The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-03 00:00:00

SECOND COURT.

Sittan. ica at Nisi PrinsinMiddlasex.—(Before Mr. Justios
Bylae and a Common Jury.)

BALLARD T. THE FRIEND IN NEED INSURANCE &OCTET
The plaintiff in this case kept the Castle Inn at High-
gate, and also carried on the businessof a public-home
fitter in St. John-street, Clerkenwell ; and the action was
to recover a sum claimed to be due upon a policy of in.
surance against accidents. The defendants paid 121. into
court, and denied their liability to any further extent.
Mr. Kenealey and Mr. Pater appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. IIL Chambers, Q.c., and Mr. Kidd for the
defendants.
The plaintiff was insured in the defendants' company for
1,0001. in the event of death by accident, and the terms of
' the policy were that he was to have 6/. a week during the
time that he was totally disabled. On the 26th June last
the plaintiff was driving a light cart, when the horse shied
and threw the plaintiff and his wife out. The plaintiff's
right shoulder was dislocated, he had a wound
on the temple, and the thumb of the left hand
was *merely sprained. His case was that he was totally
disabled for about six weeks. His medical man had filled
up the company's form, describing the plaintiff as partially
disabled during this time ; but in his evidence he stated
that he did not mean by this that the plaintiff was able
partially to attend to his business, but that he was not
wholly disabled from using his limbs. The fact was that
the plaintiff could walk about during nearly the whole
time he was suffering from his injuries, and he was also
driven out on several occasions ; but he stated positively
that for about six weeks he was unable to attend to his
business, and other witnesses besides himself were
examined in support of this proposition.
The defendants' case was that they had paid the 121.
into court to cover a claim for one week's total disable-
ment and three or four weeks partial disablement.
Evidence was given that within a week or so after
the accident the plaintiff drew glasses of ale for customers,
and in this and other ways assisted in carrying on his
business at the Castle. It was also said that when the
plaintiff was driven out he went to his workshop and other
places where he had fitting-up work going on. One of
the witnesses said that two or three weeks after the acci-
dent the plaintiff had sometimes one arm and sometimes
the other in a sling, and that he said to the plaintiff on
one occasion, " Which arm are you going to have in a sling
to-day ?" The plaintiff made no &newer. In cross-examina-
tion it appeared that three of the witnesses had quarrelled
with the plaintiff, and it was suggested by his counsel that
this fact detracted from the weight which was to be
allowed to the evidence.
The jury, in answer to questions from his lordship
found that the plaintiff had been totally disabled for five
weeks.
A verdict was thereupon entered for the plaintiff for 16/.
in addition to the 121. paid into court.
Leave was, however, reserved to the defendants to move
the full court upon the question whether a condition upon
the policy in reference to sending in certificates had been
complied with by the plaintiff, and also upon the con-
struction of the certificate which had been sent in.