The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-03 00:00:00

to Kr. Lees, agent for the Anchor Company, which
company Mr. Carr had suggested to bins-- as one
which would probably accede to his effecting the
insurance. Mr. Lees agreed to the proposal, and the
plaintiff took him to the warehouse in Golden street, and
showed him how, the goods were stored. On this occasion
Mr. Lees remarked the very large amount of stock stored
in the building. The warehouse contained three storeys,
' with a cellar. A small quantity of oily waste was
observed in one of the upper storeys, and Mr. Lees having
pointed it out, it was agreed that it should be removed.
This the plaintiff averred that he did ; and then,
he having paid the premium, the policy was issued to
him on the 3rd of April, 1856, for £5OO. The
plaintiff also insured with the Kent Mutual Fire
office for £2OO. A fire took place on the 13th of May, by
which property was destroyed belonging to the plaintiff to the
estimated value of £1,700. The plaintiff stated that he saw
Mr, Lees and Mr. Turner, the representatives of the North
of England Company. Mr. Lees offered him £1,200 on
behalf of all the offices, the companies to have the salvage.
This, however, the plaintiff refused, stating that he had lost
£1,700, and was only insured in all for £1,500, and that he
was entitled to as much salvage as would make up
the difference. Subsequently a person named Mr
Thomas, employed by several insurance offices,
was sent to inspect the place where the
fire broke out, and the salvage. After this dr payment
of the policy was refused, on the ground that after it had
been issued, the plaintiff caused to ha stored in the ware-
hotm a large quantity of oily waste, contrary to the
w rrAnty contained in the policy, and without giving
notice immediately of the loss and damage, or delivering
as particular and fall account of the loss as he could have
done ; that he had not given notice of the policies held
elsewhere ; and, finally, that the claim was excessive and
fraudulent. The plaintiff and several other witnesses
were examined, to prove that there never had been any
oily waste stored in the warehouse, and that in all
other respects the requirements of the policy had been
complied with. Mr. Hugli Hill stated the else for the
defendants, who, he contended, were bound in justice to
themselves, the other companies, and the public, to resist
this claim, in order that it might be fully investigated.
Ha urged that he should be able to show that oily
waste had been stored on the premises, subsequent
to the effecting of the policy, and that the company
had not been informed of the other policies, and
that the claim was so excessive as to be, in point of fact,
fraudulent. A number of witnesses were then called for
the defence, to prove that in the removal of the salvage
there was found a quantity of oily waste, and also that the
amount claimed by the plaintiff was excessive. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
The Court rose at half past seven o'clock, the hearing of
this case having occupied the whole of the day.

SHERIFF'S COURT.
BEFORE MR BLISS, QC.
CONCLUSION OF CRIMINAL TRIALS;
The criminal cases, which, for the last few days, have
been taken before Mr. Bliss, Q.C., terminated yesterday
morning. John Aitkin, and Mary his wife, who stood
indicted for having starved, and otherwise neglected, their
three children, at Warrington, were put to the bar, and the
counsel engaged on both sides agreed to withdraw the trial,
on the prisoners pleading guilty to the offence. The
prisoners, it appears, were very contrite, but the particu-
lars of the circumstances under which the neglect took
place did not transpire. The prosecution was withdrawn
on the prisoners entering into their own recognizance in
the sum of £lOO to receive judgment when called upon,
they being giv3u to understand that severe punishment
would follow if the offence was repeated.