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

verpool, and was but slight. The plaintiff had been five
or six years in the town, and had been insured in the
Phcenix 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
strefx a business. The items claimed were not large for
such a business as be 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 clier.t fearles-ly 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 fir., he saw oakum,
rags, and ropes consumed.
At the 'close 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 on the 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 shins. 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 Ga.

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 in
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 the 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'CA.WLEY.
Plaintiff and defendant were formerly in partnership as
twist-dealers, at Huddersfield, and during that time em-
ployed Messrs. Brooke and f that town, as their
attorneys. Messrs. Brooke and C0.,d0. 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. Id.
SNAPE V. BROMILOW.

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.