The Express.
London, England, 1866-08-20 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIJrT.--GunDroiLD, ACOUST 18.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and • Special Jim.)
LOBITIT V. PRICIL
The proceedipp in this cause were resumed to-day. The
defendant was the seiwetary of the General Tire and Life
Office and not the Guardian.
The action was brought to recover 2,0001. upon a fire
policy, to which the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff
had made a fraudulent claim in respect of the property
which he represented to have been destroyed, and orn that
ground they resisted the payment.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Talfourd Salter were for the plaintiff ; and Serjeant Bal-
lantine and Mr. Philbrick for the defendants.
The case for the defendants was proceeded with.
Mr. W. Beynon, who had been in the service of the
plaintiff from September, 1863, to September, 1864, proved
that during that period the stook wasneverwoh more than
from 400/. to 5001., and he was directed by the plaintiff in
the autumn of 1865 to offer the whole of the elastic stock.
at 55 per cent. less than the marked price, because a con
aiderable portion of it was perished through age. He
offered tho goods to Messrs. Cook, of St. Paul's-church-
yard, but their buyer would not take them at a less dis-
count than 65 per cent., and they were not sold. During
the whole time he was in the service there were
no goods under the counter, nothing but paper
and rubbish. With regard to a tablecloth, for which
the plaintiff had charged 121. in his claim upon the office,
he said that it was allowed to the plaintiff in an exchange
for boots at 61., and be had inquired the value and ascer-
tained that it was only 2/. 10a. The witness also stated
with regard to some shawls that were charged an extra
price for by she plaintiff, on account of their being samples,
that they were old stock, and he saw them in the ware-
house in 1863.
In cross-examination, this witness said that the plaintiff
bad charged him with embezzlement, but there was no
foundation for the charge. He was charged with em-
be..zling Si., but he paid the money over on the day after
he received it. He denied having had any communication
with Mr. Desborough in reference to the evidence he had
now given, but he mentioned the matter to several gentle-
men, and at length came into communication with the
persons connected with the office.
Re-examined—He was quite certain that the quantity of
elastic band claimed for by the plaintiff could not have
been kept under the counter.
Mr. James Mansfield, another witness, who had been in
the service of the plaintiff from June, 1864, to May, 1861,
spoke to the state of the warehouse during that period.
He rid that upon some of the shelves there was nothing
but waste paper that was used for packing, and in other
places there were waste paper and shavings. While he was
there there were no goods under the counter that he knew
of, and he did not see any elastic band there. Witness
was to be paid by commission, and the amount he received
during the eleven months was 751. He offered some of
the boots for which the plaintiff claimed lls. 9d. per pair
at 6s. 9d., and could not sell them. They were made
for the French market, and were not saleable in
this country. The witness said that some of the
articles for which the plaintiff claimed 1201. were
supplied to him through witness's introduction from a
French house and they ware never paid for. Instructions
were given a commence an action against the plaintiff for
the amount, but it was discontinued on account of the
parties who had supplied the goods thinking they were of
such little value that it was not worth while to
go on with the action.
Cross-examined—Witness was engaged as out-door tra-
veller to Mr. Loseby, and in one case a bad debt was made
with a house which witness had introduced. He exercised
the usual caution in the matter, and he did not consider
that he was to blame in the matter, as several other
houses were losers by the same Awn. The witness was
cross-examined at considerable length with regard to other
business transactions that took place while he was in the
service of the plaintiff, but nothing appeared to be elicited
that in any way affected his evidence in chief. It ap-
peared that the , samples," upon the value of which so
much bad been said during the inquiry, were all saved,
and had been brought down in order that the jury might
have an opportunity of seeing what they really were. The
witness admitted that Mr. Desborough bad called upon him
after the dissolution of the partnership between him and
the plaintiff, but he said that all that took place was that
he asked him what he knew about the fire.
Mr. W. Bell, a clothier in Houndaditch, who bad great
experience in that business, and also with reference to fire
salvages, for a period of thirty years, stated that he had
examined the claim and carefully looked at the
prices and quantities charged for by the plaintiff.
The amount claimed for boots was 2221. 'Ts., but
witness's estimate of the value was 1161. Cs. He was also
o. opinion that they were not sample boota, but ordinary
articles of this description such as would be sent in for
sale. He went on to say that he could not find, on his
examination of the salvage, any trace whatever of some of
the articles that were charged for in the plaintiff's claim.
