The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-16 00:00:00

41.

from the
it various
London,
Es hence-
time for
'rom the
instead
1 accele-
ot by anythe chi-
Wednes-
northern
Junction
I tes past
past one,
,e. Of
g one at

April 16, 1844.

• of Dr•
whom it
• Wesle3t
attended
:ture, ott
ccded it.
iced, te-
n of the
'on:nano
to with
ap▪
plause
. WesleY
)ccasiot•
F King 5
to-mor-
interest-
:enbanki
wactised
Connell,
olly gra-

Nicol,
.rotra3n,
y. The
ock dry
;iven to
n light-
;e keels
Posed to
: by the
e use of
Chair-
nentary
On the
r. Chil-
iuestion
nded to
ing the
ler after
Ification
t of the
oceeded

is have
in the
Loberts,
Asbury
dshaw ;
lullen ;
:oskell;
lercer ;
; Little
Baines;
sTether-
I, John

Jolla
['homes
ralker ;
iilton
le first
th ult.,
airman
elected
deputy.

The
fakes
been
para-
rtune,
laving
Wrn,
a fit,
ody of
over-

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY, APRIL 9.
%IVERSON AND ANOTHER V. BRIGHTMAN AND OTHERS
(Continued from our last Paper.)
• The further hearing of this case was resumed this morn•

Mr. Byrn, of the house of M`Vicar and Co. at Macao,
"as called and stated in effect, that owing to the state of
relationsbetween this country and China, it was impossi-
ble to land the cargo at Hong Kong, as there were no
Warehouses there, and it was, moreover, not a place of
trade. The only port where they could have been cPs-
caed of was Canton ; but a large portion of the damaged
Cargo was sold at Hong Kong. At the time the
.goods
Zere transhipped to the James Laing there was no inten-
Of again putting them on board the Penang.
thaPtain Joseph Lyas, master of H.M.S. Herald, stated
at there was not at the time any declaration of war on
ko Part of England against the Chinese ; that Hong
eg Was preferable to Macao for lying up, and that in
IY, '4O, the vessels of war were withdrawn from Macao.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
that r. KELLY then addressed his lordship, contending
bno real question arose or was in dispute that could
oe Properly left to a jury. They had had direct answers
every question from Mr. Byrn ; and although he was
ahostile witness, he (Mr. K.) was content to take, liter-
MY and subs(antially, as true, all that witness had stated,
and thereupon to raise the question of law. The law was
clearly settled in favour of the defendants, by the case of
Brown
ton t). Vean, in 12 East, page 293, which was a deci-
o Lord Ellenborough in the Court of Queen's
Ann to certain ports in the river Plate. The vessel pro-
ceeded to Monte Video, and, having stopped there, it was
intended to proceed and finish the voyage at Buenos
AYtrel 8. The fact and intention of the parties were stated.
toshnetime the vessel arrived, hostilities were going on at
Bnt
Ayres; and this was exactly analagous to the pre-
ph, ase. Hong Kong was here named as one of several
dials mentioned in the policy ; but the intended place of
otherarSse was, in the one case. Buenos Ayres—in the
Canton.
Ite°Of There was a state of hostilities between
Though Ayres and the English ; and here there was a
dsonheoswtialisties
.between Canton. andh Great Britain.
u tances afterwquite free to admit t iat in putting the
cg_omo board the James Lain.. it was intended, if cir-
cease, to send themards permitted's:and if hostilities should
on to Canton, and there dispose of
them, still he contended that when a vessel arrived at one
of the places mentioned in the policy, intending to proceed
to another, and that, if from existing circumstances which
prevented the parties from proceeding further, they landed
their cargo, or put it into any other place in order that it
might remain in safety, on the chance of that state of
things ceasing, so that it might afterwards be sent else-
where, the parties made that place, the ultimate port of
discharge, and the risk was at an end. If he were wrong
on this point, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover ;
and if he were right, he apprehended then that the voy-
age was at an end, and the risk determined. In the case
already cited, the verdict was for the defendant.
~,,Sonle discussion followed between the counsel on both
.'ues and at length it was agreed to make it a special
c:ase. and to leave it to the Court of Queen's Bench to
decide the question upon his lordships notes, with the
landerstanding that if the plaintiffs should be entitled to
March, interest should be calculated from the Ist of
.narch, 1842.
_Ol%. verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiffs, by
celtriusent, for £2,870, subject to a special case.
ThF.lcsuttN K AND OTHERS V. WELLS AND ANOTHER.
verdict was
an action precisely similar to the last, and a
as taken for the plaintiff, by consent ; damages,
3,255
ill 0 • 7s• 9d., with interest, subject to to the special case
liverson and another v. Brightman and others.
Thi 130LD AND ANOTHER V. ROTHERHAM.
and peS WaS ac ion o
an t* f the game nature as the preceding,
as disposed of in a similar manner.

