave last week,
may be briefly restated. The plaintiff was in business in
Mill-street, Liverpool, as a.draper, and in November his
shop was almost entirely destroyed by fire. He had been
insured with the Royal Insurance Company, and under
that insurance he claimed to be paid £3,350. The claim
was resisted on the part of the Insurance. Company,
and hence the present action. Jonathan Leigh, a
wholesale clothier, who, from the 20th October to the
time of the fire, did business with Mr. Evans to the
extent of £404 19s. 6d., said that, after the fire,
Mr. Evans had called upon him to obtain the original
invoices, and that these were subsequently made out
anew, at Evans's request, as amounting to £1,044, in
order, as the plaintiff said, to make them more satisfactory
to the Insurance Company.—Thomas Wilson, who lived
next door to Mr. Evans, described the removal, in a car, of
paper boxes, about 12 o'clock on the Monday night pre-
vious to the fire. They appeared to be such boxes as silk
goods were kept in. He had seen goods removed before
in this way, and once before at night.—Thomas Kilsie, an
inspector of police, after describing the fire, which was
extinguished about half-past five o'clock in the morning,
said he went to plaintiff and asked him the amount of
property in the shop. Plaintiff replied between £4,000
and £5,000, consisting of drapery goods, and such like.—
John Tallis, a fire-policeman, after describing the fire, said
he found a hole in the floor, in the middle of the shop,
which he could not account for. He saw nothing like
burnt bank notes. Captain James Weir, of the salvage
corps, made a similar statement as to the bank notes.—
Mr. Hill addressed the jury for the plaintiff.—His Lord-
ship, in summing up, observed that the benefits derived
by society from insurance offices were so great that it was
proper they should be protected by all legal means in their
power. It was most important they should not be made
the victims of fraudulent claims ; on the other hand, the
company should be equally liberal to parties who, in cala-
mities of that description, were seldom able to give infor-
mation as to its value. There could not then be any
question as to whether the plaintiff fired his house or not,
for, if the company believed it, it should have been placed
on the record ; hut, if the office thought the plaintiff had
done so, would it not have felt it its duty to come forward
and prosecute him for the act P Referring to theevidence,
his lordship said, if the jury was satisfied that the plaintiff
had grossly exaggerated his loss, it was difficult forhuman
charity to think that such exaggeration was not intended
to be a fraud. The defendants, on their part, were bound
to make out the case of fraud to secure a verdict. His
lordship, in conclusion, left it to the jury to say whether a
fraud had been committed by the plaintiff q an inten-
tionas exaggerated claim.—The jury then retired ; and,
after an absence of about two hours, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £2,478 Is. 3d.
Morrison v. Lancaster, an action to recover £2OO for the
breach of a contract to purchase.ale, between the plaintiff,.
a brewer, at Bootle, and the defendant, a licensed victualler,.
in Liverpool, was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL STH'.

EXPIRY OF TENANCY.—HARD,REAVES V: WALLWOI
AND OTHERS:—This was an actionto recover a sum of £lB5,
being the half:year's rent of mill premises, occupied by
the defendants at Chorley, from May, 1850, to November,
1853. The plaintiff had, a short time• prior to May last,
become owner of the property, and' in November,. 1852;
the defendants gave a notice to Messrs. Ainsworth,
Hollingshead, and, Kaye, attorneys for•the plaintiff; inti--
mating that, at May, 1853, they meant to• quit the.pre,
anises. An acknowledgment, by the' attorneys, of the
receipt of the notice sent was given to the defendants.
Subsequently it was 'said to have been discovered that the
holding was for a November, and not a May termination;
and they, consequently, wrote to the defendants, inti-
mating this fact, and refusing to allow the termination of
the holding. Verdict for the defendants.

ACTION-FOR EJECTMENT.—AITKINAND ANOTHER. V.
BARKER AND ANOTHER—In this case Thomas Aitkin and
John Aitkin sought to eject John Barker and Fletcher
from two cottages, situated at Tottington, higher end..
The cottages had been built by the father of the.defen-
dant, in 1823-4, and constituted two of a parcel of five.
cottages. The defendant was put into possession of one of
the cottages by his father about the year 1830, From.
