The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS,. - WEDNESDAY

/Lab) Entelltgence.

COURT OF QUZEN'S'EZNCH.-FEB. 10.
Altar Term Sittings at Nisi Priuist Wes,—(lis(ore
Load Chid J adios Cockburn and a Spatial Jury.)

JOlllB V. LAW FIRE INBURA3IOIIOCMPANT.

Mr. Hawkins stated the case for the defendants.
He said they considered themselves bound to resist
this action on account of the grimly exaggerated
and fraudulent claim anode by the plaintiff. Unless
there were substantial grounds for resisting claims it was
highly injurious for an insurance office to adopt mush •
osurse, and whoa they had Inlaid the defendants evidence
he felt convinced the jury would be of opinion that the
defendants had done oo more thap their duty in baying this
investigation. The plaintiff no doubt had sustained con-
siderable damage, and it always happened that a plaintiff
bad the sympathies of the public, but he felt certain they
would not be led away by their feelings and decide the case
other than upon the evidence. He thought the circum-
stances of the case showed that the fire must have occurred
in a different manner to that stated by the plaintiff; but he
should abstain from entering into that, and confine his ob-
servations to the quantity of goods said to have been in
what had been called " the fixture," and he hoped to be
able to satisfactorily satisfy them that the plaintiff's claim
had been greatly exaggerated, both with regard to the
quantity and their value. lustuaece offices were bound to
investigate such claims, or their acquiescence in them, with-
out investigation, would act as a premium on fraud. The
learned counsel entered minutely into the various points
raised in the comae of the trial, and sealdied the plaintiff's
menus, and the quantity of stock to have been on
the premises at the time of the fire. e plaintiff had not
given a particle of evidence as to the origin of the fire, or
%1 character and description when it was first seen ;
but the defendants would feel themselves bound to
call vitamins, which for some reason the plaintiff
had not done (probably for reasons best known to himself)
who would be able to give • description of the fire before it
was put out. There was no doubt the ire burnt fiercely and
broke out near the fixture, but with regard to the actual
eters of these premiere a different description would be
given of it by the defendants' witness's. There was no fault
to find with the claim up toa oertain extent, but be didobj tto
what he called the grossly fraudulent part, viz, nearly 500 f.
worth of property in the fixture which was totally destroyed.
The remainder of the burnt fixture was in court, and they
were able to form an opinion whether it was possible the
consumed part could have contained so large an
amount of goods. Refetring to the evidence, the
learned counsel directed attention to White's evi-
dence, and commented on his remark to Mr. Eiolart, that
the claim sou large and a swindle, and asked how it was
possible for Mr. Eiolart, on such a representation, to do
other than recommend the company to resist the demand.
The plaintiff, by making an exaggerated and fraudulent
claim, had forfeited his right to recover under the policy
The fire did not rage so fiercely in the fixture as had been
described, and be should show that plaintiff had nothing
like the quantity of gloves in stock he had claimed for ;
and a moat material point was, that Mr. White took an
account of everything in the unburnt part of the fixture,
leaving it beyond all doubt there never could have been the
quantity of gloves and ties in the small space of the totally
burnt part of the fixture, viz., 171 dozen.
The court then adjourned.