OMISSION OF STATEMENT IN INSURANCE POLICY. 517 



the widow and her husband may be charged witli the value of the fol- 

 lowing articles included in the inventory : growing turnips, fallows, 

 labour, seeds, and manure, wlieat, &c., oxen, sheep, and pigs, some of 

 which the tenant was bound to consume on the premises, and others 

 not. It was held that, as the testator had not directed a valuation, the 

 legatees in remainder could not call for an account of farming effects 

 of a consumable nature specifically bequeathed, which had been actually 

 consumed by the tenant for life in the ordinary course of husbandry 

 {Bryant v. Easterson). 



In the case oi Shaw v. Rohbcrds, the TplahitiS insured jjremises against 

 fire hy the dcscj'iption of a granary, &c., and " a Jcil/i for drying corn in 

 use " communicating therewith. By the third condition of iusurance 

 the policy was to be forfeited, unless the buildings were accurately 

 described, and the trades carried on therein specified ; and by the sixth, 

 if any alteration were made in the building or covering, or the risk of 

 fire increased, the alteration, &c., was to be notified and allowed by in- 

 dorsement on the policy, otherwise the insurance to be void. The 

 plaintiff carried on no trade in the kiln except drying corn ; but in 

 1832 the bark from a vessel which had sunk near Lynn was dried 

 gratuitously, and no notice was given. No greater fire was made ; 

 but in the course of drying, the bark in the kiln took fire, and the 

 other premises were burnt down. The jury found that drying larh 

 was a distinct trade from drying corn, and more hazardous, and that 

 insurance offices charge a higher premium for a bark kiln, and a rule 

 was made absolute to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. 



Omission of statement in fire insurance jjolicy. — A fire insurance policy 

 contained a condition that it should be void " unless the nature and 

 material structure of the buildings and property insured, and of all build- 

 ings which contain any part of the property insured, be fully and 

 accurately described, and unless the trades carried on in such buildings 

 be correctly shown, or if any alteration or addition be made in or to 

 any buildings insured or in which any insured property be contained 

 by which the risk of fire is increased." The policy stated that a steam 

 engine was erected on the premises, which was used for the purpose 

 of raising goods ; machinery had also been erected for grinding corn 

 for horses, which was driven by the engine, and the Court of Ex- 

 chequer held that the omission to state this fact, did not violate the 

 condition {Baxendale v, llardingltam). 



The taw of the market was thus laid down by the Court of King's 

 Bench in the Mayor of Northanqiton v. Ward : " By law every man 

 has, of common right, a liberty of coming into any public market to 

 buy and sell without paying any toll, if it be not due by custom or 



