The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-08 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Nm Pates.—Before the Lard Chief Arden and • Special Jury.
MAUGER AND ANOTHER O. BRIGHTMAN AND OTHERC—
DIARINR Inatqtance.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiffs, who are merchants at Jersey. against three of the
directors of the General Maritime Insurance Company at
Glasgow, to recover the amount of a policy of insurance
effected on the ship Lord Anson, of which the plaintiffs were
the owners. The defendants pleaded, tint, that they did
not effect the policy ; secondly, that they were induced to
make it through the fraud and misrepresentation of the
plaintiffs, sad in consequence of the suppression of certain
material facts known to the plaintiffs; thirdly, that the
policy was altered after the making of it, and that the al-
teration was brought about by the concealment of certain
material facts ; fourthly, that at the time of effecting the in-
surance, the vessel was not on her voyage from Tabasce (the
port et which the Lord Anson had arrived); end, lastly,
that the vessel was not on a voyage from Tabasco. It ap-
peared, in evidence, that the Lord Anson had made a voy-
age to Tabasco, in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the plan-
ar' were desirous of effecting en insurance upon the vowel
when homeward bound. With that view they applied to
Mr. Arnold, an insurance broker in London, but, in conse-
quence of some difficulty arising, an arrangement was ulti-
mately entered into with Messrs. Borthwick and Campbell,
at Glasgow, through whom a policy was effected
}•,• „...

in the month of l'ebruary, 1846.' Aletter was for-
warded by Mr. Arnold to Messrs. Borthwiek and Camp-
bell, containing a printed form called a " slip, "
which described the particulars of the insurance, and
stated that the policy would attach "at and front
January 25, at noon, until her arrival at her port of dis-
charge us the United Kingdom on her voyage from Tabasco."
This slip was sent up to London, and certain alterations
were proposed, but the insurance company refused to make
them. The policy was then drawn up in proper form, and
dated March 5, 1846, when the following words were added
to the original statement in the slip: "The Yawl being now
on her voyage from Tabasco, with leave to call at all inter-
mediate ports and places." About this time (between the
12th and 15th of March) the plaintiffs received a letter from
the captain of the Lord Anson, dated January 11, 1846,
stating that he had been detained atTabasco, in consequence
of his baying failed to comply with the revenue laws of the
place. On receipt of this letter the plaintiffs, through their
agent, applied to the secretary to the insurance company to
erase the words " being now " from that part of the policy
which said, "being now on her voyage from Tabasco." The
vessel was ultimately lost, and the defendants refund to pay the
amount of the policy for the reasons stated in the pleas.—On
the part of the defendants evidence was adduced to prove that,
on the sth March (the date of the policy), the Teasel had not
*ailed from Tabasco; and that the underwriter had refused,
in the first instance, to make any alteration in the policy.
but, upon considering that the risk was not to attach until
the 23th Jan., he struck out the words " being now," as
requested, stating that the alteration would make no differ-
ence. The policy was, therefore, effected in the month at
March (said the learned counsel in his address to the jury),
upon the representation that the vessel was to sail early iss
January, and according t, the terms used she would be
actually on her voyage on the 25:h of that month. It ap.
peered, however, that she did not sail until after the sth et
)larch; and it was urged that the alteration in the poliny
would not have been made, had the plaintiffs shown to the
underwriter the captain's letter, which contained certain
material information calculated to lead to the belief that the
vessel could not leave Tabasco in the month of Jan, It was
the alleged suppression of this information upon which fraud
was imputed to the plaintiffs. The Chief Justice, in summing
up, told the jury there were four issues for them to decide.
lit. Did the plaintiffs make the policy? 2nd. Was the
policy obtained by means of fraud ? 3rd. Was the altera-
tion in the policy procured by means of fraud ? 4th. Wee
the vessel on her voyage at the date of the policy? On the
first two questions their verdict must necessarily be for the
plaintiffs—The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs on the
first three issues, and for the defendants on the fourth.