1843-4 the defendant managed his father's business,
letting the houses, drawing the rents of the other cottages
for his father, and paying-no rent for the one he occupied..
In 1847 the elder Barker died, without making any will;
and his eldest son, William Barker, took out letters of
administration to his father's property. Under these
letters of administration William Barker ordered • his
brother John to quit the cottage that the whole might be
sold for the general benefit of the family. In course of
the evidence it appeared that-considerable misunderstand—
ing had arisen between the• brothers Barker afterlithe •
death of their father, a considerable portion of which,.
involving pecuniary disputes; had been submitted to arbi-
tration. Verdict for the plaintiff,
ASSAULT.—BOUSICILL AND WIFE v. HAIOH.—This
case was an assault of a very gross and aggravated nature,
on Mrs. Bouskill. It appeared that some time in! the
month of March, 1853, Mr. Bouskill became tenant of a
beerhouse belonging to the defendant, in Leeds-street,
Liverpool, he (the defendant) carrying on business as a
brewer at Everton, the plaintiffs paying a deposit of £2O,
to be repaid on their leaving the premises. The plaintiffs
not finding the business answer their expectations, in
August gave notice to quit in October. On the 24th of
August a distress was put into the house for rent ; at that
time no business could be carried on, as the defendant
refused to supply any more ale to the plaintiffs, who had
been under contract to take all their ale from him. In
the middle of September another distress was put in for a
forehand rent, and on the 19thof that month the defendant
himself went to the premises for the purpose of expelling
the plaintiff and his family. Mrs. Bouskill, it appeared,
went into an upper room, into which the defendant also
went; here some conversation took place between the
defendant and Mrs. Bouskill, in the course of which the•
latter said she would not leave the premises until some.
settlement was made, as she: believed some of the money
originally deposited ought to be returned. On this the
defendant tucked up his sleeves and said he would make
her leave. He then laid hold of her, and attempted to .
expel her from the room.: This was the assault complained
of.—After the case had proceeded so far, Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins, on the part of the defendant, agreed to withdraw
any further defence, anda verdict of £2O damages was
taken by consent.
BREACH OF CONTRACT'.—SALISBURY v. EDWARDS.—
This was an action in which the plaintiff, a bleacher, at
Burnley, sought to recover £153 10s. damages for a breach
of contract entered into for a certain quantity of flour
with the defendant, . who is a corn-dealer in Liverpool.
After the examination of several witnesses, a compromise
was effected, and a verdict for £BO was recorded.
SALVAGE.—STRONG;JcND ANOTHER v. MALCOIatION.—
In this action the . plaintiffs, Messrs. John and William
Strong, proprietors of the Victoryand Gleaner, steam-
tugs, sought to recover for salvage and for service ren-
dered in saving the screw steam-ship Kangaroo, belonging,
to the defendants, Messrs. Malcolmson, (the Waterford
Steam Navigation Company.) On the evening of the 28th
November last, the Kangaroo, being on her return to
Liverpool from Bordeaux, with a valuable cargo, consisting
chiefly of fruits- and wines, in coming up the Victoria
Channel, during a fog, struck the ground with great vio-
lence, and stuck, fast upon the rocks and sand, To get
her off, the. steam-tugs Gleaner and Victory were both
employed, and, by great exertions they succeeded in, get-
ting her afloat. For this the plaintiffs made a charge of
£l5O for services. rendered ; this was refused, and, after
some demurring, the defendants offered. £lO ;. but subse.-
quently, and previous to the present action being tried,
they paid,the sum of £27 6s. into court. From theevi-
dence, it appeared that on the morning, in question. the
plaintiffs, steam-tugs were called to aid in, getting off the
screw-steamer Kangaroo, which was. lying on the; rocks
and sand near the fort, in such a pcsition, as to be high
and. dry at low water. Great difficulty was experienced in
getting the Kangaroo off, and if she. had remained for
another tide there would have been, considerable risk of
her being entirely lost. The two tug-boats passed haw-
sers. round, the stranded ship, nearly amidships, and, by
their united efforts and a suddent jerk, the Kankaroo was
got off, and towed up the river.—At the conclusion of the
first witness's evidence, which was about five minutes be-
fpre.seven o'clock, the court adjourned till, next morning.