DORAN V. RITCHIE.
Mr special jury was sworn to try this important case. Knowles and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff,
-lid Mr- Martin, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Crompton for the
defendant.
tPhaetrsi
Mr- JANIEs o ened the pleadings. The plaintiff was
ecekretorran and the defendant was Thomas Ritcher,
of the Phoenix Insurance Company. The
action Was brought for the recovery of a sum of about
t•Zra d )5((e),,
iribeing the amount of a policy of insurance effected
9n the plaintiff's dwelling-house, store, and stock-in-
atrot.ea L Crompton-street, in this town, which were de-
" uY fire at the time of the great conflagration in
rrnbY-street, in September, 1842. The defendant re-
tfused to pay, and pleaded that the plaintiff had committed
fraud, in that in the account and declaration of the loss,
et
knowingly, designedly, and fraudulently, represented.
1-0 dentee much greater than it really was. This the plaintiff
d,
m and upon this issue was joined.
f ."..wlairiTuar was then allowed first to state the case
-°r the defendant. In proceeding, he said he appeared on
behalf of the Phcenix Insurance Company, to admit that
theY entered into the policy in question ; but tha.t. the
Plaintiff, from his conduct, was not entitled to receive any
Payment in respect of that policy. Mr. Doran, the plain-
tiff, had been a marine store dealer, and the action was to
recover £483 on a policy entered into on the 16th Octo-
ber, 1841. The policy provided, that persons who sus-
tained losses, should send in a true account of the same
without delay, and that if there were any fraud in the
statement, the claimant should forfeit his claim to resti-
tution or payment by virtue of the policy ; and the ques-
tion was, was the claim made false or fraudulent. The
policy was for £2lO on stock in trade and utensils, £lOO
on a wooden shed, occupied as a dwelling-house, and £6O
on household goods and apparal,—altogether amounting
to £5OO, at a premium of 10s. per cent. The learned
eounsel described the premises. The policy was to cover
the
premises from September, 1841, to September, 1842,
d the great fire in Crompton-street, &c. took place on
g
Le 23d September, 1843. It was the largest fire since the
ean
fire of London, and the insurance offices had to pay
a 1,,000 for the property consumed. The fire began on
tie•Rri:hdaY, and these premises being near at. hand,the
t0t,.,--"ra in Crompton-street took away their property
—ore
Were toialeeare places. On Saturday and Monday they
and - by the police that there was no further danger,
0 aoeordingl brought back their goods. Doran re-
no dvead,allis thingsY on Friday and Saturday, but there was
niehi."7„l tbatlre never brought them back. On Monday
thewule 26th, his premises took fire, and in less than
ron quarters of an hour the whole were flat with the
Iron 8q and all that remeined was a small portion of old
self is a°, d some rags. A suspicion arose that Doran him-
aeet"au set fire to the premises, and he was arrested. and
foil for trial on a charge of arson. He was tried at the
wowing' spring assizes, and acquitted. With that ac-
turned the jury had nothing to do ; the question entirely
a„ll,ed on the claim put in. On the 10th October Doran
gave an affirmation of his loss before the Mayor, and
tattve
an inventory, to which the jury would direct their
oe -,"tion• First, as to the woodenit was stated to
