The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-06-03 00:00:00

THURSDAY

Judgment was delivered on Thursday in the Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court in " Beman v. Rufford," respecting the
validity of the agreement between the Oxford, Worcester,
and Wolverhampton and London and North-western
Railway Companies. Lord Cranworth thought the agree-
ment bsd, but would send a case for the opinion of a court
of law on its validity.

FRIDAY.

HABERSTION V. VARDON.
Mr. Nadir Baxter, of Wonston, in Huntingdonshire,
by his will in 1842, devised his real and personal property
to Mr. R. James, Mr. M. Habershon, and Mr. J. Bour-
dillon, and declared the trusts of certain sums, and then
proceeded thus :—" Further upon trust other £l,OOO out
of such part of my personal estate as may by law be de-
voted to charitable purposes, be paid towards the contri-
butions that I do confidently believe and earnestly pray
will speedily he begun to be raised under the sanction of
our hitherto so highly favoured church and nation►, in
evidence of Christian faith, towards the political restora-
tion of the Jews to Jerusalem, and to their own land, and
as I conscientiously believe also that the institution by
the Anglican Church of the Bishopric of Jerusalem is the
actual commencement of the great and merciful work of
Jehovah towards Zion, to be fulfilled in due time, so I
further devise in trust other £5OO out. of such part of my
personal estate as may by law be devoted to charitable
purposes to be appropriated and paid into the fund of the
said bishopric accordingly."
His Honour considered that the gift of the £lOOO was
not a charity legacy, but one given for the purpose of
creating a revolution in the dominions of an ally of her
Majesty, aid was void.

The legacy of £5OO was agreed to be a good charitable
gift.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.--FRIDAY
(Sittings in Banco.)
ROSEITO AND OTHERS V. GARVEY.

The Lord Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the
Court in this case, which was an action on a policy of
marine insurance upon a ship load of corn, which was
greatly damaged by perils of the sea, and sold at Cork at
a sam greatly below the expenses that had been incurred
in salvage and in suits respecting it in the Court of Ad-
miralty. The question for the court was, whether the
loss was partial only or total. If total, the verdict w,.s to
stand ; if partial only, it was to be entered for the de-
fendant, provided he paid into court an amount sufficient
to cover an average loss. Upon full consideration of the
whole case the court were of opinion that the loss could
not be considered a total loss, and that the proper test
upon that point had not been submitted to the jury. The
facts of the case were somewhat complicated ; but the
principles to be applied to them were simple, and had
been well explained by Mr. Justice Maule in the case of
" Moss v. Smith." A judgment of Mr. Baron Alderson,
delivered so lately as the 21st February last, had been re-
ferred to in the course of the argument, in which a rule
on the subject had been pointed out ; but the court, with
great deference, thought that that was not the true rule,
the question in a case like the present should be, whether
it was practicable to send the whole or a part of the cargo
to the port of destination in such a marketable state that
it would sell for a sum exceeding the cost of conveyance
and salvage ? If so, the loss was partial only ; if not, it
was total. In the present case the jury had found that
1700 quarters of corn could have been so conveyed to the
port of destination. Now, the rule of salvage was, that
it should be only half the value ; and as the court tLought
that the expenses of the suits in the Admiralty Court
could not be taken into consideration, it was plain that
there would be a surplus after deducting freight and half
the value for salvage, and therefore that the plaintiff was
not entitled to a verdict as for the total loss.—Rule
absolute.

STAINBANK V. FENNING

The Court gave judgment in this case.
The action was tried at Liverpool last assizes, before
Mr. Baron Platt. The plaintiffs are the agents of Lin-
more and Co., of Quebec, who, in September,' 1846, lent
the captain of the ship Auckland (which was damaged in
cargo of timber from Quebec, and obliged to
cpaurtryilg a
back)i
£1,676, for the repairs of the ship. The ship
afterwards, on her voyage home, struck on a reef of rocks,
but was subsequently got off much damaged. To secure
the money advanced to him the captain hypothecated the
ship ; but, as no premium had been charged for the money
lent on 11,1, Le ovenanted that the bark on her voyage
home sllguld he at the risk of the owner, and that the
sum advanced for th repairs of the ship should be reco-
verable from the cwu er. The vessel was abandoned as a
total loss, end the plaintiffs having insured for their
in-
terest in h( r, the n ain question was whether the plaintiffs
had an insurable interest in the ship.
The Court were of opinion that the master had no
authority to pledge the personal credit of the owners, and
that under the terms of the instrument of hypothecation
the plaintiffs had not an insurable interest in the ship.
The verdict must, therefore, be entered for the defendant.
Rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defendants.

in the case of " the Baron de Haber v. the Queen of
Portugal," which has been recently argued before the
Court of Queen's Bench, judgment has been delivered by
Lord Campbell, making the rule absolute for a prohibition
to the Court of the Lord Mayor of the city of London,
prohibiting it from further proceeding in the suit which
was instituted in thrt court.

CENSUS ENUMERATORS.—At the Whitechapel County
Court, London, on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen made an appli-
cation fora summons out of district, under the following
circumstances :—The plaintiff is an accountant, and was
engaged as an enumerator of the census in the Whitecha-
pel district. The emolument he was to receive for these
state services was 18s. for the first 300 names, and is. for
each sixty names he recorded over the 300. The Home
Secretary now refused to pay them for the fractional part
of the sixty names. For instance, he had got ten names
short of the sixty, which fifty would amount to tenpence,
and that was disallowed. He now applied for a summons
against the Secretary of State for the Home Department
for tenpence, and which would, he imagined settle the
question of his colleagues' claims. Mr. Cohen then took
his summons out, and to ensure the defendant's appear-
ance, a subpoena for Sir George Grey, which, if he fails
appearing to, will entail a fine of £lO.
In the Arches Court, on Friday week, Sir H. J. Fust
gave judgment in the "cause of office," promoted by the
Rev. G. Madan against the Rev. John Seton Karr, Vicar
of Berkeley, Gloucestershire, charging the latter with
adultery, lewd behaviour, drunkenness, and other crimes,
utterly inconsistent with the office of a clergyman. The
charge of adultery related to the case of Mrs. Gaisford,
for which an action of damages was brought at the last
Gloucestershire assizes, when it will he remembered a
special jury, after considering their verdict for five hours
and a half, were dismissed, beizg unable to agree. Sir
H. J. Fust did not consider the charge satisfactorily
proved, though he could not regard it as arising solely
out of the jealousy of Mr. Gaisford. With regard to
a second charge, concerning Sarah Knight, the learned
judge could not give credence to the woman's version on
one band, or of the husband on the other ; and there was
no other evidence on which the court could rely in sup-
port of that part of the case. The charges of habitual
drunkenness and swearing rested on the testimony of dis-
carded servants, and was rebutted by others, who denied
that any thing of the sort ever occurred.