He examined the counter carefully, end from his experi-
err he said he could expire a positive opinion that the
quantity of goods that were represented to have been
under the counter could not have been burned without
leaving some trace behind. The witness went on to say
that after carefully scrutinising the salvage, he was unable
to find any trace whatever of a great many of the articles
that were charged for by the plaintiff in his claim upon
the company. Two articles, for which 1801. was
claimed by the plaintiff, and which were described
by him as models of compensation, balances for a large
r umber of which the amount mentioned was claimed,
were produced, and from their appearance they looked
very much like rubbish.
In cross-examination the witness said that he was
generally employed by fire offices to investigate matters
of this eescription. He would not undertake to swear
positively that some of the articles referred to by the
plair aff were not burned, and all he could say was that
be found no trace of anything of the kind. In witness's
opinion the fire at the piaintiff's warehouse was not • very
fierce one, and the result of his experience was that it
would require a stronger fire to destroy elastic webbing
than to destroy leather.
Mr. George Seville, of the firm of Boville, Irvine, and
Co., who carry on an extensive business as importers of
fancy goods in Gresham-street, dmosed that some of the
articles for which the plaintiff had charged 10s. per dozen,
were rimer valueless on account of being out of fashion,
and were certainly not worth more than 2s. per dozen.
He gave evidence of the same character with regard to
other articles for which compensation was claimed by the
plaintiff. Some of the things he referred to were ladies'
Crosaexamined—He was perfectly well aware that la-
dies were very whimsical. (laughter.) He had certainly
seen some very odd-shaped hats corn by ladies in the park.
Those that were in the plaintiff's stock be believed bad
b en men: from Paris as an experiment, but he considered
they were not at all suited to the English market.
Mr. Hodgson, manager for the firm of Warne and Co.,
in Gresham-street, gave similar evidence to that of the
bus: witness, and he stated positively that the prices'
charged by the plaintiff were very much in excess of the
real value of the articles.
Several other witnesses were then examined upon the same
point relating to the actual value of the property, and their
evidence tended to confirm the testimony previously given
with regard to a very much larger price being charged by
the plaintiff in his claim than the articles were actually
worth.
This closed the car for the defendants.
Serjeant Ballantine, in summing up the case he had laid
before the jury said, it appeared to him that he had not
only established that a great portion of the goods in the
plaintiff's warehouse, were old and almost worthless
articles, which he was ready to dispose of at almost any
thing that he could get for them, but that he had made a
most fraudulent and exorbitant claim upon the company.
The only gaes.ioo, r it appeared to him, for the
consideration of the jury was whether they believed
the evidence that had been given by the wit-
nesses Desborough, Beynon, and Mansfield, for if they
did, the fraud was completely established, and the de-
fendants were clearly entitled to a verdict. He repeated
that he would not say a single word upon the origin of the
fire—he was not called upon to do so. The substantial
point was, had the plaintiff sent in a false and fesdulent
claim upon the company ? If he had, and it appeared to
him that the fact was abundantly proved, he could not
legally recover, and the jury had only one duty to per-
form, which was to say that the plaintiff had failed to
make out his case, and their verdict must be for the de-
fendants.

Chambers then proceeded to reply on behalf of
the plaintiff. In the course of a lengthened address he
endeavoured to show that the differences that had been
spoken to by the witnesses as to the value of the property
were no proof of fraud ; but merely showed that the wit-
nesses on both sides dieagreed in opinion as to the value
of the property. He aho observed upon the fact that
although some of the witnesses had represented that the
whole stock was not worth more than 5001., it appeared
to him to be clearly proved that the salvage alone was
worth 1,5001., and that the surveyor to the company, who
was well aware of the nature of the stock, was stated
to have asked the plaintiff to insure to • larger amount
than 2,0001. He said that if this was not true nothing
would have been easier than for the defendants to have
called their own officer to contradict the plaintiff, and as
they had not done so, he urged that the fact he alluded to
was a material confirmation of the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Wiles, in summing up, explained to the
that by the terms of the contract entered into
between the plaintiff and the company, and under which
the policy was issued, if they should beef opinion that the
plaintiff had knowingly and wilfully made • fraudulent
elan either with regard to the quantity or the value of
the property which he repreaented to have been destroyed,
ha wad not recover in the present action. He then pro-
ceeded to comment upon the evidence, calling the stun-
tics of the jury particularly to the more important par-