11;ceoPied as a warehouse, and £lOO was insured on it.
8p next was about four tons of oakum, at £2O per ton,next. The next was about eight tons of rope, £7O. The
"as da was thirty new flock beds, at 4s. each, £6. The next
60 ewtmaged cotton, about 30 cwt., £42. The next was
and II Pf rags, ;4-'3O. The next was 25 cwt. of old iron
c n" -E.7 • dtl • iron, it was admitted, was on the
Premise , _ _
• grB at the time. The next was four beams and scales,
Cotton packs, 50s ; and a pack of feathers, £B.
dwee'uole amounted to £267 13s. The next was the
411 d tg-house, valued at £lOO, improvements in it £5O ;
the tie various articles of furniture alleged to be there at
tosaid l:f the fire would amount to £62 17s. There was
and a chest of drawers there, four clothes chests,
tai, VarloUs other articles. It was then stated that cer.-
.-.11 Property had been removed from Crompton-street ;
r`ou,.u_ine%ted the articles, and amongst them was 53 cwt. of
etf7 ';1, and cotton packing to the amount of £B. This
...gun was furnished to the Phoenix Company ; the com-
avo4crioYr,tnou.,ght.it right to investigate before they paid,. andL.
gly directions were given to investigate it in 1-
)oe.17:1- The first inquiry was made of the fire-police-
-414 v_,oe nd. a statement was made to them of the various ar-
s which were alleged to have been burned—oakum,
ti,_PeP rags, damaged cotton, feathers, and flock beds ; and
.ce,essaid they had had experience of fires; that such ar-
v‘.2_ zoo(' occupy several hours in burning; that there
`fe circumstances to satisfy them of the absolute
Impossibilityt of such things being there; that the burning
after it .8 rapid that there were no remains whatever
would te a'aUf there were such goods in the place, there
that the boardsnk f Property at the bottom of the fire ;
hot in, as the _'oust have fallen out, in such a case, and
ragsjnYgt,ttl•i,at there mu t be a smell from the
solutely impossible that the
andersatlyl said that it was al).
could have been in
the store on the night of teheprfirpe. Four tons of oakum
Would occupy a considerable time in burning. Then eight
tons of rope would necessarily occupy a considerable
BPace. They were closely.twisted, and would of necessity
ZocuLPY a considerable time in burning. Again, 30 new
4av-beds, which are made closely together of cotton,
1!11,,, occupy a long time in burning ; and 60 cwt. of rags,
fulic", in a marine store, were generally damp, filthy, and
'lee the
o smoulder an
f dirt, would d not burn. The insurance
all s n inquired from the neighbours. The neighbours
aornaul there was nothing there but some old rags, and
tx.,.iron on the floor. The insurance office directed an
to:a!lnation to be made of what would be the measure-
and articles on the claim. A young man in London,
ed
clerwards Mr. Grantham, of Liverpool, was appoint-
judgole°ottbis ; and the !alter would tell them, that in his
attY they would occupy 3,960 cubit feet. The corn-
PaY, ands,huding the claim not an honest one, refused to
restated the action was brought to compel them. They.
'was their a claim as a fraudulent one, and also because it
resist or:duty to the public, as well as to themselves, to
Sevehlliza of the kind.
leverair en witnesses were then examined to prove the.
the
ea acts detailed in the opening speech ; after which
;tallier for the defendant closed, and the court then ad-

