The Express.
London, England, 1857-12-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Pic. 15.

(Sittings at OifLliD.—Brien Yr. Baron Bnunwell and •
Special ley.)

MAILLIPILIII V. SCIICTTABLM 71111.11 INSVILANCIt COMPANY.

Mb meg, earmesced gat Saturday, occupied the whole of •
Moaday, and wee cal, linialted to-day.
The action err keened by • Hungarian reface& upon I
• policy of in men,. en hie reek in lathe ae • glass nor- •
chant to rearm kw the company 8361. 16e. 6d., being
the value which he get open goods destroyed by a are on
the 23rd July hat, is the premiers occupied by him st
No. 6, Bermondsey-street, ffonthwark. The fall amount of
the prlicy was 1,0001., and it wee effected ae recently as
December Mt. The claim was made up of 3001. for stock
in front &hop, 3001. for stock in room behind, and the
residue for hourbold furniture. The defendeate pleaded •
that the plaintiff bad delivered In • larger claim than the •
eras of the property derroyed, and had thereby know- I
ugly been guilty of • fraud.
Bramwell, in summing up, oath It ma an •
portent cue for the plaintiff, indepeMently of the amour of •
mew involved; because if the verdict thould pass egrast
him be would not be able to show his We in any place where 4
their verdict was known. The company charged the plaintiff
with having made • fraudulent claim, knowing it to be •
fraudulent, and having supported it by perjury. It was a
fearful ism" for the plaintiff, and It we. also very important
to the public. The claire in the policy which forfeited all '
claim of the Mitred in case ot fraud woe absolutely neogneri
to prewar erre. The company might not be able to prove
arra, but knowing that anon wee generally committed for
the purposeof making • fraudulent claim, they Werth
a clams to each policy, voiding it in clue the conirjacLit
ali
.
prove the claim to be not merely thoresive but
TM burden of proof lay with the defendants to neither
that there was fraud In the claim, and It would not do for
them to eubmit that, am there was a ahrewd mephitis of
Mad, they won entitled to a verdict. Roppthing the goods
to have him on the premises., one of the defendanth witneoo
loth of 160 L from the valve, and that seemed to be the edi-
tor, moot of discount, but he could not think the jury
would comider that to be fraud. Tradesmen were apt to
seek to gets much se they could, and more than they gaked,•
and if a jeweller demanded 201. for • watch, but agreed to
take off 10 per cent., they would haidly deem that • fraud.
But if the plentiff mid there ma German plate-ghee, and
there was none, or ruby glue, or pot-blue glue, or flesh-
blue glass, or photographic ghee, and there wag nerve,
that wee fraud. The plaintiff had left his country foe poll-
trod 'crone, had endeavoured to run his living in • re-
spectable reanner, and had dealt with respectable people. It
was very mach in his favour that whorl then was a dispute
with Mr. Jury be the Bret pier, ha offered to refer the mat-
ter to Mr. Hartley. The plaentira roes was eupported by the
evidence of Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Philips, and Mr. Tate, and
no imputation me made by the company on either of those
Mincers. They spoke to • large amount of property being
on the premises shortly before the are, and if the crates were
not filled with glass the object must have been to get appear-
ances of sock in order to support • fraudulent claim when be
should have committed anon and burnt the premises down.
That was a frightful imputation, and the evidence of them
throe persons was very cogent But the company said it want
necessary to impute arson ; the goods might have been removed.
On that point there was the evidence of the plaintiff himself
rd of hie foreman to the contrary. Invoices bad been pro-
duced, and if they were genuine, they proved that the plain-
tiff Ind porchaged aa much and more glees than he claimed.
Bet the invoicee, relating to the largest portion of the claim,
were the Invoices of throe of which no repreeentatin had
been ermined, and it wee urged upon the jury as • matter
of suepidon that the Mein amount of time therm had
been corded into the claim. They would probably have no
doubt that, although the fare in the back room wag sound,
there gm sufhcient heal to destroy the glass In the way which
bad been deerribed. The calor he the bark room we.
said by the defendants witerses tee weigh 2,2401 M, and by
the plaintiff's Wit 04111•0. 3,430 lha. ,The question ws whether
the difference ma made up by the 25 pee rat. thrown away
in the rubbish. Bat then then would be • surplus weight el
I,ooolth. coon than the quantity of ghee alleged cohere been
the bath ro m. and upon that point then were,
se many elements of doubt sthey could well deeire.nlirC
front elan there should have been about 4,0000 u., beide,
the 1,000 hot removed, and the ppllaelinof's witnesses rid
the i• collet" from the front shop weighed only Mts. Adding
• gloriosa I,ooolth. from the bath shop, which might have
been swept there from the front shop, the difference woe only
SAM. nneccounted for. But the pheintiff said, was It not
fwd, when his home me burnt down, and people had been
tosagalsg about it, to ask him to reconcile the Mount found
mow the rubbish with the amount of stock to an exact
' fraction! The plaintiff had amounted for 76 pee err, god
it woe not reasonathe to suppose he would ken down hie
house upon the chance of rating a profit out of the company' to the extent of the remaining 23 per cent. The learned
Mew declined to give an opinion upon the diserepeney of
three-quarters of Hartley's rough, 4001bs. eel, brig hand
In the crate in the host room, where the are menet strong
enough to burn the show, instead of 1,20016.; or whether
there were proportionate quthtitiee of ruby,
Beth blue, pot metal, or Orman plate In the I'l=lh:cc:
cording to the statements in the claim. The learned judge
then remarked that, If there wen any difficulty in
I the mode in which the case was presented to them, it really
was attributable to negligence, for which Mr. Jury wee n.
meretbh.
urt toThen call fowrsticsok.usef.:l4
p.cieneepen tributhet
Ott
jitLyena=
the matter diedainfully, and did not eppear to have naked
the plaintiff for hie hooka and Monne. The remiss of
account book produced entrained entries up to the Whet
July, 1837 ; but if they wen to believe Mr. Jury, to the
• phrase with which they were acquaiated, sad to uss It sot
nistapharically, the books had tan " 000ked," subjected to
the solicit of Ice kr the wpm dpswiseiss ths appearance