1,:°11 t WEDNESDAY.
zAs le ri'„e
~eutirt resuming Mr. KNOWLES asked whether
"'cel 1,,,--eut friend op osite would admit that Doran had
that th;stiring with till Plicenix for five or six years, and
6,,,,,00 to - year before the fire he reduced his premiums from
it Mr .50p.
uu•
"ler i;• 4 AuTIN replied in the affirmative, and asked whe-
leri.sexs
Nato
Ntvl7
Are—.lB learned friend would admit that Doran held the
Ersateof .Z2r a-year.
understooda to make the admission.
PlEti„titeil proceedetratos address the jury on the part of the
in 'a The clai
ot at all extraurdinary look-
tkee`ll9eed, at ll En
w"
n
_. edirol a the circumstances, it was, he thouht,
Pitan . Y small, and he could not help thinking the re-
„hueez, tried to it had its origin in the fact that Doran had
thehe trial on a charge of setting fire to his own premises.
• 'al could not but leave an influence, but he begged
all ttlry to
: suspend their 'udgnient until they had heard
(\Nilo: ev,dence. His client had been tried, and without
"4 sill7h; ,sittele witness acquitted. The case had arisen
r'eton and doubt a' rising from the many fires in Li-

verpool, and was but slight. The plaintiff had been five
or six years in the town, and had been insured in the
Phoenix the whole of that time. The year before, too,, he
had reduced his insurance from £6OO to £5OO. He was
moreover a respectable man, and had a good stock for
such a business. The items claimed were not large for
such a business as he was engaged in. In commenting on
the evidence for the defendant, he stated that the wit-
nesses were, in some instances, labouring under mistakes
as to the actual construction of the premises, and con-
cluded by saying that his client fearlessly appealed to a
Liverpool jury, undismayed by any prejudices that might
exist against him, and satisfied of the justice of his claim.
Ten or twelve witnesses were then called. The evidence
was to the effect that goods to the extent alleged had been
on the premises prior to the fire; and one of them stated
that, during the continuance of the fire, he saw oakum,
rags, and ropes consumed.
_

At the clo.se of the case for the plaintiff, Mr. MARTIN
replied.

His LORDSHIP then summed up, recapitulating nearly
the whole of the evidence, and commenting upon it as he
proceeded.
_ _

The Jury retired, and, after an absence from court for
two minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant.

THURSDAY.
POW V. TAUNTON.

This case, which commenced-onthe preceding evening,
was proceeded with on Wednesday. The plaintiff was
Mr. Robert Pow, of North Shields; and the defendant,
George Henry Taunton, of the same place. The action
was for an alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patent
right in a certain invention called a nipping wheel, to be
applied to the windlasses of ships. It was not of general
public interest. The jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff.

CLAIM ON A POLICY OF INSURANCE.
PLATT AND OTHERS V . REPTON.
The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. John, William,
and Benjamin Platt, tar and turpentine distillers. of this
town, and the defendants Charles Repton, and other offi-
cers belonging to the Phoenix Insurance Company. The
action was to recover the amount of a policy of insurance
for the sum of £1,358 6,1.

Mr. Knowles, with whom was Mr. Crompton, appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Watson and Martin for the
defendants.

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case, from which it appeared
that in 1842, the premises of the plaintiffs, situate it)
Greenland-street, were burnt down, and property to a
considerable amount destroyed. The property, the value
of which was in dispute, was in the east and west yards,
and also in Guyton's warehouse ; it consisted of tar, tur-
pentine, oil, &c., worth £1358, but which, deducting
£603, which the defendants had paid into court, being con-
sidered by them the full extent of their liability, would,
consequently, be reduced to £755. The policy was what
is termed a floating policy, and intended to cover mer-
chandise belonging to the plaintiffs in any cellars, sheds,
or warehouses in any part of Liverpool, but not to extend
to the assured's distillery. The defendants contended
they were not liable for the goods in the yards, they being
connected with the distillery, and ought to be covered by
the policy of insurance effected on that building.
The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the distillery
included all which the plaintiffs used for that purpose,
whether in or out of the building, and tie yard was, un-
doubtedly, part of it.
Verdict for the defendant.

FRIDAY.
RIGBY V. RABY.

This case, which was brought on for trial on Thursday
afternoon, did not terminate until near three o'clock this
day. The jury, after a considerable absence, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3B.

THE WLIS V. M`CAWLEY.
Plaintiff and defendant were formerly in partnership as
twist-dealers, at Huddersfield, and during that time em-
ployed Messrs. Brooke and Co., of that town, as their
attorneys. Messrs. Brooke and Co. afterwards brought
an action for the amount of their bill against the plaintiff
and defendant jointly. The plaintiff, having paid this
bill, brought the present action fur his proportion by way
of contribution.

Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £32 Os. ld.

SNAPE V. BROMILO'Vk'.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant
pleaded, first, that he never made the promise, and, se-
condly, that it had not been made within six years, and
was, consequently, barred by statutes of limitation.—
Verdict for plaintiff, damages, £25.